CNN's apology is more insulting

CNN has apologised for the comment by its commentator Jack Cafferty for calling the Chinese people goons. Now with the outcry in China and a demand for an apology, they said he or CNN meant 'Only Chinese leaders are goons, thugs.' And the sickening thing is that they think that will get them scotch free, that it is ok to call the Chinese leaders derogatory names and the Chinese people would not mind. It is like believing that people can call their father and mother dogs and bitches and they will not be offended. Maybe the CNN people will accept such remarks on their parents. But this is what a reputable msm standard of conduct and ethics is all about. OK it is freedom of expression without responsibility and propriety. If any Chinese media would like to pay me a small sum of money, I will be the equivalent of Jack Cafferty and let go my pieces as flowery as can be. I think I can do no lesser than Cafferty.


redbean said...

forgot to add CNN's comment. It said, 'CNN is a network that reports the news in an objective and balanced fashion.'

Good work CNN. You have just confirmed that you are objective and balanced in your reporting.

Anonymous said...

we are starting to see glaringly how they skulk and debase themselves. pui! ass in lion's skin!

redbean said...

in times gone by we were simpleminded, ignorant and were fed only their news, their views and their agenda and their truth.

things are changing a little.

Matilah_Singapura said...

You can forget about objectivity from these left-wing communists nutters who work for The Guardian, BBC, and CNN etc.

However everyone has a right to insult anyone they choose—this falls under the natural right to freedom of speech. (There are of course people who'll disagree with me. Fuck them)

Therefore it is wise to clarify EXACTLY who your derogatory comments are meant for.

The CNN gaff was just a misunderstanding. Every decent person on the planet already knows the Chinese leadership is made up of thugs, goons and other odious characters. "Motherfuckers" and "cunt-heads"— these are 2 more terms one might use to describe the Chinese leaders. Unfortunately these stellar terms are not allowed to be broadcasted.

Anonymous said...

Redbean, some things never change, even a little.

redbean said...

ya, agree with you anonymous.


everyone of us, as an individual, can feel free to criticise or insult anyone. we are answerable to what we say. this cnn guy is representing a msm, an organisation which claimed to be ojective. ok, let the offended party go against the organisation.

your second point is as foolish as the cnn guy, who claimed that for 50 years, the chinese leadership does not change. let me enlighten you a little on the personality changes. mao, zhao ziyang, hua guofeng, lipeng, deng, jiang zimin, and now hu jintao.

i might have missed out somebody, but there were at least 7 generations of leaders. the present leadership in china are very decent and respectable technocrats, not of the revolutionary generation.

the most obnoxious murderers and liars are those in washington and brown's predecessors, blair and the few dick heads and cuntheads in europe. and your former pm, howard included.

they have bloods in their hands.

someone just posted me this story. a pm was seen talking to bush in a pub. and someone went over to ask what they were discussing. the pm said they were talking about bombing iraq.

the guy's eyes sparkled and said, a lot of people will die. the pm said, 'yes, 10 million iraqis and a bicycle repairman.'

the guy was astounded and exclaimed, 'what bicycle repairman?'

the pm told bush, 'see, i told you nobody cares if you kill 10 million iraqis.'

Anonymous said...

He wouldnt be uttering those things if he had believed them to be mafias.

Matilah_Singapura said...

redbean, I hate to tell you how foolish you are, because although the people in the Chinese leadership have changed, their stance is still communist at the core—treating humans as if they can be disposed of in anyway according to the state apparatus.

You seem to have lost objectivity yourself. I'm a big fan of China's free-wheeling market economy. But if I see people initiating involuntary relationships, like what the Chinese state is doing to Tibet, then I am going to call a "spade" a "spade".

You are entitled to your views, even if they are WRONG by my standards. My standards are the only standards I am concerned about.

I hope I've made that clear and simple enough for you. Understand?


Anonymous said...

