Conrad’s latest picks of recent China-related posts are up at Winds of Change. (Yes, I’m included, but there are lots of others, some of which I would have missed if not for the round-up.)

Am I imagining this, or has Phil of Flying Chair fame managed to hijack Living in China’s rss feed?

Don’t believe me? Go to the site right now, scroll down to China Bloggers – Latest and tell me whose post is on top. See what I mean? I log on in the morning, Phil’s post is on top. I log on at lunchtime, same thing. I log on now, at 10 p.m., and the same post from this afternoon is sitting right there on top of the list, while the posts of less worthy regional bloggers are cruelly expunged from the list after a mere 15 minutes of fame.

I always thought Phil was a decent fellow, a gentleman. This effort (successful so far) to usurp the prime spot for himself makes me wonder.

Phil, if you tell me how you do it and share the code with me, I will delete this post right away! (Edward and Andrea, if Phil is paying you off for this advantage, tell me who I should write the check to!) Thanks.

(Note: If you aren’t involved with Living in China, this post will be pretty meaningless. If you haven’t been there yet, go now — it’s a great site, despite Phil’s machinations.)

Update: Well, I just saw that Phil’s post dropped a notch, so maybe my theory is imperfect. Maybe you should just disregard this post. Still, I’m suspicious.

A long, in-depth article in the NY Times notes that China’s approach to AIDS in the countryside, while “better than nothing,” is simplistic and inadequate.

The main reason, the article says, is that China is haphazardly handing out retroviral drugs with no patient care or counsel. (The reporter likens it to a food drop.) A few are improving, but without adequate supervision, many are becoming sick from the pills and even discontinuing treatment. Patients who can’t deal with the side effects are totally on their own.

Reading the article, one is hardly inspired with hope:

Bates Gill, a China expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, said that while anti-retroviral pills need to be taken under a precise regimen, waiting for China’s health system to improve was an imperfect answer.

“Do you begin the treatment now, learn as you do it and make mistakes?” he asked. “Or do you wait? It’s a tough choice.”

The social costs and stigma of AIDS, meanwhile, are scarcely being addressed. Villagers here in Dongguan estimate that as many as 100 children have lost one or both parents to AIDS or live with a parent dying of the disease. While villagers say the government gives the families two sacks of flour a year and a small discount on school fees, children of H.I.V.-positive parents are often segregated at school.

Mr. Zhao’s wife earns about $1.60 a day mixing cement and does not dare tell anyone her husband has AIDS. “They wouldn’t employ me at all,” she said, asking not to be identified by name.

The underlying theme throughout is the role of the government, which will determine whether the people live or die.

Mrs. Zhao, the mother who sold blood to buy her son toys, now considers herself one of the lucky ones because she has suffered no side effects. Her worry is that the government will decide that the medicine is too expensive.

“We don’t know how long we’ll be able to take the medicine,” she said, adding that local health officials also were not certain. “They tell us they don’t know either. They hear from the people on top. It all depends on the people on top.”

A story from Shanghai that raises my hopes for increased tolerance in China:

No one ever knows how much courage and resolution Zhitong had to take before deciding to confess his gay identity and lecture the optional course “homosexual health sociology” at Fudan’s medical college.

He had been keeping tight-lipped on his sexual orientation to persons of the same sex as “I hate to be stared like a monster by people around and especially by those who seek novelty in me”.

However, he made up his mind finally to make this step out and stood on the platform on November 7, the first class of his course, saying “For medical students, anatomical practice is important. And as a gay, I’m willing to serve as a living sample for you to study on homosexuals.”

To his surprise, students in the classroom responded with a big applause to show their appreciation and understanding for his courage and responsibility.

This is a very touching story. Let’s hope this kind of tolerance spreads. Usually this topic is extreeeemely taboo in China, so it’s a very healthy sign that the students were unfazed and even supportive.

Related Post: Gays in China

A haven for those seeking to flee the all-too-predictable avalanche of stories about the freakish boy-child that parents idiotically (greedily?) send their children to sleep with.

