I won’t try to steal the thunder from this excellent post. Suffice it to say I was tempted to do a “reverse fisking” of it — take it apart line by line and say how good each line is. Be sure to take a look.

The article she (he?) he links to — Let’s stop abetting dictatorship in Beijing — is essential reading for CCP watchers. (I may do a separate post on it later tonight if I have the energy.)

A lengthy Newsweek article paints a dramatic picture of the growth of Christianity in China and the work missionaries are performing to swell the ranks — and to get around the governemnt’s repressive policies toward religion.

All across China, more and more people are turning to Jesus Christ as their Lord and savior. The numbers have been growing for years, encouraged by the personal freedoms that have slowly accompanied the country’s economic reforms. Protestantism—and especially evangelicalism—appeals to many Chinese in rural areas that have been left out of China’s economic miracle. Now China has at least 45 million Christians, the majority of whom are Protestant, according to Chinese academics. Western observers say the numbers are much higher. Dennis Balcombe, a preacher from California who has made hundreds of mission trips to China since the late 1970s, and Western researchers put the number at closer to 90 million.

Either way, the movement now has a momentum of its own. Centuries after Westerners flocked to the Middle Kingdom in search of souls, Chinese missionaries have taken over from their Western mentors and are proselytizing directly. And for the first time, they are making serious plans to spread the good word beyond their borders. “I wouldn’t be surprised if Christianity has grown faster in China than anywhere else in the world in the last 20 years,” says Daniel Bays, a historian of Chinese Christianity at Calvin College in Michigan.

The religious upwelling presents a serious challenge to the Chinese Communist Party, which still allows only atheists in its ranks and has always viewed religion, especially Western-imported Christianity, as a potential source of dissent. The government forbids evangelicalism and requires Christians to worship in officially sanctioned churches, but is struggling to keep up with the skyrocketing numbers. Already there are about 6 million members of the official Roman Catholic Church and 15 million Protestants. But because of government limits, there’s a severe shortage of clergy and churches. In Beijing alone, people pack the 100 existing official churches, overflowing into basements to watch sermons on closed-circuit television.

The article looks at how the bravery of activist Christians “terrifies” the CCP, which sees Christian churches as a major factor in the fall of Communism in Europe. With the Falun Gong effectively silenced in China, it’s now the Christians who are giving the party nightmares. The reporters note the supreme irony of this attitude:

A flourishing church could solve a lot of problems for China’s leaders—in some places officials look the other way as churches open orphanages, elder-care homes and other badly needed services. But even if Beijing doesn’t allow real religious freedom, Chinese Christians will continue to spread the word, at home and abroad.

I guess it would be too logical for the CCP to try to benefit from this movement, actually using it to ease some of China’s huge burdens, instead of worrying about how to supress it.

It’s fascinating to see how different commentators are interpreting the abuses carried out by Americans against Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison. I’d just like to contrast what three right-leaning bloggers/pundits had to say about it. They are in different camps, but they all suffered a blow when this story broke, as they were all strongly in favor of the war and claimed America went into Iraq with a high moral calling, a calling we would live up to.

From Little Green Footballs (caution — brown people not welcome):

I’m really surprised (and increasingly irked) at how widespread the label of “torture” is becoming, to describe what took place at the Abu Ghraib prison. I expect this stuff from places like CounterPunch and Indymedia and buzzflash, but even some people who ought to know better are starting to use the term. As despicable as the acts were that these MPs are accused of, this is not torture.

If you believe otherwise, I’d like to know how you can equate the Abu Ghraib mistreatment with Saddam Hussein’s rape rooms, or with the iron maiden used by Uday to torture the Iraqi soccer team if they lost, or with the bastinado (caning on the soles of the feet) that was a regular punishment for Saddam’s underlings if they fell into disfavor, or with the countless acts of sheer horror that are perpetrated every day under Arab regimes.

