Let 1,000 comments bloom

A new day, a new thread.

The Discussion: 114 Comments

Because I liked this comment in the last thread from Dave so much, allow me to repeat it here:
————————————————-

However, now that we know Mao was only 40 percent correct, we must correct it again by a factor of 70 percent. We must continue to correct both the CCP and Mao by a factor of 70 percent – according to the CCP’s own reasoning… until, as in calculus, we can see that Mao was Zero percent correct, and 100 percent wrong.

Ivan, that is the funniest s**t I’ve seen here in a long time. Except mathematically I think it would be asymptotically approaching zero, right?

But in your psychology deep down, you think China is a “shitty” country and should remain so.

I’m f**king sick and tired of people constantly saying that we single out China for criticism. I refuse to stand for the violation of peoples rights to free expression and the right to fair legal representation anywhere. Gitmo and US citizens being detained as “enemy combatants”? An abomination. Bush refusing to allow dissenting opinion into public forums on his campaign tour and outright lying, with little or no outcry from the public or press? Bordering on fascism. The U.S. government response to Katrina? Exposes a terrible flaw in the U.S. psyche, that we cannot possibly approach politics with a long-term perspective, but only in terms of short-term gain, leading us towards all but inevitable doom unless we get some shock to the system (one, apparently, much much bigger than Iraq + 2 hurricanes + ballooning deficit + increasingly less intelligent discourse). That shock will most likely have to be the end of our civilization as we know it. Have you read my blog? Go read the category I call “homefront”. It’s not very big, and it’s not very happy. There’s a reason I focus on China, dips**ts, it’s because I haven’t given up hope on it yet. I’m pretty much done with the U.S. – I’ve had it with this place. We think we’re stronger than we are. China has the opposite problem; you’re stronger than you think. It’s like seeing a bullied 13 year old in an 800 pound gorillas body. 5000 years? Act your age and suck up the criticism.

I get the impression alot of people in China feel they get singled out for criticism because they’ve a) not been able to criticize anything internally and b) there’s been this bulls**t line in Modern China about how much the foreigners are raping you up the a** (which is partly true) and that what had existed for 5000 years was suddenly not going to cut it anymore(which is bulls**t).

I quote, from Liang Qichao’s New Project for National History:

Now on the eastern continent there is located the largest of countries with the most fertile of territory, but the most corrupt of governments, and the most disorganized and weakest of peoples. No sooner had those races [from Europe] found out about our internal condition than they got their so-called national imperialism moving, just as swarms of ants attach themselves to what is rank and foul and as ten thousand arrows focus on a target. ­If we want to oppose the national imperialism of the powers [effectively], rescue China from disaster and save our people, we have no choice but to adopt the policy of pushing our own nationalism. If we are serious about promoting nationalism in China, we have no option but to do it through the renewal of the people.

What a terrible way to start that paragraph! Defend yourself by all means, but to denigrate yourselves as the weakest of peoples? That’s some serious psychological damage. And then the May Fourth Movement pooped all over traditional China. And then Mao did it too. China has had an awful experience with modernity and pegged the whole thing on the foreigners who brought it. Yeah, so the British and the Germans and the Japanese (Johnny Come Latelies to modernity themselves) came and screwed things up. I’m sorry! But I had nothing to do with it! No one here did! And it’s not our fault that you had three successive sets of intellectuals who often said “well, if we’re gonna learn how to make and use these guns, we have to condemn our entire past for being backward, weak and feudal”. We didn’t throw the baby out with the bathwater, you did. And it’s not our fault that was the choice made, not once, not twice, but three times in Chinese modern history.

And wait – why am I saying “our” fault? There is no “we”, just like there is no “you”. As an American whose ancestors were almost entirely Irish refugees during the Famine, I don’t like being lumped into the category “westerner” with British people from 100 years ago. As a New Yorker who grew up within spitting distance of 9/11 and is sickened about how a very personal tragedy has been twisted and exploited by our leaders, I don’t like being put in the same category with Bush or, for that matter, practically all of Congress. Those people are crazy. Same as I don’t expect all Chinese people to believe Mao was 70% correct or that the above quote was a good idea. I don’t claim Chinese people agree with Hu Jintao or disagree – but I do claim that they aren’t even given that choice, at least not in public within their own country. And I stamp my feet and shout about that in every country that it happens, especially my own. Because people make those choices anyway, they have their own opinions because they are human beings and that’s what we do – and to repress such a basic function of living is a crime, regardless of whether it’s done in the name of “stability” or “democracy”.

