When the US arrests its citizens unfairly, I get just as upset as when China does it. This account of a frivolous arrest and its dangerous implications speaks volumes about our attorney general. (Courtesy of Andrew Sullivan, who, I’m glad to see, is watching Ashcroft with an increasingly critical eye.)

Of course, unlike the poor innocent I referred to yesterday, the victim in this story lives to talk about it.

Only about 9 more days before I go under the knife (or, to be precise, the arthroscope) to have a ripped shoulder tendon re-attached to the bone with titanium screws. The literature the doctor gave me soothingly says, “This operation will be very painful.” Great. I’ll have a tube coming out of my neck for three days for intravenous pain killer, and I am not looking forward to it. I go to the hospital today for a series of pre-operation tests, then I check in a week from Wednesday, the day after my birthday, for three or fours days.

In case you missed my account of the Mr. Bean-like accident that caused all this, I wrote about it earlier when I lived in that Chinese city….what was the name of it? — oh yes, Beijing.

I don’t know if they’ll let me blog in the hospital, but I’ll certainly try.

Josh Marshall makes a pretty iron-clad case that Bush & Co. lied about the Iraq’s WMD and al Qaeda link (not surprising) and are now hiding under Bush Sr.’s old argument that he was “out of the loop” when the lies were being concocted. Scathing and merciless.

Andrew Sullivan unfairly rips Hillary Clinton over her doublespeak on same-sex marriage. When asked if she is for it in America, she ultimately waffled, though she made it clear she supports states creating domestic partnership legislation. Sullivan concludes his smear with an outright lie: “So there you have it. The Senator from New York State is opposed to equal rights for gays and lesbians. ”

Even more than abortion, this is probably the most politically charged topic in America. Bill Clinton tried (semi-successfully) to end the ban on gays in the military and was always publicly sympathetic to their cause. Then the Republicans, for no other reason but to embarrass him, created a ridiculous act, something like “the sanctity of marriage act” (I forget and don’t want to remember). The meaningless legislation simply stated that marriage was an act intended for men and women, and Clinton had no choice but to sign it to avoid major politicization of the issue with no point except to paint the Democrats as radically to the left.

This is the (ugly) world of politics. Politicians know that their critics hang on their every word and, wishy-washy as it seems, they have to measure what they say carefully, especially when it comes to super-charged issues — and Sullivan knows it. Would he apply the same litmus test to George W. on gay marriages? Because if he did, I suspect he would be mighty disappointed.

Sullivan goes way, way out of his way to make Hillary C. look bad, when she was obviously struggling to say she was supportive, without falling into the political booby trap. I think she should be commended. And if you really want to criticize pols for ducking tough questions, go look up George W.’s answers in 2000 to questions about his use of cocaine.

My comments, less than a day old, seem to be erratic. They keep disappearing and then suddenly they’re back. I’m trying to fix it now.

Thanks to China Weblog, I was just directed to this fascinating study on how governments of different countries are doing all they can to prevent the use of the Internet as a tool for free speech.

For lots of specific examples of how “subversives” in China are being handed down stiff prison sentences for having the temerity to downoad and distribute material perceived to be critical of the government, just scroll down to page 24. It’s not a matter of a few isolated cases. People are being jailed for as much as 11 years for downloading articles, and not only “cyber-dissidents.” A must-read for those who would argue arrests are rare for such offences in today’s “changed” China.

Please stop what you’re doing (i.e., reading this post) and read this heartbreaking article. Then come back.

I know, China really is changing in some ways. A genuine middle class is sprouting up rapidly and a few people are even getting rich. I am glad for this, because so many of the Chinese people are warm and wonderful and it is inspiring to see them rise up and break away from the shackles of the Cultural Revolution. That said, the system that rules over them is so rotten, so untouched by change and so terrible that, when I am reminded of this fact in articles like this (which, needless to say, cannot be accesses in China), I wonder what it will take to really get China to change. The article offers a single slim ray of hope, noting how scholars and students are protesting the atrocity; but it makes it quite clear there is no change on the immediate horizon.