From the prince of darkness, Rush Limbaugh (via Pandagon):

Exactly my point! This is no different than what happens at the skull and bones initiation and we’re going to ruin people’s lives over it and we’re going to hamper our military effort, and then we are going to really hammer them because they had a good time. You know, these people are being fired at every day. I’m talking about people having a good time, these people, you ever heard of emotional release? You’ve heard of need to blow some steam off?

And finally, from Andrew Sullivan, who begins by listing the abuses — the tortures — highlighted in the Taguba report (and many certainly do fall under the category of torture). He’s to be congratulated for actually facing up to what happened instead of minimizing the crimes under a cloak of generalities. He then comments.

Like most of you, I’ve had a hard time coming to grips with the appalling abuses perpetrated by some under U.S. command in, of all places, Abu Ghraib. We can make necessary distinctions between this abuse and the horrifying torture of Saddam’s rule, but they cannot obliterate the sickening feeling in the pit of the stomach. Those of us who believe in the moral necessity of this war should be, perhaps, the most offended. These goons have defiled something important and noble; they have wrought awful damage on Western prestige; they have tarnished the vast majority of servicemembers who do an amazing job; and they have done something incontrovertibly disgusting and wrong. By the same token, this has been – finally – exposed. We have a chance to show the Muslim and Arab world how a democracy deals with this. So far, the punishments meted out have not been severe enough; and the public apology not clear and definitive enough. It seems to me that some kind of reckoning has to be made by the president himself. No one below him can have the impact of a presidential statement of apology to the Iraqi and American people. Bush should give one. He should show true responsibility and remorse, which I have no doubt he feels. I can think of no better way than to go to Abu Ghraib itself, to witness the place where these abuses occurred and swear that the culprits will be punished and that it will not happen again. It would be a huge gesture. But frankly there is something tawdry about a president at a time like this campaigning in the Midwest in a bus. His entire war’s rationale has been called into question. The integrity of the United States has been indelibly harmed on his watch. He must account for it. Soon. And why not in Iraq?

Sullivan’s impatience and frustration with his former idol, George W. is palpabe. Rush Limbaugh’s blithe dismissal of the whole thing as horseplay is despicable. LGF’s attempt to minimize it by saying, “Well, Saddam did worse things,” is foolish and cowardly; didn’t we go there on a moral high ground?

On Fox News, Sean Hannity, who I’m inclined to say is the most dangerous man on television today, also bristled at the word “torture,” though he wouldn’t spell out what his definition of the word is. Somehow I suspect that for Hannity it’s only torture when a brown person does it to a white person. When we’re doing it, it becomes “lack of familiarity with the Geneva Convention” or shit like that.

President Bush mysteriously changed the name of this week’s campaign tour from the “Winning the War on Terror” tour to “Yes, America Can.”

Bush is against a 9/11 commission; then he’s for it.

Bush is against an Iraq WMD investigation; then he’s for it.

Bush is against nation building; then he’s for it.

Bush is against deficits; then he’s for them.

Bush is for free trade; then he’s for tariffs on steel; then he’s against them again.

Bush is against the U.S. taking a role in the Israeli Palestinian conflict; then he pushes for a “road map” and a Palestinian State.

Bush is for states right to decide on gay marriage, then he is for changing the constitution.

Bush first says he’ll provide money for first responders (fire, police, emergency), then he doesn’t.

Bush first says that ‘help is on the way’ to the military … then he cuts benefits

Bush-“The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. Bush-“I don’t know where he is. I have no idea and I really don’t care.

Bush claims to be in favor of the environment and then secretly starts drilling on Padre Island.

Bush talks about helping education and increases mandates while cutting funding.

Bush first says the U.S. won’t negotiate with North Korea. Now he will

Bush goes to Bob Jones University. Then say’s he shouldn’t have.

Bush said he would demand a U.N. Security Council vote on whether to sanction military action against Iraq. Later Bush announced he would not call for a vote

Bush said the “mission accomplished” banner was put up by the sailors. Bush later admits it was his advance team.

Bush was for fingerprinting and photographing Mexicans who enter the US. Bush after meeting with Pres. Fox, he’s against it.

