This morning I awoke to a great surprise: The Huffington Post was no longer accessible.  Blocked.  Barred.  Banned.  Is this just me?

I’ve noticed a large increase in the amount of random shit being blocked over the last day or two: The Colbert Report is completely inaccessible, The Daily Show’s “Full Episode” does not load (the regular clips do), and last night the page to download Firefox’s new browser was blocked.  That’s just to name a few.  A proxy server will work for the Huffington Post, but videos cannot be played through a proxy.  So, sorry to say, I am S.O.L. when it comes to the Colbert Report.

This all makes me highly suspicious that something is going on, or is about to, in China that they don’t want us to know about.  Usually unspeakable horrors surround the knee-jerk capricious blockings.  Or perhaps they are just finally adding some maintenance to their world-renowned Great Firewall.

In last month’s Post-ABC poll, 71 percent of voters chose McCain as the candidate with “better experience to be president” while 18 percent chose Obama. The poll showed McCain with a 41-percentage-point advantage on “knowledge of foreign affairs.”

This signifies the ignorance of a large section of the American populace. We all know the running joke that is the average American’s grasp of geography outside their homeland, but apparently even issues within their nation are not seen clearly. For progressives across the world, hoping for an Obama blowout in November, these figures are dismaying. Sure, when you look at the facts, it’s easy to see that McCain really is a lot more of the Bush years, and coupled with Bush’s excruciatingly low approval ratings, that spells disaster. But few voters are actually paying very close attention to the daily political news, and many never watch or read anything about the candidates and are educated through ads.

So it would be little wonder that people think a war veteran would be a great Commander-in-Chief, right? I mean, a GM line-worker would be ideal to be the next CEO of GM as compared to Obama. Obama has no auto manufacturing experience whatsoever! That’s how ridiculous it sounds to suppose John McCain — for having been shot down, captured, and tortured — would make a great military leader. Everyone is so worried about somehow disrespecting his military service that no one is stating the obvious: his military experience is not useful in today’s complex world of modern terrorism and global community.

Knowledgeable?

Laughable more like it. So, how can so many think he is knowledgeable on foreign affairs?

If this is any indication of electorate ignorance, we can begin to understand. Misinformation is pawned off as facts, and no one is able to dislodge those ridiculous notions. Even when faced with the reality, the misinformation is still retained out of skepticism.

McCain, therefore, is a symbol of ignorance: not only his, but also a swath of the electorate who may very well inexplicably make the November contest closer than it ever should be.

If you haven’t heard by now, Clint Eastwood and Spike Lee are having a media firefight [read here] over Eastwood’s recent films and the lack of an African American presence in them. Let’s try to look at this dialogue as a microcosm of the greater racial dialogue that Barack Obama mentioned needs to take place, way back before the Pennsylvania Democratic Party Primary. To get to the center of this issue, we should peel away the layers (like an onion) beginning with the latest comments, slung by Lee.

” . . . we’re not on a plantation . . . ” said Lee. Why is Spike bringing up slavery, here, now in 2008? That is the classic white guy response to Lee’s comment. Most African Americans would say that when a white guy has the audacity to tell a black man to shut up, he is bringing back a flood of horrible history where African Americans indeed had to shut up before their masters. Whether Lee was right or wrong to bring up the slave imagery is redundant, rather, it is clearly a legitimate feeling among a majority of the African American population.

“A guy like him should shut his face.” Eastwood’s words are jarring, and for me personally — as a big fan of Clint’s — I found them difficult to reconcile. Lee’s response, in part, was that he [Lee] “didn’t personally attack him.” For someone so versed in the racial complexities of America, this shows a touch of — dare I say — ignorance on Spike Lee’s part. Surely he has to be aware that the racial climate over the past several decades in America has leaned increasingly towards political correctness and the hyper-sensitivity to calling people out as racist for their deeds and words, however far removed as they may be. Why is it completely rational for “shut your face” to connote racism and slavery, but calling into question Eastwood’s racial make up of historical films not at all accusatory on a personal level? After all, Eastwood is the director, having creative control over the production. In which world is Spike Lee living that his calling into question Eastwood’s films is in any way not personal?

