but US networks don't have an obligation to learn some Chinese pronunciation technique. To the average viewer, they did, and are doing, just fine.

fair enough, though NBC has shown human interest pieces on other athletes. There was one on Usain Bolt, on Liu, the chinese hurdler, on the German gymnast who moved from Russia to Germany for her son's leukemia treatment, etc. outlined in posts below.

those are a hell of a lot more profiles of foreign athletes than you'll see on any other country's olympic broadcasts.

That sounds like america-hating liberal speak to me. wink wink

I agree that there should be a little bit less human interest stuff. But the content is pretty good. And pretty fair too. There have been quite a few foreign athletes profiled. And actually, it's really funny to hear people complain because there have been more foreign human interest stories this year then I ever remember seeing. I don't agree with not seeing other events. Unless you don't have cable, you have no excuse. I watched women's soccer (no, the US wasn't one of the teams playing), boxing (also sans US), and a bunch of other things on CNBC, USA, Oxygen. And not to mention the internet. There are ample opportunities to see non-mainstream/US-dominated events.

seriously, what planet are you from?

It pains me to realize that people like you exist. Why are you so angry that all the hard work of Americans is rewarded (either by having the largest GDP, a stable government, a fucking job and place to live for your sorry ass, or a gold medal)? You sound like a typical starry-eyed, idealistic liberal who has never lived a day in the real world. Seriously, I hate to sound like a conservative but if you don't like it here, get the fuck out. See what grand opportunities await you outside the US. Go ahead, test those waters. Idiot.

The left has gone so far left that I sound like a Republican. That's truly sad, and precisely why "Democrats" can't win national elections.

I finished the first email, matching quotes to her thesis found on Politico, and I have to say, Mr. Madden, I'm very underwhelmed by your "debunking." I don't recall a single factually inaccurate statement in the entire email, aside from the mystery fellow black classmate. You merely argue that things are taken out of context, etc, when, frankly, they don't appear to be. In fact, you are engaging in some of the same techniques the chain emailer uses. For example, you put the following statement "Michelle Obama stated in her thesis that to 'Whites at Princeton, it often seems as if, to them, she will always be Black first...' However, it was reported by a fellow black classmate, 'If those 'Whites at Princeton' really saw Michelle as one who always would 'be Black first,' it seems that she gave them that impression'." all in quotes, and then only "debunk" half of it, giving the impression that the first quote was also not in the thesis, when it was, and it is particularly damaging to Mrs. Obama. Really, a piss-poor job at trying to explain away damaging Obama material. Another poster mentioned the anti-White sermons the Obama sat through in church for 20 years. This is just more evidence of that type of attitude. Where there's smoke, there's probably a fire. That being said, Obama is clearly the better choice, but Mr. Madden, you really look like a partisan hack when you write this kind of stuff.

The email states:

"Michele Obama clearly has a chip on her shoulder. Not only does she see separate black and white societies in America, but she elevates black over white in her world. Here is another passage that is uncomfortable and ominous in meaning: 'There was no doubt in my mind that as a member of the black community, I am obligated to this community and will utilize all of my present and future resources to benefit the black community first and foremost.' What is Michelle Obama planning to do with her future resources if she's first lady that will elevate black over white in America?"

This is one of the more damaging statements from the email. You "debunk" this with:

"This isn't particularly subtle, even by the standards of the e-mail. The message is almost as clear as in the rumors, which the campaign denied, that some tape exists of Michelle Obama ranting about "whitey" -- it's basically, "watch out, white people." (And cue up the image of Obama with an Afro and a machine gun, burning an American flag as she fist-bumps her husband in the Oval Office.)"

How is that "debunking" that passage of the email? What's wrong with that passage, other than it's incredibly damaging to the Obama camp?

Point out one fucking inaccuracy in the first email, aside from the unsourced mystery fellow classmate.

That's what I thought.

This isn't just me looking at the girls and thinking, "Wow, they don't look 16."

www.nytimes.com/2008/07/27/sports/olympics/27gymnasts.html?hp

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/world/s_583045.html

Rules are rules.

why wait? Just leave now. Consider it a preemptive strike.

Did you read the NY Times article. There are numerous articles from CHINESE STATE RUN newspapers stating the girls birth dates, which DO NOT match those on their passports. That is suspicious. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with how they look.