Jackie Chan clarifies his Chinese control statement

As much as I wanted to jump on the story that Jackie Chan believes Chinese people need to be controlled, I just had to wait. There was no question in my mind that the news story had to have more details than what was first stated back on the 18th. And now it seems there is more to it all.

It all started when Jackie Chan was speaking at the Boao Forum. He was discussing censorship and restrictions in filmmaking when he stated

"I'm not sure if it's good to have freedom or not," Chan said. "I'm really confused now. If you're too free, you're like the way Hong Kong is now. It's very chaotic. Taiwan is also chaotic. Chan added: "I'm gradually beginning to feel that we Chinese need to be controlled. If we're not being controlled, we'll just do what we want."

Now this statement was taken by the AP reporter (William Foreman) to be an affirmation of the communist Chinese Government, or at least that's the tone of his report. And the comments of Chan quoted in that article do tend to support that view, in part. They also go on to make a strong critique of recent debacles in China, like the tainted milk event.

The whole thing left me confused. Was Chan for less democracy? Were his comments about filmmaking just misinterpeted or misquoted? Was Chan upset with the modern Chinese culture?

Of course the international response didn't bother to wonder about these things. The international media focused in on the one line they cared about "I'm gradually beginning to feel that we Chinese need to be controlled."

There was outrage as some took his words as to mean that he was calling Chinese people pets, like Hong Kong pro-democracy legislator Leung Kwok-hung

"He's insulted the Chinese people. Chinese people aren't pets. Chinese society needs a democratic system to protect human rights and rule of law."

This of course ignores the harsh denouncement Chan made of the Chinese Government after the Beijing Tiananmen Square event where hundreds of pro-democracy protesters were killed in June 1989.

So it has come to the final point where Jackie Chan had his spokesman clarify things. And like I wondered at the onset, he was taken out of context as his spokesperson stated

"Some people with ulterior motives deliberately misinterpreted what he was saying."

Chan was speaking about the entertainment industry. Just that industry. Which makes sense since that was why he was speaking in the first place, to talk about entertainment. And it makes his comment clearer what he was meaning. But the AP reporter stands by his account and the nature of how he made the quote.

But while Asia is in an uproar I still have to wonder. Chan has made millions because of the freedoms he has enjoyed. Why would someone who can directly tie his success with freedom be against it, especially for his own people? That just doesn't make sense.

Though it makes a lot of sense that a reporter might misquote or misinterpet a comment in a foreign language (I presume Chinese is not Foreman's fist language) that would create lots of coverage and promote a certain political view. It's a trend that we have seen in America since roughly October of 2007 with President Obama.

Even now the media reports on President Obama are short on details, missing the vigorous questioning given to other Administrations, and in some cases blatantly propagandist. Which says nothing of the trend in the mainstream media to become more entertainment oriented as opposed to true journalism.

Did Jackie Chan intend to insult the Chinese people, and support the Communist Government of mainland China? I think not. But that won't stop him from becoming the scapegoat those opposed to those ideals can use to whip up international outrage at China. If this were to destroy the career of Chan, thouse using his words for their own ends won't care. They just want headlines that get their message across.

Maybe I am wrong. Maybe I am too much of a Jackie Chan fan. Still I think that this is too odd and suspiciously politically adventageous for certain groups. Too bad there seems to be no transcript of the full speech to make this absolutely clear for everyone.

Drugs and punishment

It's just truly amazing how much sympathy and adoration is felt in the nation for drug dealers and addicts. I'm being serious.

We have Secretary of State Clinton rushing out to foreign nations, declaring that their problems are caused by our actions. While this is in part true for the nations that supply the vast drug culture of the United States, it is not the only reason many of those nations are impoverished. The degree of culpability of the U.S. aside, the fact that Secretary Clinton is airing our national dirty laundry to the world is a bit stinging. Especially as the Government fails to act.

That of course says nothing of the way Secretary Clinton's husband, former President Bill Clinton, rode on the humor and prestige of his declared failure to inhale. Sort of a just say no after you've already done it campaign. Very effective in getting the youth of America to stop taking drugs.

