Millions of you turn to this blog site every day because you feel I will offer you insights that will help you make sense of the world. I know this. It's a humbling responsibility. And frankly, the enormity of it forces me to offer a confession. Today I reviewed the morning papers as I usually do (online, sans paper) and watched the early broadcasts of TV news organizations and I have got to admit it, I find everything pretty confusing. 

For instance:

  • The Michael Jackson memorial service will cost the City of Los Angeles $4 million. That's their official estimate. I would bet you my copy of the "Thriller" album that the costs are considerably higher and they can't bear to admit it. Why? Well, because California is broke, right? So here we have a government that is strapped for cash forking out for the public funeral of a multi-millionaire...an event that is likely to sell hundreds of thousands of records the profits of which go straight to Jackson's family.
  • On top of this, isn't this the same local government that spent hundreds of thousands trying to prosecute today's hero for child molestation? Whose case was made more difficult because today's hero paid millions to buy the silence of children with whom he had some sort of interaction...one that was worth millions to keep covered up?
  • Also baffling: in a bizarre twist on a bizarre case, in order to defray the costs of memorial, the NAACP is, according to MSNBC, trying to raise funds from their members and supporters. Am I getting this right? The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People is pulling out the stops to raise money for an individual who actually spent a small fortune testing the boundaries of medical science in order to actually cease being a person of color?
  • And, back to California being broke, yesterday its credit rating dropped to two notches above junk status. This is an economy that were it that of a country would rank 8th in the world. This is a failing government that controls an economy larger than that of Russia, India, or Brazil. (Not to mention, Canada, Mexico or Italy.) And yet here in Washington, I get no sense of urgency on this. We do company bailouts. What's our policy going to be on state and city bailouts?
  • Meanwhile, while the media's attention is focused on the Staple Center in Los Angeles, the President of the United States is meeting with the prime minister of the world's only other nuclear superpower. This story is less important than the media canonization of the guy who actually invented the concept of celebutard (someone famous primarily for doing really stupid things) and whose greatest accomplishments consisted of making high-pitched noises come out of his food hole. Want to get a sense of what it must have been like to be in the room with Vladimir and Barack? Take a look at the video of them settling in before the cameras for their joint statement this morning. Yikes. Calling all body language experts. There was none of that George W. Bush staring deep into each other's eyes you can rest assured about that.
  • At the same time, roughly the same number of protestors was likely killed in Western China as in Iran a couple weeks ago, and the global outrage-o-meter is barely stirring. Apparently Muslims killing Muslims is worse than Muslims and Han Chinese killing each other which proves what? The media believes in the multiplicative power of Muslims in weighing the value of a story? Or could it be that China is too big and important to too many people to be called out on its abuses? When will we realize that we can't actually have a strong relationship with a country and a spineless one at the same time? For the United States, for example, our shared interests with China and the strengths of the relationship need to be strong enough to endure the airing of our differences or they are meaningless and the relationship will ultimately be doomed by the tensions that are not aired.
  • Meanwhile, sitting in his gilded Vatican palace, the Pope has issued an encyclical striking out against greed. The encyclical, while assailing the ethical lapses that caused the current global economic meltdown, makes no mention of hypocrisy however. This might be seen as a lapse given the Church's financial record over the years, including but not limited to the failure of Banco Ambrosiano, a bank it owned. (Although one has to wonder if they had access to a higher power that guided the Vatican treasury away from investing in derivatives, which they reportedly eschewed.) Interestingly, the encyclical also warned against the perils of mismanaged globalization...an interesting switch since arguably the Catholic Church was the world's most important early force for globalization, a fact which largely triggered the reformation. (Well, the globalization thing and the financial excesses and ethical abuses of senior church officials.) And, confusingly enough, noting all these ironies and twists, the message of the Pope's encyclical about better ethics and distribution of wealth seemed timely and useful.
  • Similarly confusing to me was the fact that in the wake of the United Nations latest impotent, paper condemnation of North Korean missile tests that one could not hear a wave of laughter rippling around the world. But then again, perhaps everyone was too busy figuring out which of the 16 television networks that were scheduled to be carrying the Jackson memorial they would be watching. Fortunately for us all, the Security Council, according to an AP report quoting its current president Ugandan Ambassador Ruhakana Rugunda, "will continue to closely monitor the situation and is committed to a peaceful, diplomatic and political solution." What a relief. 
  • Finally, while all the above surprises me, one last thing that I find a bit bewildering is the number of things that are utterly unsurprising that pass for news. Just to take a couple of utterly predictable examples from today's Washington Post, "Post-Bankruptcy GM Will Have Work Cut Out for It," "Pottermania Grips London for World Premiere" and any story that discusses the arrest of former DC Mayor Marion Barry.
This post has been updated.

David McNew/Getty Images

 
Facebook|Twitter|Reddit

ZJIN

6:13 PM ET

July 7, 2009

Where do yo get the

Where do yo get the information that the victoms are Muslims? As far as I know (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jul/06/china-uighur-urumqi-victims-deaths), most of dead/wound victoms are Han Chinese. It is Uighurs who were killing Han. A genocide to against Han.

