Saying traditional Chinese are indirect is like saying traditional Chinese women are submissive. Those were ideals which did not necessarily apply in the private home. In fact, it’s true that the women were still in charge of the home life. While it may not have been the mother herself who scolded or molded her child into a model, filial citizen, it likely was a mother-in-law, wet nurse or some other woman in the home that didn’t mince words to get the kid to do something. To become an acceptable member of society within her role parameters and above all to not shame the family.

In my (Chinese) experience, the filial code, which does persist psychologically even today, permits any level of direct guidance, manipulation or force. It has always been this way. They do whatever they have to so the kid doesn’t: turn out too fat or too lazy, have too large of feet to get a good suitor, marry the wrong person, have a daughter instead of a son, neglect their role. That is the traditional way.

And I think Ms. Chau’s parenting style sounds so abrasive because it actually is more traditional & it is jarring to the general, postmodern American population which focuses on the individual. For the Chinese (and many eastern cultures), the child is an extension of the self–not just it’s own person. So they do what they want with the child.

you seem like a nice person & i was glad to read someone’s comment that was reflective & contributive rather than racist, hot-headed or ignorant. you must be an Asian Studies scholar or something

THIS IS exactly like Carter in his THIRD YEAR. You couldn’t find ANYONE like even admitted liking the man, let alone voting for him……….My bumper stickers – A.B.O. – 2012

Anybody BUT Obama

are selling like hotcakes………..

Obama was made up and sold to us by Harry Reid, George Soros and the lying media. He was a boob they put in office because after THEIR MURDEROUS BASHING OF BUSH, they thought the JOB WAS EASY.

THEY ignored Bush spent money BECAUSE we had two of the biggest disasters to ever hit American soil. He made many mistakes, BUT we had never dealt with 3,000 people pulverized in 2 hours, THE MEDIA AND LIBERALS AND EVEN YOU PEGGY LEAVE THOSE FACTS OF OUT THE STORY EVERY SINGLE TIME.

Barry and Democrats have destroyed us. Spending 5.4 trillion and creating a new FAT FDR ENTITLEMENT when we were in a recession has created DEPRESSION II. (did you see how they downgraded Q1 to .4?) Did you see the lying 398,000 unemployed (every week for 2.5 years now) to keep it under 400,000 – DON’T WORRY THEY HAVE REVISED THE UNEMPLOYMENT NUMBER UP —-EVERY SINGLE WEEK,

while they REVISE AMERICA’S OUTPUT – DOWN EVERY TIME. (they think Americans are not paying attention, sorry boys, THE RULES HAVE CHANGED IN YOUR FACE)

We are in the Depression,

the media reports: Depression era unemployment, depression era food stamps, depression era foreclosures…………Depression era output——————

.BUT WE ARE ONLY IN A RECESSION, ROFL…sorry media, you can’t lie to Americans much longer about the total failure of your messiah BARRY.

They will try though, they have already started up the HATE campaign. Now tea partiers are being called terrorists………..Liberals it won’t work this time. Just like Carter who EVERYONE HATED by the 3rd year – the Democrats put in Kennedy. Turns out America didn’t much like him either.

Barry has destroyed us and in the history books – HIS NAME WILL BE NEXT TO THE DEPRESSION II HISTORY– make no mistake, we are living thru a time right now (Depression II) that we will talk about for the rest of our lives.

And Peggy, glad the Barry kool-aid has worn off you, I remember well your articles on WHAT A BRILLIANT ORATOR THIS FREAK OBAMA WAS—you boys all missed that like the Wizard of Oz, HE WAS JUST READING WORDS OFF OF THE IDIOT BOARDS……….and that is what Walter Mondale called them. Do you think our cracker jack media WILL EVER TELL US ‘WHO’ WRITES ALL THOSE PRETTY WORDS……or just what Palin’s kids are doing ROFL

1,A UN with China and Russia is a bad UN for democratic systems and civilians getting killed by one man/Party systems in the name of stability of one man/Party systems.

2,When China and Russia rule the world,then you will know YOU HAVE HUMAN RIGHTS ONLY BECAUSE YOUR SIDE MILITARY FORCES IS WINNING.

3,China and Russia won’t help civilians with military forces,they murder their own at home too,they won’t punish one man/Party systems killing civilians,they stop others to help civilians getting killed,protecting the stability of one man/Party systems.