Update: Come to think of it, with this post I guess it’s more accurate to say this site is 99% MJ-free.

In two comments, Conrad makes some very perceptive points about where Massachusetts really stands in regard to the highly charged and potentially explosive issue of gay marriage. Is it a step in the right direction, or does it set the stage for an unprecedented backlash? It’s useful to have a lawyer’s viewpoint of what it all really means. And I’m afraid that what he says makes a lot of sense.

Can moral or cultural relativism somehow excuse the sickening, unfathomable story that Conrad relates (in a post from a few days ago that I just discovered)? Can we simply say, “Their culture is different from ours? We have to accept that this is how they treat women”? Sorry, I can’t.

In short, brothers rape and impregnate their sister, the mother insists her daghter kill herself to maintain the “family honor,” she refuses, the mother then murders her own daughter herself. (But my words can’t do it justice; read the post.)

Is speaking out against this sort of thing a sign of ignorance, of simplistic thinking? Does it betray a lack of cultural understanding and empathy? I can’t believe that. Simplistic as it may sound, evil is evil, and while I may not be able to formally define it, I definitely know it when I see it.

Stories like this leave me incensed, and also rather hopeless. It will take generations to change this sort of fundamentalist mentality, this hard-wired irrationalism. Maybe it will take forever. I don’t have the magic answer. I do know that these people are treating women worse than animals, and it is hard for me to feel sympathy for them. I consider myself a liberal, but when I see liberals take up their cause I feel absolutely sick.

I’m now watching Bush and Blair as they do their little dance in front of the press together. As usual, Blair is dazzling; his words flow with a noble logic, with no pause or hesitation, and the ideas he articulates are instantly clear and infinitely wise. Bush stands there, looking like a confused child, and you can see him trying with all his might to achieve something close to Blair’s gravitas. Frequent “ummmms” and “uhhhhhs” pepper his sentences; he tries so hard to look casual and relaxed, and the platitudes flow like water.

Okay, I won’t be too hard on our president tonight. (The number killed in Istanbul has just gone up to 25, with an inconceivable 392 injured.) I just wish Bush could could clean up his act as a communicator. After all, that’s 90 percent of what being the president is all about.

I’m watching the carnage live on the BBC. All British targets, five separate explosions, at least one caused by the usual car packed with explosives and driven by a suicide driver, Al Qaeda-style….

So where are we going with the War on Terror — down the same road we travelled with the War on Drugs? Is it another great big black hole? How can we really “win” when the enemy is so eager to sacrifice his own life?

I don’t mean to sound hopeless, but looking at the chaos and the death right now, I don’t see how we can cause a tectonic shift in the mindset of the monsters who are willing to do this sort of thing.

Update: My god, they just showed amatuer video footage, someone taping his/her family just as the explosion at the HSBC is about to go off — incredible. Such horror.

I don’t often write about or even allude to sports in my blog. In fact, I never do. But this article on how sports writers make a whole lot of idiotic noise about nothing in regard to steroid abuse is one of the funniest (in the very darkest of ways), best-written, intelligent pieces I’ve seen in a long time. The idiocy all goes back to one event, the writer contends: the death of Len Bias.

Len Bias would have been 40 years old in November had he not celebrated by putting the Cali Cartel up his nose on the very night in 1986 that he’d been drafted by the defending champion Boston Celtics. The tragedy was put to immediate use by a bipartisan passel of opportunistic hysterics led by then-Speaker of the House Tip O’Neill, who demanded a tough new law to placate the angry and mournful Celtics fans among his constituents. (You think I made that part up? Dan Baum limns the whoopin’ and hollerin’ splendidly in his history of the drug wars, Smoke and Mirrors.)

That October, President Ronald Reagan signed the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986, which was sort of the drug war’s Gulf of Tonkin Resolution and which visited upon ourselves a whole number of really fine ideas, including the mandatory minimum sentences so beloved these days by so many judges. Of course, we learned almost nothing from the whole Bias saga and certainly nothing about the perils of making policy by letting the hottest heads prevail.

It gets much funnier. Link via Andrew Sullivan, who also never writes about sports.