That’s the whole point; we aren’t a “we”, and neither are Chinese people, and the sooner the discourse gets past that stage on both sides the sooner we can have a civil conversation without all this finger pointing.

Sorry for the cussing Richard but this s**t has got to stop.

September 25, 2005 @ 8:53 pm | Comment

I smell the smoke…

September 25, 2005 @ 10:18 pm | Comment

At some point you say that at least 85% of the populace is just a) apathetic (as in unless someone is about to hit them in the head with a hammer — literally — they just don’t give a fu*k.), and b) stupid (as in they think Wyoming is a country near Berlin). What it took me a while to realize, for some reason, is that it is the same in China, and worse in some ways for a variety of reasons.

So now when I’m talking to some guy in the middle of god knows where in China, it all clicks. I think to myself, “Ah, you’re the Chinese version of that dumbass hillbilly jingo I met in Alabama last year.” Sadly, most of the time you don’t need to explain it anymore than that. If that makes me “anti-Chinese,” then I’m also “anti-American” and “anti-Sri Lankan” and whatever else you got.

September 25, 2005 @ 10:42 pm | Comment

I Believe It is Possible that “Dem0cracy” is a Fake Word to Fool Innocent people

I want to try to refute many ridiculous ideas humanity majors have, such as “God gives human freedom, so everyone should have freedom”, or “if a country does not have general election, then it is evil and must be invaded”, etc etc. Well sometimes it is frustrating to refute those ideas because the world’s mainstream forces support those ideas, so any book you read, any thing you research, will most likely provide very deep and very complex theories/facts/arguments for those ideas. So sometimes I need to create certain “theories” myself to better enable me to write my essays. Newton created Calculus when he could not find suitable math tools to study physics.

First, I will expound two ideas that may be familiar to most of you. First idea is “Duality”. “Duality” says that the world has two sources, those two sources are always conflicting: good and evil, hot and cold, bright and dark, many and few, long and short, sexy and ugly, democratic and dictatorial, free and constrained, etc. “Duality” believes that those ideas can never be harmonized.

There’s another theory called “Singularity”. “Singularity” says that there’s only one source in the world. For example, there may be only “hotness” but there’s no coldness. Everything is just a matter of how hot it is. There’s not hot, kind of hot, moderately hot, hot, hotter, extremely hot, etc. The word “cold” is simply invented to describe the lowest level of hotness. So coldness itelf is not an opposing concept to hotness.

To dualists, they want to describe things as evil, good, clean, dirty, fair, unfair, moral, immoral, democratic, undemocratic. Christians believe a “good” God exists, and an “evil” god (Devil) also exists. If you say to a Christian, “I don’t think God is that good”, he’ll definitely disagree, just like if you say to an American “Mao Zedong was actually pretty democratic”, he’ll definitely disagree. To an American, Mao is very evil.

But how singularists view these issues? Well, singularists want to harmonize all conflicting concepts. For example, “unfairness” is simply the loss of fairness. “Immoral” is simply a lack of morality. To an American, America is the most democratic country in the world, anything else is undemocratic. But according to singularists, China is of course the most democratic country in the world. And it is quite clear that Chinese people’s lives can be happier than Americans’. When my uncle goes to work in China in the subways, he of course does not worry about being exploded by a terrorist. My nephew in China of course does not worry about being drafted to fight Arabian self-bombers in the Middle East.

In fact, I believe it is very possible that Iraq is more democratic than the United States, at least in the International Arena. Saddam refused to listen to the US and disagreed with the US on many issues, and that is a sign of dem0cracy. In a dem0cracy, people voice their dissent freely. Saddam of course voiced his dissent to the US, and as a result, was attacked. So in this sense, the US acted like a dictator and wanted to punish those who disagreed. So can I not say that Iraq was more democratic than the USA? I think I can certainly say that. Of course you may say “Why do you talk about International Arena? Dem0cracy only applies to domestic areas!”. Well, who told you it only applies to domestic areas? Is there a book that says Dem0cracy should only be applied to domestic areas? I think it certainly can be applied to International areas. And I think it is necessary to focus more on dem0cracy in international areas than in domestic areas.