The real problem with the “shut up” type comment, is not the charge of racism (since the entire point from inception is one of race), but the fact that Eastwood removed all reason and constructive dialogue with his words. Pointing fingers and name-calling (“angry old man” isn’t exactly uplifting and constructive either) is not the way forward. Both sides have legitimate emotional investment in this debate, and both sides need to recognize that both are valid. Eastwood must confront the alternative reality Lee is putting forward without defensiveness; Lee, in turn, has to understand that in the socio-political climate of the day, there is no such thing as “impersonal” claims of intentional racial-historical omission.

One of the greatest barriers to reconciliation and dialogue is actually the media (surprise, surprise). Look at the headline on the above Huffington Post article I linked. “Clint Eastwood: Spike Lee Should ‘Shut His Face’, Lee Responds, “We’re Not on a Plantation”. The two sides actually had a lot more words to say. In fact, Lee said, “First of all, the man is not my father and we’re not on a plantation either.” Why not put the “father” comment into the headline? I guess it doesn’t get as many hits. Naturally, of the entire dialogue, those are the most racially charged words, and by emblazoning them in the headline is about as helpful as a school ground fight where all the others gather around chanting “fight! fight! fight! fight! fight!” It’s purpose is to stoke the others onward to even more violence. The same is true here.

What we need for true dialogue and reconciliation is thus: rationality and keeping emotions in check; understanding for sensitivities on both sides of the dialogue; the calm not to be swayed by media headlines/soundbytes without looking at the heart and truth of the issue. In America’s racial dialogue, there is far too much defensiveness, lack of empathy, and media interference with the sole purpose of not having a reasonable discussion.

Today, the Beijing Olympic torch relay converged with the ultimate incarnation of the Olympic spirit: Mao Zedong. According to China Daily’s website, “the second leg relay passed through Red Sun Square, Hero Road, Station Road, Mao Zedong’s Home to wrap up the relay in Mao Zedong Bronze Statue Square.” Doesn’t that just say it all? While everyone is patting China on the back for its economic and now media reforms and openness, it’s nice that they can take the time to honour a man who stood for the destruction of the most human beings in the twentieth century. Surely no one can encapsulate “Olympism” more than he.

“Olympism is a philosophy of life, exalting and combining in a balanced whole the qualities of body, will and mind. Blending sport with culture and education, Olympism seeks to create a way of life based on the joy found in effort, the educational value of good example and respect for universal fundamental ethical principles.”
Olympic Charter, Fundamental principles, paragraph 2

Ahh! That’s Mao. He was all about fundamental ethical principles, as evinced by the death toll estimates of his reign. Forget his disasterous Great Leap Forward, in which the entire nation starved during his compassionate respect for universal fundamental principles, the Cultural Revolution was where he lived and breathed it! He saw the value in education through a good example, which is why during the Cultural Revolution, he closed all schools and sent those whose lives were spared, into the countryside where they could be educated on the value of obedience. Kick ass!

That’s why it is like a miracle of the constellations that the Olympic Spirit — so deeply entrenched in every ounce of Mao Zedong’s being — can come into contact with the Olympic Torch, a symbol of universal fundamental ethical principles. It is no surprise that Sydney Olympic weightlifting champion Yang Xia, could hardly contain herself, saying, “It’s a great honor for me to carry the first torch here in the hometown of the great Chinese leader.” Too right. Some people try a lifetime and still are only responsible for a handful of deaths. Mao Zedong dared to dream and accomplished that goal. Give him the gold!

A couple days ago, I blogged that the “new Chinese openness in the media” was a farce, and in fact was a continuation of their long-standing tactics. Sometimes it feels good to be right, while other times it feels like a Pyrrhic victory, such as now.

The same story is being told by several reporters, here, here, here and here. This is exactly what I was trying to explain in my last blog, that the “openness” is a facade and that when push comes to shove, the government will not tolerate dissent, and refuses to be placed in a face-losing predicament that may then lead to a wanning of nationalistic, Party-loving, emotional outpourings.