The Chinese leadership is slowly changing for the better, but the American leadership is changing for the worse. Look at Bush's Presidency. Isn't he also a goon and a thug. Nothing he says nowadays is credible any more, not to his own people, not to the world at large. And blogs in America like 'the smirking chimp', 'the radical voice' etc etc are having a field day digging up all the dirt on him and his cronies. Of course, like us, the MSM in America tells a difference story.

Matilah_Singapura said...

Yes agreed. The US leadership has been a bucket of shit for over 200 years. The only worthwhile president, and he was far from perfect, was Thomas Jefferson. All the rest who followed needed to be assassinated. Thankfully some were.

However, there is ONE fundamental difference between the USA and China, and that is the US Constitution and Bill of Rights—again, far from perfect, but the tenor of these documents make it LEGAL for the smallest, least powerful citizen to assert his rights against govt tyranny, IF HE SO CHOOSES.

In other words, the FREEDOM, constitutionally guaranteed in free countries like USA, makes all the difference. For #1: you can criticise the govt and take them to court for violating your rights. You cannot do this in China. No-fucking-way. Freedom of Speech—very important. And having it PROTECTED LEGALLY—PRICELESS

Here's a very deft piece from Penn and Teller.

redbean said...


read the information that are available objectively. where on earth can an ordinary citizen sat on her little house in the middle of a big commercial development and insisted on her right not to move when everyone had moved and contruction had begun? if the chinese leaders were the thugs and inhuman beasts that you believe, such things would not have happened.

there are still pockets of mini warlords that the central govt could have missed. mind you, they are just 30 years from their feudal past.

the handling of the tibetan riots was the most humane way a govt can ever do. tibet has been transformed from a backward feudal past of mysticism and slavery by the monkhood. the tibetans are being treated much better than any minorities around the world. they have privileges as a minority.

the political reasons as to why tibet is a part of china or not a part of china, no one is wiser.

if the chinese leadership is that bad, the billions of chinese would have thrown them out, another revolution. look at the support the chinese people are giving to the chinese leaders and defending them will tell you a story that the western world would not want to known.

the few dissidents are not better than our dissidents. how many are there compare to the 1.3 billion happier chinese.

this is objectivity.

Matilah_Singapura said...


> this is objectivity. <

It is total incomprehensible mish-mash of false premises, poor reasoning and lack of logic, but big on subjectivity, emotionalism and compromise.

But hey, if you consider it "objectivity" you're welcome to knock yourself out.

Anonymous said...

As long as one takes side one way or another, there is no objectivity. As long as one sticks to one's own point of view, there is no objectivity. As long as one maintains that he does not care what others say, there is no objectivity. So don't try to bull shit one or the other!

redbean said...

if one says he is against this leader because he killed, and the facts are there as proof. that is some objectivity.

if one says i must against this leader, but did not know why, then that is subjectivity.

for those who hate the present chinese leadership, just tell what they have done to deserve the hate?

Anonymous said...

What have they done ? They have blood on their hands too, just as bush, blair and howard. Ok, so maybe they did not kill as many people as the murderous trio, but one human being wrongly killed is already one too many.

Even if it is true that tibet today is 'better' than before, which in itself is subjective, the fact remains that the Tibetan people DO NOT WANT to be ruled by China. This is the same principle that the PAP is governing by: "We are doing this for your own good, your lives today are better than before" and one which you have been consistent in deriding ie. the Big Brother approach. Why the double standards now ? CPF Life may be good for the people, but fact of the matter is the people don't want it. Get it ? Same principle applies here.

redbean said...

the tibetan issue is not a simple case of what is best for the tibetans. it is a political issue, a territorial sovereignty issue, a security issue, and economic issue.

why do you think the whole western world is championing this cause? because of human rights and tibetan's good? it is for their own strategic interest.

why don't they support the palestinians, the muslims in eastern europe, the tamil tigers, the muslims in southern thailand, in the philippines, in indonesia etc etc

remember falkland? remember vietnam? and now afghans and iraq. it is not about human rights or the rights to the people to want to look after themselves. it is politics and the interests of foreign powers, spheres of influence.