First, Coalition Provisional Authority chief administrator L. Paul Bremer was adamant that U.S. troops were going to arrest firebrand Shiite Muslim cleric Moqtada Sadr. Now, they are not.

Second, President George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld were adamant that the United States was not going to the United Nations to seek more support in Iraq at the expense of delegating any authority there. But in his nationally televised press conference last week, the president took pains to praise the mission of U.N. envoy Lakhdar Brahimi and emphasize his determination to back it to the hilt.

Indeed, on Monday Bush named Ambassador to the U.N. John Negroponte as his first ambassador to an at least titular independent Iraq after the scheduled handover of sovereignty on June 30. This move has also been widely taken as a sign that eschewing previous Pentagon-run policies, Bush is finally prepared to let the world body have more of a say in helping restore that country.

Third, in his 2002 State of the Union speech, Bush boldly condemned Iran along with Iraq as a fellow member of the so-called “Axis of Evil.” Yet now, Bush is eagerly courting Iran as a key facilitator in negotiations with the Shiite rebels in Iraq. Washington has eagerly sought Iran’s good offices to get hostages released in Iraq and to reach a compromise consensus in dealing with the militias in the Shiite holy city of Najaf.

Fourth, after the murder and mutilation of four U.S. civilian employees in Fallujah in central Iraq a few weeks ago, U.S. officials in the country were adamant that overwhelming force would be applied to go into Fallujah and impose law and order, U.S. style. But now, U.S. forces are holding back from Fallujah and U.S. Marine forces have been given the go-ahead to return to their old “softly-softly” policy that senior officials angrily repudiated after the killings.

Fifth, U.S. military commanders gave a grim ultimatum to rebel forces in Fallujah to surrender all their weapons or be crushed. But now that ultimatum has already been watered down. Only heavy weapons are to be surrendered. The rebels will be allowed to retain their light weapons, including automatic rifles. That is a crucial concession to any militia or guerrilla force as possession of such weapons gives them the power to continue to enforce or even extend their political control over their subject population.

Sixth, the Pentagon and the CPA surrounded the Shiite holy city of Najaf with 2,500 troops. But then they reined those troops in and for the moment are doing nothing with them.

To some degree, it can be argued that these flip flops represent a long overdue and welcome concession to reality by an administration that in its Iraq policy had previously had never exhibited any. Wars are not won through fearlessly jutting one’s jaw out and refusing to acknowledge messy, complex and rapidly changing realities. They are only lost that way. Often, the most important function of stirring rhetoric in war is precisely the opposite: to mask otherwise embarrassing but absolutely essential changes in policy demanded by the dynamic of unanticipated and rapidly changing events.

Additionally, needlessly further antagonizing the rapidly growing Sunni and Shiite guerrilla forces in Iraq is the most dangerous mistake U.S. senior officials can make at this point in time.

George W. Bush has unambiguously flip-flipped on the crucial issue of fiscal policy (used to oppose budget deficits, then said they didn’t matter when trying to pass his 2003 tax cut, and now may or may not oppose them), foreign policy (used to favor being “humble” and avoiding nation-building, now favors arrogance and inept nation building). He opposed McCain-Feingold during the campaign and then signed it. As governor of Texas he opposed an HMO Patients’ Bill of Rights then after it passed over his veto he tried to claim credit for it on the 2000 campaign trail, but once in office he tried (successfully) to get it killed in the House, but indicated that he would sign it if it passed.

Making frequent comparisons to Nazi Germany, Beijing University professor Jiao Guobiao continues to blast China’s propaganda machine for censorship he says has covered up government ineptitude and has been used to persecute the populace for more than 50 years.

Mr Jiao called for the abolition of the state’s propaganda machinery, which he said was guilty of shielding corrupt officials and whitewashing the country’s darkest moments.