In the New York Times/AP story, the most significant detail comes to light: “Several Chinese journalists have said in recent days that officials from the central government told their news organizations not to continue reporting on the issue of unsafe schools.” That’s right, no matter how despicable we may find the dragging away of grieving parents, who have a constitutional right to protest, the most important revelation is that the Central Government, for all the world’s fawning of quake-centric media transparency, is continuing to orchestrate and filter all undesirable elements from reaching mass local (China) media.

Qin Gang seems to agree with me, by stating that the “principle of transparency and openness remains unchanged.” Now, I’m aware he believes that there is and will be transparency, but the reality is that the Communist government’s principle of openness — as seen through their actions — has been and is, tell them how great we are. Look at how open we are; look at how great we’re being. That’s like a wife-beater saying, “look, I haven’t hit my spouse in weeks!” The mere fact that we are having a dialogue on openness and transparency proves there is a grave problem in that area. Praise should only be lavished after talking points are no longer pushed on or stricken off the list of topics the media is allowed to touch on.

Hillary Clinton is going to start her own political party. Can you believe it? No? That’s because it’s not true. But, according to the Clinton campaign, repeating false talking points until they are accepted by the public as fact seems to be their current strategy. As seen in this clip of View [watch here], the blatantly false and divisive talking points created by Hillary’s campaign have taken hold among her supporters, who then — in turn — also ditto those TPs to a wider audience, who may then — in turn — repeat said talking points . . . dizzy yet? I know I am, and I want to vomit.

“Hillary is ahead in the popular vote.”

I abhor this lie shoveled down our throats as fact. It seems all progressives know that in that fuzzy math tally, Hillary is not including caucus states. How that’s possible when we all know her to be such a bastion of counting-every-vote is beyond me. Oh wait, she isn’t. This is the same anything-to-win tactics that we’ve all come to admire as “strength and perseverance”. The fact remains that even if she supports Obama from this point forward, she has laid the groundwork in her supporters’ collective minds, that they have been robbed in a similar vein as Gore in 2000, and that will cast a dark cloud over Obama’s general election campaign and subsequent term(s) in office.

When hosts have had a chance to scrutinize and question the veracity of these figures, they often fall short, as can be seen in this clip here, where Terry McAuliffe’s claims are only met with, “you’re good,” which — correct me if I’m wrong — signals he may have a case/point: but he doesn’t.

“Hillary can carry the states needed in the general election; Obama can’t.”

This second talking point parroted on ‘the View’ is even crazier than the fuzzy math, because it defies logic and assumes they can see into the future. True, Hillary won some swing/purple states, but does her victory equal Obama’s defeat in a general election against McCain? What’s more, the Democratic Party has won three Congressional victories over recent months in entrenched Republican strongholds. People are tired of Republicans; the Democratic Party has never had such a ’silver plattered’ election granted to them before. The only way they could lose is if, say, one of the Democratic nomination hopefuls implicitly tells all his/her followers to vote Republican in November.

This translates into a tacit hope, as seen in Whoopi’s comments about 4 years as opposed to 8 years, that Obama will lose. How is it possible that McCain could beat Obama? Well, watching the now infamous “crazy Hillary supporter”, who declares she will vote for McCain instead of an “inadequate black male”, may give us an insight into their true Plan B: scorch Obama’s chances and sail to victory in 2004 with an added, “I told ya so.”

This truly does beg the question, does Hillary support the Democratic Party? Why not start her own political party, that way she needn’t lie and manipulate facts to her advantage to get the nomination. She already has her legion of disgruntled dittoheads to support her. So, let’s start the rumor here! Repeat it to all your friends, because repetition is truth: Hillary Clinton is going to start her own political party!

**Edit**

Just now on Aljazeera English, Rob Reynolds had an Obama and Hillary supporter “discussion” panel over the issues, and the Hillary supporter repeated the “popular vote” claim and both Reynolds and the Obama supporter remained absolutely mute, not challenging that message at all. People need the spirit if Tim Russert in scrutinizing these claims. Grrr.

I recently watched a segment on Aljazeera English’s show The Listening Post [youtube video] that left me feeling that they didn’t really understand the country they were reporting on. They seemed to have an overall tone that this was a tenuous good start to opening of the Chinese media, ignoring the entire underlying thrust of the Chinese government policy: fear.