Again, please read this article to the end. If you can access this blog but cannot access the article, please let me know and I will email it to you. I know there is a contingent of bloggers who believe I (and Conrad and Phil and others) exaggerate the badness of the Chinese government. They see me as strident and overly dramatic. They look at an article like this and say, more or less, “Well, just because there’s a corrupt official here and there does not mean the Central Government is to blame,” or “These things have to change gradually, give it more of a chance, you can’t change things overnight….”

I cannot buy that. China has changed many aspects of its old self quickly, even overnight. Just look at what Deng did back in 1976, ending the Cultural Revolution and instituting drastic change at lightning speed. But other things — things that ensure the survival of corrupt officials and the Party’s control over people’s lives and thoughts — remain utterly untouched. Of course, we hear now and then about “reforms” and plans to “clean up corruption.” There will even be a trial of a corrupt official, though usually that occurs only when the official causes the government to lose money. They cannot really crack down on corruption because it is the mainstay of their existence. A nationwide pattern of hair-raising corruption, known to virtually everyone in the country and given the wink and nod by all officials, is what keeps Party members loyal and citizens subservient.

I made an analogy recently that I feel is not that far-fetched. I said those claiming these “isolated cases” were acceptable and to be expected in a changing country, remind me of an actual conversation I heard as an impressionable teen in a NYC coffee shop, which went like this: “A lot of people only point to the negative side of Stalin. Look at how he pulled Russia up from its bootstraps, how he made it a great industrial and military power.”

I think it’s safe to say that any serious student of the USSR will find this an example of naivete at best and apologism at worst. While the nation improved in certain ways, look at the costs — the unnecessary costs: A vast portion of the population imprisoned and murdered in the Gulag for no crime whatever. Infinite corruption and exploitation of a terrified populace. The crushing of free speech and personal freedoms. The nation is still reeling from what Stalin wrought more than half a century ago. And it didn’t have to be that way. Who ever said that it takes ruthlessness and terror to achieve change? I cringe when I hear people say about the CCP (or about Castro or Ceaucescu [sp?] or any other strongman, to the left or right), “Well, they made some mistakes and they were tough on their people, but look at all the good that they did.”

A point I need to add: I am outspoken on this topic because I was once impressed with what I read/heard about Stalin, about Castro, about the CCP. It was painful for me to admit I had been hoodwinked, and part of me even today wants to defend Castro, because the idealized image I had of him was so comforting. The key episodes for changing my mind were visiting East Germany shortly before The Wall came down, and living in China, where I saw with my own eyes what the police can do. I still have nightmares.

As usual, what was going to be a paragraph has taken on a life of its own. I need to get back to my place, where later this afternoon I’ll get broadband and cable TV and will be free to write like in the old days.

I’ve added comments. Now hopefully someone will use them. (Please, be nice.)

Check out the latest arguments, this time over at Phil’s excellent site.

Probably the most common question I am sent is why this site has no Comments section. I would love to have one, and usually ask those who email me if they can refer me to a comments provider. And it’s always been the same story — the comments providers have stopped taking any new orders due to the blog explosion. So if anyone can help me in this regard, I’d be grateful — it would make this site a lot spicier.

The broadband installer comes on Saturday afternoon, and then I’ll be able to blog from home for the first time since leaving China. Stay tuned.

Extreme apologies, I just can’t find time and won’t have broadband at home until the weekend. So please hang in there. Singapore remains something of an oasis for me, but I am getting so homesick, so upset about being away from my loved ones (and especially my loved one) that at times I wonder how I can go on.

I go in for major surgery on July 2, the day after my birthday, to get my shoulder repaired. It’s supposed to be ridiculously painful, so I’m not very excited about it. I’ll be in a sling for a full 6 weeks afterward, but I’ll be able to type. And what else matters?