 

DJROTHKOPF

7:10 PM ET

July 7, 2009

Good point

The story I read this morning was unclear on this point. But I did a little digging and it seems there have been deaths on both sides. So I will make a change to the posting...and I thank you for the heads up.

 

GRANT

7:28 PM ET

July 7, 2009

Reasons

Because if memory serves the Chinese police only gave a death toll (and who knows if it's remotely accurate), they never divided it into victims, police, rioters, and which rioters. Aside from that, may I remind you that Han Chinese have been photographed walking en masse towards Uighur sections armed with large sticks, knives, and iron bars just as Uighur Chinese have towards Han Chinese. It isn't as though one side has a clear moral high ground in this regard.

 

ZJIN

9:22 PM ET

July 7, 2009

Currently people need a

Currently people need a little bit more logic and intelligence to read newspaper. Read the topic "...seek revenge..." If the Han people have not been killed, why do they need to seek revenge? And the following report also said that the security forces stopped the people taking matters in their own hands and separated the both sides on the street.

I also wonder why you just notice that picture.
http://www.zonaeuropa.com/20090706_1.htm
Here is the link with latest update of picture and video. If you drag to the bottom, there is something really funny and sad.

 

BLUE13326

9:32 PM ET

July 7, 2009

Stop playing games

Han Chinese = Government-sponsored mob.

After all, Han Chinese are the ruling class, make up like 90% of the population of China, and the Communists preach Han racial superiority, right?

The Communists used these same tactics to quell unrest in Tibet.

 

GRANT

2:14 AM ET

July 8, 2009

Not necessarily government

Not necessarily government sponsored, I'd consider it more likely that if the local government has decided on a policy it would be to not interfere with such things.

@Zjin: My point wasn't that Han Chinese hadn't been killed by rioters (I'd be very surprised if they hadn't), it was that it is not just a case of Uighur's attacking Han. Declaring it to be as simple as that only means that there will be flawed data and similar incidents in the future. Personally I wish I could be on the ground to see with my own eyes how the police are handling this, I generally prefer to consider police statements (from any nation) only one source of information and not necessarily the most accurate.

 

EDDIE825

8:36 AM ET

July 8, 2009

sorry, but you are wrong

Sorry but you are totally wrong.

The Communist government does not preach Han racial superiority. Do not take it for granted that this racial superiority preach thing happening elsewhere in other countries is also happening in China. Actually the Communists preach the equality of all the residing 56 ethnic groups.

Practically, to compensate for their disvantages because of their less population percentage, the government issues loads of regulations and orders that favor the minorities very much.

Zjin knows China, he would agree with me.

 

JAMIET

10:32 AM ET

July 8, 2009

oh really?

and that's why the uighurs and tibetans have been subjugated for decades by the han chinese? what f'ing fantasyland are you living in?

SICK of china's BS.

 

ZJIN

1:07 PM ET

July 8, 2009

What's the weird world do you

What's the weird world do you live in? There are more than 2 minorities in China. Last time I check, officially there are 56. Politically, minorities are treated better: there are quotes for them in government and they got extra points in the college entry exam. You know how many Han students would change the race background on their ID card to become a "minority" to get these extra points. If there is a discrimination, it is a reverse discrimination.

Yes, they are poor relative to Han, mostly because of the poor education and language barrier. Seriously, if you cannot speak the official language fluently in your country , you probably are not going anywhere, statistically speaking. Besides the language, their circumstances are no different from poor Han Chinese. Rich-Poor gap in China is great and dangerous, that is another topic.

You apparently know close to nothing about what the reality is in China. Or you are brainwashed by the ignorant and oversimplified MSM. Totally arrogant BS IMO.

 

JAMIET

3:05 PM ET

July 10, 2009

56!!!

yes, thanks for that official tally mr jin. also your comment on MSM brainwashing is particularly rich, coming from a defender of the communist government in china. as an aside, i moved to china about a month after the tiananmen massacre, and i'm sure the Western MSM couldn't have done half the job the chinese government has done in convincing a whole generation of chinese that it never happened. that's the great thing about totalitarianism - if you're on top.

as for your ludicrous point about minorities being "treated better," i am well aware that minorities are nominally favoured by china's silly college entry exam, and just as cognizant of the fact that this is a meaningless red herring constantly trotted out by the oppressive classes the world over, particularly in china (and india).

 

GRANT

7:31 PM ET

July 7, 2009

Jackson

Frankly I couldn't care less about Jackson, yes his music may have been very talented but that means little to me. I understand that many people worldwide cared quite a bit about him, and so the state of California has little choice in the matter. As for the charges brought against him, I think that reflection will show that most famous people when they die are only remembered for any good things that they did and rarely the bad.

 

PETER1030

3:16 PM ET

July 8, 2009

Better Suited for The Onion

Adding to your list of ridiculously obvious headlines to cross my computer screen this morning was this one from The New York Times, "Interracial Roommates Can Reduce Prejudice". Thanks to Captain Obvious for that startling revelation.

 

David Rothkopf is the CEO and Editor-at-Large of Foreign Policy. His new book, "Power, Inc.: The Epic Rivalry Between Big Business and Government and the Reckoning that Lies Ahead" is due out from Farrar, Straus & Giroux on March 1.

Read More