Finally, it’s possible that the word “dem0cracy” itself is a word coined by Rightists to describe something that does not really exist. Now you say, “You are wrong! Of course dem0cracy exists!”. Well, then, can you give me a bottle of dem0cracy? Can I see it? Of course I cannot. Then, of course dem0cracy simply does not exist. I can get a bottle of sand, so sand of course exists. But dictatorship is something that exists indeed. You can quantify dictatorship by seeing how many tough laws are passed, how many actions are taken by the gov’t, etc. Now you may say “But I can’t get a bottle of dictatorship either!”. Well, I am sorry, I do not want to use that analogy anymore.

September 25, 2005 @ 10:47 pm | Comment

Sorry hmmmm, I’m not that cynical, not yet. I still believe the majority of people in the world aren’t stupid. Apathetic, maybe, but I sympathize with that and as a New Yorker I view apathy as one of the primary indicators of intelligence.

Still, we both feel we apply our views (yours being about 85% of the population being hopeless, mine being about freedom of expression being universally human) to people regardless of culture and/or nationality. So cheers, we’re both cosmopolitan liberal internationalists. Or something along those lines, I don’t know what you call it.

September 25, 2005 @ 10:50 pm | Comment

Simple Worker said:

I Believe It is Possible that “Dem0cracy” is a Fake Word to Fool Innocent people

If “democracy” can be a fake word, then the case can be equally made about “stability”.

If you believe in having a meaningful discussion, then you decide not to spend time talking about how the other persons words have no meaning. Instead, you struggle to learn what they trying to express. I’ve asked you questions many times, SW, as have others. I’ve never seen you answer a single one.

You seem to be addressing two issues: one is that you believe in a “singularity” view of morality, that morality moves in degrees along some sort of spectrum. You also ascribe a black and white dualist view of morality to your opposition, presumably me. On the issue of freedom of expression and the right to fair and equal representation, I fit the bill. On other issues, like bioethics, I get way less absolute. But if the question is “Should someone be imprisoned for 5 years because of a punk song?”, my answer is a clear “no”, and I’m still waiting for you to tell me why someone should. I can think of mitigating circumstances where I would; if it could be shown that the song carried secret communications for a terrorist operation, for example. But even then, I’d still have alot of questions, and I’d want them answered. What terrorists? What evidence is there? Who is saying this? How do they know? I would think any “scientific” thinker would want answers to these questions – variables that you want narrowed down as much as possible, if not flat out nailed. When someone is sentenced in China, this is not the process.

The other issue is to bring up the tired old canard that the U.S. is hypocritical. You mention that the U.S. punished Saddam with impunity. Again, I’ll repeat what I said before: learn to read. If you look at what I wrote, and what Richard and others have written here before, then you would know that we aren’t really big fans of the invasion of Iraq. We’ve criticized the U.S. government. I, personally, am fed up with the U.S. government and if you scroll just 5 comments up (I know, it’s so hard, innit?) and try reading to see what I said, as opposed to assuming, then maybe you’d have noticed and addressed it. If someone was sent to prison for putting a punk song on the internet in the U.S., I’d condemn it as well.

Basic courtesy, in any culture, would be that you respond to what I’m saying, not play nonsensical semantic games.

As for your comment about the “ridiculous ideas of humanities majors”… the only thing more obnoxious than a freshman humanities major is a freshman scientist with a beef against humanities majors. And that’s what you sound like. Try being civil, son.

September 25, 2005 @ 11:28 pm | Comment

Finally, it’s possible that the word “dem0cracy” itself is a word coined by Rightists to describe something that does not really exist. Now you say, “You are wrong! Of course dem0cracy exists!”. Well, then, can you give me a bottle of dem0cracy? Can I see it? Of course I cannot. Then, of course dem0cracy simply does not exist. I can get a bottle of sand, so sand of course exists. But dictatorship is something that exists indeed. You can quantify dictatorship by seeing how many tough laws are passed, how many actions are taken by the gov’t, etc. Now you may say “But I can’t get a bottle of dictatorship either!”. Well, I am sorry, I do not want to use that analogy anymore.

What are you, drunk? That’s funnier than Ivan’s stuff.

September 25, 2005 @ 11:46 pm | Comment

A quick question for SW: What about humanities majors that are athiests?

September 26, 2005 @ 12:05 am | Comment

GWBH:

He won’t answer you, he never answers questions – just continues with his unrelenting monologues.

September 26, 2005 @ 12:06 am | Comment

Hey, what’s so wrong with believing in God? It’s not my cup of tea, but that’s fine as long as you don’t hurt anyone. Hurt someone in the name of God or democracy or stability, it’s still hurting people. Believe in God or democracy or stability so that it enables you to help people (say, treat the ill or give to the poor), then go right ahead and believe in God or democracy or whatever it is.

