http://img224.imageshack.us/img224/6853/achinaslaves0619gr0.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
Rural workers rescued from an illegal brickyard at the village of Linfen, in northeast China.
EPA


The furor in China surrounding the discovery that children and the mentally handicapped had been kidnapped and sold into slavery is showing no sign of abating. It seems increasingly likely that the controversy will mark a significant milestone in the evolution of the country's civil society. Police said they had rescued more than 500 people from forced labor in brick kilns, where they were worked 18 hours a day and beaten if they tried to escape. Some 30 arrests have been made and more are expected following a massive police rescue operation involving 35,000 officers checking 7,500 work places.

The crackdown began after some 400 parents of children who they suspected had been kidnapped published an anguished letter on the popular Internet forum Tianya Club on June 7. The letter said they had managed to rescue some 40 children before running into stiff resistance from the local authorities in the northeastern province of Shanxi, where most of the kilns were situated. The letter sparked a storm on the Internet, and by June 13 a member of the Standing Committee of the Politburo of the Chinese Communist Party expressed concern about the issue. The police action soon followed.

Populist criticism on the Internet has been at the forefront of the outrage — and may be a harbinger for how grassroots protests are heard by Chinese authorities in the future. As is often the case, coverage of the incident has been gently moved off the front pages of Chinese newspapers. Nevertheless, the subject is still a hot topic on Chinese websites, where much of criticism was directed at the authorities for failing to intervene to stop the human trafficking and enslavement of the brick kiln workers. Even in usually docile official publication like the English language China Daily, the sense of shock and outrage many Chinese felt on seeing footage and pictures of the dazed, sometimes bleeding workers being led out of the kilns was evident, even if relegated to op-ed pages.

"None of the synonyms for 'anger' is strong enough to express the public's fury," wrote columnist Liu Shinan. "I want to ask: What were local government officials doing when the children and other workers were tormented?" Liu also noted that "nobody would believe that such atrocities... are happening in today's China — 58 years after the Communist Party-led revolution put an end to the old society." Another columnist in the same paper praised the role of a provincial newspaper reporter in exposing the slave trade and argued that China needed more investigative journalism.

Such criticism of the authorities and calls for a greater watchdog role by the tightly controlled media reflects the extent of shock many Chinese feel at the gruesome revelations. But it also shows the way the party is being forced to offer some accountability to a citizenry that is increasingly affluent and unwilling to accept that they have no ability to counter the arbitrary power of the state. The party leadership recognizes that it must adapt to the changing attitudes or risk losing control. "There is room to maneuver and the party is willing to negotiate so long as there is no challenge to its authority," says Nicholas Bequelin, a China researcher for Human Rights Watch.

For both sides, figuring out the limits of the evolving relationship between China's rulers and its people is clearly a work in process. The slavery controversy culminates a month that has seen a string of incidents demonstrating the different ways the authorities choose to handle controversial issues. For several days in early June, for example, thousands of mostly middle-class protesters filled the center of the coastal city of Xiamen. They were calling for the government to cancel plans to build a chemical factory in a city suburb. Though the authorities didn't attempt to stop the highly unusual protests, they later called for participants to report to police stations and officers tracked down a number of demonstrators who had been photographed at the scene. Yet the government subsequently announced that it would suspend the project and the State Environmental Protection Administration in Beijing said the Xiamen government should reconsider.

The other incidents ranged from violent demonstrations against forced abortions and police brutality to an anti-pollution protest that took place entirely online. All were fueled because of the Internet, and in particular the country's 20 million-strong bloggers. Says Bequelin, of the possibility for change in China: "The role of the Internet is the one aspect of the kiln story that made me optimistic."


link: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1635144,00.html

but where will we get all our cheap plastic crap?!?!

:(

I wonder where all the rightwingers are to defend their precious "free market"?
:rolleyes:

I wonder where all the rightwingers are to defend their precious "free market"?
:rolleyes:

If the free market were to blame we'd have slavery in this country. Personally, I blame big government.:rolleyes:

Exactly, Lionel.

I wonder where all the rightwingers are to defend their precious "free market"?
:rolleyes:
what's there to defend? everyone in China has been a slave to the state since 1949.

