discontent in Tibet regarding rule from Beijing. I just don't have any verifiable way of determining its extent and I just don't trust the Western press on this one, not by a long shot. And I certainly won't take Richard Gere's word for it. I also note that the Chinese press tends to play up the PRC's support for ethnic minorities in the PRC and have no way to evaluate that claim either, really. Surely the truth lies somewhere, but where exactly does it lie? (And my general operating principle - if the originating press is english-language, it almost certainly lies to some extent...)

I also recognize this may be attacked as naive, but as far as I know, the operating governing principle in Beiing is still Socialism with Chinese Characteristics and, if emphasis on markets rather than command and control has taken place, it's also a fact that the Beijing government actively governs with a view towards not just social stability, but also equality and fairness. Whereas in the west discussions of gini coefficients and growing income disparities make the glibertarian elites roll their eyes, these considerations are taken very very seriously, still, in Beijing.

As long as the party hasn't changed its name and the army is still called the People's Liberation Army, I'm going to err on the side of naivete and continue to believe that they are, in the large survey of history, on our side.

That, anyhow, explains what might appear to some to be my apparently curious position here.

The Hun is always either at your throat or at your feet. Winston Churchill