I'd recommend importing, like from the Philippines which has a tendency to indenture their people out to foreign countries. However, I believe the Chinese would consider them 'inferior' and thus not generally welcomed into the family. The traditional solution would be to invade and take them home as war booty brides which historically has been more acceptable. They just need to work the 'war' ritual process in to something more civilized, say maybe basketball? :)
#4
China's future: a nation of single men with AIDS
All fixed. Remember, China is home to the world's largest medically caused AIDS epidemic. One that they allowed to spread into major urban centers as they busily tried to sweep the elephant under the rug. Just Google "Henan Bloodheads AIDS" if you have a strong stomach.
#5
Today, roughly 120 boys are born in China for every 100 girls, perhaps the worst gender imbalance in modern human history. Within 15 years, the country may have 30 million men who cannot find wives. That could mean serious trouble.
But after taking power in 1949, the Communist Party largely stamped out infanticide, and by the early 1980s, China had a relatively normal ratio of male and female babies.
China's one-child policy, launched around the same time and still in force with some minor exceptions, has restored the gender imbalance.
The policy has another pernicious effect. As American Enterprise Institute scholar Nicholas Eberstadt has documented, it will turn China, by 2030, into a grayer society than the United States. Yet China will still not be as wealthy as the U.S. and will face a tougher time supporting its senior citizens.
Other Asian countries in which a traditional preference for males is abetted by modern medical technology are also becoming bachelor nations. The bride shortage in South Korea is so severe that companies in Seoul advertise Vietnamese wives for desperate Korean men. Taiwan and Pakistan have vastly more male babies than female ones. India faces almost as great a bachelor crisis as China -- by 2020, India may have 28 million men who cannot find wives. As in China, Indian prosperity has made the problem worse: The country's starkest gender imbalances occur in some of its wealthiest states.
The demand for brides also is fueling a different type of crime -- a growing sex trafficking industry in China, one that is sweeping in girls from such neighboring nations as Laos, Myanmar, North Korea and Thailand and poisoning China's image in these countries. Some of these women, such as North Koreans, wind up as virtual slaves in China.
China's surplus males may be developing into a permanent angry underclass capable of being dangerously exploited.
As China faces a wildfire of protests concerning labor and property rights, as well as other issues -- the number of "mass incidents," or large protests, in the country rose more than 500% between 1994 and 2005 -- companies or local officials have started hiring members of this male underclass as thugs.
Throughout history, one way to use surplus men is to send them abroad to fight wars, and the paramilitary People's Armed Police reportedly has been beefing up its ranks.
The past provides a guide. In the mid-19th century, another period when female infanticide created skewed sex ratios in China, a revolt developed across the countryside, in part because young men were unable to find wives and formed into armed bands. The imperial court crushed the insurgency, called the Nien Rebellion, but it took more than a decade for Beijing to win the battle. Ultimately, these revolts weakened the court and hastened its downfall. It is a lesson China's current rulers surely have not forgotten.
#7
Unmentioned in that article is that India has a similar problem. Shouldn't be surprising to see them come together to find a mutual solution to their individual problems.
#9
Nimble Spemble: Precisely what I have suggested, the first "demographic war." India and China duking it out, precisely to eliminate surplus males, despite whatever official cause of the limited war.
This means putting tens of millions of men out in deserts and arid freezing mountains to slaughter each other, feeding them a cup of rice each a day, and arming them with only rifles, machine guns and artillery. The professional armies remain in the rear, by mutual agreement nuclear weapons aren't used, and any plagues or epidemics will be limited to the front lines.
The total cost to both nations will be in weapons and ammunition, uniforms and food. Being out in the middle of nowhere, collateral damage is minimized. Casualties are exclusively uneducated poor peasants.
#11
A: Precisely what I have suggested, the first "demographic war." India and China duking it out, precisely to eliminate surplus males, despite whatever official cause of the limited war.