It’s not a complicated idea, and I look forward to hearing Simple Worker’s views on it after hell freezes over.

September 26, 2005 @ 12:16 am | Comment

That last comment by SW literally takes the prize. I’ve seen a lot of scary comments here and a lot of game players, but this raises it to a whole new level.

Dave, just as Martyn said, there’s no point engaging. He’ll just find one little phrse in your comment and spin off in a whole new area.

September 26, 2005 @ 12:31 am | Comment

Dave,

Are you saying I need to drink more to keep up with SW?

September 26, 2005 @ 3:54 am | Comment

Simple worker:

You are a fucking moron. Saddam was a democrat because he opposed the US????? That must make Kim Jong Il a friggin modern day Thomas Jefferson and Osama James Madison.

Richard and I probably disagree with each other on almost every partisan political issue I can think of, but I respect him because he is a true defender of human rights and dignity.

On the other hand, you are an absurd fuckwit. An asshat. A buffoon. A clown. You’d be nausiating if your weren’t so obviously a joke. Too silly to be dangerous.

September 26, 2005 @ 3:55 am | Comment

Conrad, tell us how you really feel.

And yes, i agree with every word you say.

September 26, 2005 @ 3:57 am | Comment

SW,

Please stop praising me. I’m suffering enough already without fuckwits like you ruining my reputation.

Sincerely yours,

Saddam Hussein

September 26, 2005 @ 6:28 am | Comment

Isn’t “Simple Worker” MAJ? And Math? It is pretty obvious, isn’t it? He doesn’t have the sense to change his long-winded writing style when he pretends to be someone else.

September 26, 2005 @ 7:20 am | Comment

hmmm, like Cassandra, makes the attempt:

Isn’t “Simple Worker” MAJ? And Math? It is pretty obvious, isn’t it? He doesn’t have the sense to change his long-winded writing style when he pretends to be someone else.

They could well be one and the same. Even if he is not, it amounts to the same.

Once again: Please, ladies and gentlemen, do not feed the trolls. Thank you.

September 26, 2005 @ 9:40 am | Comment

In case the long-windedness did not tip you off that “Simple Worker” was just MAJ, it seems Simple Worker shares another MAJ predilection: plagiarism.

In the comments above, Simple Worker wrote:

I Believe It is Possible that Democracy is a Fake Word to Fool Innocent people
First, I will expound two ideas that may be familiar to most of you. First idea is “Duality”. “Duality” says that the world has two sources, those two sources are always conflicting: good and evil, hot and cold, bright and dark, (…)

From this location:

http://tinyurl.com/dysqz

you will find word-for word the identical comment:

I Believe It is Possible that Democracy is a Fake Word to Fool Innocent people
First, I will expound two ideas that may be familiar to most of you. First idea is “Duality”. “Duality” says that the world has two sources, those two sources are always conflicting: good and evil, hot and cold, bright and dark, (…)

IP addresses are easily masked, so the best secondary defense remains: ignore the trolls. Do not engage them.

September 26, 2005 @ 10:02 am | Comment

A Story for all WW’s, DL’s, LZ’s:

There was a story in an ancient Chinese book: there was a farmer who was pushing a very heavy cart uphill, and just when he was exerting all his efforts trying to push, a wolf comes out and started biting his ass. If the farmer let go of the cart, the freight will fall out, the cart will crush his body, so he can only put up with the pain, and keep pushing…

Well, there is such a farmer today, and the cart he’s pushing is the cart of developing China. The slope of the hill is very steep, just like the growth rate of China is very high, and this growth rate is helping the world’s economic growth. Under this circumstance, many nations want to take advantage of China, and one common way is to exploit China’s cheap labor. So foreign corporations let Chinese workers work hard and earn little, while the bosses will of course reap the most benefits. But for the country’s development, China allows those foreign corporations to do this. As a result, in order to seek a better life, many farmers from China’s villages are fighting to get those jobs, it seems this type of “international labor subsititution” will continue for many years.

Taking advantage of China’s desire to develop fast, many nations transfer industrial jobs to China. Those jobs are energy-consuming and high polluting. China produces world’s 95% of coal, and coal of course damages the air. Other nations say very comfortably: “Look how china is damaging its environment, how irresponsible you are, I’ll condemn you!”. But when China starts to limit its coal import, those same nations protest again: “Where am I gonna get my coal if you stop producing! Don’t stop!” So in order for China’s economy to develop, China has no choice but bite her lips, and just let the wolves tear some meat off her ass.