4,They even ask those victims to HAVE PATIENCE for murdering military forces like Kadaffi/Assad,giving up collective self defending against one man/Party system military forces for human rights.

5,HAVE PATIENCE FOR ONE MAN/PARTY SYSTEMS————–already exist for thousands of years,often refuse to step down for any mistakes they made and choose to kill civilians for thousands of years————–so they ask moXXXs to have patience for another thousands of years in the name of stability of one man/Party systems.

6,In the past,USA tries to buy rules of China,actually China is just fooling around,keep getting stronger and stronger,then they can buy you to drop democratic rules———————–opposite rule maker wars.

7,Politics making rules.

Military forces holding and spreading rules.

but if your leader is a moxxx like G.W.Bush,you will feed up the biggest threat for your own political power,and keep getting weak with better conditions.

8,Rules of the North puts rules of the south at foot,that’s peace for human beings.

Opposite rules puts opposite rules at foot,that’s true peace,but better rules will keep getting stronger,and worse rules will keep getting stalled,then at some point better rules sides have to win——-direct confrontation between similar opposite rule sides in long term——-the biggest and successful example?COLD WAR,long term strategy for similar condition opposite rule sides.EVEN the world united like a single country,there will still be opposite rules,will still run like this—-opposite rules put the other side at foot then peace for your political systems—just it is China’s rule or the west run on Earth.

No opposite rules?only because you lost the comparing function of your brain,opposite rules will always exist,as long as human exists,the difference is which side is winning,we have the chance to keep beating the worse ones and keep getting evolving.

9.China despises Cold War?they use it at home all the time for opposite rule side,they even use military forces to kill them.but well,the CCP already killed a lot of stupid powerful enemies in the past,they know there can keep killing fools with words,fools won’t understand simple strategy,they like obscure words of their enemies.

the CCP doesn’t despise the stupid strategy of their enemies,if you can’t go to war with stronger military forces,then you have to let your enemies run stupid strategy for your own good———-the only chance weaker can conquer stronger——–IQ.

10,Same level IQ?then follows the conditions,which one is better wins.

11,Winning for your side is good for your side.

Christa,

Apparently you didn’t bother to read my post, you say “I will try one more time…” and then go on to state almost verbatim many of the things I said in my post, so it seems you’re arguing with your imagination.

Your words: “With the billions in PAC money spent by WS that has gone into the coffers of all the DC lawmakers, they pretty much make sure that every regulation that passes has a loophole that allows them to operate outside the laws that apply to all other business. It is selective enforcement.”

My words: “I will certainly grant that over the years there has been no shortage of crony-capitalism going on in the finance industry… If you’re worried about banks getting favorable treatment, tax benefits, the revolving door between the regulators/government and private banks, then what you should be advocating is removing the opportunity for these things to occur, ie making government smaller… It’s just a fact of life that the finance industry will be run by the wealthiest and best connected members of society, it always has been and by its nature always will be. No matter how many laws you try and pass, how many regulations you pile on, bankers will always be able to procure a favorable result, they fund the campaigns of politicians (yes Republicans AND Democrats – just look at Obama’s “brain trust”), they fund the PACs, they have the best lobbyists, they fill the ranks of the Treasury Department and Central Banks, they will always get a fair shake and you will never change it with just one more law or one more regulation.

What can, and should, be prevented, though, is allowing the finance industry to feed at the public trough… If you’re worried about banks getting bailouts, gambling with other peoples money, too big to fail etc, what should concern you is the government that has enabled this to happen.”

I completely agree with you that banks are able to extract huge benefits from the Federal government and Federal Reserve, I witness it first hand, however, where you go wrong is assuming you’re going to “fix” that situation with a new law or new regulation. As I said and you acknowledge, the finance industry spends massively to lobby congress, fund the campaigns of politicians across the board, and run the president’s economic team, treasury department, and central banks, a new law or a new regulation is not going to change this. The finance industry controls the money, and those who control the money have the power, it’s as simple as that.

If you really want to ensure that bankers aren’t running Washington and lining their pockets with taxpayer money the only way to do it is by taking away the punch bowl – Stated again, the more favors politicians have to dole out, the more Wall St will spend lobbying, and the more favors that are ultimately going to end up benefitting Wall St. So yes, this does mean less government.