The fear I’m talking about is the government’s fear of the people, particularly in recent years since the Tiananmen Square Massacre and the even more recent farmer protests all over rural China, which pose a greater threat to national security [read Party security] than the Tibetan protests, which posed an international PR kerfuffle more than a real threat to the government’s iron grip on power in that region. In order to maintain absolute dominance over the people of this most populous nation, the Communist government has become a master of manipulating the emotions of the Chinese people.

Thus, they rule through propaganda, the enemy of which is rationality. You are not meant to think when it comes to all things China or Chinese, you are only meant to feel and only rabid love at that. “Love” is not actually defined by how much you truly care or want to help the nation progress, rather, how loudly you shout and how many flags you wave. At my school, after the earthquake, one dorm has had six flags flying in and outside of their window as if the quantity of flags equates the depth of true love. By that standard, I should take my wife’s pictures and plaster all our walls with them . . . oh wait, that would make me a psychotic stalker. Thanks to the propaganda machine, the definition of patriotism has been replaced with that of nationalism; blind devotion: my country, right or right (there is no wrong)!

Reporters and pundits continually compare this quake and the government’s response to that of the 1976 Tangshan counterpart; yet, I contend that the country and culture has so fundamentally altered since then, that the comparison is really a comparison of the two periods entirely as opposed to comparing China to its more recent past. That was a time of Mao and strong ideological leanings, whereas now is well into the capitalistic economic Opening and Reform policy. Why not compare it to the torch relay or the Tibetan incidents? What I see when looking at the earthquake coverage, is an exact continuation of the recent Party line: governance through the propaganda of nationalism. Of course they are going to show 24/7 coverage of people’s grief and the great leaders doing their all to help them. Everyone I know who is Chinese, has cried multiple times over the past two weeks. Stories of heroism and nationalism fly around like Hollywood gossip. If this country had a religion, Wen Jiabao would already be sainted. With all due respect to those who have suffered in this truly great tragedy, this has been a PR miracle from heaven, so why would they stop that?

I think I can afford to be a little callous, because — quite frankly — the majority of the people of China, couldn’t care less about what is going on in the outside world. Death, disease, natural disasters, wars: these go on week after week, but at this moment in this country, it’s as if every other tragedy is insignificant compared to their idolized earthquake. Yes idolized. It has gone beyond grief and agony and has become a symbol to inspire yet more nationalism, stoked primarily by the media. Anyone not showing the appropriate amount of grief and not donating the appropriate amount of aid is metaphorically tarred and feathered in the one-Chinese psyche.

Take Korea as an example. It doesn’t matter that China is the world’s leader in on-hand foreign capital, they are still looking for handouts from small nations such as Korea, who — according to those around me — is not giving enough. Understanding how much money the government has would be a rational approach, and remember, rationality is a sin in this nation of propagandistic passionate flag waving.

In short, this is not a new era of openness, and in fact, it’s not even a new era full stop. The propaganda machine is running full tilt as it always has. I will give it the benefit of the doubt and say that their is no hidden agenda to stoke people’s nationalism, but perhaps the media and the people in China are so entrenched with self-love that it can’t even recognize what it really is. Primarily, the foreign media have bought into that falsehood of being more open, hook, line and sinker.

It was shocking to see what Harold Ickes said on Meet the Press. Let’s forget about the fuzzy math and the fact that he is contradicting his own words about delegates being the absolute decider of who should be the Democratic Party’s 2008 nominee. I’m talking about the fundamentals of being a strategist.

The portion of this video that shocks is how — if you can take him at his word (which is not a given) — he has not discussed doomsday scenarios with Senator Clinton, at all! Isn’t it the job of the strategist to foresee all possibilities and to have appropriate contingency plans in place so as not to be caught off guard?

Everyone already knows that the Clinton camp dropped the ball on the post-Super Tuesday preparations, but surely they should have come away with lessons from that debacle. Apparently not. “I can’t think beyond Tuesday, much less two twelve.” That is Harold Ickes reaction to Tim Russert’s question over Hillary’s possible 2012 campaign if Obama is not successful in the 2008 general election. He also declared that he had never spoken with Senator Clinton on the matter of being Obama’s running mate. I understand his duty is to get Hillary nominated, and those two questions are beyond those parameters, but wouldn’t it be prudent to at least contemplate all eventualities? Isn’t it their lack of forethought and consideration that landed them in this situation in the first place?