:(

http://img224.imageshack.us/img224/6853/achinaslaves0619gr0.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
Rural workers rescued from an illegal brickyard at the village of Linfen, in northeast China.
As sad as that picture is, the population of China is far too obsequious and fawning to stand up for what's right. Well, there's that, and then there's the fear of being summarily executed if they ever attempt to. They've been under the thumb of "rulers" for thousands of years, and nothing's gonna change that. These people are whipped by nature. I mean, look at 'em....

How pathetic.

I'm a Chinese. We're all slaves. We just live better and eat better.

Someday, someone has to pay for all this.

May freedom prevail!

Slaves in factories are far more worse than you guys see. I promise you.

I'm still living here and I feel shameful that I can't do anything but live with it.

If the free market were to blame we'd have slavery in this country.

Don't kid yourself.
We still do take advantage of slave labor.
We simply outsource it today.

You know... to the Chinese.

Conservatives have always supported slavery... that has not changed.

:thumbs:

Conservatives have always supported slavery... that has not changed.

:thumbs:
We emancipated them, you smarmy fuck.

Conservatives love eating the entrails of cute little babies!

We emancipated them, you smarmy fuck.You think conservatives emancipated the slaves??

Sorry, Prae, but the Republican party of the 1860's was anything but conservative. The early Republicans firmly believed that government could and should take the lead in developing the nation's economy. Two examples of this are the Transcontinental Railroad and the Homestead Act of 1862. The Transcontinental Railroad was financed by huge land grants and government-secured loans, while the Homestead Act was arguably the largest government giveaway of all time. It should be noted that both of these initiatives, which today might be characterized as 'investments in our future', turned out to be wildly successful.

Also, it was Lincoln who asserted the primacy of the Federal government over the States -- an historical turning point that many conservatives lament to this day. The true defenders of the status quo in the mid-19th Century were in fact the Democrats -- they were the conservatives of the era and it was they who defended slavery. The Republicans were the proponents of change and saw the Federal government as the means to effect that change.

It is interesting how, over the course of a hundred years or so, the positions of the two parties have practically reversed themselves.

It is interesting how, over the course of a hundred years or so, the positions of the two parties have practically reversed themselves.
I can't wait for the 2044 election. Gay atheist elephants versus apple pie granny donkeys.

I, of course, will be president at that time anyway so the two candidates will fail.

I, of course, will be president at that time anyway so the two candidates will fail.Ha ha! And SMW thinks our little debates have no effect on world affairs.

One day she will eat those words. :eek:

Ha ha! And SMW thinks our little debates have no effect on world affairs.

One day she will eat those words. :eek:
In the future, we'll have devices to make eating words possible.

We'll also have fat androids do our taxes. Oh yes.

You think conservatives emancipated the slaves??

Sorry, Prae, but the Republican party of the 1860's was anything but conservative. The early Republicans firmly believed that government could and should take the lead in developing the nation's economy. Two examples of this are the Transcontinental Railroad and the Homestead Act of 1862. The Transcontinental Railroad was financed by huge land grants and government-secured loans, while the Homestead Act was arguably the largest government giveaway of all time. It should be noted that both of these initiatives, which today might be characterized as 'investments in our future', turned out to be wildly successful.

Also, it was Lincoln who asserted the primacy of the Federal government over the States -- an historical turning point that many conservatives lament to this day. The true defenders of the status quo in the mid-19th Century were in fact the Democrats -- they were the conservatives of the era and it was they who defended slavery. The Republicans were the proponents of change and saw the Federal government as the means to effect that change.

It is interesting how, over the course of a hundred years or so, the positions of the two parties have practically reversed themselves.
how is preserving slavery and making the populace slaves to the state a dramatic reversal? or developing the nation's economy different from developing the nations economy? freeing slaves, and giving people the opportunity to be masters of their own fate is also no huge reversal of ideology.

you're just wrong.

