It’s a combination of factors that has brought me to this point.

First, the Olympics were a great distraction from real problems, and the financial crisis and subsequent global recession reminded us all of this. I had a great time mocking the idiosyncrasies that led up to the Greatest Games in the History of Mankind, but more serious issues took precedent once they ended.

Second, the hours are okay, but the pay is terrible. In fact, I lose money on the blog proposition. I know, hard to imagine a blog isn’t a cash cow.

Third, there were lots of things, particularly US and Chinese policy, I wanted to comment on, but I decided it might be inappropriate professionally to do so. The result is I will have to keep my sarcasm and pseudo-insight for my friends to listen to via e-mail or at the bar. I’m sure they would all prefer if I had a blog to let those thoughts out, but sadly, they will have to feign interest.

It’s been a lot of fun and I’ve enjoyed the feedback. I’ll never forget my six readers (mostly family members).

Likewise, Tom Cruise is a good actor, but a crazy human being. Fortunately, we rarely have to spend time together. His lunacy is well contained outside of my existence. So I can accept him as the brilliant star who brought gay culture into mainstream America with Top Gun.

I grew up in the era of Michael Jackson, Madonna, Doc Gooden, Michael Jordan, Mark McGwire and Gary Hart. At a certain point, you have to appreciate the fact that just because someone excels at something, they aren’t necessarily a good person. In fact, if you’re famous enough to show up on the  general public’s radar, odds are that you’ve developed a good dose of arrogance and sense of entitlement.

Enter Tiger Woods. People seemed to be shocked that he went around cheating on his wife. Why? Because he’s good at driver a golf ball? Because he endorses a consulting firm or car? He is young, handsome, insanely successful, famous and incredibly rich. People who have a lot fewer of those things going for them have been tempted before.

I’m not sure why, but people repeat the same misjudgment over and over: you don’t know someone just because you see them on television. And even people you know personally might have some aspects of their life that would surprise you.

Having said all of that, the list of Tiger’s alleged indulgences does somehow surprise. He seems to thrive on the seedy. Don’t believe me? Below is a list that combines descriptions of President Bill “Bubba” Clinton’s known sexual triumphs with those of Tiger Woods. Your job is to figure which five go with which celeb:

1. club hostess
2. reality show contestant
3. Las Vegas club manager
4. former employee of “Trashy Girls Lingerie”
5. pancake house waitress
6. swimsuit model
7. former porn star
8. former cocktail waitress
9.  “sexy” British TV presenter
10. “sex-addicted cougar”

Numbers 1, 3, 7, 8 and 10 are Tiger. And so are the rest. How similar are the sexual exploits of Tiger Woods and our former president? Well, let’s just say that one of these men was caught dropping off a diner waitress at her trailer park residence after a quickie, and the other is just suspected of it.

Does this mean that Tiger is a bad guy? Probably. But I never really cared much about Tiger being a good or bad person in his personal life. For me, Tiger’s legacy was always that he broke down the racial wall of a goofy sport. And no matter how many golf tournaments he wins, or flapjack servers he beds, Tiger Woods will always represent one thing to me: he brought a sport that destroys the environment, involves total silence and no direct contact with your opponent to a much wider audience. That will be his true shame.

I got lazy and missed my chance. But now I’ve seen it (or at least the first two hours before we left the theater). Let’s go through the highlights:

• Mao Zedong and Chiang Kai-shek shake hands in Chongqing to set up durable lasting peace for all. As a demonstration of goodwill Mao says that the Communists need to make a concession first to show they are serious. Chiang Kai-shek uses this as an opportunity to attack the Communists and destroy what would have been a long-lasting and wonderful friendship.
• Mao enjoys giving piggyback rides in flowery fields to small children. Jeepers, what a nice guy.
• When the Guomindang send in planes to kill Mao, he has just taken a sleeping pill–although it appears to be the middle of the day–so cooks and workers carry him out on a stretcher because he’s two groggy. This is something I find ironic because I had always heard stories about Mao getting carried for large portions of the Long March. Sleeping pills were not central to that theme.
• A cook meets Mao and is so excited that he develops the demeanor of Zhao Benshan. Mao generously gives him a cancer stick, which he puts behind his ear because he wants to cherish this cancer stick from the great leader for years. Mao of course then gives him the whole pack. Apparently propaganda films can’t have useful messages like “don’t smoke.” Needless to say, that cook is martyred within 10 minutes. He’s running back to get Mao’s food in the middle of a bombing raid because Mao hasn’t eaten yet (presumably sue to the fact that he was too busy taking afternoon sleeping pills). I’m not making this up.
• Every Chinese star you’ve ever heard of is in the film for 32 seconds with the Yao Ming on the Chinese national team look (“so if I do this I can continue my career afterward, right?) I know, I’m so cynical. I’m sure that Jackie Chan, who built his career in Hong Kong in the 1970s, when he would not have been able to pursue his career in the mainland, was really eager to glorify the Communist Party.
• I should point out that I missed the end of the film, so if anyone out there knows who ends up winning the war, please let me know. I’m really eager to find out. I’m also eager for the sequel: “The Destroying of the Republic: The pre-Opening and Reform Years.”

What I found most remarkable was how thinly-veiled the propaganda was. I’ve seen all those miserable Mao dramas on television, but this film had real production value. There’s a right way to do propaganda and a wrong way. When Dick Cheney commissioned FOX to air “24,” it was brilliant. Coming up with a GI Joe action figure so that kids understand the greatness of the military-industrial complex before puberty, again, brilliant. Having the man who sanctioned the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution frolic through the dandelions as he races around with an eight year-old girl on his back…ummm.

What exactly does this tell us? Well, normally most of us in China think of the country as a rapidly advancing place where nationalism can rear its ugly head when targeting monstrosities like CNN and France. But at the same time there is a tendency to believe that 1960s-style propaganda is too transparent for the modern Chinese population–at least those with reasonably good educations.

Perhaps most modern, middle-class Chinese thought The Founding of a Republic was as goofy and silly as I did.  For all of its production value and big-name stars, it was just another clumsy step back for a genuinely emerging superpower.

Hu Shuli, the magazine’s legendary founder, who sas recently featured in a New Yorker story by Evan Osnos, may in fact be behind the move. Speculation is that she is trying to get leverage over control of the magazine, and the scale of the apparent resignations speaks volumes about the staff loyalty and her own smarts.

From China Economic Review:

he exodus has caused speculation that charismatic founder and managing editor Hu Shuli may also be preparing to leave. Whether she stays or goes, Caijing’s finances are at risk. The business department generates nearly all the profits for the mainland’s most profitable business magazine. Some believe that the resignations are a maneuver in Hu’s negotiations with the magazine’s owner and publisher, the Stock Exchange Executive Council (SEEC). There are rumors that Hu has been trying to pressure the SEEC to surrender majority control by bringing in outside investors, and threatening to leave and launch new business publications if SEEC declines the proposal.

It’s a common theme in China that someone builds something and then someone else thinks that can take it over and cash in. However, to paraphrase Jack Nicholson in A Few Good Men, I think they fucked with the wrong marine this time.

Similarly, a cap and trade bill for curbing climate change–an idea that was always presented as being a Republican strategy for successful economic policy when I studied it in high school–seems likely to get signed sometime soon. Meanwhile, the US is slowly pulling out of Iraq. Healthcare, too seems like it will eventually make it through, if perhaps not as the sweeping reform many would like. All of this is good, if slow, movement in the right direction. In short, I believe that history–and I mean near history–will prove President Obama to be prudent, if somewhat cautious; effective, if not always as visionary as one might hope. He is off to a solid start.

But really, the Nobel Peace Prize? What was that for again? His speech in Cairo? It was an important speech that altered the trajectory of US-Middle East relations. But the Nobel Peace Prize? He has been taking the steps in the correct direction, but he does not have an achievement that reaches the level to warrant this.

Certainly he has not achieved what Al Gore did. Who continues to doubt global warming? George Will and Pat Buchanan, as far as I know. Al Gore shifted the debate entirely and made it possible for sweeping change to take place. One could argue that much of the progress that China is making to reverse its previously disastrous policies have stemmed from Al Gore making clear that countries cannot avoid responsibility by casting blame on others. Even if he simply helped push the country, and the US as well, in the right direction, that is a significant achievement.

