I almost never read the world’s most celebrated ultra-super-blogger, but after scanning his posts today I think I’ll give him more attention. His critique of James Taranto and his thoughts on the Patriot Act are really very intelligent:

I’m afraid I have to agree with MATT WELCH that James Taranto’s characterization of Democrats who booed the Patriot Act as the “al Qaeda Cheering Section” is over the top.

I’ve been a Patriot Act skeptic — to put it mildly — since pretty much day one. It’s not all bad (and even John Kerry pointed that out last night on ABC) but the overall mindset, and the bureaucratic opportunism, that it represents is a bad thing. And “Homeland Security” remains pretty much of a joke today: lots of pork and gold-plating, lots of new bureaucracy, and not a lot of obvious benefit for security. What’s more, Steven Brill’s account of Ashcroft’s role in the Patriot Act’s drafting, which I blogged here back in April, is just devastating.

There’s no question that the Democrats have demonized the Patriot Act and tried to turn it into a political weapon against Bush — and it’s hypocritical given the 1994 and 1996 “crime” and “terrorism” bills, which were basically more of the same. But that hardly turns them into an “Al Qaeda cheering section.”

I get incensed whenever I read Taranto’s Der Sturmer Best of the Web column and wonder why the blogosphere gives him such free reign. It’s good to see that others think he goes too far.

From last night’s SOTU speech:

“[T]he Kay Report identified dozens of weapons of mass destruction-related program activities…”

He couldn’t really have said that, right? I mean, that’s something Bill Maher or someone on Saturday Night Live would say in a parody of
our poor bumbling president. Could a presidential speechwriter in all seriousness compose such mealy-mouthed meaningless jargon? And if so, was the speechwriter not making some wicked joke, secretly laughing at his own audacity? I can’t believe Bush really said it. Amazing.

Link via Atrios, who’s equally amazed.

My amazement continues as Andrew Sullivan slams Bush’s SOTU address on every level. He closes by saying, incredibly, “If you’re a fiscal conservative or a social liberal, this was a speech that succeeded in making you take a second look at the Democrats. I sure am.”

I am still sure Bush is destined to win the upcoming election. I am just a lot less sure than I was a few days ago.

Last week I went through one of my most interesting experiences yet in regard to China, as I helped a poor young fellow in Beijing who had been stiffed by his big multinational employer.

Actually, all I did was offer moral support and some counsel. But I watched day by day as this 24-year-old refused to give in, stood his ground, prepared a detailed letter on how China labor law proved his case — and you know what? He pulled it off. He brought this big famous company to its knees, David and Goliath style. He did his homework, he knew the arbitration procedures and he knew when the company refused to give him a settlement offer in writing that they were committing an offense. Knowledge is power, and my friend won.

Which brings us to the subject of this post, the migrant workers who are lured to cities like Beijing where they are exploited, to the point of their lives being ruined. These people have no knowledge of the law, no tools or resources. They are China’s damned.

This is a horrible story; The bottom line is that these poor young men work for months on immense construction projects in the coastal cities, and then they are never paid. When authorities investigate, some corrupt contractor shows the forged receipts proving he’s paid them, and that’s that. (The authorities probably get their cut as well.) And there’s nothing for the poor fucked peasants to do except cry.

(I know that somewhere this fits in with the recent discussions we’ve been having on a number of blogs in regard to the Chinese and how whoever has the power seems to be by divine right the victor in all circumstances, no matter how grotesque their acts of evil.)

My friend, with a university degree and good connections, was able to make a difference and force a company to live up to the law. But the disenfranchised migrant workers — to whom can they turn? As the article indicates, this is no trivial issue, with as much as $40 billion owed to itinerant laborers throughout the country.

Mr. Gao is the poor sap who convinced his friends in their poor village to come with him to work in the city:

They are all stranded in the capital, and as team leader, Mr Gao feels responsible for their fate.

“We have got no money at all,” one of them says. “Not a cent.”

For Gao Mingyu, there are few options left. Last year he borrowed $2,000 for his daughter’s education, and the interest on that is increasing all the time.

He has not seen her since he first left home to find work in the capital.

And when he thinks about his 70-year-old mother waiting for him at home, he breaks down.

“I would sacrifice my life to get that money back,” he sobs.

His story is all too familiar – it’s estimated millions of others are in the same position.

And it is tales like this that breed resentment against China’s leaders who – despite issuing orders – seem powerless to improve life for the victims of the country’s economic boom.

Let them eat cake.

UPDATE: I see Stephen beat me to it on this. And with far fewer words.

This is really weird. Aparently civet cat coffee is all the rage in Southeast Asia:

SARS fears have stopped the Chinese from eating civet cats. But that hasn’t turned off others from sipping the strangest of brews — one they insist is made from coffee beans eaten, partly digested and then excreted by the weasel-like animals.

The story goes like this: Civets live in the foliage of plantations across Southeast Asia. These fussy foragers pick the best and ripest coffee berries. Enzymes in their digestive system break down the flesh of the fruit before the animals expel the bean.

Workers collect beans from the plantation floor, wash away the dung and roast them to produce a unique drink that devotees might say is good to the last dropping.

I think I’ll stick with Maxwell House.