Add to this the prestige given to ex-convicts, most for drug-related crimes, as they perform their minstrel acts. America buy tens of millions of dollars worth of adulation on rappers and hip hop - as they directly promote various aspects of getting high. Just watch most rapper music videos, and absolutely any movie that has a rapper in it.

Suffice to say the Government likes drugs, legal or not. Both by its actions and inaction.

But the actions get to be even bigger in some states. The NAACP recently sent out an email, requesting support in getting NY Gov. Patterson to change the Rockerfeller drug laws. Because they are not nice, in essence.

Now I agree that an addict on the corner does not need to be locked up for life. There is a better way to deter new drug users than locking up a kid instead of focusing on the dealer and the supplier. But in America, the end-user has been the focus of attention. Except if you lived in an inner city during the 1980's crack epidemic. That was basically left alone to run amuck.

So yes I think the Rockerfeller laws can be changed for the better. But not in the way Gov. Patterson or the NAACP believe. No, I think there is a lesson that we can learn form a nation trying to school America on math right now. China.

Not very long ago, China has a debilitating problem with opium. Addiction and dealers were rampant in the nation. Something had to be done. Something dramatic.

They took addicts , and drug dealers, put them in a square on live television on every channel and shot them dead. It was a very clear message. They did this for a few years. Rounding up a few hundred addicts and dealers, and then publicly executing them. In less than a decade or so, and with the majority of dealers and addicts still alive, they curbed the problem. Not that it does not exist today, but it is negligible.

Personally, I like this plan for drug dealers. They are effectively mass murderers. They are the ones that kill innocents in their turf wars. They are the ones who seek out children for new clientelle. They offer our communities poison for nothing more than monetary profit. I consider them scum.

And for those that are the most visible, the most visible punishment makes sense. A rapper in a movie or music video extolling the fun and/or wealth generated by drugs - and is a known drug offender, possibly even still being arrested for drug related offenses - deserves to have all their wealth removed and donated to recovery programs. They deserve to be put in a box on Hollywood Blvd, and left alone. Because how many millions of kids will eventually see that movie, and the music videos, and the MTV programs, and the various Award shows, and equate the grandeur of that entertainer with drug use? Especially when that entertainer glorifies their past actions in the drug trade at every opportunity (ie. 50 cent or Snoop Dogg).

Now I know that the NAACP thinks that the effect of laws in the nation like the Rockerfeller law is biased against African Americans, Hispanics, and the poor. Which is true. But that does not divert from the fact that inner cities are focal points of drug activity. Given that there are far more Whites that go unpunished in any manner; the real point of attack is the dealer and supplier. And the punishment to both should be extreme.

Just saying no is not effective. Just attacking the addicts is not effective. Logically we need to move up the chain. And we need to act in a manner that actively causes every criminal involved to question the worth of pursuing such a lifestyle.

It's really just that easy. When I was growing up in the Bronx I could have shown the police half a dozen crack houses. Not that they needed to be shown, they knew of them. But instead they focused on the addicts, effectively just opening a new spot for the next addict to take.

Yet when I had to actively threaten to murder a crack house near where my family lived, because one of the addicts pulled a gun on me and thus proved a threat to my entire family, I got results. Where the police ignored the situation for almost 5 years, I had results in 5 minutes. Because the absolute guarantee of death cuts into profits and risk/reward evaluations for everyone.

If America, New York State, or anywhere wants to be effective in ending the drug problem, we need action. Take a drug dealer, which are easy to find in any city or town, and publicly flog them to within an inch of their life. I guarantee they will give up the suppliers. Get the suppliers and publicly hang them. After a few dozen are killed, I guarantee that there will be fewer drugs, and thus fewer addicts.

But this has to be done across the board. It doesn't matter if the dealer is White, Black, Hispanic, male or female, owns a big company or whatever. Delorean, back in the day, was caught with kilos of cocaine and got treated with kid gloves. What do you think that said to the next CEO that wanted a quick cash infusion to their company? Don't get caught.

