Danwei, ever vigilant, has the story.

For those who may have forgotten, Harisu is the gorgeous Korean model readers were salivating over until they learned she used to be a he.

Update: Apparently the Korean transexual sensation is also working as a sex counselor. Busy lady. (Link via a commenter below.)

Matthew Yglesias fears it’s a done deal — Richard Gephard will run as Kerry’s VP.

If true, there isn’t much that could make me more depressed. Kerry has his own personality issues, and thus he needs someone like John Edwards or John McCain (yeah, I’m still dreaming) or Wesley Clark or Bill Richardson …. or just about anyone but Gephard.

Gephardt is a tired old Democrat owned by the unions and devoid of anything resembling a personality. Read the Yglesias article to see why this would be a disaster for all concerned — except Bush and the Republicans.

Kerry has to be smarter than this — he has to know that a bright, energetic young Southerner like Edwards would give his ticket the injection of charisma and vitality it needs. Right?

I know that Kerry likes Gephardt more than the others on his short list, but since when does a president have to like his VP? John, this is a strategic decision to help you get elected, as when JFK picked the detested LBJ as his running mate. If you have to, hold your nose and pick Edwards (actually that sounds kind of gross, but you know what I mean). But if you go ahead and pick Gephardt, all bets are off. It will confirm the worst fears that you’re just another old liberal with no new ideas and no vision and no sense of courage and daring. Please, say it isn’t so.

Update: Just yesterday, polls show Edwards is the No. 1 choice.

A Chinese general has warned Taiwain in bellicose language not to even think about attacking the Three Gorges Dam.

A Chinese general has warned Taiwan against attacking the massive Three Gorges Dam, saying China’s retaliation would “blot out the sky and cover the Earth.”

Taiwan’s military said last week that it has no intention of ever attacking the dam on the Yangtze River in central China – the world’s biggest hydroelectric project. Yet the issue drew widespread attention in China after a U.S. Defence Department report suggested the island’s leaders were thinking of developing missiles that could strike mainland Chinese targets such as the dam to deter an attack.

“That wouldn’t prevent a war. That would have the reverse effect,” a Chinese general identified as Liu Yuan wrote in the official newspaper China Youth Daily.

“No normal person would be willing to pay the price of self-destruction if it were to bring retaliation that would blot out the sky and cover the Earth,” Liu wrote….

“The Three Gorges Dam will not collapse. It cannot be destroyed,” he wrote.

The dam that God himself couldn’t destroy.

Personally, I find this whole thing a great candidate for dumbest news story of the year. The Pentagon should never have made its dumbass suggestion and it should never have been allowed to reach the media.

Check out Tom’s post on Fox News getting censured in the UK for its irresponsible reporting on last year’s BBC controvery. “Heh.”

This is a welcome surprise.

In a case widely seen as testing the limits of press freedom in China, a court has slashed the prison sentences of two senior newspaper executives who were convicted on embezzlement and bribery charges, the Xinhua news agency said yesterday.

The Intermediate Court in Guangzhou cut former Southern Metropolitan Daily general manager Yu Huafeng’s 12-year term to eight years, Xinhua said.

Former editor-in-chief Li Minying’s sentence was reduced from 11 to six years.

It’s certainly a good thing, although the article doesn’t give much insight into why the court did this. Next, I’m hoping we here something about the fate of the paper’s editor Cheng Yizhong, waiting in jail with no information on what he’s being charged with.

Anyone who believes Abu Ghraib was overblown by the media, that it can be swept away by courtmartialing six or seven kid soldiers, that the Nick Berg decapitation should have been a bigger story, that the worst is over or that America is seen in the same light as it was before is only fooling him/herself.

According to the fiercely intelligent (and often infuriating) Christopher Hitchens, this “moral Chernobyl” is about to come catapulting back in a way most of us aren’t prepared for. It seems like a hundred years ago that Rumsfeld leaked to the world that there were “more pictures” and videos, already seen by members of Congress, and Hitchens has it on good authority the cat’s about to come leaping out of the bag.

