According to the BBC:

China’s television stations have been told they can no longer show commercials for feminine hygiene products, haemorrhoid ointments and other such items during mealtimes.

Actually, I am kind of ambivalent on this. I’d rather not watch these ads as I eat (or anytime, actually). But who decides what’s disgusting or not?

Check out Orcinus’ detailed and brilliant post on how it started and why it continues. Sample:

I believe the Republicans, in the Florida debacle, proved themselves so hellbent for power that they were willing to severely compromise major democratic institutions, from the credibility of the Supreme Court to the sanctity of the vote to the very real (and not imagined) principles of states’ rights. Moreover, I don’t think I’m being wild-eyed about this. I think anyone knowledgeable about the voting process and the events that took place in Florida could come reasonably to just that conclusion….

What does a genuinely patriotic centrist do when confronted with a plainly illegitimate presidency wrought through cronyism of the worst sort, which has in turn thrust upon us an incompetent, self-deluded and ideologically rigid phony, and given him the world’s most powerful position at a time of great international historical moment? “Getting over it” isn’t an option, not morally speaking. “Getting rid of him” is the only option.

As usual, David is right on the mark, with all the supporting data and examples to make his case.

Nice, no?

Via Atrios.

According to the Washington Post, the U.S. publisher of Hillary’s memoirs is demanding a recall of the book in China, where the local publisher has exorcized considerable chunks:

Clinton’s memoir, “Living History,” runs 466 pages in Chinese and contains at least 10 segments where sensitive topics have been changed or deleted. They include material on Harry Wu, a Chinese-American human rights activist, and the 1989 Tiananmen Square pro-democracy protests.

Such retooling is a common practice by Beijing’s authoritarian communist government, which tightly controls all media and the Internet despite promises of growing openness in an increasingly free-market economy.

Defending the censorship, the Chinese publisher lamely insists, “We have made technical changes to the content in some parts of the book in order to win more Chinese readers.” And if you believe that….

I was flying from HK to Singapore this morning when I saw the Asian Wall Street Journal headline: Beijing Cracks Down on Political Debate; authorities close Web sites, accuse foreigners of fueling discourse on banned topics.

The article (which I can’t link to) describes a new policy issued by the central committee of the CCP stating that those promoting politcal reforms are actually attacking the Communist Party leadership and China’s political system. This is one depressing article.

Now there’s another article “on the arrest of a 32-year-old Web “activist:

A Chinese dissident who expressed his views on Internet bulletin boards and chat rooms has been arrested on charges of conspiring to subvert the government, a U.S.-based human rights group has said.

The case of Li Zhi, a 32-year-old city government official, is the latest in a string of detentions and convictions of dissidents that critics said betray China’s stated pledge to promote the rule of law.

We are going to be hearing of a lot more stories like this in the coming weeks I suspect.

I remember how so many optimists pointed to the CCP’s sudden embrace of openness during the SARS crisis (when they had no choice) as proof of fundamental change, a move toward greater freedom and transparency. Ha.

So the next big question is, why the new crackdown, and who is behind it? Hu Jintao had positioned himself as being in favor of greater openess and a freer media. The AWSJ , quoted at the top, says many believe that Jiang Zemin is the instigator, “while others say the moves couldn’t have happened without Mr. Hu’s approval.”

It’s started. It looks like the Republicans are scared shitless of this guy. Already, Web sites have popped up to poke holes in what he says, any inconsistencies they can scrape up.

Once again, I marvel at the Republicans’ ability to sing together from the same songbook, always staying “on-message” as Karl Rove taught them to.

Sully, not surprisingly, is leading the pack of half-crazed wild dogs. Four posts over the past 48 hours with titles like THE CYNICISM BEHIND CLARK and CLARK FLOPS. Another post begins:

“CLARK AGAIN: This is getting dizzying. See from this FAIR report, how many positions Wesley Clark has had on the Iraq war over the last twelve months. He changes his mind every five minutes.”

But is it really Clark’s alleged inconsistencies that are “dizzying,” or is it the breathless, rapid-fire, 24-7 attacks on whatever he says? Leave it to Josh Marshall to shed some badly needed light on this topic:

According to the prevailing chatter, Wes Clark has been waffling on his position on the war. CBS said as much: “Clark Waffles On War.”

Frankly, I don’t think I’ve ever heard anything quite so stupid.

The idea seems to be that there are really only two positions on the war, the Dean position and the Bush position.

Either you were against the war from the beginning, against even threatening force under any and all circumstances, soup-to-nuts, or you were for it, more or less under the same range of conceivable circumstances. If you have a position that falls between these two monochromatic options, you’re indecisive, a waffler or a trimmer.

Marshall looks at the same FAIR report cited by Sullivan and comes to vastly different and far more intelligent conclusions:

The fact sheet goes on to catalog various of Clark’s statements over the last year and argue that he’s stated contradictory opinions at different times. One of these contradictory statements, according to FAIR, was one praising the audacity of the original war-plan notwithstanding his disagreement with launching the war in the first place.

This last criticism goes to the heart of the matter — the difference between thinking that this war was ill-conceived and poorly planned (which I think is Clark’s –and my –position) and being ‘anti-war’ in the sense of some broader political ethic (which seems to be how FAIR is defining the phrase.) Expecting a retired four-star general to fall into this latter category seems a bit much to expect.

The truth is that Clark’s position on the war is at least as consistent as any other candidate in this race. He is one of the few candidates who strikes me as having given any serious thought to the question — outside the context of the politics. And he is the only one who’s written extensively on the national security challenges which face the country, Iraq, and the strategic and diplomatic shortcomings of the president’s policy.

I’m expecting the chorus to sing louder and louder on Clark’s “waffling” and “inconsistency.” And, of course, the fact that Bill Clinton seems to be supporting him. So get ready for lots of mud slinging, an area in which Republicans have infinitely greater expertise than their opponents.

All I can say is, “Bring ’em on.” Bush must be sweating bullets.

Update: The NY Times’ William Safire is grabbing the baton and committing every conceivable journalistic sin as he paints Clinton as the Antichrist (in regard to backing Clark). Amazing. Absolutely incredible, how the Clinton loathing turns Republicans into deranged automatons, discarding all critical faculties and running on pure white-hot hatred. Luckily, Josh Marshall catches Safire in the act and calls him to task for spouting idiotic, irresponsible conspiracy theories.

One of the funniest things I’ve seen on the Net, ever. What are you waiting for?

Link via an unlikely source.

I had forgotten just how exciting Hong Kong is. For all the despair over its economy, it is still a happening place and people look happy, at least on the surface.

In terms of neighborhoods and variety and choices and intensity it’s got Singapore beat hands down. I’m glad I’ve had the opportunity to live in three major Asian cities, but this trip reminds me which of those is my personal favorite.

I leave for Hong Kong on business tomorrow, returning on Wednesday, and won’t be able to post as prolifically as usual. But I won’t be invisible either, so please stick around.

In a word: Yes.

I know I’m a day late with this, but I just read Andrew Sullivan’s description of a repellent article by Derbyshire in which he refers to AIDS as “a fashionable venereal disease” that he goes on to describe as “chic.”

Please see Sullivan’s post. You really won’t believe it. What Derbyshire writes is worse than repellent; it is blatantly evil, a frightening example of a man throwing away even the pretense of human decency.

Sullivan makes this point eloquently. So why doesn’t he realize that among Republicans, Derbyshire’s twisted thinking isn’t seen as repellent at all, but rather as an obvious truth?