The Heavyweight Championship of Hypocrisy: U.S. vs. China

By Ari Rutenberg
Editor

Despite both of these contenders noted abilities to push the boundaries of hypocrisy,they are always ready to amaze. No matter what feats they have previously accomplished, their desire to seek out the limits of human reason and comprehension is unmatched. This week's bout comes by way of two recent statements:

First we hear from the reigning champion U.S.(from Yahoo! News):

"In any country, if you don't have countervailing institutions, the power of any one president is problematic for democratic development," Rice told reporters after meeting with human-rights activists.

"I think there is too much concentration of power in the Kremlin. I have told the Russians that. Everybody has doubts about the full independence of the judiciary. There are clearly questions about the independence of the electronic media and there are, I think, questions about the strength of the Duma," said Rice, referring to the Russian parliament." - statement by U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on Vladimir Putin's consolidation of executive power.

Now we hear from #1 contender China (from The Guardian):
"We are furious," the communist party secretary for Tibet, Zhang Qingli, told reporters. "If the Dalai Lama can receive such an award, there must be no justice or good people in the world." when discussing the Dalai Lama's visit to the U.S. and the Congressional Gold Medal he is to receive.


The Bush administration is blind. It cannot see that while the constitution sits in shambles and Dick Cheney pushes his dictatorial unitary executive theory, which requires no knowledge of or respect for the Constitution. At least Putin changes his when it doesn't suit him. Why is it so scary when Putin does it (legally), and completely innocent and natural when they do it (illegally)? It is, as I said, because they are blind and do not even recognize, much less acknowledge, their own fallibility.

And the Chinese, specifically Zhang Qingli, are out of their minds. Maybe when the only media in China was CCTV they could get away with such crap in their country. But there has never been the time when the rest of us were blinded to what happened in Tibet. To pronounce the world free of justice and goodness because a kind, peaceful old man who has never advocated violence against China, or ever asked for anything more than religious freedom for his people. For the government which occupied this man's country and expelled him to call such an advocate for all that is good in human kind, in essence, a bad man. They could at least be honest and say it is not politically convenient for us. But it simply makes them seem ridiculous to malign and slander such a man.

So my question is, who wins?