Yet if Delorean was placed on national television, and shot in a firing squad, I guarantee cocaine sales would have dropped. And today there would be far fewer celebrities touting their involvement in drugs (like Amy Winehouse).

This is an epidemic problem. It requires an even-handed iron fist resolution. Anything less, in my opinion, is just wasting time and money.

Literature and the internet could have beat Hitler

The Nobel prize is an accomplishment of great order and a source of pride for any winner. Often an entire lifetime of work is summed up in this one award. And there is no question that colleagues respect those that have won.

For those of us in the general populace the Nobel Prize is beyond our expectations. Most of us do not work in various fields of science and mathematics that many past winners like Albert Einstein and such delve into. But in the area of literature we all can dream of witting that one, or several, novels that capture the essence of life and imagination. Thus many of those that have won for literature are well known to us all, or become so.

But this year, as has happened in many years past, the winner of the Nobel for Literature - Jean-Marie Gustave Le Clezio of France - has taken that dream of the populace and added something different. He postulated that perhaps, if the internet had existed in the time of Hitler in the 1930's, he might not have been able to do what he did.

Now this has of course drawn criticism of all sorts. I even read one article where many modern day despots and such ilk were discussed and shown to be without concern for the internet. So it is true that the internet by itself is not an answer. And that is the key.

Like writing fiction, life requires imagination. And it is the imagination of say the blogosphere that can ignite the inspiration required to buck trends and question authority. While it may not be possible in North Korea, or China, where the internet is censored and restricted to high levels it is possible in many free nations. And once that inspiration takes hold it filters to the rest of the world.

Maybe Hitler would have been denounced and ridiculed enough to prevent him from gaining an audience. Perhaps his faulty logic could have been laid bare by the comments and attention to detail the internet can provide. Perhaps it could have been as simple as a Youtube video of a gaff that could have dashed his hopes. Maybe not.

But it is the thought that it might have that is important. Because if it might have in the past, it could in the future. And that is the point I think Jean-Marie Gustave Le Clezio was trying to make. That if we can inspire it, and discuss it, it is possible.

The internet allows for the breaking of every barrier that has existed for millennia. Borders, language, trade differences, religion, and nationalism are all useless. And if we can have the imagination we can spark inspiration. Just like writing does and can do.

And I for one, if I understand this Nobel winner correctly, like that idea. Whether or not it would have worked in the past I can imagine it. And that can inspire us all for a better future.

Pet poisoning leads to $24 million lawsuit

There is nothing like a pet. They are our friends, protectors, and often entertainment as well. They are in essence and fact family. And a year ago hundreds of these beloved members of our family were murdered in our own homes. That murder was via poisons in the food we served to our pets.

The poison was placed, accidentally, in the food we served our pets in China. There were over 200 pet food labels that were involved in the scandal that started in March 2007. And as of today a judge has awarded $24 million to the lawsuit for those that were harmed.

I think it was hardly enough.

There have been 10,000 pet owners that filed for the lawsuit so far. And if you had a pet that was affected you can file up until November 24th. It is expected that for every verified claim there will be an award of $1,500 depending on the number of claims. And if there are funds left over then the proceeds will be given to animal welfare charities.

But the law does not view our pets as family members. It will not allow penalties for the pain and suffering that was inflicted to the families that lost a loved one. That is a failure of the legal system.

The point of such lawsuits is to inflict an equivalent pain to the offender, and to prevent future occurances of the offense. While this is a large amount it is hardly the equivalent, nor does it reach the levels that need to force animal food companies from getting foods from China.

China by the way is unaffected by this lawsuit. That is another shame. While I understand China is so inept that they are equally poisoning their own children, I still see no change in their policies, especially in regard with foreign nations. A huge penalty by law could help to force better standards in that nation.

One thing is sure, our pets deserve better. Hopefully the companies that sold and had the foods made for them will be more critical and proactive in the future. Because there is no reason such wanton murder should ever have happened in the first place.

