Here's Hoping China Hasn't Taken Offense By JOHN A. HALL | Posted Friday, October 05, 2007 4:30 PM PT Dear China, I wish to apologize to you. I have said some mean and hurtful things recently, and I think I may have offended you. I really am sorry. I think I may have embarrassed you when I discussed with my wife your melamine-tainted pet food. I'm sure it was in fact delicious. I'm sorry that I raised my eyebrows when I read of the Chinese toothpaste laced with anti-freeze. After all, what's a little diethylene glycol between friends? As to my negative comments while searching to see if we own the Elmo, Big Bird, Dora, Thomas the Tank Engine or any of the other millions of Chinese-made toys recalled because they contain dangerous levels of lead paint, I can only say once again how sorry I am. The paint is, I am sure, bright and cheerful. Similarly, I can only apologize for thinking negatively of you merely because of the formaldehyde in the textiles, the improperly wired electric heaters, the dryers that can electrocute, the lamps that might burst into flames, the batteries that can melt, the bike frames that fracture, the extension cords that shock, the wall sconces that have exposed wiring, the explosive oil heaters, the flammable baby clothes, the dangerous circular saws, the collapsing stools, the faulty tires, the lead jewelry, the deadly cribs and the collapsing recliners. I am worried that my body language may have caused you offense. I would also like to take this opportunity to apologize to you, China, for thoughtlessly criticizing your record on human rights. I was imposing my own values on you, and I am sorry for my thoughtlessness. I am sorry for being concerned that the Chinese government continues to violate the rights of journalists in spite of assurances to the International Olympic Committee that the 2008 Beijing Olympics would foster improvements in human rights and of specific pledges of wider media freedoms. Did I upset you when I discussed with friends the Chinese government's ongoing harassment of HIV/AIDS activists and surveillance of AIDS support groups? As to my comments about the Chinese government's suppression of Tibetan religion and culture, and the oppressive occupation of Tibet, what can I say? Did I really describe these things in negative terms? I am really sorry if that offended you. You also probably heard my cry of frustration from 10,000 miles away when you blocked an official condemnation in the United Nations of the atrocious regime in Burma. How very rude of me to raise my voice in such a fashion. Similarly, I fear I may have upset you when I expressed concern that China is on its way to becoming the world's great polluter, whose industrial expansion is coming at the cost of environmental degradation the scale and speed of which are unprecedented in global history. Did I cause you offense when I mentioned that the China National Petroleum Corp. is securing much of the world's natural resources to feed the largely unregulated Chinese industrial expansion? Perhaps I was insensitive when I said that China is undermining democratic reforms internationally, providing economic assistance and political support to rogue regimes in exchange for access to oil and mineral reserves. I can only say once again how sorry I am. Did I really call the Chinese government's campaign to extend its economic and political influence throughout Latin America, Africa and Asia as being in conflict with the interests of the United States? If so, I apologize. What was I thinking? I may even have expressed concern about the continued suppression of workers' rights, the artificial undervaluation of the Chinese currency, the absence of genuine attempts to preserve intellectual property and suppress rampant piracy, the leverage gained by a sustained policy of investment in the dollar and U.S. government bonds, the hacking of Pentagon computers and the potentially destabilizing impact of the rapid expansion of the Chinese military. What was I thinking? I would also like to apologize for my comments critical of your pal, Mattel, the world's largest toy maker. When I read that Thomas Debrowski, Mattel's executive vice president for worldwide operations, had apologized to you for harming the reputation of Chinese manufacturers by ordering product recalls of dangerous toys, I jumped to the unwarranted conclusion that this was the craven groveling of an American corporation desperate to maintain its access to cheap Chinese factories. I was mistaken, and I am sorry if I hurt your feelings. Now can we be friends? Let's hang out this summer, grab some chips and dip and watch the Olympics. Though, if you don't mind, let's make sure the snacks are not from China. Just to be on the safe side. No offense. Hall is an associate professor at Chapman University School of Law in Orange, Calif., and director of the Center for Global Trade and Development. http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=276467183994459

For the past several months, conservatives have been referring to the Democratic Party as the Democrat party. The term has “slipped” in to the president’s speeches, and may be on its way to becoming “natural” for some to use. There has been nary a peep from Democrats in regards to this. What should we do, before the name of our party has been taken away from us? Do we do as the leaders of our party have done and do nothing? This seems to be their answer to every slander, because it is not nice to call names. Do we become whiners, and say, “that’s not nice! It is Democratic Party”? Whatever we do needs to be agreed upon and used. I am for using another name for the Republic Party. I have seen several mentioned over time, some may be considered in bad taste. I do not think we need to go over the line. I propose we refer to the other party as the Repo Party. Given the real estate foreclosure issues going on now, it is fitting.

In reference to the President, Article II, Section 2 of the ‘Constitution of the United States’ reads:  “…he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.” The President’s power to pardon is nearly God-like in scope.  The president can issue a pardon at any time for anything to anybody, including himself.  There’s only one restriction, “except in Cases of Impeachment”.  There are no qualifiers.  It doesn’t say “successful Impeachment” or “pending Impeachment” or “current Impeachment”.  It just says “except in Cases of Impeachment”. It’s a simple statement.  Now, I’m no lawyer but a plain-English interpretation of that sentence means that if legitimate Articles of Impeachment are introduced in the House, the President is barred from issuing a pardon to any person or persons or for any activity named in the Articles of Impeachment. I fully expect George W. Bush to issue blanket pardons, carefully but vaguely worded to encompass anything senior members of his administration (Bush included) might later be tied to as crimes. Introducing Articles of Impeachment may be the only way to ensure even a chance to pursue and punish responsible parties once they no longer enjoy the protection of the White House…

BartCop.com Volume 2052 - Queen of the Low Blows. In Today's Tequila Treehouse...

	The Israel Lobby
	"It's over, George"
	The damage is done
	Dobson's Rudy Problem
	Torture' Revelations
	Why Housing went Bust
	Another GOP Toilet Dater
	Dems Enable Bush
	Lindsay's Rehab Focus