At the peak of its ideological fervor, China cried uncle after losing 1 million men in the Korean War. Today's China isn't exactly brimming with ideological fervor. Everyone's in favor of war, as long as someone else is doing the fighting. Don't kid yourself - the average Chinese will parrot whatever the regime wants them to say, but will draw the line at personal sacrifice. Whatever China wants done abroad, it will have to do with a volunteer army. The Chinese record is that they will obey the regime as long as their lives are not clearly at stake. Once that changes, the regime's very survival comes into question. (Without US intervention, China would probably have fallen to Japanese invasion - the Communists spent the war hiding from the Japanese, and the Nationalists retreated almost all the way to Burma).
#3
These are the sort of election results you get when criminals and illegal aliens are not allowed to vote. Now, think: which party wants illegals and felons to vote in the US?
Posted by: M. Murcek ||
10/22/2007 15:04 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Yes Racist now means that the left have lost an argument.
It is done. The betrayal of 27 European nation states is complete. Last night, after quickly giving in to the remaining questions, while all the time pretending that the completion of the Turnip might still hang in the balance, the 'colleagues' have sealed the mandate handed down to them by the EU 'institutions' back in June with the final version of the EU Constitution II, establishing a Supreme Government of Europe. One that isn't elected and one that is not accountable to the people it seeks to govern.
#4
What a maroon, you don't plant popcorn, you seine for it.
Huh. Tell that to the vast popcorn ranches of Texas, some covering entire counties, the land yellow with them. Of course, that's only during the winter. You got to get your popcorn to market by April at the latest. Woe betide the popcorn rancher who waits too late, and then wakes one morning to the thunder of his entire herd popping under the cruel Texas sun.
#5
the vast popcorn ranches of Texas, some covering entire counties, the land yellow with them...
which of course were the original source for the phrase: "salting the earth"
Posted by: Frank G ||
10/22/2007 11:57 Comments ||
Top||
#6
When your currency (Euro) is at $1.45 when 5 years ago it was at $.85 you start to get real uppity and thing you're it. Sadly, they will find out the hard way that WE are still IT.
Posted by: Jack is Back! ||
10/22/2007 12:01 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Wrong thread, Jack.
Don't be silly, Frank. 'Twas the Romans that salted the earth. The actual phrase is "salt of the earth". And of course, "Butter wouldn't melt in his mouth."
#8
Jack, they will also find it is incredibly hard to compete on the world market with a Euro priced at US$1.45. The news about the Supreme Government of Europe sounds like the beginning of a low budget B movie.
#10
This is a really sad mark for Europe. Not sure how it will evolve,a nd hopefully end, but I'm guessing probably something in the lines of the USSR, the previous supra/post-national, ideological, undemocratic attempt at the old continent. And before, there were hitler, and Napoléon. Great.
On Thursday, Congress attempted to override President Bushs veto of the S-CHIP debate. S-CHIP? Isnt that something to do with health care for children? Absolutely. And here is Representative Pete Stark (Democrat, California) addressing the issue with his customary forensic incisiveness
The Republicans are worried that they cant pay for insuring an additional 10 million children. They sure dont care about finding $200 billion to fight the illegal war in Iraq. Where are you going to get that money? Are you going to tell us lies like youre telling us today? Is that how youre going to fund the war? You dont have money to fund the war on children, but youre going to spend it to blow up innocent people? If he can get enough kids to grow old enough for you to send to Iraq to get their heads blown off for the Presidents amusement.
Im not sure I follow the argument here: President Bush wants to breed a generation of sickly uninsured children in order to send them to Iraq to stagger round the Sunni Triangle weak and spindly and emaciated and rickets-stricken to get their heads blown off? Is that the gist of it? No matter, Congressman Stark hit all the buzz words children, illegal war, $200 billion, lies, etc and these days theyre pretty much like modular furniture: you can say em in any order and youll still get a cheer from the crowd. Congressman Stark is unlikely ever to be confused with General Stark, who gave New Hampshire its stirring motto, Live free or die! In the congressmans case, the choice appears to be: Live free on government healthcare or die in Bushs illegal war! Nevertheless, in amongst the autopilot hooey the Stark raving madman did use an interesting expression: the war on children.
