Gooserider wrote:
>
>
> Or, the Chinese will continue to pour massive amounts of money into their
> military, strengthening them for the eventual takeover of Taiwan. That is
> the more likely scenario.
But don't you think it funny that the businessmen of Taiwan don't care
about this? They still continue investing and whatnot on the mainland.
Doesn't that strike you as funny, that while successive US
Administrations wonder what to do about China, the people of Taiwan
keep opening up more and more links, economic and otherwise?
> There are alternatives to buying Chinese bicycles. Saudi oil, not so much.
> At least not now. That's why I drive a car which gets excellent mileage, and
> commute by bicycle 4 days/week. The cartels aren't getting rich off me.
In the abstract, your reasoning is sound. I only wonder about whether
it actually carries the weight you seem to ascribe to it.
Psychologically you yourself feel better about your choices, but as
I've no particular "China animus," so to speak, I'd want to know that
my actions have actual political consequences, as that'd be the only
reason I'd forgo a financial bargain.
And in that regard, as Three Fire noted, it doesn't seem like
sanctioning Chinese products will improve the average Chinese worker's
life. The dictatorship is still there -- only that the proverbial
"little people" suffer more.
> But you can do the right thing.
Yeah, but what makes it the "right" thing? It's context, AFAIK.
Simply doing something in the abstract doesn't always translate well --
the ol' lying (a sin to some) to Nazis about Jews in your attic thing,
if you know what I mean.
Check this out: my sister and I are like big brother and sister to this
girl who's the daughter of my sister's friend's sister (got
that?)...her own mother is one of these ghetto party-types who dumps
her daughter with grand-parents, friends, etc. -- anyone, so long as
she can do the Jerry Springer thing...now is it right for us to be
minding this child? But if we don't, who will? The girl, Marianna,
has in effect been dumped on our doorstep (an even longer story)...what
do we do? If we don't play with her, take her out, etc., this kid will
be left vegetating at home in front of the TV.
The strictly principled stand is to "insist" on parental
responsibility, etc. The more practical thing seems to just
accommodate oneself to particular circumstances.
It's like -- stand back now -- welfare. Is it right? No, I don't
think so. But what will you do with all the -- ahem -- ghetto
free-loaders whose children are suddenly deprived, etc., in the absence
of a welfare check? Or handing out condoms in high school, or
abortion, or homosexuality...any hot button issue can be approached
from this "lesser of two evils" mentality -- you personally may not
agree with the morality of anything, but what's the alternative?
It's the old story of Jonah. Remember?
Hell is other people, as Sartre said. =)
> I'll bet you wouldn't buy a shampoo you knew
> was tested by being squirted in puppy's eyes(hypothetical, of course).
Actually, I eat meat, knowing full well the sickening conditions under
which this meat was raised.
(BTW, I heard on NPR last week that now scientists can actually create
meat -- chicken, beef, etc. -- in the laboratory! Anyone else hear
this???)
> Why
> you wouldn't have a problem buying a bicycle made in a country whose
> government routinely does worse things to people is beyond me.
Conveninence -- and also the conviction, for the time being at least,
that an economically strong China will mean improved every-day
conditions for the average Chinese, as we read that it has ever since
the '80s.
Don't forget that Taiwan used to make a bunch of stuff, and yet they
too had been a dictatorship until the mid-'80s. South Korea, etc.
Are you against trade with Vietnam, too? They're also a Commie
dictatorship...but I don't see any political wrangling over them.
I guess I'm just saying, as Three Fire also noted, that the big shots
in any society will always be comfortable...sanctions and war only
hurts the little folks. They should be employed as a last resort,
AFAIK.
> http://www.un.org/peace/africa/Diamond.html
> http://www.amnestyusa.org/diamonds/index.do
>
> Basically, conflict diamonds are those from Sierra Leone, Angola, and Congo.
> The sales of diamonds finance rebels who commit horrible atrocities against
> the civilian populations. Chopping off hands and feet with machetes is
> routine. I really don't think a little bling is worth somebody losing their
> hands, and the UN agrees.
Many thanks for the elucidation!
In the case of Africa, it does appear that the goods' sole purpose is
to finance war...China's different in that the goods provide for the
American lifestyle of cheap convenience which we're used to, and any
benefit to China's military ambitions are indirect, in the form of
taxes they levy -- which taxes they'd levy anyway.
Your whole thing seems to be about Chinese military capabilities and
domestic dictatorial atrocities...I read the papers too, and it's
really distressing to read about peasants being beaten up and killed by
local police for protesting the environmental abuse of their lands by
factory dumping...but this stuff goes on anyway, with or without the
American consumer. Whereas not purchasing conflict diamonds directly
undercut African civil wars, I just don't see how not purchasing
Chinese-made goods undercut Commie abuses. I mean, you think
successive Administrations couldn't have figured this out if it were
that simple??
