Gordon Chang takes a stab at it in Forbes:

…the riots of the last few days show just how vulnerable that Chinese state is, even in the face of apparently weak opponents. For one thing, according to one report, the disturbances came completely out of the blue for many. “There were no warning signs about the riots,” said Tang Yan, a 21-year-old drug store employee who fled rampaging Uighurs in Urumqi. “No one expected it.” What started as a silent, peaceful demonstration–over the failure of authorities to investigate the murders of Uighur factory workers in faraway Guangdong province–somehow turned into savagery in the streets of Urumqi’s capital.

The chronology of events on Sunday is unclear, but it appears the gathering became a riot when police began to beat the protesters, even girls. There are, at this moment, so many grievances against the central government and the Communist Party that almost anything can spark an insurrection. And that’s especially true when security forces overreact, as they appeared to do on Sunday…

…The Chinese regime can fail because, as we are seeing in Xinjiang, the Party is losing hearts and minds, and, as Havel suggests, a ruling organization is vulnerable when that happens. In most other parts of China, ethnic tensions are not a factor, but the Communist Party has other problems. Almost nobody believes in its ideology, and everyone can see its failings as a ruling organization. Outside of minority-inhabited areas, few actively oppose it, but few anywhere enthusiastically support it. The Party stays in place largely due to apathy, fear and a failure to imagine that China can be better.

So this is a dangerous time for the one-party state. For three decades, its primary basis of legitimacy has been the continual delivery of prosperity. In the current economic downturn, however, it has been arguing that it deserves to remain in power for other reasons. As the Party tries to change the basis of its support, it puts its future at risk.

That last bit is the most important – the sole claim to legitimacy on the part of the Chinese government is the de-facto deal struck in 1989: “leave us in power, and we’ll make you rich”. Official predictions are for 8% growth in 2009 and the word is that China is doing just peachy keen swell hunky dory no problem at all…while exports fell by 26% in May. If you believe that China’s economy is strong or that any of the figures published by the Chinese are factual, then I’ve got a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn. Its a house of cards, and its probably already come tumbling down – kept quiet by the determination of the Chinese authorities to hide the bad news combined with a strong desire by Western institutions heavily invested in China to keep up the pretense that their Chinese assets are still valuable. I don’t quite view things as the author does – or, perhaps, I’m just take a step further back.

The sight of one of your countrymen being savaged by a hated, foreign oppressor is an excellent spark to civil unrest, but my view always is that people who feel their basic needs are cared for will not revolt. The importation of Han Chinese in to Xinjiang which is close to making the Uighurs a minority in their own land isn’t likely being done at all fairly. I know, how do you “fairly” destroy a society – well, of course, you don’t. But the “unfair” part of this is that the Hans are likely taking the best jobs and the best places to live – with, to be sure, provision made for the locals. But now that the global economy is imploding and China’s economy teeters on the verge of complete meltdown, I’ll bet there are far less jobs in Xinjiang than there used to be…and the people keeping them are likely to be Han. And thus you’ve got Uighurs about who have nothing to lose and who start a fight, which results in an over-reaction, which results in a nearly revolutionary situation spreading like wildfire.

This is all supposition on my part – but supposition based upon a clear knowledge of the way these things have worked throughout history. The “social contract” has broken down in Xinjiang – the Chinese government is no longer able to deliver the goods…and the goods are naturally being withheld from the outlying areas first in order that Peking and the major Chinese coastal cities (where all those prying foreigners live) are spared any great impoverishment and resultant political instability. Curiously enough, we’re partly to blame for this – our borrowing binge is forcing China to buy more of our bonds lest the bonds they have in hand become devalued…but China isn’t really making any money, so they have to take it from somewhere…and if the Chinese apparatchik has a choice between taking it from Big Party Boss or Despised Minority, where do you think the axe will fall?