An Olympic challenge in Hong Kong

2008 is the year of the greatest athletes on four legs ever to be gathered in China at one time. That was no typo, I said 4 legs. Well to be more accurate some are on 2, but they have wings.

No I’m not talking about the Beijing Olympics, but the Hong Kong Olympets that are underway as we speak.

The Olympets was inspired by petshop manager Howard Cheung. It seems that Hong Kong, though overcrowded and short on space, is filled with pet lovers. And Cheung knows that pets need exercise as much as their owners. So the combination seems like an excellent fit.

Some 400 pets are involved in these first ever games. As can be seen in the video dogs appear to be the most common participant, though mice and parrots are not excluded.



The secret to getting the pets to be properly motivated?

"Of course for some of the events you have to use treats so they will try harder," he [Cheung] said. "The parrots do have a tendency to climb up the rope anyway, but a treat at the top helps."

And if you were wondering, yes the winners will get their own version of the gold medals. My money is on the Dachshund, he is fast.

2008 Olympic Games: What I hope to see

The 2008 Olympics. The once every 4 year event that circles the globe and features the greatest athletes in the world. The pinnacle of healthy fit human bodies. Supposedly representing the best of every nation, and with little polispeak of those nations.

But that’s not exactly true.

China is a prime example of that, and needs to be addressed before, and during this years games. China is a key supporter of the Sudan, and in this manner supporting the genocide of Darfur. China is the Sword of Damocles over Taiwan. China is the iron fist against Tibet. And while it’s not as commonly discussed as it has been in the past, for all the economic innovations made in the past decade, they are very communist.

On Wednesday many Americans got their first glimpse of the problems that China promotes. The students that crossed the Atlantic Ocean and our country to scale that bridge, at serious risk to themselves, made a statement. The protests, which were far more peaceful than similar events in England and France, got significant attention. But the major news media missed the big boat.

Well let me rephrase that, they missed the big boat of issues that I care about. While much was said of the protesters supporting Tibet, little was said about the other problems of China that have been ongoing for decades. Not to belittle the desire of the Tibetan people to be free. But I have yet to hear more than a polispeak soundbite discussing the continued efforts of China to encourage the Darfur genocide.

But it’s not because some with the major medias eye have not made statements. Stephen Spielberg quit as artistic advisor to the Olympics because of all the issues. French President Nicolas Sarkozy seems ready to boycott the Games. Last night Dennis Miller made perhaps the best statement and idea I have heard on the matter during his time on the Bill O’Reilly show – that every athlete, of every nation, appear at the opening ceremonies dressed like this



Some might say that a bit of clothing is just not enough. That this is not a strong enough statement. That more is required. I agree that more needs to be done. That Darfur needs to be ended, and those supporting the genocide punished in some manner.

“The Chinese have had their way over Tibet. They have openly intimidated those countries who want to have diplomatic relations with Taiwan. And from their point of view, the Tibetans are an ungrateful bunch of peasants who have been dragged from the Dark Age of a Buddhist theocracy to the modern era of paved roads, city plumbing and light bulbs.”

Does that sound familiar? Does it remind you of the European desire to help the African people find civilization? Or the comments of some recently trying to justify the slavery of Africans in America and the current condition of Black Americans. Those kinds of thoughts and comments were not always unaccepted or considered the utterances of minds filled with compost. And even recent Olympics have been the stage for criticisms of American acceptance of those similar thoughts. Many of my readers may be too young to recall the international attention that this one scene created, deservedly so.



The Olympic Games are about the nations that host, as much as they are about the athletes that are competing. Nations are connected to the Games and each other. To accept the Olympic Games without calling attention to the murder of children and the subjugation of countries is an insult to what is on-going.

Thus I agree with Dennis Miller’s thought. I support his idea and add one minor point – every visitor to the Olympic Games’ opening ceremonies, including the political representatives of all the nations, should join the athletes in wearing the robes of the Tibetan monks. Such a display, viewed around the world, would shame China and hopefully be the cause of starting to address these horrible actions in a peaceful non-paranoid realistic manner.

Do you agree?