中国法律博客
ChinaLegalBlog.com
I Wish to Register a Complaint
媒体来源: 中国法律博客

1. The Kansas City Star

Both the U.S. government and the American Lung Association have published travel alerts for American tourists warning them about pollution.

After reading this article, I felt like packing up and moving somewhere, anywhere. But, hell, my lungs are already shot from growing up in LA in the 70s, so I guess I'll stay here for a few more years.

More to the point, the Olympics last something like two weeks or so, right? It's not like Beijing's atmosphere is pure ammonia or something, there is some oxygen left here. Sure, if you have bad asthma or something, maybe you need to be extra careful, but for the rest of the tourists? I really don't think this scary talk is necessary.

2. This next complaint is directed at Sportinglife.com, and given the source, I don't expect any sort of deep analysis or anything. That being said, the following shows me what I consider to be a very flawed view of the Olympics:

Unlike, Athens, Sydney and Atlanta, the pages of history will not judge the Beijing Olympics on the merits of the Games, nor the thrills of its contests, nor even the number of world records that are broken.

Instead, in years to come, the judgement will be whether bringing the Olympics to China had any positive effect in relaxing the iron grip of the totalitarian rulers.

Colorful rhetoric aside, this sort of commentary is pretty common, and we have read stuff like this for many months. I may have written about this before, and if so, I'm saying it again: stop imposing your political baggage with you when you write about the Games.

On its face, and by right, the Games have nothing to do with transforming any society. They're sporting events. Yes, Beijing is using the Games for political reasons, which everyone understands. But for others to believe that hosting the Games is some sort of gift to countries that act in a certain way and model their societies according to some preferred set of criteria — that's rather outrageous. I always thought that the Olympics were awarded to cities that could be good hosts.

3. Saving the best for last. A favorite hobby of mine is bashing "activist" Mia Farrow. I do not do so because I fundamentally disagree with her on her issues of choice (mostly involving Darfur), but rather it annoys me to no end that famous entertainers can drum up so much press coverage – same reason I dislike Richard Gere's forays into the political arena. In the case of Farrow, it seems that even ex-actresses with almost zero name recognition these days can still get their name in the papers on a regular basis. Says something about the age of the average assignment editor, I suppose.

Anyway, the LA Times ran a point/counterpoint about the Olympics, which Farrow would like to see shut down or something. The specific issue was whether Bush should attend the opening ceremonies. For the "pro" side, they used a quote by Bush himself:

Bush: I view the Olympics as a opportunity for me to cheer on our athletes. It's an athletic event. I had the honor of dealing with the Chinese — two Chinese presidents during my term, and every time I have visited with them, I have talked about religious freedom and human rights. And so, therefore, my decision to go was — I guess I don't need the Olympics to express my concerns. I've been doing so.

I also believe that the Chinese people are watching very carefully about the decisions by world leaders, and that … not going to … the opening ceremony for the Games would be an affront to the Chinese people, which may make it more difficult to … be able to speak frankly with the Chinese leadership. That's why I'm doing what I'm doing. And I'm looking forward to cheering the athletes. I think it will be — I think it would be good for these athletes who have worked hard to see their president waving that flag. …

To be honest, I was actually surprised at how cogent and effective that statement was – I try to keep an open mind on the guy, but it is difficult. Anyway, good for him.

On the "con" side was not only the ex-actress Farrow, but also her law student son. I don't know about you, but I don't know how many law students get to pen Op/Eds for the LA Times. This smacks of privilege and guanxi, and I don't like it. Here's the bio that ran with the piece (these two up against the President? looks weird to me):

Actress Mia Farrow has made nine trips to the Darfur region. Ronan Farrow, a student at Yale Law School, has worked on human rights issues in Darfur and South Sudan and on U.S.-China relations for the House Foreign Affairs Committee. They are mother and son.

I kind of wonder why the Times did not get a China expert to pen the "pro" side instead of using a direct quote from Bush. I already said that I liked his comments, but I bet that a lot of people just glossed over it because it came from Bush – fair enough. If a China expert had written the "pro" side instead, I think it would have made the actress and law student seem a bit unqualified.

Perhaps it was all done on purpose because the Times agrees with Farrow's position. Makes one believe in conspiracy theories. Nice job, LA Times.