Let’s look at another promising, but still young career to get a better understanding of why this award is so odd.

There is a good chance that Lebron James will prove to be the best basketball player in the history of the game. But there is a reason he is not yet in the Hall of Fame. For all of his accomplishments to this point in his career, he has not yet proven to be an all-time great. He got close to winning a championship, but didn’t. His been dealt a bad hand in terms of teammates, but has done well with what he has. At times–and even over the course of the last full season–he he demonstrated himself to be an unstoppable force. But as of yet, he has no championships. He has not yet proven himself to be a tremendous force over long periods of time. He’s done pretty well…so far.

Obama’s presidential record perhaps looks like Lebron’s NBA career: both have proven themselves to be exceptionally capable, and with time, they might leave tremendous legacies. But there is much work left to do. Perhaps it was slightly premature to make the case that President Obama has been a driving player for world peace in just nine months.

On the other hand, if you’re in China, the may have noticed that 60 is a really, really big deal. For example, the last two weekends I have seen paramilitary units with massive machine guns wearing black balaclavas positioned around an urban tank with a gunner perched at the top with his finger on the trigger on my corner. Apparently the theme for the anniversary is 20 years, not 60.

It makes me wonder what exactly they are preparing for–or more aptly, whom they are preparing to defend against. My guess is the Gumindang. It seems Chiang Kai-shek is reconstituting ground forces in the Dongzhimen area. Or perhaps, the invading force is comprised of the country’s ethnic minorities, although my understanding from news reports is that they are all really appreciative of what the Chinese government is doing. So that doesn’t make much sense either. The third alternative is that they are preparing for rural unrest, although again, Beijing’s Second Ring Road isn’t exactly the hangout spot for the inland peasant class. (A final possibility my friend suggested is that the government’s RMB four trillion plan primarily stimulated testosterone and gun sales.)

But the real question is: why does anyone care so much about the 60th anniversary of country that we are constantly reminded has a 5,000-year history–a concept, which by the way, implies that Chinese culture began side-by-side with the dinosaurs according to my sources. I understand that 60 is a circle-of-life kind of thing in Chinese culture…for humans. But for a country? Let’s take a look at other things celebrating 60 years in 2009, none of which are making nearly as big a deal about it as China:

• Israel’s 60th anniversary as a democracy
• 60 years of Australian citizenship
• South Pacific’s Broadway debut
• The Republic of Ireland
• Both John Belushi and Spurs coach Greg Popovich
• And finally, Apartheid. And if you can’t celebrate the 60th anniversary of the founding of a form of institutionalized hate, then you’re probably not much fun anyway.

So why is the 60th anniversary of New China so important and why does that mean that I need to walk by a tank on my way to pick up Sunday night sushi. More importantly, why would I be eating imperialist sushi so close to the 60th anniversary? (Once again, a plot to insult the Chinese people.) These are all questions that make me lose sleep at night. Along with questions about why the Joe Biden vice presidency hasn’t been 1,000 times more hilarious. (Can we keep Joe Biden from unleashing embarrassing verbal diarrhea. Apparently, yes we can.)

So if there is someone out there who can explain to me why China’s 60th anniversary is so important, while the 220th anniversary of the American Constitution simply lets us know what a young and fragile country America is, please let me know. In the meantime, celebrate Chinese success, and don’t throw anything at the gunners.

There is one lesson that we can learn from all of this:  Old people are dangerous.  Incited youths listen to and heed the words of virtually anyone the age of their grandparents. Young people are not motivated by ethnic hatred, lack of jobs or the perception that they are left out of their country’s economic development. The only thing that can convince rioters to take to the streets and act violently is…Old People. Usually from abroad.

It began with a certain lama last year who single-handedly caused riots from thousands of miles away. Age: 73. Then this year, Rebiya Kadeer, a former Chinese government official living in the US, is accused of masterminding the chaos in Xinjiang. The danger has spread to sexagenarian women! While the Xinjiang riots seemed to have no specific political purpose, but rather just huge masses of angry young people tragically out of control, China was smart enough to see through this ruse, right to its post-menopausal root. Her age? 62. I know, she’s not that old, but apparently she’s crossed the age threshold that tends to turn people into the type of violent anarchists that capture the hearts of youths. And she can do it concisely, in words that to the casual observer would not indicate violence. But according to China Daily, the government claims it has proof!:

In the recorded calls, Kadeer reportedly said: “Something will happen in Urumqi.” She also allegedly called her younger brother in Urumqi, saying, “We know a lot of things have happened.”