Lee Tunghui, Chen Shuibian all see this. They scream Taiwanese Independence with all their might. China of course does not want to fight a war, it’s not easy for China to have gained these decades of peace environment for economic development. China wants a war the least and wants peace the most, China wants a peaceful rise, because only a stable and peaceful environment can ensure sustained development. China is like that farmer who is exerting all his force pushing the cart uphill, he crouches his back, and ignores everything else but his cart. He does not have the time or energy to beat the wolves. So under this circumstance where China does not have many cards to play, it upholds the One-China Principle regarding Taiwan, and tries so hard to improve cross-strait relations. At last, the Chairman of Taiwan’s Nationalist Party will visit China and meet Hu Jintao in a month. This will be the first time the Chinese Communist Party and Taiwan’s Nationalist Party formally meet in 50 years. Of course Chen Shuibian and Lee Tunghui is screaming and want to try the Nationalist Party’s Chairman for “treason”. How laughable those clowns are.

As China is strenuously pushing its cart, a bunch of spectators snicker and mock:

“You idiot, why are you pushing this single-wheel cart, all the Westerners pushing big trucks and vans!”
“You feel so strained in pushing this cart, because your system of pushing is wrong, you should change your system!”
“Stop your foolish pushing! If you don’t change your system, you are a dictator! You are evil! I’ll overthrow you!”

But those spectators are merely shouting, no one dares to make a move and stab the farmer on the throat.

The farmer has body forward, eyes kept on the cart, and has interest in talking to those spectators. He is only focused on pushing his cart up the slope. Those people wave big checks in front of the farmer, and say that if you change your system I’ll give you those checks. The farmer does not believe in those blank checks. He rather believe in the meager amount of money he has in his pocket. Most importantly, he knows he can’t change the cart now, if he does, he may fall down the slope and the cart will fall with him, and either he gets a severe bruise, or he get’s killed from the fall, and the cart will be completely destroyed, and all his efforts would’ve been for nothing.

Even though his legs are sore, his ass is bleeding, but his heart is hopeful. He knows that soon, the slope will be over, and he’ll have reached a plateau. And then he can straighten his back, look at his wound, and take a rest. And then perhaps he can have the energy to get a new cart, and perhaps then he won’t be mocked again. So as he is thinking about that future, he knows that for now, he should only keep pushing. If those people want to mock and yell and scream, then let them.

September 26, 2005 @ 10:07 am | Comment

I know another story. It’s about a farmer who was “collectivized” by Marxist idiots. The farmer’s family starved or was imprisoned for thought crimes. Later on, the Marxist idiots figured out that Marxism doesn’t work, so they adopted captialism (but called it “socialism”). As the farmer’s country moved further and further away from the ideas of the Marxist idiots, things began to improve. Then a new Marxist idiot came on the scene, a guy with a photographic memory who thought North Korea and Cuba were good models of population control and sought to wage a ‘smokeless war’ against those who wanted to get even further away from the Marxist idiots of the past.

Now our farmer spends most of his time protesting against the corruption of the new Marxist idiots.

The end.

September 26, 2005 @ 10:50 am | Comment

Under this circumstance, many nations want to take advantage of China, and one common way is to exploit China’s cheap labor. So foreign corporations let Chinese workers work hard and earn little, while the bosses will of course reap the most benefits. But for the country’s development, China allows those foreign corporations to do this.

Why distinguish between foreigners and Chinese here? Chinese companies do the exact same thing. It’s always the same argument; if Chinese people are treated like s**t by foreigners, its exploitation. If Chinese people are treated like s**t by other Chinese people, its an honorable sacrifice. What about the fact that foreign companies are more likely to follow international labor and social accountability standards?

China is like that farmer who is exerting all his force pushing the cart uphill, he crouches his back, and ignores everything else but his cart. He does not have the time or energy to beat the wolves.

By stating that China will use military force in the event of Taiwan independence, clearly China will make time to beat certain wolves. Plus, I don’t understand what Taiwan has to do with China’s mainland development… besides investing in a lot of it.