From a right-wing pundit who on occasion gets things just right:

For me, the big winner is Edwards. He’s always struck me as a Tony Blair figure – telegenic, personally appealing, centrist. His speech was the best of the bunch last night – and he exudes decency. That’s enormously important against Bush because the president’s most under-rated political virtue is his general likeability. If Edwards can pick off even a couple of Southern states, he has a critical advantage over his rivals. National security is obviously a huge problem. Maybe he can find a way to innoculate himself on the issue. How does a Kerry-Edwards or Edwards-Kerry ticket sound? In a word: Credible. The Dems don’t want to commit suicide after all. For the record, I’d back Edwards against any of the others currently running.

This doesn’t absolve Sullivan for leading the charge to smear Clark and Dean as incoherent, self-contradicting buffoons (and he’s still doing it). But if the Dems can actually get conservatives like him to endorse their presidential candidate, Bush would be in deep trouble indeed.

It wasn’t possible. We all knew Kerry’s campaign had fizzled and failed. We all knew Dean had it wrapped up. We all knew, especially, that, Edwards’ campaign was a joke and he would have saved himself a lot of money, time and embarrassment if he’d pulled out graciously two months ago.

Except everything we knew was wrong. As the most incisive liberal blog-pundit says, “Stunning. Actually, stunning doesn’t really do it justice.”

I feel some hope for American politics for the first time in months — no, in years. I know Dean was being misrepresented in the media, I know the “angry leftist doctor” label was nonsense. But I still felt he simply couldn’t stand up to Bush, especially with his perceived lack of ideas and constant focus on the negative.

Kerry is a whole different story. He can really win. Dean cannot, even with Jimmy Carter’s and Al Gore’s endorsement (said with some irony).

But the biggest surprise is Edwards. He was all but ignored and presumed to be dead.

I confess, I hadn’t even heard of him until about two months ago when a friend called from the US and told me he’d just seen a “town hall” debate between the Democratic candidates. “I didn’t know who Edwards was, but he was the only candidate who really seemed to have original ideas. He was the only one who looked like a real presidential candidate.”

I still don’tn know enough about him, but I like what I’ve seen so far, at least in terms of coming across like a real person, as a gentleman and as a leader.

The Iowa caucuses have proven at times in the past to be pretty meaningless. So I am hoping this is more than a fluke, and that the new momentum behind the supposed underdogs turns out to be more than fleeting. Kerry really could win against Bush (even if the right-wing pundits love to make jokes about his hair). There may really be hope after all.

With Chinese New Year almost upon us, hot news stories about China have slowed to a trickle and our regional blogosphere appears to be out to lunch. For better or worse, I’ll be around all week holding up the fort. It’s no fun travelling when you have to wear a gigantic stainless steel splint — in fact, it’s impossible. So for the first time since I moved to Asia, I’ll be spending CNY alone at my apartment, just me and my computer.

I expect this to be one of the most stultifyingly dull holidays of my life.

It’s another of those stories I couldn’t make up if I wanted to.

People in strait-laced Singapore were urged Monday to act like monkeys — the Chinese zodiac sign for the coming Lunar year — for the sake of their country.

Singaporeans could foster an economic recovery this year by behaving more like monkeys, Deputy Prime Minister Tony Tan said in a Lunar New Year message reported in The Straits Times newspaper.

Chinese communities around the world will herald the start of the Year of the Monkey on Thursday. Chinese believe the monkey is clever, flexible, innovative and confident, but can also be selfish, jealous and vain.

“Be like a monkey. When things happen, you have to be nimble. Take advantage of opportunities, don’t be cast down, but rise to the challenge if it does occur,” Tan was quoted as saying.

Sounds like Singapore has absolutely gone bananas. I wonder if he was wearing Funky Monkey briefs when he made his remarks.

When he’s mean and surly, he’s the worst. But after he has voided the toxins from his system and he starts to see things clearly, he can be really smart:

The strategy of bankrupting the country to appease various interest groups hasn’t worked too well. Bush is still behind on prescription drugs for the elderly – despite a future cost of trillions directed to the wealthiest segment of the population. Despite booming growth and productivity rates, Bush still gets a net negative on the economy. It’s even stevens on Iraq. The president’s only real ace is national security – which, during the war on terror, is a big ace. (It’s certainly the sole reason I’m still giving the president the benefit of the doubt.) But here’s the thing: much of the national security advantage is retroactive. It refers to the admirable way in which Bush responded to 9/11.

Looking forward, there’s a big opening for a Democrat who wants to say the following: “I want to do more to improve homeland security, put more emphasis on securing loose nukes in Russia and around the world, stay the course on Iraq – but also move to mend fences with old Europe and our other allies. Domestically, I’m going to improve our finances by raising taxes on the very rich, but cutting taxes on the middle class. And, above all, I’ll be a check on one-party government in the Congress, and prevent Bush from appointing extremists to the Supreme Court.” That’s a powerful message. My hunch is that the Democratic primary voters have begun to realize that they’ve sent their message of anger, but now realize they can win, if they find the right guy. For a cultural liberal, fiscal conservative like me, Bush’s only current advantage over a centrist Democrat is his conduct of the war on terror. What we’ll see in the next few weeks is if the Dems can see this. It’s grim news for Bush if they can.