One assumes he means some illegal Republican party war on children. On Thursday Nancy Pelosi, as is the fashion, used the phrase the children like some twitchy verbal tic, a kind of Democrat Tourettes syndrome: This is a discussion about Americas children We could establish ourselves as the childrens Congress Come forward on behalf of the children... I tried to do that when I was sworn in as Speaker surrounded by children. It was a spontaneous moment, but it was one that was clear in its message: we are gaveling this House to order on behalf of the children
Etc. So what is the best thing America could do for the children? Well, it could try not to make the same mistake as most of the rest of the western world and avoid bequeathing the next generation a system of unsustainable entitlements that turns the entire nation into a giant Ponzi scheme. Most of us understand, for example, that Social Security needs to be fixed or well have to raise taxes, or the retirement age, or cut benefits, etc. But, just to get the entitlements debate in perspective, projected public pensions liabilities are expected to rise by 2040 to about 6.8 per cent of GDP in the US; in Greece, the equivalent figure is 25 per cent thats not a matter of raising taxes or tweaking retirement age; thats total societal collapse.
So what? shrug the voters. Not my problem. I paid my taxes, I want my benefits. In France, President Sarkozy is proposing a very modest step that those who retire before the age of 65 should not receive free health care and the French are up in arms about it. Hes being angrily denounced by 53-year old retirees, a demographic hitherto unknown to functioning societies. Heh.
You spend your first 25 years being educated, you work for two or three decades, and then you spend a third of a century living off a lavish pension with the state picking up every healthcare expense. No society can make that math add up. And so in a democratic system todays electors vote to keep the government gravy coming and leave it to tomorrow for the children to worry about. Thats the real war on children and every time you add a new entitlement to the budget you make it less and less likely theyll win it.
A couple of weeks ago, the Democrats put up a 12-year old S-CHIP beneficiary from Baltimore called Graeme Frost to deliver their official response to the presidents Saturday-morning radio address. And immediately afterwards Rush Limbaugh, Michelle Malkin, and I jumped the sick kid in a dark alley and beat him to a pulp. Or so youd have thought from the press coverage: The Washington Post called us meanies. Well, no doubt its true we hard-hearted conservatives cant muster the civilized level of discourse of Pete Stark. But we were trying to make a point not about the kid, but about the family, and their relevance as a poster child for expanded government health care. Mr. and Mrs. Frost say their incomes about $45,000 a year she works part-time as a medical receptionist and he works intermittently as a self-employed woodworker. They have a 3,000 square foot home plus a second commercial property with a combined value of over $400,000, and three vehicles a new Suburban, a Volvo SUV, and a Ford F250 pick-up.
How they make that arithmetic add up is between them and their accountant. But heres the point: The Frosts are not emblematic of the health care needs of America so much as they are of the delusion of the broader western world. They expect to be able to work part-time and intermittently but own two properties and three premium vehicles and have the state pick up health-care costs. Who do you stick the bill to? Four-car owners? Much of France already lives that way: a healthy wealthy well-educated populace works a mandatory maximum 35-hour week with six weeks of paid vacation and retirement at 55 and with the government funding all the core responsibilities of adult life.
Im in favor of tax credits for child health care, and Health Savings Accounts for adults, and any other reform that emphasizes the citizens responsibility to himself and his dependents. But middle-class entitlement creep would be wrong even if was affordable, even if Bill Gates wrote a check to cover it every month: it turns free-born citizens into enervated wards of the nanny state. As Gerald Ford liked to say when trying to ingratiate himself with conservative audiences, A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take away everything you have. But theres an intermediate stage: A government big enough to give you everything you want isnt big enough to get you to give any of it back. As I point out in my book, nothing makes a citizen more selfish than socially equitable communitarianism: once a fellows enjoying the fruits of Euro-style entitlements, he couldnt give a hoot about the general societal interest; hes got his, and who cares if its going to bankrupt the state a generation hence?