Finally, it’s a little more subtle with your story, but you’re still assuming China as being one unified unit. 1.3 billion people all represented in one single farmer. Why can’t it be 1.3 billion carts and 1.3 billion people and each one decides how to best use their cart? Whose idea was it to make this all or nothing shove up the hill anyway? At the core of your argument is an unmentioned dictator telling everyone there’s only one way to succeed, and the aggrieved nationalism of the emotionally wounded.

September 26, 2005 @ 11:28 am | Comment

I know what you are trying to do, you are trying to drive a wedge between the Chinese and our government, but I’m sorry, I’m not a 3-year-old born yesterday. This is exactly the tactic that collapsed the USSR, you think we will fall for it again? We will unite as one fist and beat you to the ground!

September 26, 2005 @ 11:41 am | Comment

>This is exactly the tactic that collapsed the USSR, you think we will fall for it again?

And I thought the collapse of the USSR had something to do with the Russian people being sick of living in a bankrupt prison of a society. But now I see that it was all just a foreign plot. What was i thinking?!?

Well, dave, our foreign plot has been uncovered. Back to the drawing board: how can we screw China without them catching on???

September 26, 2005 @ 11:48 am | Comment

And I thought the collapse of the USSR had something to do with the Russian people being sick of living in a bankrupt prison of a society. But now I see that it was all just a foreign plot. What was i thinking?!?

Yes, they were manipulated and misguided to hate their gov’t and once the people-gov’t relationship is damaged, it does great damage to a nation. Just like if I want to have sex with my neighbor’s wife, I can try to play off her husband against her, and then get them divorced, then I can have her.

This is the tactic used in USSR, used in Eastern European countries like Romania, used in Central Asia with those “color revolutions” these days, and being used in China, except it is dissapointing to all the WW’s and LZ’s and DL’s that it’s not working very well in China.

September 26, 2005 @ 12:00 pm | Comment

>Yes, they were manipulated and misguided to hate their gov’t

Yes, thery were manipulated and misguided for 70 years by their own government. I’m not sure who else could have manipulated them since their government maintained a strangle hold on the media — and there was no internet at that time.

>>and once the people-gov’t relationship is damaged, it does great damage to a nation..

That is an interesting theory. I guess by definition all government is good, then? Is it possible for the government to damage the “people-govt” relationship?? Say, through corruption, incompetence, oppression, and brutal suppression of the people? Or is everything just a foreign plot? Well, we know your answers to those questions.

September 26, 2005 @ 12:17 pm | Comment

I think the better analogy would be one billion farmers marching in a phalanx chained together pushing a huge cart. Someone comes along and see them one day and advocates removing their chains. The boss man (there is always a boss man, they didn’t chain themselves) says that is unacceptable because that would ruin the efficiency of his workforce and the cart might start rolling down on them all and that would be horrible.

Or to use your other analogy: a male neighbor encourages his female friend to consider leaving her husband. The husband automatically assumes that the male neighbor wants his wife for himself. In fact the problem is not lust, but the husband who constantly abuses his wife. The male neighbor is just trying to help.

September 26, 2005 @ 12:31 pm | Comment

An analogy contest!!! Maybe Richard could offer a prize for it.

September 26, 2005 @ 12:35 pm | Comment

Oh my god, disagreeing with your government? We couldn’t POSSIBLY let that happen. Disagreement between the people and the government could only lead to self-destruction. So I guess we can forget about Fidel Castro, Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King Jr., Lenin, Mahatma Gandhi, Muhammed Ali, Sun Yat-sen and Mao Zedong. I mean, they all disagreed with the existing governments of their countries at one time or another…

What if there is another Chinese person who, um, doesn’t agree with you? Are you going to beat them into the ground? That’s sad, man.

Oh, and Budding Sinologist: just make the male neighbor gay. Then the lust element isn’t even possible.

September 26, 2005 @ 12:41 pm | Comment

Of course you may disagree with your govt, I am living in the USA and I disagree with the US government all the time. And back in China, I disagreed with the Chinese gov’t as well, over a range of issues, many of them rather serious and urgent. But ultimately, what is your goal of disagreement, do you disagree for your own agenda, or do you disagree because you want to make it better?

I know that I disagree with the Chinese gov’t because I want to make it better, can you say the same about FLG, about CIA, about those behind the “color revolutions”? Do you sincerely believe the CIA funds overseas coups because it wants the best for those countries? Do you sincerely believe the US State Dept publishes the annual “Human Rights Report of World’s Countries” out of humanitarian concerns for those countries, what is USA, Jesus Christ for the world?