It is going to get much worse. The graphic videos and photographs that have so far been shown only to Congress are, I have been persuaded by someone who has seen them, not likely to remain secret for very long. And, if you wonder why formerly gung-ho rightist congressmen like James Inhofe (“I’m outraged more by the outrage”) have gone so quiet, it is because they have seen the stuff and you have not. There will probably be a slight difficulty about showing these scenes in prime time, but they will emerge, never fear. We may have to start using blunt words like murder and rape to describe what we see. And one linguistic reform is in any case already much overdue. The silly word “abuse” will have to be dropped. No law or treaty forbids “abuse,” but many conventions and statutes, including our own and the ones we have urged other nations to sign, do punish torture—which is what we are talking about here at a bare minimum.

Hitchens makes a lot of sense as to why torture in any form is to be avoided at all costs, even in the case of the “ticking time bomb.”

I’m still amazed when I visit the warbloggers, and see their commenters saying that this is a dead issue, it’s under investigation and the military is demonstrating how well they have things under control. And they believe this, in the face of the memos and the obvious scapegoating and the fact that most of those we felt it was necessary to torture have since been released from Abu Ghraib — that’s how dangerous they were. That’s what a threat they posed.

For proof of just how profoundly this has affected our image, just look at the latest poll numbers from Iraq.

A poll of Iraqis commissioned by the U.S.-backed government has provided the Bush administration a stark picture of anti-American sentiment — more than half of Iraqis believe they would be safer if U.S. troops simply left.

The poll, commissioned by the Coalition Provisional Government last month but not released to the American public, also found radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr is surging in popularity, 92 percent of Iraqis consider the United States an occupying force and more than half believe all Americans behave like those portrayed in the Abu Ghraib prison abuse photos.

The Associated Press obtained a copy of a multimedia presentation about the poll that was shown to U.S. officials involved in developing Iraq policy. Several officials said in interviews the results reinforced feelings that the transfer of power and security responsibilities to the Iraqis can’t come too soon.

“If you are sitting here as part of the coalition, it (the poll) is pretty grim,” said Donald Hamilton, a career foreign service officer who is working for Ambassador Paul Bremer’s interim government and helps oversee the CPA’s polling of Iraqis.

Abu Ghraib. It may not be a fair picture of America, it may be out of proportion, and it is certainly unfortunate in every way. But it’s our legacy. In the minds of so many, it is who America is. Nothing can ever be the same after Abu Ghraib.

Just one more thing to worry about. What can you do?

No, I’m not joking, though it sure sounds far-fetched:

Iran reportedly is readying troops to move into Iraq if U.S. troops pull out, leaving a security vacuum.

The Saudi daily Al-Sharq al-Awsat, monitored in Beirut, reports Iran has massed four battalions at the border.

Al-Sharq al-Awsat quoted “reliable Iraqi sources” as saying, “Iran moved part of its regular military forces towards the Iraqi border in the southern sector at a time its military intelligence agents were operating inside Iraqi territory.”

And that’s all we know for now. Maybe Chalabi really will end up running Iraq after we leave. Oh, what a mess.

[Via No More Mister Nice Blog.]

A wingnut web site is asking its visitors to jam the e-mailboxes of theater owners with pleas not to show Michael Moore’s subversive and anti-American movie Fahrenheit 9/11.

Let’s not allow them get anywhere with this. Let’s send our own emails to the theater owners congratulating them on the courage and good judgement they’re demonstrating by showing this important movie under such short notice. Here’s how to reach them:

brian_blatchley@loewscpx.com
michael_norris@loewscpx.com
kerry_moots@loewscpx.com
John_mccauley@loewscpx.com
john_walker@loewscpx.com
maura_Campbell@loewscpx.com

Oh, and to those of you who are convinced Fahrenheit 9/11 is a radical commie al-Qaeda-sponsored propaganda piece, be sure to read this great review — by Fox News. (You heard me right.)

