quelquefois

Last week, the central government blocked access to the New York Times. Then a few days later, unblocked access. No one really knows why, but personally I think it has something to do with negative coverage of China on the website. Right after access is restored, the Times publishes an article about releasing a political dissident in China. The site hasn’t been blocked again, but I thought it was ironic that:

a. the Times posts a politically sensitive article after it was blocked for political reasons
b. the indirectly anti-China article was surrounded by a pro-China advertisement:

 
According to the Shanghaiist, these ads are paid for by the Chinese government to spread their interpretation of Tibetan history and development. 

I wonder how East-West tensions will escalate (or ease) as a new President transitions into power, as the financial crisis continues, and as China transitions into post-Olympics 2009.

Remember when Tim Russert asked Barack Obama why he simply “denounced” instead of “rejected” the endorsement of Louis Farrakhan of the Nation of Islam? And then Barack Obama said that they were the same thing? The NY Times did an article on how Obama was so, so wrong. The two words did indeed mean two totally different things.

I only find it ironic that in this article, the title reads “Obama Denounces Statements of His Pastor as ‘Inflammatory,’” and Obama’s actual quote was, “I reject outright the statements by Rev. Wright that are at issue.” Now who’s conflating?

On a similar note, Keith Olbermann insists Clinton reject and denounce Geraldine Ferraro:
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2hh9WjV2cQ&hl=en]