According to an ancient Chinese proverb, “A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.” Very often, we focus not on those initial small steps but on giant leaps, often undertaken by government. Think, for example, of Franklin D. Roosevelt signing Social Security into law in 1935, a giant step that changed the lives of the elderly. Or Lyndon B. Johnson’s signature on the Medicare law 30 years later that did the same. Or the big steps contained in the just-passed American Rescue Plan, which, among other things, aims to reduce childhood poverty by 50 percent . Each of these big steps impacts all of our lives. But sometimes it’s the small steps we take that change the country in profound ways. In 2008, 56 percent of Americans believed that gay marriages should not be recognized as valid . That same year, 52 percent of California voters voted to ban gay marriage, even as 61 percent backed Barack Obama Barack Hussein Obama Obama, Clinton reflect on Mondale's legacy Polls suggest House Democrats will buck midterm curse and add to their ranks Boehner: Mass shootings 'embarrassing our country' MORE for president. Four years later, Vice President Joe Biden endorsed gay marriage during a memorable appearance on “ Meet the Press .” A few days later, Obama declared his position had “evolved.” Today, 67 percent say gay marriages should be recognized — an all-time high. Millions of first steps led to profound change. Today another series of small steps are altering how we live and act. For the first time, the Gallup Organization reports that membership in a Christian church, synagogue or mosque has fallen from 61 percent in 2010 to 47 percent. Meanwhile, those who profess no religious preference grew from 8 percent to 21 percent over the last decade. And among those who do express a religious preference, the number of congregants has declined from 73 percent to 60 percent. ADVERTISEMENT One reason for the empty pews is ...
Chinese american culture
The unappreciated power of Radio Free Asia: Telling the truth to China’s people
As March ended, the BBC’s Beijing correspondent, John Sudworth , left China following escalating harassment by the Communist Party there. Sudworth, a nine-year veteran of the BBC’s China desk, since 2018 has investigated the Communist Party’s genocide in Xinjiang, publishing multiple long-form pieces on the concentration and forced labor camps that China has built to persecute Muslim Uyghurs. The Chinese foreign ministry expressed shock at Sudworth’s departure, claiming that he had not informed the authorities of his intention to leave or explained his reasoning. Of course, the harassment continued up until Sudworth and his family boarded their flight for democratic, capitalist Taiwan — Chinese plainclothes police officers followed them through the departure hall , observing them up until they boarded their aircraft. Sudworth is not the first journalist to provoke the Chinese Communist Party’s ire. In March 2020 — not coincidentally, precisely as the COVID-19 pandemic escalated in the Western world — China expelled The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and The Washington Post from the mainland, and issued intrusive regulations designed to limit and pressure Voice of America and Time reporters still in the country. The Party-State’s behavior is no surprise. Authoritarian regimes fear criticism: A free media is a mortal threat. Foreign reporters are particularly dangerous. While a dictatorship or oligarchy may harass or even jail foreign correspondents, their countries of origin are unlikely to ignore secret police pressure. Unlike domestic reporters, foreign nationals cannot “disappear.” ADVERTISEMENT But the Chinese Party-State harbors an extreme antipathy towards foreign reporters even when compared to its tyrannical cousins. Indeed, its visceral hatred can be traced to the Soviet Union’s collapse. The Chinese Communist Party’s upper echelons still recall the terror of 1989. The Tiananmen Square massacre was a formative event for the ...
