First shock:  Axl Rose finally got around to releasing “Chinese Democracy,” the new Guns-n-Roses album.  For those unaware of the saga, just know that it took something like twenty years and evry other member of the band quit in frustration over a decage ago — it was, until now, the most famous failed rock album since the Beach Boys’ “Pet Sounds.”

Second shock:  “Chinese Democracy,” the first single, is surprisingly not-half-bad.  Trust me — I hated GN’R.  This is tantamount to me saying I spend my evenings listening to “Tammy Faye Baker Sings PTL Club Favorites.”

Granted, the guitar solo on the bridge is so old-school awful that it sounds like the dude-that-replaced-Slash is consciously channeling David St. Hubbins, but other than that, there’s not much to complain about.  For me it sounded more like Blue Oyster Cült’s “Godzilla” or The Move’s “Brontosaurus”  than “Welcome to the Jungle” or any other GN’R late 80s metal cliché.

Third shock:  Axl doesn’t scream.  Not once. Well, sorta at the beginning, but it’s not part of the lyrics.

Fourth shock:  the song is about. . .wait for it. . .the future of democracy in China.  That’s right — Axl Rose is really, really pissed at the ChiComs.

Really.

Granted, the lyrics aren’t that sophisticated.  Okay, they’re lame.  He rhymes Falun Gong with, uh, now.

CHINESE DEMOCRACY
It don’t really matter
You’ll find out for yourself
No, it don’t really matter
I’m gonna leave this thing to somebody else

If they were missionaries
Real time visionaries
Sitting in a chinese stew
To view my disinfatuation

I know that I’m a classic case
Watch my disenchanted face
Blame it on the Falun Gong
They see the hand and you can’t hold on now

Cause it would take a lot more hate than you
To stop the fascination
Even with an iron fist
All they’ve got to rule the nation
But all I got is precious time

It don’t really matter
Guess I’ll keep it to myself
No, it don’t really matter
I guess you’ll leave this thing to somebody else

Cause it would take a lot more time than you
Have got for masturbation
Even with your iron fist
All they’ve got to rule the nation
But all I got is precious time
All they’ve got to rule the nation
But all I got is precious time

It don’t really matter
I guess you’ll find out for yourself
No, it don’t really matter
So you can hear it now from somebody else

You think you’ve got it all locked up inside
And if you beat ‘em enough they’ll die
It’s like a walk in a park from a cell
And now you’re keeping your own kind in hell
And if you’re Great Wall rocks blame your self
While they all reach out for you hand/help?
And we’re out of time…

But hey — who’da thunk Axl Rose could be political?  Now we know why he wasn’t invited to perform during the Olympics Opening Ceremony.

But dude — masturbation with an iron fist?   Ouch.  And ewwww.

Related posts

• The Nobel Committee Chickens Out
• Reindeer Games: Bush, Human Rights, and China
• Controlympics: A Journalist Demands An Honest Answer
• Wonk’d: How to Cover the Olympics
• What Were You Thinking, Mary Carillo?

With all due respect to Martti Ahtisaari, who has played an outstanding role over the years in mediating conflicts, I cannot believe that he was the best choice for the Nobel Peace Prize, especially given the speculation that the Nobel Committee was considering giving it to Hu Jia and/or other Chinese activists.

Honoring another European bureaucrat-politician at a time when China’s human rights activists labor in anonymity, largely forgotten around the world (or worse, willfully ignored in order to appease the ChiComs) is both a travesty and a farce.

I once heard a story, perhaps apocryphal, that upon learning that he had been nominated for the Peace prize, Vaclav Havel urged the committee to consider instead a then-little-known human rights and democracy activist from the other side of the world.  The result was the awarding of the Prize in 1991 to Aung San Suu Kyi, an act that has helped maintain public awareness of and support for the cause of human rights and democracy in Burma.

It is a shame that Mr. Ahtisaari did not do the same when he was nominated.

Related posts

• Reindeer Games: Bush, Human Rights, and China
• Morning Buzz: Chinese Democracy
• Controlympics: A Journalist Demands An Honest Answer
• Wonk’d: How to Cover the Olympics
• What Were You Thinking, Mary Carillo?

This didn’t get much coverage in the American press:

Levy Mwanawasa, the Zambian president who was laid low by a stroke hours before he was due to lead a band of African leaders in condemnation of Robert Mugabe’s regime in Zimbabwe, died on Tuesday at a Paris hospital aged 59.

”I would like to inform the nation that our president, his Excellency Dr Levy Mwanawasa, died this morning at 10.30am at Percy Military Hospital,” Rupiah Banda, his deputy who has been acting president since Mr Mwanawasa suffered a stroke in late June, told the nation in a televised address. . . .