Thats the real war on children: In Europe, its killing their future. Dont make the same mistake here.
I was at home in the United States just one day before the magnitude hit me like vertigo: America seems to be under a glass dome which allows few hard facts from the field to filter in unless they are attached to a string of false assumptions. Considering that my trip home coincided with General Petraeus testimony before the US Congress, when media interest in the war was (Im told) unusually concentrated, its a wonder my eardrums didnt burst on the trip back to Iraq. In places like Singapore, Indonesia, and Britain people hardly seemed to notice that success is being achieved in Iraq, while in the United States Britney was competing for airtime with O.J. in one of the saddest sideshows on Earth.
No thinking person would look at last years weather reports to judge whether it will rain today, yet we do something similar with Iraq news. The situation in Iraq has drastically changed, but the inertia of bad news leaves many convinced that the mission has failed beyond recovery, that all Iraqis are engaged in sectarian violence, or are waiting for us to leave so they can crush their neighbors. This view allows our soldiers two possible roles: either victim caught in the crossfire or referee between warring parties. Neither, rightly, is tolerable to the American or British public.
Today I am in Iraq, back in a war of such strategic consequence that it will affect generations yet unbornwhether or not they want it to. Hiding under the covers will not work, because whether it is good news or bad, whether it is true or untrue, once information is widely circulated, it has such formidable inertia that public opinion seems impervious to the corrective balm of simple and clear facts. . . .
To illustrate the absurdity to which this conceit of the collective has grown, Im tempted to borrow from the boy in the fairy tale, only this time pointing to and shouting at the doomsday-sayers parading by: Hey, they arent wearing any clothes. . . . Except in this case, I realize I am not a lone voice. Furthermore, with the help of other clear-eyed individuals, I may actually be in a unique position to do something to remedy this, if the experience I had with the AP response to my challenge to investigate and report on the disturbing gravesites in the Al Hamira village is any guide.
Although I cant answer to the cause of the problem, I humbly offer permission to media outlets to republish excerpts of the dispatch or the dispatch in its entirety, including my photographs from the story (if used as they are in the dispatch) at no cost during the month of July 2007. I only ask that the site receive proper attribution and that any publication taking me up on the offer email the website with the details. . . . That offer was dying on the vine until Bob Owens at Confederate Yankee took the Associated Press to task for their bungled reportage of a different mass graves news story, using my dispatch as a comparison. Although it took a little back and forth, and some additional pressure from all the other bloggers who started tracking on the topic, the AP finally dispatched a reporter to the scene. The resulting article was picked up by at least one other major media outlet, reaching thousands more people. This got me to thinking: what if I made a similar offer on a more permanent basis to a large media syndication, say, the National Newspaper Association?
This is where my readers come in, at least those among them who share the concern that the distorted picture most Americans have of the situation in Iraq has strategic (and disastrous) implications for this war, our national security, and the stability of one of the most volatile regions on the planet.
. . . print excerpts of Michael Yons dispatches, including up to two of his photographs from each dispatch. Online excerpts may use up to 8 paragraphs, use 1-3 photos, and then link back to the full dispatch on his site saying To continue reading, click here.
If their local paper is a member of NNA, readers can contact the editor, urging their participation. [If Bob Owens experience is a reliable indicator, this might take several, uh, prompts.] By encouraging their local daily or weekly newspapers to reprint these dispatches in their print editions, more people without internet access can begin to see a more accurate reflection of the progress I have observed and chronicled . . . .
There is a cost to this. By making these stories available to NNA members at no cost, I have to forego any license fees they might otherwise generate. Although the newspapers who participate in this venture wont have any additional costs, that also wont reduce the expenses I incur to continue producing work that many commenters say needs to be before a wider audience. But it certainly gives those same commenters an easy way to put some walk behind all their talk.
