I'll have to check when I get back to Beijing, but I don't think it would be too hard to "baidu" (the chinese equivalent of google; hardly anyone uses google in china) tianamen square. After all, it is a major tourist destination, maybe the most visited place in the country! While many foriegners get a VPN to view content like youtube and facebook, I don't use them, so I'm guessing I see what everyone else sees on the internet (not that chinese couldn't get a VPN).

I can access the NYT, and wikipedia, linkedin, and other popular sites. I have never looked up democracy, or liberty or Tianamen square, though. I can access videosift, but I can only see liveleak or comedy central videos.

However, even if the internet isn't blocked, to really buy access to the internet (via a SIM card or cable access) one has to register with the government. It's part of the service application process, but it's still there. So, you know even if you have access, someone is watching. Even internet cafe monitoring has been enhanced recently.

I talked to a friend about knowledge of TS. She pointed out that even US history books don't chronicle recent history (the last 40 or 50 years) that thoroughly. I'm in my late 30s, and mine certainly didn't. She also said, even if it came up, older people would be reluctant to discuss such a topic.>> ^shoany:

Speaking of "google-ing Tienanmen Square", isn't there a giant, nationwide block against those keywords, as well as a billion others? I thought I read something to that effect a while ago, wherein the average Chinese internet user had extremely limited access to anything that might possibly be deemed anti-government or pro-free speech.
If that's the case, it wouldn't be so simple to Google Tienanmen Square. I imagine the story gets passed on, but probably in hushed voices and hidden books, as it's certainly not a publicly welcome topic of discussion.

American's have felt this way for a while, going back to at least the Spanish American War, and Teddy Roosevelt and his expansive foriegn policy. In other times we called this attitude the "white man's burden".

What an asshole. What group identity exists that wasn't made up at one time? Saying palestinians are just arabs is like saying frenchmen should only be classified as europeans.

I wonder how much money and support AIPAC has given him. Foriegn nations should not steer US politics!

@chilaxe Honestly, I don't think california has ever had many high contributors as you are defining it. This group has always been a highly visible minority in the state. And this is probably shrinking as people move to greener pastures and better opportunities overseas. Frankly, I see more opportunity in Asia and Africa than in Silicon Valley, which is rather cliquish. More and more of my foriegn born Chinese and Indian colleagues agree, and there are more and more high skilled people avoiding the glass ceiling and cliques by going back.

Huntsman if I had to pick a republican. He seems the most moderate, worldly and sophisticated; so hopefully more rational.

Who do I want to run against Obama? Bachman or Perry. Neither is electable. I will probably donate a few hundred to help Bachman along. I may also register as a republican to vote in a primary.

As far as Ron Paul goes, you guys are delusional. Yes, he has some laudable positions, especially on the foriegn affairs, but on economics and domestic policy, he is a fruitcake who would turn this country into a bastion of state-level fiefdoms and widespread discrimination. Maybe most of you think you can live with that, but can you live with that when most of the country is non-white, and it may work against you?

Aside from that, Mr. Paul is in his 70s. He would never last out his first term. Same problem with McCain. This is a job that will age you 3 years for every real year.

Lastly, since most of his positions are on the fringe of what his fellow legislators like, Ron Paul would be an impotent President, hamstrung by Congress in a greater fashion than Obama is now.

This. He's not going to waste US taxpayers' money issuing a ticket which then needs to be processed and ignored and eventually cancelled, so he tries to scare the tourists into slowing down. That's about all he can do unless they're doing something worthy of arrest.

Not the best look when this is the only one of his thousands of traffic stops you see, but give the guy a break.

>> ^csnel3:

This cop was pissed because he accidently pulled over a foriegner. If he had a citizen on the line it would be ticket time!Hundreds of dollars maybe thousands for the system.
As soon as this prick realizes that "German boy" wont have to pay anything, he can just go home, never again to worry about that ticket that he got in the USA, he just acts like an asshole and lets the kid go.
We the citizens of the USA are the milk cows for these kind of pig farmers, not people from other countries that can just laugh and leave.

This cop was pissed because he accidently pulled over a foriegner. If he had a citizen on the line it would be ticket time!Hundreds of dollars maybe thousands for the system.
As soon as this prick realizes that "German boy" wont have to pay anything, he can just go home, never again to worry about that ticket that he got in the USA, he just acts like an asshole and lets the kid go.
We the citizens of the USA are the milk cows for these kind of pig farmers, not people from other countries that can just laugh and leave.

Ummm, she didn't release it (and I don't think she wants your sympathy, either). But what if she had released it? So? If even half of what she claims about Mel's treatment of her is true, the more people that know about it, the safer she'll be. Would you also have no sympathy for a battered wife because, in your opinion, she probably has so little respect for herself that it's her own fault her husband beats her? Shit, if you want to blame her for Mel's self-destruction, at least come up with a better reason than that. At least Mel could point to something visceral like "foriegn bodies" and "tight outfits", although most men would list those firmly in the "Plus" column. As far as her responses to Mel, either she actually IS that calm and collected, OR, she realizes she is recording the conversation and is altering her usual behavior somewhat, OR, she is simply resigned in her responses as one who realizes they are talking to an intractable, threatening psycho would be.