“The character of its work is the complete opposite of that of a modern civilisation,” he wrote. “Where else can you find propaganda departments? Not in the US, the UK or Europe. But you did find them in Nazi Germany, where Goebbels said ‘a lie that is repeated 1000 times becomes the truth’.”

Ignoring the caution that usually typifies public criticism of state institutions in China, Mr Jiao dished out the sort of vitriol for which the propaganda department was once famous.

“Their censorship orders are totally groundless, absolutely arbitrary, at odds with the basic standards of civilisation, and as counter to scientific common sense as witches and wizardry,” he wrote. “They take money from the parties referred to in reports. They distort the media’s sense of right and wrong and justice. They are killing the constitution.”

He lays the blame primarily on Jiang Zemin’s henchmen who control the propaganda apparatus. But he also expresses deep dissatisfaction with Hu Jintao, who had raised people’s hopes last year with his self-styled “man of the people” reformist image.

One has to wonder how long Jiao will be permitted to speak so freely. Luckily, his story has now been told in newspapers (and web sites) all over the world, making him a celebrity. The eyes of the world are on him now, and China has already shown that it’s reluctant to take action against figure who have won world-wide sympathy. (Recall the release a few months ago of Liu Di, aka “Stainless Steel Mouse.”)

As the article says, such vocal critics are usually jailed. This could be an important test, but right now the outcome is anybody’s guess. Remember, Mr. Hu, the whole world is watching.

Related post here.

This is certainly encouraging:

About 80 gays and lesbians from China, Hong Kong and Taiwan had taken four days off work and spent hundreds of dollars to attend the first Tongzhi Conference held in Hong Kong since 1999.

….

Donning rainbow necklaces on which they hung their name badges, the attendees listened to lectures on coming out, safe sex and same-sex dating, among others. These are routine topics for gays and lesbians in the West, but for this audience — mostly people from mainland China who were able to travel to Hong Kong because of recently relaxed travel restrictions — the gathering is an important, if primitive, step toward earning equality.

The article describes young Chinese people coming out to their parents, and how the Internet has provided the medium for gays in China to communicate with and meet one another. There are now more than 300 gay web sites in China, according to the article.

I found this especially moving:

It might have sounded like Homosexuality 101 to American ears, but when Rager Shen told his story, his listeners were stunned.

“I came out to my mother recently,” the 21-year-old from Shanghai said plaintively to an audience of about 40 other Chinese tongzhi, or homosexuals. “I always wanted to tell her that I am gay, and, finally, I did it. She was very upset, but I told her the purpose was so that gays like myself could someday live more easily. She has calmed down a lot now.”

Many sat in awe as Shen described his experience, insisting later that they could never do such a thing. Others pestered the slight, spiky-haired college freshman in a bright orange polo shirt about whether his act was selfish and whether he had merely unbur- dened himself by burdening his mother.

Shen argued that despite her anguished response — she confined him to their home and confiscated his cell phone for a time — he is “quite certain I did the right thing because she is my mother, and I want her to know me.”

In a country where bad news about censorship is only getting worse, it’s extremely encouraging to witness the progress that’s being made in gay rights. It was only three years ago that the government took homosexuality off its list of mental illnesses, and things are continuing to improve, slowly but steadily.

Related post: The plight of China’s gays

Check out Kevin Drum’s post. You have to see the game the WSJ plays with a loaded and highly misleading “quote.” It’s an assault on journalistic ethics and a sign of how desperate they are to tear Kerry down. I’m sure it gave James Taranto a hearty chuckle.

Get ready to witness one of the most insidious, calculated and choreographed smear campaigns ever, as a group of Vietnam vets prepares to denounce Kerry as a coward and a liar who is unfit to serve. This is a replay of a similar scheme from three decades earlier, with the same cast of characters leading the charge.

John Kerry’s old nemesis – a fellow Vietnam vet picked by President Richard Nixon to discredit Kerry 30 years ago – is resurfacing today to declare him “unfit to be commander in chief.”

John O’Neill, who succeeded Kerry as commander of the same Navy Swift boat, will announce the formation of a new political group called Swift Boat Veterans For Truth, dedicated to undermining Kerry.