Reader support is critical and highly appreciated, because I depend on my readers for all the funds required to do this work. I have been trying to thank each and every person who has helpedsomething of a feat in itselfbut I want to say it clearly: Your support is hugely appreciated. . . .
OK, kids, here's what to do:
1. Contact your local newspaper, and urge them to pick up Michael Yon's dispatches.
2. If you have the scratch, hit Michael Yon's PayPal link.
3. (This is my idea.) E-mail the Wall Street Journal's "Best of the Web" every time that Michael Yon rolls out a new dispatch and urge James Taranto to flag it in his column. Better yet, e-mail WSJ Op-Ed editor Paul Gigot or assistant editor Brendan Miniter and suggest to them that they pick up Michael Yon as a permanent columnist.
Posted by: Mike ||
10/22/2007 08:46 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
The MSM is responsible for this outrage. They are responsible for the failings of the PR war. They are responsible for the failing security because of the PR bullshit. They are traitors, plain and simple and should be treated as such.
#2
WSJ is only "right" on their op-ed pages. The hard news is "left". Michael is too pragmatic and too embedded vs. lounge lizard type reporter for hard news at WSJ. If he goes op-ed then he is right-wing biased. No win. Best to have him picked up by NNA or other syndicate.
Posted by: Jack is Back! ||
10/22/2007 9:30 Comments ||
Top||
#3
After WWII, the Communists tried to infiltrate the film industry in order to gain a lever for molding public opinion in America. However their rough handedness (they threatened to throw acid in Ronald Reagan's face) led to left-oriented actors like Bogart distancing from them and to ironbar fights with right wing people like Kirk Douglas. That plus the fact that the few "Commie movies" getting abyssal audiences and raised hostility against their producers led to the studios purging their staff of Communists (the so-called witch hunt in Hollywood who had little relation with Mc Carthy's activity).
The more I think about it the more I believe that if Communists tried to control teh movie industry they would also try to infiltrate the MSM. After all this is a much better lever on public opinion than Hollywood. You can also bet that since the stakes were higher, the people controlling teh operation woumld be better and would not make the same mistakes than the "Hollywood Commies". Perhaps tehy didn't proceed directly but by infiltrating the teachers in journalist schools (ie the peole who would decide who would graduate). The goal was fill th MSM with people who were not necessarily Communists but at least left-orinted, America haters and manipulative. I think they succeeded. The fruits were to be seen twenty years later when Americans were lied out of Vietnam. I think we are still reaping those fruits.
#4
Darth what good is pointing out that a scorpion acts like a scorpion? It's their nature. I fault DoD and the Generals in particular for acting like the frog thinking the scorpion would act otherwise. All wars are fought on two fronts, on the battlefield and at home. During WWII the War and Navy Departments ran a large scale PR program. Since the end of WWII the Generals have been happy little children to outsource the telling of the story to MSM. It saves them lots in manpower and expenses. What they have failed to grasp from Vietnam to today, is that you can win every fight with the enemy on the field of combat and still lose the war at home. Their suppression of the troop blogs, instead of coopting them and exploiting the technology and means to get the message directly home, demonstrates their abject failure to conduct the full spectrum of war in the modern world. Simple - offer a better quality product free and you'll get a big chunk of the game. That takes a commitment of resources the Generals do not want to do.
#5
What is the name of the one reporter at the New York Times who did good work in Iraq? John Burns? How about forwarding this to them, or would that turn them Mr. Yon in defence of their profession?
#6
Hmmm... The Washington Post is a member, however, The New York Times is too cool to belong.
Mrs. Bobby thinks the WaPo has redeeming values; she has no such illusions about the Times.