How long can China keep afloat? Naturally, the Chinese government hopes it can keep a lid on things until the economy turns around…if the economy turns around. While I still see plenty of cheer leading in business reporting, the facts remain grim and even those predicting an end to the recession at the end of this year are stating that US unemployment will go to and remain above 10% for some time. That many unemployed Americans just can’t buy a lot of Chinese exports. The race is on – will China’s cash run out or will the recession end first? If the recession ends first, then China can weather the storm…if the cash runs out, then all bets are off.

Truth:

You can lead a man to Congress, but you can’t make him think. – Milton Berle

Well, now its fawning servility which cuts the mustard:

Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), who has had an eventful couple of weeks to say the least, believes House Republican opposition to climate change legislation and the stimulus indicates they’re cheering against the good ol’ US of A.

“It appears that the Republican Party leadership in the Congress has made a decision that they want to deny President Obama success, which means, in my mind, they are rooting against the country, as well,” the powerful House Energy and Commerce Committee chairman told WAMU radio host Diane Rehm on Tuesday morning, promoting his new book, “The Waxman Report.”

I really doubt that Waxman gets the irony here – I’m certain that he’s really this stupid. This is the man who opposed the troop surge…certainly an effort to deny President Bush a success, and thus – by Waxman’s logic – an anti-American act.

This just gets more nauseating all the time.

HAT TIP: Sister Toldjah

Mine, without question, is the Lord of the Rings. I really can’t count the number of times I’ve read it, and it remains ever fresh.

To find a book which speaks to your heart and frees your mind to rise is a wonderful thing, a grand gift of God to mankind.

Which book has moved you the most?

Mona Charen discusses:

You needn’t approve of the slatternly attire so often found on Western women to stoutly and angrily resist the encroachment of the burqa — and everything it represents — into Western life. Let’s be clear. It took guts for Sarkozy to say what did. He called the burqa “a sign of subjugation . . . of debasement.” Al-Qaeda, reliably enough, issued a fulminating statement: “We will not tolerate such provocations and injustices, and we will take our revenge from France . . . by every means and wherever we can reach them.”

I don’t buy the theory that Islam requires a woman to be veiled in public, let alone be entirely de-humanized by something like the burqa. In opposing the burqa, we are not attacking Islam but a facet of Islamo-fascism which seeks to suppress everything it fears…including independent women who look after themselves.

In the normal course of events, we would have little to say about the sartorial choices of Americans – as long as a minimum of public decency is maintained, we are free to wear what we wish. But I argue that the burqa is, in its own way, as indecent as a thong bikini – both modes of attire dehumanize and objectify women. I would not have American women treated as whores or slaves, and thus I believe we should – city by city, county by county and State by State, ban the wearing of the burqa in public and, indeed, prohibit the use of feature-disguising veils, as well. We are all human beings, endowed by God with our features, and no one must hide them…or, more accurately, have them hidden away by those who wish to control others.

What do you think?

Taking the place of our Phrase of the Day is Benedict XVI’s encyclical, Charity in Truth:

Fidelity to man requires fidelity to the truth, which alone is the guarantee of freedom (cf. Jn 8:32) and of the possibility of integral human development. For this reason the Church searches for truth, proclaims it tirelessly and recognizes it wherever it is manifested. This mission of truth is something that the Church can never renounce. Her social doctrine is a particular dimension of this proclamation: it is a service to the truth which sets us free.

I’ve only partially read the introduction, but I think this particular encyclical is going to wind up rather important in the history of human understanding – Charity and Truth are inseparable. There will be many lessons to be learned, for both the right and the left.

More of that most ethical Congress stuff:

Federal prosecutors in Pittsburgh have charged a former executive for a defense contractor with ties to Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.) with taking nearly $200,000 in kickbacks from a subcontractor.

Richard Ianieri, former president and CEO of Coherent Systems International Corp., is accused of accepting the kickbacks from a subcontractor identified only as “K” in court documents filed Monday. The charges came in the form of a criminal information, an indication that Ianieri is working with prosecutors and plans to plead guilty.

The charges are the first in an ongoing criminal investigation into defense contractors who have received congressional earmarks.

Murtha has not been named as a target in the probe and has said he has not been involved in any wrongdoing.