Anonymous said...

China is the one turning it into a political issue and you are trying to twist the discussion. The essence of the issue is China is denying the Tibetan people their right to self-determination. ut hold on a minute. The Chinese goons in Beijing are communist wankers. They don't believe anyone other than them have any rights. Now, it makes sense. Bastards, that's what they are.

redbean said...

my generation of kids watched a lot of cowboy and red indian movies. when the bugle was sounded, the calvary arrived, we stood up and clapped. then the shooting of the red indians begun. and we screamed in delight.

in the 60s, anyone that was branded commie, we detested. commie was bad. so were chinks, gooks and slant eyes. we were too young to know why.

why did the red indians deserved to be shot and killed? why were the commies bad? why were the chinks and gooks and slant eyes detestable?

one day, i looked into the mirror and saw chinks, gooks and slant eyes.

as we grow up, we start to question the mindset that we were programmed to accept as the good and bad, the right and the wrong.

we see things differently and have different views on things. but important thing is to know why.

Matilah_Singapura said...

anon 725:

> As long as one takes side one way or another, there is no objectivity. [etc etc] <

OK. So are YOU being objective or subjective? ;-)

redbean (red indian, commie example)

> why did the red indians deserved to be shot and killed? <

The Tibetan situation is different. The Tibetans were living PEACEFULLY. It was the CHINESE state which invaded Tibet—uninvited guest, aggressor, bully, conqueror.

anon 1237:

> The essence of the issue is China is denying the Tibetan people their right to self-determination <


There you have it: anon 1237's unvarnished objectivity.

You see gentlemen, objectivity is based on the hard, cold, unalterable FACTS of OBJECTIVE reality.

The Chinese state is denying the Tibetan people their RIGHT to self-determination. That is a fact of objective reality.

Whether tis is "good" or "bad" is entirely a separate issue.

For redbean and his post-modern geo-politik mumbo-jumbo, China is "saving" Tibet from a social order based on mysticism and ancient superstition.

I can't speak for the anons who share my position. However, I state my position:

I consider it just simply WRONG to interfere with the lives of peaceful people—even if they might be living in an 'ancient"and "mystical" society. They are not disturbing anyone. They are not abusing their own.

So, leave these people the fuck alone. Really, it is that simple. It is not "complicated".

Anonymous said...

In the old days cowboys were the good guys and indians almost always the bad guys. Why? Very simple. Because the movies made them out to be so. You can't argue with the movies can you?

Anonymous said...

The red indian mumbo-jumbo is just Redbeans way of throwing a red herring when he looks close to or has already lost the argument. The fact that something similar was done previously does not and cannot justify the same thing being done again. He still cannot refute my point that the Chinese goons too have blood on their hands. That is another irrefutable fact.

redbean said...

i am not moralising the issues. morality in this power game played by politicians is a farce.

i am looking at it from realpolitik point of view. tibet and the tibetans are just pawns in a power game. it is good that the indian govt has come to an agreement not to be used as proxies by the western powers and get caught in a bitter war which they have nothing to gain but to lose.

from their own national interest point of view, the chinese will never let tibet come under the influence of any country, the same way they will not allow taiwan to be independent.

human rights, morality, are all hogwash.

read the invasion of tibet and the slaughtering of the tibetan soldiers by commander younghusband.

tibet is a part of china. the dalai lama too admitted this. he is asking only for more autonomy, more freedom to religious practice and the tibetan way of life.

free tibet is a different issue and will never be. all the major countries recognise tibet as a part of china, including the usa and european countries.

the status of tibet today got nothing to do with the present chinese leadership. tibet was conquered and ruled by the yuan and ching dynasties. the yuan were mongols and ching, manchus. both assimilated and became part of china.