If you want to force real discipline back on Wall St we need to return to a much tighter monetary system and a more competitive market-driven environment – this will be accomplished not by new regulations or laws, which will inevitably be either misguided or rewritten to the benefit of Wall St, but by completely revamping the Federal Reserve, repealing laws like the FDIC and CRA, and getting rid of Fannie/Freddie. 300 million depositors and a very tightly managed monetary system will regulate banks far more effectively than any new team of Washington wizards.

A MAN WILL SPEAK

The American Presidency carries with it an all-encompassing sacred trust. The clarion call to the elected one is to represent American’s health, safety, and welfare. This charge is not dependent on citizen socio-economic, health, educational background, marital status or for that matter anything else. When the President takes the sacred oath the people’s needs, wants, goals, aspirations are all his.

China, India, and the countries of the world are not his charge. He should be first and foremost an advocate of the greatest business system on the earth and its citizens. Tonight millions of Americans will hear Presidential words meant to give a caring reassurance to the millions who are out of work and many of whom who can no longer support their families. Those through no fault of their own, one out of seven Americans, are currently living off food stamps. They will be listening tonight and hoping for a better day. They will be hearing many adjectives and verbs meant to portray a vision of sorts they have heard before. Words crafted to give an impression of care and concern for the large audience.

Yet the underlying question will center on the man’s sincerity or lack thereof. Have his words in the past been accompanied by real actions? The answer when viewed historically is a resounding NO. With over twenty million Americans out of work, with millions now unable to pay their bills, with debt spending at an all-time high, with food stamps being used everywhere, is this man sincere? NO.

The time has arrived for the nation to entertain its divine given right. An election will be coming in 2012 and from the North, South, East, and West will come citizens who will vote for a new day of jobs, freedom, and dreams. People will be coming to cast their ballots and when it’s all said and done and their votes have been counted it will indeed be morning once again in America.

Dr. Alan G Phillips

Bloomington, IL

Here’s the modus operandi of the Left: they want complete control of society at all levels – education, health -care, food, energy, smoking and so on… but how to achieve their totalitarian dreams without alienating the populace from the get go? They can’t fight a revolution on the streets, but they have undertaken a long march on the minds.

Consider: the Left is scandalized by all sins: greed, gluttony, avarice – and they find individuals absolutely lacking in their ability of self-control, therefore the need for ever more intrusive regulation. the Left even mistakes principled self-defense with Anger and preach their contempt for the military (the USA military is the most honourable in History – we should all be very proud and grateful!).

In other words, the Left is a big moralist to the point of childish sentimentality – that, or at least know how to manipulate the Judeo-Christian sensibility to their advantage.

What they have to offer for all their attacks on freedom? Sex. Now that’s the one realm of life where, according to the Left, more (and earlier) is better. The consequences to families and society are of no import – now even individuals below age of consent should be able to buy contraceptives over-the-counter. (?!) And now freedom of conscience must be set aside in the name of contraception. Now think about the two requests of the Left above – go ahead, just use some common sense and unveil the sheer absurdity and contempt for civilization and the basic principles of the Republic.

Seriously, at what point the Left will overplay their hand and people will realize they’ve been had?

This article is as specious as is so much else in the editorial section of the WSJ, and the asininity of some of the attached comments is proof if proof was needed. First, the writer has, in my view, intentionally, mixed up the difference between the tax on those earning over $250,000 per year, which the President is asking for who, if they do earn over $250,000 per year probably are millionaires, and those earning over one million per year, who are clearly in that echelon. I have friends who are in that category that hovers around the $250,000 – after deductions, by the way – limit. Which means that only if they earn a dollar more than that $250,00 – again, after all deductions – they will need to pay another 4 to 4.5% on that dollar. They will pay not one dime more in taxes on the $250,000. Those monies were under that amount. ONLY on those dollars over the $250,000. In other words, if one earned $251,000 AFTER deductions, he would then be required to pay the same $35% on those earnings under the 250, and a measly 4.5% more on his/her additional revenues. That, by the way, is what we had to pay when Bill Clinton was president. Remember him? The Democrat who gave us a huge surplus, that his Republican successor destroyed? I have no where near the earnings nor the funds Warren Buffett has, but I too would be happy to pay that additional small percentage of my income to help those Americans less fortunate than I. Why? Because I am a decent American. The ugliness and calumny displayed in this column and in so many of the comments attached, appalls me.

You jest, last man. All of the following are reasonable if not popular:

Regulating vulnerable land and not offering state-subsidized, low-cost insurance that encourages people to settle in high-risk areas would reduce the number of people hit by hurricanes. Better building codes, upgraded dikes and levees, and improved warning systems would also reduce storm damage. Protecting wetlands and beaches that act as natural seawalls would also help.