Posted by: Bobby ||
10/22/2007 12:19 Comments ||
Top||
#7
TW, Burns was the Baghdad bureau chief for the NYT until just recently, and indeed he is the real thing - a professional, fair-minded, very smart, and thorough. I saw this first-hand. He earned and received superior access, because we knew he'd get it right. He's no youngster, has been to a few rodeos, and is a very savvy guy. It was interesting to see how the whole press contingent respected him, even the more numerous average types who were less sophisticated, less experienced, and therefore naturally "skeptics" about all things US or military. I think he exerted a dramatic positive influence on the younger bureau colleagues (Semple, Tavernise). The mystery always was (and we never raised it directly, seeing no point and wanting to avoid putting him on the spot) how a consummate pro like Burns interacted with the pathetic lefties back in New York who edit the paper. My impression was that his copy was barely touched. If one has the stomach and patience, one could examine the past few years of NYT coverage and note a big difference between most Iraq-origin reporting and that coming from the Beltway. Michael Gordon also deserves an honorable mention. I like to think of him as "growing on the job", as his earlier military reporting, including the book on the '91 war, I found superficial or unpersuasive. But he's put in the time on the front lines episodically the past two years and delivered some detailed and often positive stuff.
The poison Yon notes - which clouds minds from Bali to Buenos Aires to anywhere the BBC is heard - is the most depressing thing. No, scratch that - the MOST depressing thing is coming back to the US from Iraq and finding the levels of indifference, hostility, and misinformation among "educated" Americans I've encountered.
One could go made just imagining how the world would be if major media, academia, and related elites had any understanding, moral compass, or intellectual integrity ...
#4
27%. I feel so...so evil...so racked with guilt over my white-skin privilege...so unprogressive!
Posted by: Ricky bin Ricardo (Abu Babaloo) ||
10/22/2007 3:29 Comments ||
Top||
#5
BTW, I think the game should have offered bonus points for writing posts on media-industry blogs about how much the truly enlightened journalist despises KKKonservatives.
Posted by: Ricky bin Ricardo (Abu Babaloo) ||
10/22/2007 3:31 Comments ||
Top||
#6
You guys ae sooooo... manipulatable!
I guess that living for 30 years under commieism made my skin thicker. Let alone that the only determination criterium I would be aplying is a merit. If I were a HR officer an ended up with 99% Amerindians in my workforce, I would care not a iota as long as I get the best people for the job(s).
#9
Agreed, I got three +1, so my actual result would be even lower; anyway, it's not a survey, it's a "game" meant to "educate" the people playing it by making them choose the "good" responses.
#11
I'd rather beat myself with a chain than pretend I'm struggling to hire minorities.
It's a newspaper, for Pete's sake, you're not gonna see who wrote what. And, if and when you write only the truth, it would be considered ultra-conservative.
#12
I feel so unmulticultural, undiverse, guilty, white, politically incorrect, and...Nah! I'm not responsible for all that crap. Time for another cup of coffee and time to move on.
#13
25% and I got to sexually harrass two interns, woo hoo!
Posted by: Frank G ||
10/22/2007 7:48 Comments ||
Top||
#14
24.5% on Level 3. I think it was my refusal to apologize for the illegal immigrant story that "kept me from bringing my newsroom into parity with my community".
If this is how real newsrooms operate, no wonder most local papers suck.
#17
18% at level one. But I skewed the results by choosing what I thought a real newspaper would likely do. I guess a real newspaper wouldn't find me a good fit.
#18
I went level 3 and just now bought out Murdoch. I now own Fox, the New York Post and the WSJ. I am looking for serveral white, anglo-saxon, christian, ex-military reporters and editors. No females, hispanics, African-Americans or gays need apply. Salary is top-notch and you get 3 weeks paid vacation in the Idaho panhandle.
Posted by: Jack is Back! ||
10/22/2007 12:09 Comments ||
Top||
#19
You have to realize for them the ethnicity is all that matters. Not talent, not honesty, not ethics. If your skin color is wrong then you cannot report on a given ethnic group.
Its racism over merit. Liberals have become racists, judging peopel by the color of their skin, not the content of their character.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