Chinese goverment may bring Internet and stock market the Western China.
Probably they ALSO will favor to trade stocks via Internet. Possibly corruption and slavery will decrease by them.

how is preserving slavery and making the populace slaves to the state a dramatic reversal?
I think your premise here is that Democrats wish to enslave the People (otherwise the question doesn't make any sense). If that's what you really think then there's probably no limit to what other absurdities you might believe. But please go ahead and make the argument -- I'd love to hear it.
or developing the nation's economy different from developing the nations economy?There is a marked difference between the free market laissez-faire economic policies advocated by most modern conservatives and the protectionist high-tarriff policies of 19th Century Republicans. There are numerous other differences as well. The early Republicans strongly believed in government as a force for societal change. I have already pointed out that the Transcontinental Railroad and the Homestead Act were government-sponsored initiatives. Another example of this would be the Morrill Land Grant Act of 1862 which created institutions of higher learning in every state -- a fundamental boon to the development of public education in America. Quite simply, their favorable take on the role of government runs directly counter to what conservatives profess today. freeing slaves, and giving people the opportunity to be masters of their own fate is also no huge reversal of ideology.This might be a fair point if modern conservatives gave more than lip service to the concept of opportunity. It means a bit more than just promising to lower the taxes of the wealthy. Opportunity also means jobs and education -- many Americans would like the opportunity to afford health insurance, for example. And it's rather telling that the vast majority of the descendants of those freed slaves see the Democrats as the party of opportunity today. Here's something to ponder: for many years black Americans (when they could vote) supported Republicans while southern whites voted overwhelmingly for Democrats. Now those trends are exactly reversed. Which do you think is more likely, that the self-interests of blacks and southern whites have shifted dramatically, or that the parties they choose to vote for have?

Here's another one. Does anyone out there really believe that Lincoln was a conservative? If so, take a gander at his speech to Congress anent the Mexican war on 12 January 1848. It concludes:

Again, it is a singular omission in this message, that it, no where intimates when the President expects the war to terminate. At it's beginning, Genl. Scott was, by this same President, driven into disfavor, if not disgrace, for intimating that peace could not be conquered in less than three or four months. But now, at the end of about twenty months, during which time our arms have given us the most splendid successes--every department, and every part, land and water, officers and privates, regulars and volunteers, doing all that men could do, and hundreds of things which it had ever before been thought men could not do,--after all this, this same President gives us a long message, without showing us, that, as to the end, he himself, has, even an imaginary conception. As I have before said, he knows not where he is. He is a bewildered, confounded, and miserably perplexed man. God grant he may be able to show, there is not something about his conscious, more painful than all his mental perplexity!

http://www.animatedatlas.com/mexwar/lincoln2.html

ROFL!! Any guess what Lincoln might have to say about our war in Iraq and our President today? As Gerald Ford once gaffed, "If Lincoln were alive today, he'd be rolling in his grave". :)

you're just wrong.Well, what can I say? Am I wrong to say that the Transcontinental Railroad was financed by huge land grants and government-secured bonds? Am I wrong to say that the Homestead Act was a massive government giveaway? Am I wrong to say that Lincoln asserted the primacy of the Federal government over that of the States? When one person lays out point by point why they believe a thing, and gives the historical reasons why they think this is so, and the other person replies with a "you're just wrong", it's a bit of a non-argument. It makes me wonder if you're rejecting the argument because it doesn't fit well with your pre-formed ideology. I've told you why I think the Republicans who emancipated the slaves were not conservatives. The reasons I have given are sound and compelling. So far you've done nothing to convince me otherwise.

We emancipated them, you smarmy fuck.

You are simply wrong my ignorant friend. At that time the Republicans were the Liberal party and the conservatives were mostly Democrats.

:thumbs:

I see Sedan already covered this in greater detail but I thought I would try talking down to your level.

It is interesting how, over the course of a hundred years or so, the positions of the two parties have practically reversed themselves.
Maybe so, but another little know fact about Lincoln was that he wanted to deport the slaves right after they were emancipated. I've heard of this role "swap" before, and while it seems to be historically documented (from a philosophical standpoint, that is), I still think the most dangerous plague to effect modern business lies dormant in your camp TODAY. I mean, let's face it – Harry S. Truman, by today's standards, would be considered a "neo-con"-like warmongering nationalist (by several loons right here on this very site, and that mindset's come about within the last 50 years - talk about scary....:eek:).