This is a double blow.  Mwanawasa had emerged as a force for stability both in Zambia and the region.  His country has rarely been more stable, and thanks to his leadership, it has the chance to become another Botswana.  The big question now is whether Banda can sustain his legacy.

In addition, Mwanawasa was one of the few African leaders ready and willing to challenge Mugabe.  He was expected to “stiffen the spine” of other African leaders at last month’s African Union meeting.  Tragically, he was felled by a stroke hours before the meeting started.

The death of Mr Mwanawasa, whose health has been poor since a near-fatal car crash in the early 1990s, robs the continent of one of the few leaders prepared to pierce the veil of deference long afforded to Mr Mugabe. Along with his counterparts in Botswana, Kenya, Tanzania and Liberia, the Zambian leader was forthright in his condemnation of the abuses that saw the Zimbabwean strongman claim a new mandate after a one-man election in June.

In the weeks leading up to the June 27 run-off Mugabe said that “only God could remove him” as President.  I’m sure he’s gloating right now, convinced that divine intervention struck down one of his most vocal critics.

Related posts

• Mbend It Like Mbeki
• Oh Behave
• Mbeki to the Future
• Maybe Dubya Can Give Him the Medal of Freedom
• Last I Checked, I’m Not the Prime Minister of Zimbabwe

From an exchange between a determined British reporter and a craven IOC official:

Question: Hi, I’m Alex Thompson from Channel Four News. My question’s mercifully short, and it’s for Giselle. Given that China got these games largely on making promises on human rights and press freedom, and given that the Chinese government has lied through its teeth about keeping those promises, is the IOC in any way embarrassed?

Giselle Davies, spokeswoman for the International Olympic Committee: Good morning, Alex.

Thompson: Good morning.

Davies: There were certainly some hopes and aspirations outlayed in 2001 as to how the games could have a positive impact on the wider social framework. And I think we have to note that there have been enormous steps forward in a number of areas. You’re here reporting on the games. The world is watching. And there will be commentaries made appraising how the games have had an impact, wider through bringing sports, athletes and the world’s attention.

Interestingly, I saw that the Associated Press did a survey whereby their readers say that 55 percent of the respondents of the United States believe the choice was the right choice to come to Beijing, China …

Thompson: Yes, but I’m not asking that. I’m asking the IOC if they are in any way embarrassed about the manifest failure on behalf of the Chinese government to keep their promises. It’s a very straightforward question: Are you embarrassed?

Davies: We are very proud of the fact that these games are progressing with spectacular sports, spectacular sports venues, operationally running very smoothly, and that’s what we’re here focusing on.

Thompson: I’m asking whether you’re embarrassed. I’m not asking about how well the games have been run or how wonderful the venues are. Are you embarrassed?

Davies: I think I’ve answered your question by explaining…

Thompson: I don’t think anyone in this room, if I may speak, I may be stepping out of line, but I don’t think anybody thinks you’ve answered the question. Is the IOC embarrassed about the Chinese government not keeping those promises?

Davies: We’re very pleased with how the organizers are putting on a good sporting event. That’s what this is. The IOC’s role and remit is to bring sport and the Olympic values to this country. That is what is happening, and the organizers have put on an operationally sound games for the athletes. This is an event, first and foremost, for the athletes, and the athletes are giving us extremely positive feedback about how they see these games being held for them.

Thompson: Well, Giselle, we’re certainly not getting anywhere are we? Let’s try it once more time. Is the IOC embarrassed about the Chinese government’s not keeping promises on both press freedom and human rights? One more chance.

Davies: Well, I think probably your colleagues in the room would like to have a chance at questions as well. I think I’ve answered your question.

I’m tempted to award Davies Dillweed of the Day, but since the IOC and the USOC both already have won the thing in the past two weeks, perhaps it’s time to elect Olympics officials to the Dillweed Hall of Shame.

Congratulations to Alex Thompson for demanding an answer and refusing to tolerate spin.

Hat tip:  China Media Blog

Related posts

• Controlympics: Swifter, Higher, Stronger. . .Wetter?
• Controlympics: Winners (#1 of 4)
• Controlympics: Losers (#2 of 4)
• Controlympics: China’s 21 Rules
• Wonk’d: How to Cover the Olympics

I know I’m a little behind on this, but I just read in the papertubes that Dubya gave a speech about human rights in China .  And that the ChiComs are not happy about it.

My first instinct was to applaud him for speaking out.  After his appearance before the foreign press last week, during which he set a new personal record for inanity, obsequiousness, and malapropisms,  I was sure that he would be so busy begging Hu “Is Lying Now” Jintao not to liquidate China’s dollar holdings that he wouldn’t dare talk about human rights or democracy.  So reports that he did, and that the Chinese got mad as a result, came as a pleasant surprise.

Then I read the speech.