The breakaway European Super League is all about big money
London (CNN Business) A dozen of Europe's top soccer clubs have agreed to form a breakaway league , producing howls of indignation from the sport's governing bodies, the elected leaders of France and Britain, and legions of their own fans . Why make such an unpopular move? Money, of course. The announcement of the European Super League on Sunday has kicked off a fierce power struggle that could upend the economics of European football. The battle pits the billionaire owners of the league's 12 founding teams, which are among the richest clubs in the world, and Wall Street's biggest bank, against pretty much everyone else. Aleksander Čeferin, president of the Union of European Football Associations (UEFA), told reporters on Monday that the breakaway clubs are "fueled purely by greed." 'Important we stand our ground': Players and fans condemn European Super League "Super League is only about money, money of the dozen, I don't want to call them dirty dozen — but UEFA is about developing football, and about financing what should be financed, that our football, our culture, survives — and some people don't understand it," Čeferin said. The founding clubs will be permanent members of the European Super League (ESL), a structure that resembles Major League Baseball or the National Football League and one that promises eye-popping paydays from media rights and merchandising. Read More But it runs counter to the traditions of European football, with its roots in industrial working class neighborhoods, where even the poorest clubs are promoted to top leagues if they win and no amount of money can protect rich teams from relegation if they lose. Six English clubs — Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool, Manchester City, Manchester United ( MANU ) and Tottenham Hotspur — have said they will join the league, along with AC Milan, Inter Milan and Juventus ( JVTSF ) from Italy and Spanish clubs ...
We need laws to stop gun violence, but we need to stop glorifying it, too
Eight innocent people were killed Friday at an Indianapolis FedEx facility, the latest in a deadly string of mass shootings across the country. There have been at least 156 of them already this year. Not since the Brady bill has a meaningful and lasting gun control measure passed Congress. That was 1993. Since then, hundreds of mass shootings have taken the lives of thousands of Americans. Nearly every congressional attempt since has failed. U.S. lawmakers couldn’t even agree on extending a ban on assault weapons and allowed it to expire. Ninety percent of Americans support increased background checks yet Congress sits on its hands. A key reason: the influence the gun lobby has over many U.S lawmakers. The National Rifle Association (NRA) grades politicians on their stance on guns and skillfully uses the grades to influence its members in key elections. It’s why we often hear the “now is not the time to debate gun control” (or something similar) mantra from pro-gun politicians after major shooting events, often citing the mental illness of the shooter — rather than the weapon itself — for causing the devastation left behind. Lawmakers likely don’t want to upset the NRA and their constituents who helped get them elected to office. ADVERTISEMENT Ironically, the opposite happened nearly three decades ago when Congress passed the Brady bill after President Reagan’s would-be assassin, who left James Brady permanently injured , was found not guilty by reason of insanity. The strategy of today’s gun control opponents after each mass shooting is to buy time, offer meaningless platitudes and do nothing. They know that in just a few weeks, if they can just hold the line, eventually a new crisis will occupy America’s attention span. They’ll be relieved of the tough questions and freed from the pressure of acting against the pro-gun special interest groups that fund their campaigns and own their votes. Last year — during a pandemic — ...
Japan needs to stand stronger with the US to defend Taiwan — and itself
China constantly seeks out ways to complain about perceived slights and provocations as pretexts for its own aggressive behavior. It is both victimization paranoia and a form of information warfare that keeps the West on the defensive. True to form, it objected even to the innocuous reference to Taiwan at last week’s summit meeting between President Biden Joe Biden Obama, Clinton reflect on Mondale's legacy Biden, Harris commend Mondale in paving the way for female VP Mondale in last message to staff: 'Joe in the White House certainly helps' MORE and Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga. Neither leader’s prepared remarks even mentioned Taiwan, out of deference to the Japanese side. Biden’s opening statement was modest: “Prime Minister Suga and I affirmed our ironclad support for U.S.-Japanese alliance and for our shared security. We committed to working together to take on the challenges from China, and on issues like the East China Sea, the South China Sea, as well as North Korea to ensure a future of a free and open Indo-Pacific.” Yet, a Reuters story the day before the meeting, was headlined “Biden, Suga poised to present a united front on Taiwan as China steps up pressure.” Citing “a senior U.S. administration official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity,” it said the two leaders “are expected to agree on a joint statement on the Chinese-claimed but democratically ruled island at Biden’s first in-person meeting with a foreign leader.” ADVERTISEMENT They did agree on a statement, but it said only this about Taiwan: “We underscore the importance of peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait and encourage the peaceful resolution of cross-Strait issues.” Given the heightened tensions over China’s escalating threats and military moves against Taiwan and the implications for Japan’s own security, it might be characterized as minimally resolute language. The formulation is virtually identical to a U.S.-Japan statement ...