Historical precedent aside, useful drones like Dharmabum are the bane of America, and serve as a propellant for a communist cancer that, if left unchecked, would most assuredly metastasize into complete and utter economic paralysis here and abroad. If he were able to write his own political manifesto, it would read like the longest suicide note in history.

We'll also have fat androids do our taxes. Oh yes.
We already do - they're called CPA's.

Here's another one. Does anyone out there really believe that Lincoln was a conservative? If so, take a gander at his speech to Congress anent the Mexican war on 12 January 1848. It concludes:

Again, it is a singular omission in this message, that it, no where intimates when the President expects the war to terminate. At it's beginning, Genl. Scott was, by this same President, driven into disfavor, if not disgrace, for intimating that peace could not be conquered in less than three or four months. But now, at the end of about twenty months, during which time our arms have given us the most splendid successes--every department, and every part, land and water, officers and privates, regulars and volunteers, doing all that men could do, and hundreds of things which it had ever before been thought men could not do,--after all this, this same President gives us a long message, without showing us, that, as to the end, he himself, has, even an imaginary conception. As I have before said, he knows not where he is. He is a bewildered, confounded, and miserably perplexed man. God grant he may be able to show, there is not something about his conscious, more painful than all his mental perplexity!

http://www.animatedatlas.com/mexwar/lincoln2.html

ROFL!! Any guess what Lincoln might have to say about our war in Iraq and our President today? As Gerald Ford once gaffed, "If Lincoln were alive today, he'd be rolling in his grave". :)
You're right. He was clearly a "liberal" of the Robert Byrd stripe:

"Make Negroes politically and socially our equals? My own feelings will not admit of this. I will say that I am not nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, that I am not nor have ever been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people. And I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And in as much as they cannot so live, while they do remain together, there must be the position of superior and inferior. And I, as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race." -- Lincoln 1858

I love how the party of tolerance is home to the paragons of virtue and the rest of us are bigoted rubes. Oh wait, times have changed, right?

On the state of race relations in America, Sen. Byrd warned: "There are white niggers. I've seen a lot of white niggers in my time. I'm going to use that word. We just need to work together to make our country a better country, and I'd just as soon quit talking about it so much."

Then again.....

"Let us be brought to believe it is morally right, and, at the same time, favorable to, or, at least, not against, our interest, to transfer the African to his native clime, and we shall find a way to do it, however great the task may be." -- Lincoln 1857

Hell, come to think of it, he simply must be a conservative. He's a bald-faced, fucking liar.

You're right. He was clearly a "liberal" of the Robert Byrd stripe:

"Make Negroes politically and socially our equals? My own feelings will not admit of this. I will say that I am not nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, that I am not nor have ever been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people. And I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And in as much as they cannot so live, while they do remain together, there must be the position of superior and inferior. And I, as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race." -- Lincoln 1858

I love how the party of tolerance is home to the paragons of virtue and the rest of us are bigoted rubes. Oh wait, times have changed, right?

On the state of race relations in America, Sen. Byrd warned: "There are white niggers. I've seen a lot of white niggers in my time. I'm going to use that word. We just need to work together to make our country a better country, and I'd just as soon quit talking about it so much."

Then again.....

"Let us be brought to believe it is morally right, and, at the same time, favorable to, or, at least, not against, our interest, to transfer the African to his native clime, and we shall find a way to do it, however great the task may be." -- Lincoln 1857

Hell, come to think of it, he simply must be a conservative. He's a bald-faced, fucking liar.
Frederick Douglass addressed your topic in his Oration In Memory Of Abraham Lincoln (http://american_almanac.tripod.com/dougorat.htm):