Yes, everyone knows that there are many advanced elements in the West’s political system/culture/technology and that China has a lot to learn to catch up, but the fundamental issue is that do you want China to catch up or not?

September 26, 2005 @ 3:00 pm | Comment

If I didn’t want China to catch up, I would surely be a strong supporter of the CCP. No question.

Also, everyone has an agenda. You have an agenda. What’s more, people do not always agree on a course of action, but have the same goal. For example, I know many Chinese who think that reform should be sped up — their “agenda” is to improve China. I also know Chinese who think China should leap back to the past for more communist madness — their “agenda” is to improve China, also. Still other Chinese think the CCP should burn in hell. Their goal is also to improve China. You seem to think there is only one way to
improve and, of course, only the CCP knows this one way. That is pretty silly.

Your paranoia may convince you that the evil US and CIA are behind every revolution, but if you bothered to actually learn the specifics of those historical events, you would find that the people in those countries were sick to death of their dear communist leaders and got rid of them of their own accord. The CIA can’t even find its own ass or speak Arabic, much less “manufacture” democratic revolutions.

September 26, 2005 @ 3:16 pm | Comment

Ok, now we are getting somewhere. So I assume you want to “improve” China as well. So now there are 3 options

1) Speed up reforms (political + economic)
2) Slow down reforms
3) Crash the CCP

Right?

September 26, 2005 @ 3:27 pm | Comment

Stop backpedaling, ¹²²¨²µ³Í¨°Ë¨º, you said:

I know what you are trying to do, you are trying to drive a wedge between the Chinese and our government, but I’m sorry, I’m not a 3-year-old born yesterday.

Not the CIA, not the FLA, you blamed us. And every time a foreigner says “here’s something that could be improved in China”, we’re immediately labeled CIA operatives or imperialist running dogs conspiring against you. Stop the kneejerk racial wagon circling, it’s immature and irritating and you’re losing allies that way.

Yes, everyone knows that there are many advanced elements in the West’s political system/culture/technology and that China has a lot to learn to catch up, but the fundamental issue is that do you want China to catch up or not?

Your previous argument basically seemed to say there is only one way for China to catch up, and that’s by not tolerating dissent or difference of opinion. Sorry, but that’s called a dictatorship. I personally don’t believe that’s the only way for China to catch up, and I think the racial paranoia and flat out masochist nationalism involved in the story you tell is ultimately unhealthy for China. China can become a developed country without resorting to such digusting bulls**t.

AND YOU’RE MISSING MY F**KING POINT from the post Richard started this thread with. When you say China is “catching up”, and that the West has all the technology and advance stuff, you’re engaging in the same self-loathing Liang Qichao did. How about the fact that Chinese history has a multitude of thinkers and voices and they didn’t all support Confucian or Maxist ideals? How about drawing from that rich tradition? How about thinking that maybe some of your own traditions are actually relevant but fell into disuse because “New” China spent a century trying to burn every trace of them away?

When you say China is “catching up”, you’re saying civilizations are measured on a scale of 1 to 10, where the West is, say, an 8 and China is a 6. Or whatever numbers you choose. You make it sound like a race, a zero-sum game – the corollary to that is that you are saying China is “weak”. Your nationalism is the nationalism of the bullied child who finds his daddies gun. Yours is a nationalism not built on pride and confidence, but fear and insecurity.

September 26, 2005 @ 3:32 pm | Comment

1) Speed up reforms (political + economic)

2) Slow down reforms

3) Crash the CCP

Right?

That you only see those three options is sad. How about the nature of those reforms? You don’t just speed them up or slow them down; the CCP could *gasp* change course. Open a public debate on what reforms should take place, how, when and where. The CCP could turn the NPC into a place where representatives can actually disagree with the CCP, even if they can’t really vote on policy. The CCP could let people speak their minds, to begin a dialogue on how to change China. The CCP could announce a sudden enormous expansion of the petition system, so that maybe it would, yknow, work. They could, oh, I don’t know, NOT SEND PEOPLE TO PRISON FOR PLAYING A PUNK SONG. Instead, the CCP announces “We’ve decided how to change things. Everyone will now continue to do as we say.” That’s not reform.

You really just give two choices:

a) Take everything the CCP is doing and just accept it, at varying speeds.

b) Scorched earth.

Your imagination is seriously atrophied.