O’Neill says he has a letter signed by hundreds of Navy vets, including many who served with Kerry, saying he is not commander-in-chief material. O’Neill’s main beef is Kerry’s charge that U.S. troops committed atrocities in Vietnam.

“Our mission is to provide solid factual information relating to Mr. Kerry’s abbreviated tour of duty,” he wrote.

Kerry campaign spokesman Chad Clanton said, “The group behind this is the same group that smeared Sen. John McCain of Arizona in the 2000 Republican presidential primary.”

The new attack comes as Kerry launched $25 million in new ads stressing his Bronze Star and Silver Star and featuring a veteran whose life he saved.

Bush has spent $40 million on ads tagging Kerry as soft on defense, and Republicans have orchestrated a wide-ranging attack on his Vietnam record – including questioning the three Purple Hearts that sent him home early.

While it may seem counterintuitive to go after Kerry’s war service, the tactic worked against McCain. Sources in Bush’s 2000 operation said the idea was never to sway voters but to infuriate the candidate.

McCain reacted furiously in 2000, helping to derail his campaign. Kerry, meanwhile, was reduced to angry stammering when challenged about his medals on ABC last week.

O’Neill, a Houston lawyer, is emerging to spearhead the new attack, just as he did for the Nixon White House in the 1970s.

Nixon’s secret tapes captured him fretting with aides about the political threat Kerry posed and plotting to “destroy” him. O’Neill, an articulate young vet who had criticized Kerry’s anti-war speeches, was invited to the White House in 1971 and encouraged to debate Kerry.

“Give it to him, give it to him,” Nixon told O’Neill.

O’Neill says he is not coordinating with the White House this time around.

This is a brilliant tactic, in a depraved sort of way. Don’t go after the enemy’s perceived weakenesses — no, instead go straight for his perceived strengths and then cut him off at the knees.

Kerry’s trump card is his stellar military service, which cannot be questioned. Well, it can be, but only with the most scurrilous of methods: Having compulsive liar Karen Hughs say how “troubled” she is by quetstions of whether Kerry threw down medals or ribbons in protest of the Vietnam War 30 years ago; raising asinine questions about whether he deserved his purple hearts; accusing him of betraying his fellow soldiers when he did no such thing, etc.

Despite the wave of assaults, Kerry’s record cannot be so easily blackened. So you’ve got to hit harder, meaner, in a way that gets the message across to voters. What better way than having a group of other Vietnam vets all stand together and rip Kerry’s record, denounce him as a man and as a leader, and declare him unit for office? These guys were all eyewitnesses to Kerry’s incompetence. How can they all be wrong?

Or at least that’s what they’ll try to convey. They’ll do it well. They’ll all be “on-message,” as Karen Hughes and Karl Rove have taught them to be. It will be a gang bang the likes of which we’ve rarely seen in American politics. And it will illustrate once more just how low the Bush campaign people can go, and how free of moral scruples they are. And tragically, it just may work. (Never mind that so many other vets have described Kerry as a true leader and hero.)

Too bad that this type of character assassination is status quo for Bush & Co.

McCain must hate Bush with a fierce passion. I would love to see him jump ship and join Kerry, impossible though it may be. Then we’d have an election campaign for the books.

UPDATE: I just saw the latest Kerry campaign ad, and it cleverly points out how Kerry worked with John McCain to find out the fate of US POWs and MIAs in Vietnam. Brilliant, in several ways.

After spending the better part of my weekend deleting comments hawking penis enlargement pills, online casinos, XXX-rated CDs, levitra, cialis, viagra, xanax, oxycontin, sex toys, hair-loss treatments and escort services, I finally contacted Jay Allen, the creator of MT-Blacklist. His plugin is easy to install and to use, and it really works.

Now I’m going to have to figure out what to do with all the time Blacklist is saving me.

Zona Europa posts some amazingly powerful images of children in Iraq. I recommend you have a look.