Yeah, whatever, Jack.

Anyways, any of you liberals now ready to call for Murtha’s resignation? Come now – when Abrahmoff was indicted you wanted ever GOPer ever connected with him to face the music. What about now?

No, not me; not yet, anways. The much funnier Scott Ott is crawling in to the sewer of politics. Pray for him, and help him out.

Victor Davis Hanson counts the ways – this is the one I liked best:

Too Many Rug Rats

3) Smart women do not get pregnant when it is inconvenient, especially when it interferes with one’s cursus honorum. Palin foolishly had a baby as governor, and waddled around with it the entire time-with other snotty kids in tow (just like those trashy folk at the mall who pile out of the Tahoe, in the way just as you are parking your Volvo)! And worse, in the age of sonograms and abortion, she delivered a mentally-challenged child. And worse still, the mom of five encouraged her daughter to deliver an out-of-wedlock child. (Is it in Oklahoma or Arkansas where moms and daughters have children about the same time?) And which is worse, to have a kid at 17 or one after 40? And worse, worse yet, she does not support abortion! Here is Hell in Sarah Palin’s world: I am up for a promotion at CNN, foolishly become pregnant at 42, and discover “it” has chromosomal “issues”. Am I supposed to deliver this thing? I don’t think so (nor would my daughter, should she become pregnant by her boyfriend the summer before starting off at Vassar [all that SAT camp for nothing?]).

They hate her for what she is – which, by the way, is a woman. Sarah Palin is from top to bottom and all ’round the complete woman. And nothing ticks feminist “womyn” off more than a woman…especially one who actually does all the things feminists say that woman should do and does it with style. And nothing scares a metrosexual elitist more than a real woman, too. They know that Sarah Palin would be entirely unimpressed with whom they know, where they’ve been and what degrees they have…she’d want to know what they’ve done…actually done, as in make something happen or make something come in to being. Todd is more of a man than the top 100 MSM males…not because he’s smarter or better looking, but because he’s a man, plain and simple. Real women and real men get along together…and make the country work; and they are hated by the elites, because the elites are afraid of them.

Just imagine a President Palin – having a state barbecue on the 4th of July with the folks from Wasilla just crawling all over the place and not a drop of champagne or an ounce of unpronounceable food to be seen. Just imagine her being talked down to by some State Department pinhead, and then tell him, “well, that’s interesting, but we’re going to do the right thing, instead”. Just imagine her taking the budget apart right in front of the American people and like the practical wife and mother she is, showing what sorts of filth are hidden away. It’ll be wonderful – and it’ll be great if it is her, one day. But Palin or someone – as long as we can get a real man or a real woman in there.

We’ve had wall to wall coverage of the sad, pathetic Michael Jackson…but no coverage of someone far more important in the grand scheme of things:

“Mr. Jackson received days of wall-to-wall coverage in the media,” Martha Gillis wrote to the Washington Post. “Where was the coverage of my nephew or the other soldiers who died that week?”

Gillis’ nephew, Lt. Brian Bradshaw, 24, died in Kheyl, Afganistan, of wounds suffered when an improvised explosive device detonated near his vehicle. Bradshaw, of Steilacoom, Wash., was assigned to the 1st Battalion, 501st Parachute Infantry Regiment, 4th Airborne Brigade Combat Team, 25th Infantry Division in Fort Richardson, Alaska. He was one of at least 13 U.S. soldiers to die in Afghanistan since Jackson’s death on June 25.

Bradshaw’s mother, Mary, said she agreed with Gillis, saying the nonstop coverage of Jackson’s death has become “totally ridiculous” and laughable.

“I can watch the news many nights and there’s no mention of what’s going on in Afghanistan or Iraq and there’s boys dying over there,” Bradshaw told FOXNews.com. “Oh God, I can’t talk.”

And why is our President so silent about this? These are the men he sent in to battle – they are carrying out his orders; dying to advance the cause of the United States. He can spare time for a bogus health care fairy tale on TV, how about some time for the best and bravest?