This time it’s for business. Blog activity to grind to a halt, bringing to a close the most intense two weeks or so of blogging that I’ve done in years. I think I got more inbound links to posts of the past two weeks than I did in all of 2008. All good things must come to an end, I suppose. Use the open thread below for miscellaneous comments.

Where there’s life, there’s thread.

A smart, funny piece about one of China’s most interesting phenomena. Do not miss the inane Tibet video (may need to use a proxy) and Froog’s takedown thereof.

This was the second post in recent days I saw that refers to the unique mix of commenters here at TPD. This is a page from a most bizarre wiki that refers to “the trollfest that is The Peking Duck.” If anyone can decipher what it all means, I’d love to know. The reference to ferin and Invisible Sky Magician is particularly puzzling.

Update: Jeremiah chimes in, and he’s spot-on as usual. For example:

The fenqing are to most patriotic Chinese youth what the meth-riddled KKK rednecks on Jerry Springer are to the Republican party. They are wildly overrepresented on the internet, and the web gives this whacked-out fringe a powerful megaphone that amplifies their voices and adds to their self-importance.

Go there now.

Another Update (March 21): Latest comment by Froog over at the thread on his blog:

Dear Fenqing (all of you, any who may happen to be reading),

Please note that this post is humorous: it is making fun of fenqing, yes, but only in a fairly light way. And this is in the context of some other recent posts that equally make fun of fenwai (and of myself) and of some of the points that we often unfairly or over-provocatively make in our blog-commenting.

Please also note that the one serious point in this post, the basis of my and most other people’s criticism of fenqing (Chinese people’s criticism of them as well) is not what their views are but the aggression and self-righteousness with which they express those views.

Finally, please note that this post is not about any individual fenqing, or any individual argument they may have been involved in, or any individual view they hold. It is most certainly not about Tibet. Go check again – any mention of Tibet? NO.

If you want to portray yourself online as the kind of guy who just goes off on a rant about Tibet all the time, even when everybody else is talking about the economy or space travel or golf, well… go ahead. But you just make yourself look ridiculous. People don’t pay any attention to your opinions not because of the opinions themselves, but because you don’t know how (and when and where) to present them.

Now, go away, and please don’t come back.

Funny, no? Too bad it’ll go right over their heads as they keep going on about the T word.

If you aren’t following Lisa’s incredible coverage of her trip to Xinjiang, get over there now. If only I had the patience and thoroughness to write like that….

I wrote a long post last night about why it would be wrong if Chas Freeman were forced to back out of his nomination for head of the NIC. It wasn’t finished and I didn’t post it and I now see the point is moot. One point I made in my draft was in regard to the third-rail of Israel, which will incinerate anyone who even hints at looking at issues from any perspective but Israel’s. (By my simply writing those words, I lean up against the third-rail myself.) And I am speaking as a Jew and as a supporter of Israel. Supporter – not a blanket endorser.

I know the LGF and Michelle Malkin crowd will be crowing for a while, and some will point to Freeman’s parting words as proof of his “anti-Semitism.” What he says about the smothering Israeli lobby is accurate. It is not in any sense anti-Semitic.

Still, I am saddened by what the controversy and the manner in which the public vitriol of those who devoted themselves to sustaining it have revealed about the state of our civil society. It is apparent that we Americans cannot any longer conduct a serious public discussion or exercise independent judgment about matters of great importance to our country as well as to our allies and friends.

The libels on me and their easily traceable email trails show conclusively that there is a powerful lobby determined to prevent any view other than its own from being aired, still less to factor in American understanding of trends and events in the Middle East. The tactics of the Israel Lobby plumb the depths of dishonor and indecency and include character assassination, selective misquotation, the willful distortion of the record, the fabrication of falsehoods, and an utter disregard for the truth. The aim of this Lobby is control of the policy process through the exercise of a veto over the appointment of people who dispute the wisdom of its views, the substitution of political correctness for analysis, and the exclusion of any and all options for decision by Americans and our government other than those that it favors.

There is a special irony in having been accused of improper regard for the opinions of foreign governments and societies by a group so clearly intent on enforcing adherence to the policies of a foreign government – in this case, the government of Israel.

I went back to some of the lines the sharks were tossing around, making Freeman look like he spends his days plotting the death of Israel, but only when he’s not actively encouraging PLA soldiers to shoot more students. I went back and looked at the context of one of his most sensationalized remarks and saw how easy it is to take words from a panel discussion wildly out of context and use them to destroy someone’s career. This was the Wurlitzer at its best, repeating ad nauseum the “gotcha” line with zero context and just lots of faux outrage and indignation. And it worked.

The intelligent arguments of intelligent people were ignored, unsurprisingly.

Again, I think in the course of his career Freeman said some ill-advised things. But nothing to merit the tidal wave of fury and slander that followed. His nomination gave me hope that “Change We Need” was a serious mantra – and no, I’m not referring to Freeman’s individual policy ideas on China or Tibet or Saudi Arabia. The “Change We Need” was that demonstrated by Obama in daring to nominate someone who thought outside the status quo and refused to be intimidated by political correctness and sacred cows. I admired Obama for having the courage to nominate such a person who, along with his willingness to reject myths, would have brought “truly independent intelligence analysis” to the table.