…….

But even I, a man who hates all who support reckless or better pie-eyed intervention in global warming, say they won’t be enough. No tact will.

Global warming is thus, and always has been, a refugee management issue, not a Gaia management issue. Everyone dances around this basic truth? You may tickle the goddess’s fancy, for example, for a moment but she is not in your provence regards problems to be solved. It isn’t a question of harmony. Our true harmony says we need another 2 billion people on this planet over the next few years. Our you going to argue against that Gaia, too. She laughs at your basic intelligence. And there is no escaping such love. We’re already clogging the skies with space junk. Why? Is it because we are pathetic? No. Well, rather yes. It is because man loves mom.

ashes to ashes

dust to dust

These are strong words.

Then I went ahead and wrote:

ashes to ashes

dust to dust

these are the words

but they don’t do Her

just us

Of course, I’m talking about the justice of Venus.

Yet it it Gaia who is the subject of all complaint and all returns up to now. Don’t confuse these two ladies; succorance regards Venus doesn’t mean diddly to Gaia. This means that a strictly aesthetic comprehension of the planet’s trends must fail to inform properly the global warming debate. Such a comprehension prioritizes the wrong domain. Gaia is simply deeper than Venus, regards the underlying problem. For there has been no death she hasn’t documented. Technology says, we can change that. But it’s such a paltry exchange for one man or woman to go ahead and get himself killed on the moon, for example. If you think about, though, that would be a profound consciousness shifter for earth, not our walking on the moon, our dying there. Yet, I bet our guy or gal would want his or her body returned to earth. The astronauts were fanatically clear about several things: perhaps the most important was how incredibly beautiful the earth really is, even if, and especially if, you are standing on the moon to gaze back at her.

Gaia.

True global warming policy honors her, because it refuses to vouchsafe the unexamined escape, and instead it decides if, how, and when to move vast numbers of people to new temporarily safer places, effectively, humanely, or not at all – with every choice, there will be loss.

What is the moral case for each position?

Let us agree that of the $3.7 trillion of so spending we have planned for this year, approximately $1.7 trillion is for defense, national infrastructure, etc. In other words, money that is NOT REDISTRIBUTIVE, but is for what was once called THE GENERAL WELFARE. This includes federal inspectors, funding for NASA, and other functions that, for better or worse, we’ve deemed as necessary at the federal level.

Then, this leaves $2.0 trillion that is essentially completely REDISTRIBUTIVE. This includes SS, Medicare, Medicaid, and any other payment that goes directly to a citizen without real productive employment of that citizen.

So, given that maybe 40% of us cannot pay taxes (let’s just accept that figure), what should the various constituents be?

In my opinion, those who have more should pay more for the GENERAL WELFARE. It can be considered as a moral obligation that those who are the richest should pay for the functioning of the country.

But how can it possibly be considered moral that those who do not pay get to pressure those who do pay to give more in terms of REDISTRIBUTION? What is their case? I see none. In fact, it seems far more moral that those who only receive should have NO SAY WHATSOEVER in the managing of our affairs.

So, liberals, without dodging the argument with nonsense, what is your case? Why should some pay more to those who contribute nothing, and why should the taker ever get a say in how much he gets to take?

John,

What possible valid point were you attempting to make by claiming you never said the latest gambit by “The Obamanation” with respect to “ObamanationCare” would render “ObamanationCare” in violation of the 14th Amendment to the U. S. Constitution? I’d really like to know since I never claimed you made such a statement.

Also, with no personal aspersions cast, I couldn’t care less how you view my characterization of “The Obamanation,” which, in my opinion, is, if anything, a bit euphemistic.

Additionally, having written, “I have attempted to work with you on the issues,” would you please be so kind as to tell me what message that assemblage of words is intended to convey? Again, I’d really like to know, but, since that statement remains unclear, I don’t.

To avoid any unnecessary confusion, I am not the least concerned that you would not, “…bend to your far right view, chose to double-down,” and I actually couldn’t if I wanted to because, again, I have no specific idea just what message you were attempting to convey when you wrote those words anymore than I understand what message you were intending to convey when you wrote, “…would you rather be a punk for the right wing pundits?” Pray tell John; just what is a, “…punk for the right wing pundits?”

What I would like would be to engage in a discussion based on fathomable logic and verifiable facts; is that asking too much?