Thanks to a post at China Letter, I see that China Daily has printed an opinion article that actually takes the CCP to task for banning minors from using Internet cafes over the summer.

The decision to bar youth from Internet cafes deprives the right of young people with no access to personal computers to make use of legitimate business operations.

A better way to protect China’s youth and at the same time respect their right to Internet access is to strengthen control on the cyber content provided by public Internet outlets. It is technically feasible to use software to block pornographic or excessively violent content.

Strengthened regulation always incurs costs. It means the government will have to spend more resources than simply issuing an all-round ban.

But it may be a better solution.

It’s kind ot tame, and it doesn’t touch the far bigger and more controversial issue of the government’s paranoid obsession with controlling what citizens do on the Net. But the writer is absolutely correct — the summer ban sounds like a really bad idea. And I doubt if the young people are going to be very appreciative of the CCP’s concern for their well being.

Reed is no flaming liberal. Here’s his thoughts on Fahrenheit 9/11.

Michael Moore leaves no turn unstoned. There are multitudes of shattering, seminal moments in his brilliant Bush-whacking documentary, Fahrenheit 9/11, that reveal more about the cynicism, greed and ineptitude in the U.S. government than you will ever learn from any sound bite on the right-wing late-night cable-channel blabfests, but one will stay with me forever. Forget about the “official” reports from the White House about the activities of George W. Bush on the fateful morning of Sept. 11, insisting he learned about the Al Qaeda attacks while meeting with Florida pre-schoolers and quickly dashed from the room to save the country. The truth, it is now revealed, is that he was informed of the first attack on the World Trade Center before he even entered the schoolroom, and he decided to continue with his photo-op anyway. There he is on camera when Andrew Card informs him of the second plane and utters the fatal words, “We’re under attack!”—but he continues to read My Pet Goat for another seven minutes, his eyes sliding sideways in his puzzled face, like a moron looking for a bathroom, until his staff insists that he leave. (He stayed for another half hour.) If nothing else, that defining moment says volumes about what we can expect from the President of the U.S. in the center of a supreme, history-altering crisis: He’s just clueless.

And this man is the veritable king of the world. He can determine who is thrown into prison for as long as his minions see fit, with no hope of appeal, without even a lawyer. He can decide the fate of the earth with the touch of some buttons.

There are other moments that will impact some viewers and polarize others. So many, in fact, that you watch Fahrenheit 9/11 with disbelief, and leave shaking with rage. Sometimes sarcastic, always funny, Mr. Moore is armed with facts, and he presents them accurately and succinctly. The controversial filmmaker stated on the Today show that White House mouthpieces have denounced the film as “outrageously false” without seeing it, and right-wing Republicans have charged Mr. Moore with staging a “left-wing conspiracy” to influence the forthcoming election. Well, duh. For years, reactionary conservatives have been famous for staging right-wing conspiracies of their own to disgrace and discredit elected Democratic public officials. Maybe this is payback time. Whatever it is, everyone should see Fahrenheit 9/11 first—before debating the issues. The purpose of any documentary is to influence opinion. But instead of the customarily droning voice that comments on the action and tells you what to think, this one asks tough, logical questions, gets rational answers, and never loses its entertainment value.

This is a long and incredible review, and I urge you to read the entire thing. I never knew Rex Reed had it in him. I’m blown away.

Of course, having not been able to see the film yet, I can’t say whether it is great or terrible. But I sure think I have a good idea. I’ll confirm this on Friday, when I’ll be the first ticketbuyer on line for the first performance in Arizona.

Note: I plan to write my own review of Fahrenheit 9/11 later this week. This is a look at some of the reviews to date.

I’ve always believed that Michael Moore needs to be taken with a gigantic grain of sea salt.

I’ve also always believed he is brilliant, funny, artistic, and a true muckracker. One must never rely on him for the entire story, whether it’s in regard to guns in America, the Iraq war or Saudi influence over Bush. He is not a documentarian, he is an entertainer, a film maker and a propagandist. That doesn’t mean he is not valid, or that he should be slighted or ridiculed. Quite the contrary.

I’ve been delighted to see the flood of positive reviews for Fahrenheit 9/11 today. Many of them make the same point, which is: Say what you will about Moore, but he is brilliant at what he does, and what he does is important.

Of course, at its roots, “Fahrenheit 9/11” is no laughing matter. It calls George Bush and his tight band of cronies a bunch of irresponsible fools who have led the United States into this war without reason. Does Moore play with the order of events or edit out parts of speeches or, in other words, manipulate the film and its viewers? Maybe, but he also backs himself up with corroborative facts.