The crowd that gave Michael Moore’s controversial “Fahrenheit 9/11” documentary a standing ovation last night at the Ziegfeld Theater premiere certainly didn’t have to be encouraged to show their appreciation. From liberal radio host/writer Al Franken to actor/director Tim Robbins, Moore was in his element.

But once “F9/11” gets to audiences beyond screenings, it won’t be dependent on celebrities for approbation. 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.

Readers of this column may recall that I had a lot of problems with Moore’s “Bowling for Columbine,” particularly where I thought he took gratuitous shots at helpless targets such as Charlton Heston. “Columbine” too easily succeeded by shooting fish in a barrel, as they used to say.

Can you believe it? Rage against Moore all you want — just be sure to see the movie first, so you know what you’re talking about.

UPDATE: Meanwhile, Kos say the plan to scare off the theater owners is, in the George Bush tradition, a miserable failure.

Last week, during the never-ending funeral of our 40th president, only one moment jumped out at me as remarkable, and that was Ron Reagan Jr.’s eulogy in which he took an obvious swipe at our current president.

Dad was also a deeply, unabashedly religious man. But he never made the fatal mistake of so many politicians – wearing his faith on his sleeve to gain political advantage. True, after he was shot and nearly killed early in his presidency he came to believe that God had spared him in order that he might do good. But he accepted that as a responsibility, not a mandate. And there is a profound difference.

I thought it was a wonderful moment, providing some much needed balance. In case anyone hadn’t noticed, Bush and his handlers took enormous strides last week to wrap the president in Reagan’s mantle. His campaign site was overhauled to look like an online Reagan museum. Bush, who is so quick to accuse the other side of “politicizing” issues, had no shame when it came to politicizing Reagan’s death and making it not just a theme but the very cornerstone of his campaign, at least temporarily.

As the above article says, Ron Reagan’s jab at Bush last week was not the first, and it’s clear he has little respect for the shrub who would be president. Check out this Salon article for the history of this animosity.

[Ron] Reagan took a swipe at Bush during the 2000 GOP convention in Philadelphia, which featured a tribute to his father, telling the Washington Post’s Lloyd Grove, “The big elephant sitting in the corner is that George W. Bush is simply unqualified for the job… What’s his accomplishment? That he’s no longer an obnoxious drunk?” Since then he’s been quiet about the current occupant of the White House — until now….

“Sure, he wasn’t a technocrat like Clinton. But my father was a man — that’s the difference between him and Bush. To paraphrase Jack Palance, my father crapped bigger ones than George Bush.”

Reagan says he doesn’t have anything personal against Bush. He met him only once, at a White House event during the Reagan presidency. “At least my wife insists we did — he left absolutely no impression on me. But Doria remembers him very negatively — I can’t repeat what she said about him, I’d rather not use profanity. I do remember Jeb — a big fella, seemed to be the brightest of the bunch. And of course their parents were very charming.”

But Reagan has strong feelings about Bush’s policies, including the war in Iraq, which he ardently opposes. “Nine-11 gave the Bush people carte blanche to carry out their extreme agenda — and they didn’t hesitate for a moment to use it. I mean, by 9/12 Rumsfeld was saying, ‘Let’s hit Iraq.’ They’ve used the war on terror to justify everything from tax cuts to Alaska oil drilling.”

Not that his father was a saint when it came to military adventures, tax cuts and the environment. But I have to give Reagan Junior enormous credit for having the courage and intelligence to go on the record with his opinions and to do so when the eyes of the entire world were upon him last weekend. This, combined with his mother’s obvious rancor at Bush’s irrational policy on stem cell research, should help help add some additional cracks to Bush’s crumbling foundation. Enough cracks and the whole things crashes down. So bring ’em on.