As far as your theory she may have re-recorded her parts... Why would she? What could she have POSSIBLY said that warranted re-recording? "I LOVE showing my tits like a whore, Mel-O! WTF you gonna do about it?!? For all you know, I'm getting trained by brothers every night!" Really?

I used to be a big Mel Gibson fan. I'm disappointed that he's truly a prick and a creep, and that I can't watch his movies the same way any more, if at all. But he destroyed himself. She had nothing to do with it.>> ^griefer_queafer:

Also, I have no sympathy for this woman. By releasing this tape, she is not just showing what kind of a person Gibson is--she is also showing that she has very little respect for herself by dating a person who would say these things to her. Also, I am not even sure how much this kind of thing reveals about the guy. Again, sounds like he is on drugs, or is manic, or both. Plus, from the sound of the audio, I wouldn't be surprised if she re-recorded he responses to Mel, which sound really rehearsed anyway. So... Mel is an ass, but fuck her too.

The CFR (Council on Foriegn Relations) is a think tank whos members comprise basically every prominent US politician, central banker and mega corp executives. They have a publication called Foreign Affairs that propagates the kind of thinking they're developing.

Trilateral Commission is much the same with international members spanning different countries in Europe and Asia.

Bilderberg group is secretive to the point of armed guards, people claiming not to have been there/know about it when it is provable that they do, etc. It seems to have many of the same members, however it is more selective than CFR/Trilateral, so probably at the top of the power structure (if there is one).

Combining these three groups, you've got perhaps the most powerful 500 people meeting in secret which are all then connected to the CFR and Trilateral commission. Both are extremely influential groups in the Foreign Policy arena, with the ability to effectively create cases for things like trade agreements that undermine national sovereignty, world food regulation by the WTO, and potentially their goal, a global central world government ruled by them, the most powerful people.. the elite.

As far as I can see it, the CFR in particular is the mouthpiece for this ideology and it happens that Obama's actions seem to fit in quite nicely with it.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'presidential material, foriegn policy, rick mercer, this hour has 22 mins' to 'presidential material, foreign policy, rick mercer, this hour has 22 mins' - edited by jonny

Tags for this video have been changed from 'presidential material, foriegn policy' to 'presidential material, foriegn policy, rick mercer, this hour has 22 mins' - edited by calvados

we were just watching What About Earl and a news promo came on with this featured (can't remember if it was local or national). I said to my wife, I wanted to sift that video today, but the site didn't support the original video hosting site. She looked at me as though I was speaking a foriegn language

No problem, RadHazG. Media is part of what I do and to show it's flawed I've got to know where they got it wrong, this just happens to be one of those subjects the media is badly failing on. The warrantless wiretaps was another. If it's a FISA debate it's domestic, period. The only function of the FISA court was to deal with those foreign calls when they come home to a US person who has a right to expect a reasonable degree of privacy. Foriegn wiretaps never have needed a warrant. Program was so illegal that even Ashcroft threatened to resign if they didn't fix it. Never had a thing to do with stopping or needing approval to listen to foreigners or terrorists, that was just talking points to confuse the issue.

J-Rova might have a point though. Might not as well. In most cases the President has a right to pardon and such but what about if he pardons to protect someone who commits a crime in their own administration? Even Nixon didn't pardon Halderman, Colson and Liddy. When done to coverup or to stop an investigation into crimes in your own administration, then we just might be crossing a line into obstruction of justice.

I've got to agree about past abuse as well though. Clinton pardoned his brother and that crossed a big line too, some others were questionable as well. The nation NEEDS to start to understand that the law is as much precedent as what's printed on the books. Let someone bend the rules and defend it once and now it's easier for the other side to bend it too, for their reasons rather than yours. We're quickly becoming a nation not of laws but of partisan favoritism and it'll ruin us. If we don't figure out who we really want to be as a nation I'm afraid we're at about the end of the road. Both sides need to stop defending their abuses, it's bad precedent and precedent isn't partisan. One abuse sure as hell will lead to the next.

when was the last time US intervention in a foriegn country brought about stability? Most of our actions are intended to destabilize an area, not stabilize and grant autonomy.

hey Wumpus, you're forgetting that OPEC pretty much controls worldwide oil prices. US oil sells for the same prices as Saudi oil. Oil companies have no reason to sell oil cheaper than OPEC prices. Actually, if they do that, OPEC will stop selling them oil. The same companies that import Saudi oil are the same companies that would be handling US oil.

Consider this: if they sell US oil cheaper, that means a few things will happen:
1. Other countries (i.e. China) will have more access to OPEC oil
2. the oil companies will make less money on american oil than on selling OPEC oil in other countries
3. once we use up all our national supplies, OPEC oil will cost huge ammounts more.

The most sound business ddecision, is to continue burning off foriegn oil, while keeping local supplies untouched. When foriegn supplies start to get thinner and more expensive, there's all that easily extracted local supply that can then be sold at the high rates set by limites forien supplies, thus maximizing profits.


Google "exxon profit"
please note, these numbers are not annual profits, but QUARTERLY.

24 July, 2001 $4.38bn

May 2, 2003 $7 Billion

10/27/2005 $10B

April 26 2007 $9.28 billion