Michael Moore’s purpose as a filmmaker is to teach, unflinchingly, what those facts are. And he does so in gloriously rabble-rousing manner. He’s a sort of modern day Thomas Paine, unafraid to say what he feels, and damn the establishment. After all, for those of us who believe in what he says, and shows, the establishment – in this case Bush – is all wrong.

The best single piece I’ve read is Andrew O’Hehir’s review in Salon, which goes so far as to compare Moore to Dickens and Solzhenitsyn.

Fahrenheit 9/11 is an enormous film, an angry film, a flawed film and often a very, very funny film. There is anguish in it and death, and not as much coherence as there might be. It’s a political screed that makes our commander in chief look like a simpering dolt (and also like the instrument of a massive machine he cannot control), but — as in the horrifying scenes where Bush sits in that Florida classroom reading “The Pet Goat,” clearly nonplussed, while people dive from the twin towers — it is not entirely devoid of a certain curious compassion for him. It contains multitudes. In its bigness and rage, its low humor and its sentimentality, it has something of Whitman, something of Twain, something of Tom Paine. Love him or hate him, Michael Moore is becoming one of the signal artists of our age.

O’Hehir’s most significant point is that moore is not a journalist, but a story teller. He has an agenda, he takes a side, he has a point to get across. The storytelling and the comedy — Moore uses these to give you a picture you won’t get from reading the NY Times.

My point is not to damn Moore as a fabricator, but rather to suggest that from early in his career there were signs that his true calling lay not in journalism but in storytelling, or, more specifically, in the dangerous and difficult territory that lies between them. In the years since “Roger and Me,” he has become an increasingly skillful entertainer and propagandist, probably the closest American parallel to Dario Fo, the Italian radical clown, satirist and Nobel laureate. Moore might be understood as a court jester in the vein of King Lear’s Fool, whose burlesques and exaggerations and farcical asides are meant to cast light into shadowy regions where the sober, scrupulously neutral Ivy League guys and gals of mainstream journalism dare not venture.

This is crucial. Some critics watch the movie looking for holes, the way Chrtistopher Hitchens did in a beautifully worded and terribly weak and silly review yesterday. Of course Moore is going to be slippery at times. He isn’t documenting history so much as getting us to think. And in a world where so many outspoken “journalists” (Hannity, Limbaugh, Coulter, Horowitz, Shapiro, O’Reilly, etc.) go to criminal lengths to embellish what is actually being presented to us as journalism, I think Moore should actually be congratulated for having so few slippery spots in a work being presented as entertainment.

Maybe we need to look at Michael Moore the way we do at great war poets like Wilfred Owens, who I wrote about some months before. Bear with me for a moment. Owens is not really a reporter or a documentarian, and yet he is telling us the story of World War I as he sees it, from the very narrow perspective of a soldier experiencing the gore and the horrors of the battlefield. True, he doesn’t give us perspective on the geo-political factors that led to the conflict, nor does he describe opposing points of view. It is just his story as he sees it, the flying streams of intestines of disemboweled young men, the soldiers chocking to death on gas as white froth oozes from their lungs…. It’s not complete. It’s not necessarily a fair picture. It paints a hideous portrait of the masters of war, sitting in their parlor rooms in London sipping Courvoisier as an entire generation is sent into the meat grinders in Ypres and Verdun and Gallipoli. But that does not make Owens’ telling any less great or less important or less valid. Moore may not be quite on this level of artistic genius, and he may want to perceive himself as a teller of The Whole Story and of The Complete Truth. All I am saying is that I think this is where he really belongs, in the realm of the gifted storyteller, as O’Hehir says.

The NY Times offersa strikingly similar review of the movie, contending that whether you agree with Moore’s worldview or not, the film’s artistry and power make it a must-see.

It is worth seeing, debating and thinking about, regardless of your political allegiances.

Mr. Moore’s populist instincts have never been sharper, and he is, as ever, at his best when he turns down the showmanship and listens to what people have to say. “Fahrenheit 9/11” is, along with everything else, an extraordinary collage of ordinary American voices: soldiers in the field, an Oregon state trooper patrolling the border, and, above all, citizens of Flint, Mich., Mr. Moore’s hometown. The trauma that deindustrialization visited on that city was the subject of “Roger and Me,” and that film remains fresh 15 years later, now that the volunteer army has replaced the automobile factory as the vehicle for upward mobility.

The most moving sections of “Fahrenheit 9/11” concern Lila Lipscomb, a cheerful state employee and former welfare recipient who wears a crucifix pendant and an American flag lapel pin. When we first meet her, she is proud of her family’s military service — a daughter served in the Persian Gulf war and a son, Michael Pedersen, was a marine in Iraq — and grateful for the opportunities it has offered. Then Michael is killed in Karbala, and in sharing her grief with Mr. Moore, she also gives his film an eloquence that its most determined critics will find hard to dismiss. Mr. Bush is under no obligation to answer Mr. Moore’s charges, but he will have to answer to Mrs. Lipscomb.