Surely a less skillful–dare I say younger–instigator would have needed harsher words to rouse the anger that she was able to draw. But for a 62 year-old, phrases like “something will happen” and “things have happened” can light a fire in an otherwise peaceful young person.

As an American, this concerns me. I’ve done some research, and there appear to be a lot of old people in the world. And many of them live abroad, the second requirement. This could be a major national security threat for America. It would be difficult to identify which one might incite American riots, but as a public service, I’ll give a few guesses.

Roman Polanski is 75. And living in EUROPE! Fled the US due to potential criminal issues. Strikingly similar to China’s two accused masterminds. Maybe Roman knows the right words to cause mayhem in Detroit.

At 68, Pele is another contender. It’s true that he only lived in the US for a few years in the 1970s and 80s, but surely his sway over America’s youth could cause riots in LA, if he were so inclined. Don’t let his good looks and great passing skills fool you. After all, the Dalai Lama also has both of those traits.

Then there’s a dark horse, sleeping in our own government. Senator Robert Byrd is fully 91 years old, making him the ultimate darling of urban mobs. With a snap of his finger he could have the youths of Miami sinking local ships. His apparent infirmity is the perfect front to throw people off the trail, while also appealing to teenagers.

These are serious issues that we as a nation have to confront. We see how nimbly old people can mobilize young, angry people in Tibet and Xinjiang. But most leaders in American focus their energy on creating jobs, providing a health insurance system and creating cap and trade systems that only old people can understand. Folly, I say! How many attacks orchestrated by old people do we have to witness in China before America wakes from its willful slumber?

Quite frankly, President Obama has been silent thus far on the threat of old people in America. Just how naive is our young president? His 71 year-old mother-in-law is living with him in the White House. That’s right, while China does its best to keep old folks from rabble-rousing its population, America has allowed one right into the White House.

Or most recently, when China decided to unveil Green Dam, the software that is theoretically designed to stop kids from seeing porn, but which critics have argued in fact is a political tool that blocks websites deemed sensitive. Meanwhile, Google is getting the blame for “corrupting” the country’s youth, even though Baidu has just as much access to porn. The big difference? On Google you have the option of a “Safe Search” function, which should weed out porn. On Baidu? Since China doesn’t acknowledge that porn could show up, there’s no way to opt out/in. A cynical person might say that blaming Google is an attempt to deflect attention away from Green Dam (incidentally, not the best timing to unroll a censorship tool called “Green” just as Iran’s revolution is symbolized by the same color. Not sure what to make of this, but it called be good. And while I’m getting off on a tangent, I always thought that porn was “yellow” in China, not green. Maybe I’m wrong about that. Back to the normal rant.)

So what is the solution to all of these butchered policies? Well, Cup of Cha has a cup of advice: China should hire one intern from any of the major public relations companies in Beijing. Every time the government comes up with a big initiative, it should ask Bobby the intern, “Hey, is this a good idea?” Think of him as the policeman of common sense. “Hey Bobby, think it’s a good idea to give a multi-million dollar contract to a censorship company that no one has ever heard of and is so clearly stealing the software from the US that it, in fact, looks for updates on a server in California? No? Hmmm…maybe we hire 10,000 internet police instead.”

Seriously, is there any first day PR intern who would not have recognized that, at the very least, Green Dam would need to be rolled out more carefully than it was?

This is a problem with a country without democracy. Officials never have to face the voters, so there is a certain lack of PR savvy that sets in. It’s hardly like democracy stops people from being idiots. See Rod Blagoevich, Elliot Spitzer, Michelle Bachman or any Italian official. However, normally people are a little more careful and at least have their PR disasters privately for as long as possible. In China, usually there is no recognition that perhaps foolish decisions should be kept out of the spotlight.

