According to the Times, new Chinese history textbooks have essentially purged Mao from the record: "The new standard world history text drops wars, dynasties and Communist revolutions in favor of colorful tutorials on economics, technology, social customs and globalization." Pre-1979 Communism has been reduced to a sentence, "the Marxist template that had dominated standard history texts since the 1950’s has been "shelved," and Mao is mentioned "only once -- in a chapter on etiquette".
(Was Mao renowned for his etiquette? Is there proper etiquette in the execution of a cultural revolution?)
The new, post-Marxist China may be more appealing in some ways than the old one. And it is likely for the best that Chinese students are learning about globalization rather than being indoctrinated in the dialectics of historical materialism. But China -- like, say, Germany -- needs to learn from its past and to incorporate the positive elements of its past into its rapid journey into a more globalized future. Mao may have done some horrible things while in power, and what he stood for may not be compatible with the aims of today's political leadership, but it seems to me that the Chinese people, and particularly their young people, the leaders of tomorrow, should keep that past firmly in mind as they look ahead to a more prosperous future. How else to avoid the repetitions of history?
Revisionism is the way of totalitarianism. The new totalitarianism may not be ideologically Maoist, and it may seek ties with the liberal democratic West even as it severs ties with its predecessors, but it seeks to brainwash nonetheless. The new propaganda serves a radically different end than the old propaganda, but, with or without Mao, the Chinese people still aren't free.
Friday, September 1, 2006
Good news for the Dems
Sit down. Take a deep breath. And don't get too excited. There's some fairly good news for Dems going into the Labo(u)r Day weekend with respect to their mid-term electoral prospects.
According to USA Today (uh, yesterday), "[polls] in five key states show Democrats poised to gain Senate seats but facing an uphill battle to regain control". They also show that "Democrats seem more likely to carry the House in the Nov. 7 elections, which are being shaped by voters' unease over Iraq, jobs and health care and a sense that the nation is on the wrong track".
(Another deep breath.)
Here's are the details from five key battlegrounds (quoting USA Today):
• In Pennsylvania, Sen. Rick Santorum trailed Democrat Bob Casey by 18 percentage points among likely voters, by 14 points among registered voters.
• In Ohio, Sen. Mike DeWine was behind Democrat Sherrod Brown by 6 points among likely voters, by 2 points among registered voters.
• In Montana, three-term Sen. Conrad Burns, who has faced questions in the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal, was in a close race with Democrat Jon Tester. Tester led by 3 points among likely voters; Burns led by 2 points among registered voters.
• In Missouri, Sen. Jim Talent held a 6-point lead among likely voters over Democrat Claire McCaskill. The two were tied among registered voters.
• In Minnesota, where Republicans hope to pick up an open seat, Democrat Amy Klobuchar led Republican Mark Kennedy by 10 points among likely voters, by 7 points among registered voters.
Plus, the gubernatorial race in Minnesota between incumbent Republican Tim Pawlenty and Democratic challenger Mike Hatch is virtually even. In Pennsylvania, Democratic Governor Ed Rendell leads Republican challenger Lynn Swann by 22 points (as a life-long Steelers fan, Swann will always be close to my heart, but I'm not on his side this time.) And in Ohio, Democrat Ted Strickland leads Republican Ken Blackwell by 16 points (although, as I recently reported, Strickland may be up by as much as 25 points).
There's still a long way to go -- two months is a long time in politics, and it's never wise to count the Republicans out, not with Rove et al. looking as always to manipulate the narrative -- but these are nonetheless positive signs, indications of possible success, that Democrats could retake one or both houses of Congress in November.
(Yet another deep breath. It's too early to predict anything at this point. But still.)
For more, see Ezra Klein, who counsels caution but expresses optimism, and Joe Gandelman, who wonders if (and how) Democrats will "find a way to grab defeat out of the jaws of victory". Steve Benen looks at other positive poll results here (it seems "fewer and fewer people [want] to identify themselves as Republicans" -- can you blame them?).