And let’s not forget that even my nemesis, Fox News, gave the picture highest marks last week:

It turns out to be a really brilliant piece of work, and a film that members of all political parties should see without fail.

As much as some might try to marginalize this film as a screed against President George Bush, “F9/11” — as we saw last night — is a tribute to patriotism, to the American sense of duty — and at the same time a indictment of stupidity and avarice.

Most of the reviews note that, unlike Bowling for Columbine, Moore depends less on his silly gimmicks and narration and more on actual video clips, without his bloviating in the background. This lets the viewer do more of his own thinking — although Moore no doubt wants to get his very pointed message across.

It looks as though, like it or not, Fahrenheit 9/11 is set to impact the nation in a way no other film ever has. I think we are so polarized it won’t have much effect on most viewers in terms of changing whom they’ll vote for. I certainly hope it becomes a hit among young people, notorious for not voting, not to mention the undecideds, who will have a big say in who our next president will be. After being pounded by the non-stop, deafening right-wing noise machine for years, Fahrenheit 9/11 should restore some terribly needed balance, despite Moore’s mischievousness and biases.

Guest-blogging over at TPM, New Republic writer John Judis has a smart piece on America’s irrational and self-injurious student visa policies in the wake of September 11.

The legislation establishing the Department of Homeland Security included a provision creating “Sevis.” a database for keeping track of international students. Each student would have to register with the Sevis. Last October, the Department of Homeland Security proposed that in addition to the $100 visa fee, every prospective student would have to pay another $100 to fund Sevis. The payment would have to be through a credit card or dollars. Universities have not objected to the program itself; but they have objected strenuously to imposing another fee on foreign applicants. “Having yet another thing students have to do to come to the US that they don’t have to do in any other part of the world will drive more people away at a time when enrollments are declining,” said one official from the Association of International Educators.

The universities, of course, are understandably worried about declining enrollment, but what is most disturbing about the administration’s program–and about its general approach to foreign students–is its hostile attitude toward the outside world. It’s fortress America applied to educational policy. Such an approach won’t necessarily prevent terrorist attacks, but it will in the long run encourage the anti-Americanism on which al Qaeda and other terrorist groups feed.

Judis begins the piece by pointing out how during the cold war, foreign students studying here was the best and cheapest way to promote democratic capitalism. And now we’ve made it next to impossible. This is a sore spot with me for personal reasons, and I just don’t understand why our government is so obdurate on this issue, which does very little for our national security but hurts us in all sorts of ways.

Lying under oath is an impeachable offense. We should be especially concerned when it’s about national security (as opposed to a blowjob).

All that hysteria over Clinton — much of it justifiable, because he did a dumb, inappropriate thing. But if Ashcroft did what his critics are claiming, it’s a whole different story. It’s about falsifying the record of our country’s national security preparedness just to cover Ashcroft’s ass. Check out the post; our pompous, self-righteous, oh-so-religious attorney general may be in very hot water.

If this topic interests you, stop what you’re doing and read this eye-opening article on how the Chinese media manipulate material and plays mind games with all involved — its viewers and the experts its puts on CCTV.

The piece is written by one “Ann Condi,” a pen name for an American journalist working for CCTV, and she (if it is a she) is sharp and brutal. She describes a panel discussion on how journalists present China to the modern world, which serves as a case study for the hypocrisy inherent to a government-controlled press. It’s funny, it’s incisive and it’s infuriating.

Giving a quote or two from this article cannot do it justice; you have to read it all. Here is an example of the writer’s pith.

The strategy of the Chinese government is to change the subject.

When complaints are lodged about the imprisoning of dissidents, the Chinese do not forthrightly proclaim “Indeed, we do put them in prison. We are justified in doing so. They are a threat to our security.” Instead they change the subject to “No country should interfere in the internal affairs of another country.” When America attacks China’s human rights record, the Chinese do not say “You are mistaken about our human rights problem, and here’s why.” Rather, they change the subject: “What about your human rights problem?”

All governments—all human beings—are guilty of this move, which in American parlance is called “spin”. But in China the technique has been reflexively applied for so long, it is now simply the default official approach to any awkward information whatsoever. A government that blocks any open discussion of its problems while tacitly admitting to them in this way cannot help developing pathological patterns of interaction, becoming both fiercely proud and profoundly embarrassed, as each act of blatant denial painfully highlights the stubborn reality. And sitting before us on the stage was the embodiment of this mentality.