As a strategist, making mistakes is inevitable and forgivable. On the other hand, publicly acknowledging your mistakes, and then continuing to make them hardly seems like a healthy strategy for a strategist.

In that awkward state between sleep and clarity, I had this thought that may seem like “Duh!” to many of you, but I haven’t ever really thought about it this way before, that is how cool sex has encapsulated happiness so wonderfully.  Whether you believe in God, mother nature or even random chance, it’s all the same that sex is a marvelous gift that leads to happiness, true happiness.

I think many people can understand and accept that there are different levels of happiness, and sex is traditionally seen as a base level, which does not lead to long-lasting happiness, whereas having children is often seen as the ultimate in contentment.  This idea is discussed as five levels of pleasure by Rabbi Noach Weinberg [MP3 lecture].  Jon Stewart, on Dave Letterman was talking about his kids and how great it is to have them, his only regret being he waited so long to have them.  What I find is often taken for granted, and what I had my revelation about, is the perfect symmetry from one level of happiness to the next, from sex to kids.

Have you ever had sex and afterwards wondered, “what the hell am I doing?”  Maybe it was with a person you shouldn’t have been with or for some other reason, regret it.  I know I have, but never with my wife.  In the context of my marriage, sex is much more than the physical act of coitus (to use the parlance of our times) — although that too is a great feeling and source of happiness — rather, it emotionally binds the marriage tighter.  Thus, even before a child is brought into the equation, sex acts as a conduit for happiness on multiple levels.  The wonder comes after the fact when, like a slow-release timer of pleasure, your child is born.

I suppose in my brain, although I know where babies come from (the trash, right?) and I know how great sex is, I never before viewed it in unifying terms as a singular and perfected path to happiness.  The significance is in my apprehension over whether to have children or not, and viewing it this way makes the prospect no longer daunting or murky, and instead, I’m looking forward to enjoying what nature will bring.

Hillary bashing is almost becoming ‘bandwagony’, but for me, my dislike is becoming increasingly personal.  Although I’m not even American, I nevertheless follow and discuss U.S. politics with all my friends and family.  Back in the day, I used to be a relatively ardent and vocal Hillary supporter, but she has consistently been not just putting her foot in her mouth and misstepping at every turn, rather she has shown — as Olbermann pointed out — an insight into her character.

Maybe politicians are so caught up in their own plight they neglect to comprehend that their supporters are increasingly alienated at the very moment they “slip up”.  Worse still is when it’s proven that said politician’s innocent slip was actually a premeditated and recurring problem, such as the latest gaffe (that’s putting it incomprehensibly lightly) in which she not only implied that she’s sticking around in case something removes Obama from the race, but also lied about why she invoked such imagery, as if it were the first time she ever drew upon that imagery. [1]  How does that make her [one time] supporters feel?

Can you imagine: you vouch for someone who is applying for a job at your work, and you support him/her only to have that person say increasingly uncomfortable and insensitive things?  Then, when called on it, that person (while feigning only a modicum of remorse) is discovered to have uttered the same things previously.  How uncomfortable would you feel at work afterwards?  That’s what she’s doing to all of us who once espoused that she was upstanding and would make a great next leader for a new America.  Wow.  We need to rethink our ability to judge a person’s character.

So, although I have long since stopped supporting Clinton in her bid for the White House, I still sting with embarrassment for having ever supported her.  In my circle of friends, my political-opinion-capital continues to be drained as all of my acquaintances can always point to my once favored view of Hillary as a way of discounting my current opinions.  When Hillary abandoned her liberal base for the now infamous “Karl Rove play book” (remember when she actually had the gall to declare Obama was using his tactics!?), she not only alienated herself but also every progressive who ever argued with an Obama supporter in defense of her position.

So when she’s using her fuzzy math to recalculate the popular vote, I hope she includes the demographic of those who voted for pre-neo-con Hillary and feel (in Hillary’s world) as disenfranchised as the people of Zimbabwe.