And now let's get back to the hard work of getting Democrats elected. As mcjoan puts it at Kos, "[w]ith just nine weeks left of campaigning, we have a lot of ground to cover".
According to USA Today (uh, yesterday), "[polls] in five key states show Democrats poised to gain Senate seats but facing an uphill battle to regain control". They also show that "Democrats seem more likely to carry the House in the Nov. 7 elections, which are being shaped by voters' unease over Iraq, jobs and health care and a sense that the nation is on the wrong track".
(Another deep breath.)
Here's are the details from five key battlegrounds (quoting USA Today):
• In Pennsylvania, Sen. Rick Santorum trailed Democrat Bob Casey by 18 percentage points among likely voters, by 14 points among registered voters.
• In Ohio, Sen. Mike DeWine was behind Democrat Sherrod Brown by 6 points among likely voters, by 2 points among registered voters.
• In Montana, three-term Sen. Conrad Burns, who has faced questions in the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal, was in a close race with Democrat Jon Tester. Tester led by 3 points among likely voters; Burns led by 2 points among registered voters.
• In Missouri, Sen. Jim Talent held a 6-point lead among likely voters over Democrat Claire McCaskill. The two were tied among registered voters.
• In Minnesota, where Republicans hope to pick up an open seat, Democrat Amy Klobuchar led Republican Mark Kennedy by 10 points among likely voters, by 7 points among registered voters.
Plus, the gubernatorial race in Minnesota between incumbent Republican Tim Pawlenty and Democratic challenger Mike Hatch is virtually even. In Pennsylvania, Democratic Governor Ed Rendell leads Republican challenger Lynn Swann by 22 points (as a life-long Steelers fan, Swann will always be close to my heart, but I'm not on his side this time.) And in Ohio, Democrat Ted Strickland leads Republican Ken Blackwell by 16 points (although, as I recently reported, Strickland may be up by as much as 25 points).
There's still a long way to go -- two months is a long time in politics, and it's never wise to count the Republicans out, not with Rove et al. looking as always to manipulate the narrative -- but these are nonetheless positive signs, indications of possible success, that Democrats could retake one or both houses of Congress in November.
(Yet another deep breath. It's too early to predict anything at this point. But still.)
For more, see Ezra Klein, who counsels caution but expresses optimism, and Joe Gandelman, who wonders if (and how) Democrats will "find a way to grab defeat out of the jaws of victory". Steve Benen looks at other positive poll results here (it seems "fewer and fewer people [want] to identify themselves as Republicans" -- can you blame them?).
And now let's get back to the hard work of getting Democrats elected. As mcjoan puts it at Kos, "[w]ith just nine weeks left of campaigning, we have a lot of ground to cover".
The killers of Khartoum reject U.N. intervention in Darfur
From the BBC:
Well, of course Khartoum won't agree. Why would it? It may defend its sovereignty, but that sovereignty is also a cover for genocide in Darfur. The last thing the killers of Khartoum want is an international force to thwart their continuing genocidal aspirations. At some point the principle of sovereignty must give way to the principle of human life.
And, honestly, I don't much care what Khartoum thinks. Why does the Sudanese government deserve to be treated with anything resembling respect? I'd like to see a U.N. resolution with teeth. It may come far too late, but far too late is still preferable to not at all. International action could at least prevent further genocide.
The Sudanese government has vehemently rejected a UN Security Council resolution that would send a UN force to Sudan's Darfur region.
"The Sudanese people will not consent to any resolution that will violate its sovereignty," the official Suna news agency quoted the government as saying.
The resolution requires the consent of Khartoum for the force to be deployed.
Well, of course Khartoum won't agree. Why would it? It may defend its sovereignty, but that sovereignty is also a cover for genocide in Darfur. The last thing the killers of Khartoum want is an international force to thwart their continuing genocidal aspirations. At some point the principle of sovereignty must give way to the principle of human life.
And, honestly, I don't much care what Khartoum thinks. Why does the Sudanese government deserve to be treated with anything resembling respect? I'd like to see a U.N. resolution with teeth. It may come far too late, but far too late is still preferable to not at all. International action could at least prevent further genocide.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