And that is why China needs Bobby the intern. Bobby, a sophomore at Emory who is interning at a Beijing PR firm for the summer is the answer to all of China’s public blunders.

And yet, with all of the changes that have taken place, there are still some odd remnants of an economy from years gone by that no longer exists. Cash, for example, is still overwhelmingly the preferred type of payment. While you see many more domestic credit cards and bank transfers these days, the overwhelming majority of daily commerce is still done with cash, particularly outside of the three biggest cities. And this doesn’t just go for your local 鸡蛋饼, either. I’ve had landlords who prefer to receive months of payments at a time in cash. You still see people making down payments on apartments in cash. Hell, when I lived in Chengdu, they used to pay my monthly salary in cash. Sadly it fit in a money clip fairly easily.

Now, all of this would be fine, except for one problem. The government has had the foresight to change economic policy drastically in 1979, gradually float the currency to avoid crisis and dissolve, sell or drastically change the structure of state-owned enterprises. And yet, it hasn’t occurred to anyone yet that perhaps it’s time to start printing a bill larger than the hundred.

This, my friends makes no sense at all. It would be tough enough putting a downpayment on a house with US hundreds. Imagine doing it with a bunch of $15 dollar bills. This is really the craziest most out of date anachronism I’ve ever heard of. It makes my life painful, and it makes everything seem more expensive. For example, if you buy a computer, most people hand over stacks of cash. That has to be a disincentive to making big purchases. It just feels like you’re spending a fortune.

The one argument I’ve heard for the hundred being the biggest bill is that it is a deterrent to corruption and the underground economy. If you have a trunk full of case, there’s not much you can do with it.

But that seems like a weak case to keep the rest of us miserable. There’s a restaurant in Baoli Dasha where the coffee is RMB 128. That’s right, there is no bill in China that can cover a single cup of overpriced coffee. That’s preposterous.

So if China is really going to promote consumer spending, I have one simple piece of advice: print larger denominations of currency.

There are two schools of thought about what has changed in the 20 years since. The first argument is that China totally opened up its economy in the aftermath of being shunned by most of the world, transforming it into the modern and vibrant country it is today. The second argument is one a Chinese friend told me, to my great surprise. After hearing that Twitter was blocked, he said, “You know, China is just like North Korea now. Well, not the same, but this kind of policy seems the same.”

So the question becomes: has China opened and modernized over the last 20 years, or is it still saddled with a big brother mindset? As you might imagine, the answer is yes. Both are quite clearly true.

And here is the irony of modern China. It would be impossible to label a country that has about 100,000 foreigners living in its capital city, allows discussion boards and access to most websites a “Hermit Kingdom.” It’s just not accurate. Most people can walk wherever they want, whenever they want. You can discuss pretty much anything with friends, even in a crowded restaurant. At the same time, there are about three topics that you need to be careful about (tanks, Tibet and Taiwan). You can’t read the Huffington Post or watch YouTube. Reports I heard said that there were hundreds of plain clothes police in and around the square today. It is extremely open and yet oddly closely. Both of these realities are simultaneously true.

And this is why there are such muddled ideas about China. It has one foot clearly 20 years ahead of the world curve, but another remains jammed in the door that hasn’t yet fully opened.

I’m not sure where we go from here. In the American model, often we see change coming in the form of new waves of politicians. It bubbles up from non-establishment figures, often unexpectedly. We moved from malaise to Reagonomics because a politician came out and spoke directly to the people. And we moved from Bush, Clinton, Bush, to Obama, because he came out and seized an opportunity that no one gave him. It’s the same thing on the issues in America. George Will has pointed out that it doesn’t really matter where people stand on gay marriage because it’s a generational issue. If you’re under 35, odds are pretty good you don’t object. Do the math and it’s just a matter of time before it becomes and overwhelming majority of the population.

But in China, the leaders are often chosen because they do not have ideas terribly different from the previous generation. Sure, Deng Xiaoping broke the mold, taking the country in an entirely new direction (twice), but I’m not sure a politician like that can rise to the top anymore (particularly after the events of 20 years ago). So is the country doomed to incremental change on all fronts (or  significant change on some and virtually none on the others)? I don’t know. There’s no model to look at.

So, 20 years later, the question remains: what kind of a country is China today?