"Fellow-citizens, ours is no new-born zeal and devotion--merely a thing of this moment. The name of Abraham Lincoln was near and dear to our hearts in the darkest and most perilous hours of the Republic. We were no more ashamed of him when shrouded in clouds of darkness, of doubt, and defeat than when we saw him crowned with victory, honor, and glory. Our faith in him was often taxed and strained to the uttermost, but it never failed. When he tarried long in the mountain; when he strangely told us that we were the cause of the war; when he still more strangely told us that we were to leave the land in which we were born; when he refused to employ our arms in defense of the Union; when, after accepting our services as colored soldiers, he refused to retaliate our murder and torture as colored prisoners; when he told us he would save the Union if he could with slavery; when he revoked the Proclamation of Emancipation of General Fremont; when he refused to remove the popular commander of the Army of the Potomac, in the days of its inaction and defeat, who was more zealous n his efforts to protect slavery than to suppress rebellion; when we saw all this, and more, we were at times grieved, stunned, and greatly bewildered; but our hearts believed while they ached and bled. Nor was this, even at that time, a blind and unreasoning superstition. Despite the mist and haze that surrounded him; despite the tumult, the hurry, and confusion of the hour, we were able to take a comprehensive view of Abraham Lincoln, and to make reasonable allowance for the circumstances of his position. We saw him, measured him, and estimated him; not by stray utterances to injudicious and tedious delegations, who often tried his patience; not by isolated facts torn from their connection; not by any partial and imperfect glimpses, caught at inopportune moments; but by a broad survey, in the light of the stern logic of great events, and in view of that divinity which shapes our ends, rough hew them how we will, we came to the conclusion that the hour and the man of our redemption had somehow met in the person of Abraham Lincoln. It mattered little to us what language he might employ on special occasions; it mattered little to us, when we fully knew him, whether he was swift or slow in his movements; it was enough for us that Abraham Lincoln was at the head of a great movement, and was in living and earnest sympathy with that movement, which, in the nature of things, must go on until slavery should be utterly and forever abolished in the United States."

The entire Oration is, of course, well worth reading. No one writes like that anymore! Nor will anyone have anything remotely as eloquent to say about Robert Byrd when he passes away. Whenever I think of Byrd my mind turns by way of comparison to George Wallace, a contemporary who at one time was every bit as much of a racist as he. But Wallace, whether through tragic circumstance or not, overcame his worst nature before the end. That's an achievement I don't think Byrd will ever be able to claim.

I mean, let's face it – Harry S. Truman, by today's standards, would be considered a "neo-con"-like warmongering nationalist

Nope, Truman believed in the new deal as much as FDR did. He also believed in National Health Care and the ability of government to be a positive force in society... all decidedly Liberal positions.


Historical precedent aside, useful drones like Dharmabum are the bane of America

ROFL!!!
The bane of ignorant, biggoted, hate-mongering blowhards such as yourself would be more accurate.


and serve as a propellant for a communist cancer that, blah, blah, blah...

Thanks for proving my point for me, Prat.


:thumbs:

Nope, Truman believed in the new deal as much as FDR did. He also believed in National Health Care and the ability of government to be a positive force in society... all decidedly Liberal positions.
The New Deal fell into place out of necessity. Of course, Truman was for it - it was incredibly popular at the time (read; his constituency demanded it). I mean, seriously..........you show me a Democrat who doesn't have his hand out, and I'll show you someone who can play Pick-up Sticks with his butt cheeks for money.

Oh, and the best part about relief programs....when you have a burgeoning industry and are fighting a war, then typically, you can afford 'em.

Of those other two points you mentioned - namely, nationalized health care......well, you can take every theoretical study showing a cost "savings" for the populace, and stick 'em right up that stooge ass of yours. The day our government streamlines and effectively saves people money based on diminished "advertising" costs, will surely be the day they're supplanted by our government's sheer inability to administer anything efficaciously. If you don't think they run a top-heavy, loosely tied to reality, employment base (chock full of run-of-the-mill, incompetent souls who bitch when they're only getting a 4% annual raise with every benefit under the sun (which, mind you, the private sector couldn't AFFORD to give them (Vive la "advertising" cuts, eh?)), then boy o boy, you really are the perfect little commie.

Hey, here's an idea Joe Six-pack - if you don't have insurance, then go back to school and get a better job. Problem solved AND we have a more productive member of society working for a higher wage who DOESN'T burden the taxpayer. Whodda thunk it, eh!?!
Thanks for proving my point for me, Prat.


:thumbs:
Whatever you say, Red. :thumbs: :rolleyes: Consider it mutual.