The first thing I noticed was that he gave it in Thailand.  Not at the Embassy dedication in Beijing, not during his visit to the Olympics, but in Bangkok.  He might as well have given it in Timbuktu.

The second I noticed was that he does not mention human rights in China until the twenty-sixth paragraph — out of twenty-nine total.  It comes only after he’s praised the Chinese for their economic achievements, highlighted their role in the six-party talks on North Korea, begged them not to foreclose on our economy, and reiterated America’s belief in a “one China” policy.

It also comes after he wishes the Queen of Thailand a happy birthday, praises the economic achievments of Thailand and other countries in the region, invokes the threat of terrorism, discusses North Korea, and gives a shout out to his wife for her work on Burma.  (That’s right, of all the people working on Burma in this world, he chose to praise Laura.)

The actual criticism takes up two paragraphs of twenty-nine.  They look almost like an afterthought.  And they include the following sentence:

Change in China will arrive on its own terms and in keeping with its own history and its own traditions.

I just ran that little gem through the Diplospeak Translator, and this is what came out:

DIPLOSPEAK TRANSLATOR: We’re not really serious about this, but Congress and those whiny human rights organizations back home will kick my butt for the rest of my term if I don’t pretend to care. Please please please please don’t be mad at me.

What nonsense.  And the ChiComs got in a lather over this? Here’s what the Foreign Ministry said in response:

Foreign Ministry spokesman Qin Gang admonished Bush, saying “We firmly oppose any words or acts that interfere in other countries internal affairs, using human rights and religion and other issues.” He also said the Chinese government is dedicated to promoting basic rights, and that “Chinese citizens have freedom of religion.These are indisputable facts.”

This isn’t foreign policy.  It’s Chinese Opera.  I don’t know which I find more distressing.

• The fact that the White House is spinning this as courage;
• The fact that the Chinese have gotten their collective Communist capitalist noses out of joint for such innocuous language; or
• That the Western media bought the whole thing as a real controversy.

The games have started, Bush will forget about his admonition, the Chinese will welcome him, and everyone will enjoy the spectacle and the athleticism.  Nothing else will happen.

There’s a term my summer camp friends used to have for such hypocrisy:  Reindeer Games, which we defined as pretending to care about something when you really didn’t give a damn what happened.  I think that pretty much summarizes the situation here.  All posturing, no content.

Related posts

• Controlympics: Winners (#1 of 4)
• Controlympics: Losers (#2 of 4)
• The Olympics’ Real Legacy: Greater Repression
• The Nobel Committee Chickens Out
• So Much for Auspicious Numbers

You probably missed it, but President Bush went over to the US Agency for International Development (USAID) on Thursday in order to give a big ol’ speech on his “Freedom Agenda,” whatever that is.

I was invited to attend, but I’d rather have my toenails staple-gunned to my forehead that listen to Bush prattle on about how much he’s done for  human rights.  If you look closely enough at this photo,  you can almost see the beacon of freedom shining down on the smirk of hubris and denial.

But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t put his speech through the Diplospeak Translator.  And to save you the trouble of poking out your eyes with a sharp stick, I’ve included only the best parts.

Read the rest of this entry »

Related posts

• Reindeer Games: Bush, Human Rights, and China
• Controlympics: A Journalist Demands An Honest Answer
• Controlympics: Losers (#2 of 4)
• Wonk’d: How to Cover the Olympics
• What’s Missing at DNC: Torture, Guantanamo. . .and Cheney

I’ve had been planning to blog on the whole Obama at Brandenburg gate issue, but Marbury managed to sum up the my concerns pretty well:

First post:

Audacious, heavily symbolic gestures like this make me queasy (Gordon Brown did something similar, on a smaller scale, and look how that worked out). It’s the kind of thing that can seem brilliant when cooked up at a strategy meeting, and genius when it’s actually executed. But if things start to go wrong afterwards, for whatever reason, it’s the first thing critics will point to and shout “hubris“!

Second post:

Here he is, not even president yet, and he wants us to think of him as Ronald Reagan demanding that Gorbachev tear down the wall. Why does he even have to make a speech whilst in Europe? What’s wrong with a few handshakes and an eight-course dinner?

Let me put it another way: it is an unfortunate fact of life that many Americans are convinced that all Europeans a) are secretly French; b) hate us; c) want us to fail; and d) to use The Simpsons’ classic phrase, are “cheese-eating surrender monkeys.”

So let’s just say I have my doubts about how the Obama speech is going to play back home.

Read the rest of this entry »

Related posts

• Obama, Europe and Gallup: A Berlin Bounce?
• McCain’s Ad: More Disgusting Than We Thought
• Heute sind wir alle Amerikaner (Obama in Berlin)
• Dillweeds of the Day: Right-Wing Poster Posters
• Department of Unfortunate Metaphors