Editorial note: Before we proceed with what is an if not disgruntled, then at the very least far from being gruntled discussion of China, we (the editorial we, which Mark Twain said ought only be used by editors and people with tapeworms. We aren't sure if we fall into either category, but I doubt Mr. Twain would be too heavily offended) would like to point out a couple of things around the blogodrome. We were heavily amused by the resident information science professional's excursion in the wilderness with a lesbian couple. High-fives are most certainly in order, and will be delivered as soon as the logistics are worked out. We are furthermore humbly flattered to have been included in the resident rock star's comprehensive list of online mind candy, which seems only to be inaccurate as it, in all modesty, doesn't include her name, which is understandable, as linking to ones own blog does seem rather pointless. That bit of buisiness aside, here follows a far less pleasant matter.
I guess the president of China was displeased with his reception here. I'm sorry sir, would you like your tea with one lump of "fuck you," or two?
It's a fucked up world where this guy gets a 21 gun salute. And yet, I guess on some level it's necessary. Which is even more fucked up. We're piss scared of China right now. They're swiftly moving towards superpower status in a world where we're used to being the only country that term applied to. They've got the largest standing army in human history, which yes, is only a direct threat if they obtain the means to mobilize it, but as it exists now it's still all kinds of ominous. Of course, our cooperation with this asshole is another example of what has been made abundantly clear by the example of Iraq; We take a firm stand on human rights... when it's convenient.
The thing is? We are absolutely responsible for China's position and assumed license to not give a damn about human rights, because we knew about all of this all along and yet we still traded with them. We didn't need to, really, but we did because the profit margins were better and now all of a sudden our economy is in a bind and look who's got their hands on our ankles.
Speaking of which, Yahoo has been implicated in handing the user information of a pro-democracy Chinese citizen, who was summarily jailed, to the government. Note that a public outcry here has not been forthcoming, despite the media crucifixion that Google endured for their cooperation with censorship laws. I'll restate: They caught flak because they refused to do here what Yahoo did over there. Right-wingers would have you believe that there's a liberal bias in the media, but a simple analysis of this situation soundly trumps that. Here are two companies who run a search engine service. Both wanted a market in China. One complied with censorship laws over there and refused to turn over user data to the US Justice Department. Another complied with the US Justice Department here, and help jail a man for democracy advocacy over there. Which one got buried by bad publicity and saw a huge dip in profits?