There’s much more to this article, including a description of how getting into the CCTV building is like getting into the War Room of the Pentagon. This was something I experienced myself once when I went to a Chinese radio station; I’ll never forget it.

Just a side note: The panel was presided over by the beautiful emcee Shen Bing, who I used for a similar purpose when I managed an event in Beijing. She is sensational, and knows just how to keep things “lite and brisk.” The perfect choice to keep the dialogue from getting too serious or uncomfortable. That’s exactly why they chose her.

It appears that Hailey Xie, one of my favorite Chinese bloggers, is now at a new address. Be sure to check her out.

Or so say the latest reports. It looks like this is going to become a regular occurrence, with no end in sight. Such a stupid waste.

Watching the video yesterday of Kim Sung-il screaming, “I don’t want to die,” I tried to imagine the horror of the situation. I tried to get into his mind, and I tried to get into the minds of his captors. The former was easier than the latter. I just can’t imagine being so hardened that it becomes acceptable, even honorable, to slit the throat of an innocent man who posed no threat. But then, that’s what terrorism is all about, the slaughter of innocents, and there seem to be an awful lot of monsters willing to use it.

This barbarism is what many point to as proof that we must fight them with everything we’ve got and eliminate them. A completely understandable argument. But it also speaks to just how difficult, if not impossible, such a battle may be.

I don’t have any answers right now, only questions and concerns as terrorism appears to prosper and spread with every new attempt to destroy it. A hydra, with an infinite number of heads.

Who would have believed it six months ago?

Bush Loses Advantage in War on Terrorism
Nation Evenly Divided on President, Kerry

Public anxiety over mounting casualties in Iraq and doubts about long-term consequences of the war continue to rise and have helped to erase President Bush’s once-formidable advantage over Sen. John F. Kerry concerning who is best able to deal with terrorist threats, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

Exactly half the country now approves of the way Bush is managing the U.S. war on terrorism, down 13 percentage points since April, according to the poll. Barely two months ago, Bush comfortably led Kerry, the presumptive Democratic nominee, by 21 points when voters were asked which man they trusted to deal with the terrorist threat. Today the country is evenly divided, with 48 percent preferring Kerry and 47 percent favoring Bush.

With fewer than 10 days before the United States turns over governing power to Iraq, the survey shows that Americans are coming to a mixed judgment about the costs and benefits of the war. Campaign advisers to both Bush and Kerry believe voters’ conclusions about Bush and Iraq will play a decisive role in determining the outcome of the November election.

Of course, terrorism and national security are the crown jewels of the Bush campaign. With those lost, what does he have to stand on? The economy is getting better, but most of the recovery is being enjoyed on the corporate and not the individual level. Iraq is the issue. It represents so much of how the Bush White House operates in terms of making decisions, keeping secrets, telling lies, aggrandizing itself (“Mission Accomplished”), breaking the law and flip-flopping at every turn.

It is deeply ironic that what was only six month’s ago the administration’s diamond necklace has transmogrified into the hangman’s noose. As evidence mounts that Iraq has cost us the war on terror, there will simply be no way out.

UPDATE: Kevin Drum has a great post on this poll with a vivid graphic. He comes to interesting conclusions.

I happened to run into Hugh Hewitt at lunch again today — he lives right across the freeway from me — and in an effort to keep up a facade of good cheer he offered to make a bet: if Kerry wins he turns over his blog to me for a week; if Bush wins he gets my blog for a week.

I laughed and returned to my sandwich, which is probably a good thing for Hugh. Terrorism is central to Bush’s chances this November, and if his approval ratings on terrorism aren’t at least 10 points ahead of Kerry by October, he’s going down in flames.

Which is exactly what’s happened to every other president who’s won office with fewer popular votes than his opponent. One termers all.

Update 2: Billmon found this to be the poll’s highlight:

Q: Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling his job as president?

Approve: 47%
Disapprove: 51%
No opinion: 1%

Q: Thinking back to when Bill Clinton was in office, would you say you approve or disapprove of the way Clinton handled his job as president?

Approve: 62%
Disapprove: 37%
No opinion: 1%

Interesting: Apparently it’s not inconceivable that both the Libertarian and Constitution Parties might siphon votes away from Bush, even to the point of tipping the election.

The main theme of these parties is that the present administration is out of control when it comes to spending and is not living up to its ideals of reduced government. Both also call for the immediate withdrawal of US troops from Iraq.

This could get interesting. We’ve been recording the increasing dissatisfaction of conservative pundits, and it seems that it might be spreading. (The article notes that the two parties are doing a good job of appealing to citizens at the grassroots level.) Could Bush be threatened by his very own Ralph Naders? Let’s keep our fingers crossed.