Anonymous said...

cowboy n red indian movies may appear to be just for pleasure, but they are also an aparatus for indoctrination purpose.

why some pigs are nowadays reared as pets in the west? obviously they'd learnt to pick up a trick or two, like crawling or crouching. they think they are dogs. but pigs are pigs, when the pen is empty, they will also go on the platter.

redbean said...

hi anonymous, this is cheem man.

Anonymous said...

this issue has an obvious undercurrent of a racial contention, yet there are people of oriental origin who choose to suck up to the whites. If you could remember in some of the cowboy - red indian movies, the calvaries will get the mowhawks to fight with them against the apache or the sioux. eventually every indians lost in this stratagic scheme.

Matilah_Singapura said...

It is now 1:30. Time to get to Chinatown where the Olympic torch will be at 3pm


Yesterday my client alerted me to the fact that any foreigners caught protesting the Olympic flame in Bangkok will have their visas cancelled and deported.

Ah. Therefore I must not get caught. :)

redbean said...

there are probably two more legs where the protesters will have the support of the local govt to protest violently, ie oz and japan.

the rest of the asian, latin american and african countries are smart enough not to be tools of the western conspiracy.

bangkok is a non evet. so was pakistan and india. i doubt it will be an issue in malaysia. the eastern malaysian states may also ask for separation. penang, kelantan, perlis, kedah and malacca can also do so.

indonesia, it will set a precedence for the achenese to break away, the riaus as well. and many of the island could also do so.

Matilah_Singapura said...

redbean puts his reputation in jeopardy when he makes statements like

> where the protesters will have the support of the local govt to protest violently <

You re so wrong. WE in the west have the right to peaceful assembly which is the govt's JOB to PROTECT, i.e. uphold our constitutional rights.

Nowhere have I ever read is there a statute which states that govt must "support" violent protests.

Anonymous said...

hiaz, some asians are so very dim sighted or they simply have radical defect of their character. the west is so very huge a place, go stay there and live a good, free life then. why mire in this inhumane region.

redbean said...

the west has been a great place for the last few centuries and will still be so for those who are able or the very rich. even the rich arabs or people of more colourful skins will be very popular there, having parties with the rich and famous.

asia and africa were ravaged by the west for centuries and are picking themselves up from the debris that was left. when they are poor and weak, there is not much gracefulness or kindness that can be talked about. a hungry stomach will turn man into animals.

regardless of political systems, when a country is well governed, the people will feel proud to be associated with the country and will stand up in defence of that country. despite all the shit being thrown at china, it is heartening and revealing to see the chinese standing up for their country. it only shows that their lives and living conditions are getting better.

as long as there is peace and nations are allowed to bring economic well being to their people, the rest are just politics, juggling for power, control and influence.

Matilah_Singapura said...

Sure. I agree with most of that. I'd be the #1 supporter of China's move toward a better cuntry by adopting capitalism so quickly. China is BLESSED because it doesn't have to resolve stupid Christian conflicting beliefs about self-interests and making money—the beliefs which have fucked up and continue to fuck up western civilization. To the Chinese "to be rich is to be glorious".

However, I will call a spade a spade—if they're fucking up and oppressing people.

Same with my criticism of western society: that Chrisitian BULLSHIT has got to go.

The problem of the Renaissance was that the most of the thinkers way back then tried to RECONCILE Christianity with individual rights, private property, and private enterprise (self-directed action, by one's self-interest to increase one's wealth—considered "greed" and 'selfishness" by Christian doctrine)

So there's always been this CLASH between the so-called "individual"—driven by his self-interest and REASON, and the underlying mystical faith-based, unquestionable "higher authority" which commands you to be "your brother's keeper".

The so-called 'developed" west is still mystical and beholden to an ancient mind-controlling/mind-negation code that can be interpreted anyway to suit political ends.

When American and UK go to war, they have "god on their side". They'll drop bombs on kids, plant landmines, fire depleted uranium ordnance... and and call such actions "just" wars.

To me a "god" that encourages this sort of "justice" is one muderous motherfucker. I don't want anything to do with him, or his family.