As former US ambassadors wrote in a letter to the Wall Street Journal recently:

A number of statements have appeared objecting to the appointment of Ambassador Charles “Chas” Freeman as head of the National Intelligence Council based on his political views (”Obama’s Intelligence Choice,” by Gabriel Schoenfeld, op-ed, Feb. 25). We, the undersigned former U.S. ambassadors, have known Chas Freeman for many years during his service to the nation in war and peace and in some of our most difficult posts. We recognize that Chas has controversial political views, not all of which we share. Many individuals with strong and well-known views have, and are being asked, to serve in positions of high responsibility.

The free exchange of political views is one of the strengths of our nation. We know Chas to be a man of integrity and high intelligence who would never let his personal views shade or distort intelligence assessments. We categorically reject the implication that the holding of personal opinions with which some disagree should be a reason to deny to the nation the service of this extremely qualified individual. We commend President Obama and Admiral Dennis C. Blair for appointing Ambassador Freeman to such an important position.

But this is politics, and there’s little room for dispassionate analysis and logic. So the calm, clear-headed voices of our best and brightest were drowned out by the hysterical and cynical roar of the self-righteous right.

We have suffered a complete and total defeat. If we only appoint people who suck up to the status quo and rubber-stamp anything put in front of them by lobbyists from a single country, the change we need won’t be coming anytime soon. We’ve allowed fear-inducing innuendo to triumph over reason. A sad day for America, a country that needs fresh perspectives now more than ever.

Update: See what one our smartest bloggers/thinkers said about Freeman some years ago. I know, some of us feel that any intimation that the CCP might actually succeed amounts to treason and commie-loving, as well as a tacit endorsement of the shooting of unarmed students. And that’s exactly the kind of sacred cow Freeman is willing to take on and challenge. Time to emerge from the Cold War with a new mindset, and to remove the shackles of black/white thinking and stereotypes.

Update 2: Let me give Sully the last word on this.

Obama may bring change in many areas, but there is no possibility of change on the Israel-Palestine question. Having the kind of debate in America that they have in Israel, let alone Europe, on the way ahead in the Middle East is simply forbidden. Even if a president wants to have differing sources of advice on many questions, the Congress will prevent any actual, genuinely open debate on Israel. More to the point: the Obama peeps never defended Freeman. They were too scared. The fact that Obama blinked means no one else in Washington will ever dare to go through the hazing that Freeman endured. And so the chilling effect is as real as it is deliberate.

When Obama told us that the resistance to change would not end at the election but continue every day after, he was right. But he never fought this one. He’s shrewder than I am.

How did we get here? How did we collectively become so stupid?

[Moving this to the top.]

I haven’t opened a thread in weeks, since traffic dies whenever I go away, and also because they’re magnets for trolls and my patience for trolls is at an all-time low. Now that I’m back, I’ll put one up just in case.

If you need some inspiration, here are some links to stories that caught my attention this week:

Women’s rights (or, the right to murder women)
Book Review: Capitalism with Chinese Characteristics (superb)
“Super China” (why, in this writer’s mind, China’s in better shape than the UK or US)

Please remember I’m monitoring comments, so it may take a while for your contributions to materialize.

Please read this book review by Pico Iyer, one of my favorite writers. It’s not for the weak.

That’s the sub-head of this article on the new Barbie store that opened in Shanghai yesterday. It’s well worth a read:

Barbie’s made-in-China makeover is part of a push to re-brand the iconic American doll on the eve of her 50th birthday. With domestic sales slumping, Mattel has set its sights on China, hoping to the weather the financial storm in the relative calm of the country’s vast — and comparatively untapped — consumer market.

The plan is to turn America’s favorite doll into fashion fodder for China’s upwardly mobile, trend-setting elite. By moving up-market and focusing on Barbie-branded merchandise, the company hopes to widen profit margins and attract a new demographic: Chinese women.

But, will they buy it?

Summer Wang, an assistant at a film production company, certainly will. “Barbie is beautiful like a princess,” she said. “And every Shanghai girl wants to be a princess.”

With malls closing, construction grinding to a halt and a general sense of malaise creeping in, will Chinese consumers continue to keep American companies afloat? I guess that’s the trillion-dollar question. I’m sure every Shanghai girl really does want to be a princess. Will mom and dad continue to finance this dream?

Today I walked by the hotel that I said nearly a month ago had been “destroyed” by illegal CCTV fireworks. Since then I heard some debate about whether the building was actually rendered unusable or whether it was just a matter of scraping off the old skin and replacing it with a shiny new one. Looking up at the building, I wondered where the latter opinion was coming from. The building certainly looks like it’s toast, literally and figuratively, and even if it somehow stood, who would want to move into it? I’m no physicist, but I can’t believe a building can withstand so much heat for so many hours, followed by many hours of water and chemical soaking, and retain its structural integrity.

Anyway, the only reason I’m putting this up is because of some chatter on Twitter from some of the people I respect the very most when it comes to all things China, describing a Caijing story today claiming the building is not salvageable, and that some very top people at CCTV are under investigation for its destruction. Expect to see more on this real soon. Watching the demolition of what was a few weeks ago one of the most anticipated architectural arrivals of the new century will have to be painful.

I’ve been reading this blog recently and strongly recommend you go take a look. He obviously puts a lot of thought and work into it, and manages to keep his posts consistently interesting and intelligent, with just enough point of view to give it the sizzle a good blog needs. I wish I had read his piece on Pingyao 48 hours ago, before I decided to skip the city and head back directly to Beijing from Xi’an.