September 26, 2005 @ 3:40 pm | Comment

Your nationalism is the nationalism of the bullied child who finds his daddies gun

So you do agree that he’s bullied? Who bullied him? Did the bullies apologize to him, did we denounce the bullies, did the bullies get punished?? F*** B***SH***T

September 26, 2005 @ 3:47 pm | Comment

>>So you do agree that he’s bullied?

In what century?

>>Who bullied him?

In the 20th century, mostly Japan. Before that mostly Europeans.

>>Did the bullies apologize to him

Well, Japan did 37 times…and counting.

>>did we denounce the bullies

Yes, every day of the week for the past 100 years…and counting.

>>did the bullies get punished??

Japan got nuked, for one.

Here is your classic “China as eternal victim of the evil foreigners” mentality that has been promoted by the CCP for the past 60 years. All of China’s problems are the result of evil foreigners bullying China. Nothing to do with an ass-backwards system of government.

September 26, 2005 @ 4:15 pm | Comment

Just to be contrary, but technically all of China’s problems for the past 60 years ARE the result of foreigners bullying China. Without colonialism and the second Sino-Japanese war, there would be no communist rule of China. 😛

September 26, 2005 @ 4:22 pm | Comment

But of course after colonialism and the Japanese war, there did not necessarily need to be communist rule. Just as after these guys took power, there did not need to be massive famines, years of chaos, and idiotic restrictions on people’s freedoms. I can see what you’re saying Jing, but how far back can the blame game go? At some point people need to take responsibility for their own actions and mismanagement.

September 26, 2005 @ 8:04 pm | Comment

China wasn’t the only place to be bullied by Western powers, and in fact, the place that was supposedly “bullied” the longest turned out to be the most successful: Hong Kong. Now that’s embarrassing

September 26, 2005 @ 8:07 pm | Comment

When we talk about freedom, there’s “nominal freedom” as well as “effective freedom”. I believe China lacks nominal freedom, yet has ample “effective freedom”.

Let me now explain what “effective freedom” is.

There are about 6 billion people people in the world. Every person has a “longest distance he/she can travel without any legal document or going through any legal procedures”. For example, if I’m a Singaporean, then I can travel from southern Singapore to northern Singapore without any documents. But if I want to go to Malaysia, or Indonesia, or any other place outside of Singapore, I must apply ahead of time, and if approved, show documents (passorts, visas, etc) to officers. I also need to go through customs, baggage security, etc etc.

But if I am a Mainland Chinese and I want to travel from Shenzhen to Xingjiang, or from Xingjiang to Guangdong, all I need is to carry a citizen ID just in case. If I go by train or bicycle, then I don’t even need to carry a citizen ID. I certainly do not need to apply ahead of time, or go through customs; no one will suspect me of smuggling things, I don’t need to pay tariffs for my goods, etc etc.

If i’m in Singapore, or Taiwan, then even if I have a lot of nominal freedom, like freedom of this and freedom of that, but it is after all just limited to that little area. In China, I can travel across thousands of Kilometers without having to apply for visas or carry passports or go through customs. How many kilometers can you last in Singapore or Taiwan? An average Chinese province alone would surpass the effective freedom of Singapore or Taiwan. In this sense, China has much more effective freedom than most other nations in the world.

It is the same reasoning with employment. Mainland Chinese can work in any city in China as long as you have a offer letter from an employee. Some cities require you to apply residency-permit, but that’s just a formality and is often approved right on site. But if you are a Taiwanese, then you can only work freely in Taiwan alone. If you want to work beyond the Taiwan Island, then you have to go through very complicated bureacratic procedures like applying for visas, for passports, prepare over-seas tax documents, and he/she would have to renew the visas every year, and every application needs 5-6 months (or even years) to process. So clearly, a Taiwanese’ effective “free-employment” zone is much smaller than a Chinese mainlander. The former’s zone is only 1/100 the size of the latter’s zone.

Given the expansive effective freedom of mainland Chinese, it is also difficult for the government to manage the citizens. For example, if a criminal is on the loose, he can travel across the entire China without having to “go through” anything. Yet if a German citizen is on the run, he can only travel freely within Germany, if he wants to flee to France his chances of being caught at the border will be higher given that the German police can cooperate with the French and on the lookout for him; before the EU integration, it would be even harder for a criminal.

So overall, only the USA and Russia have a larger degree of effective freedom than China. All other nations have much less effective freedom than China. Even if EU is one day perfectly integrated, it’ll still have a smaller effective freedom than China.

In addition to that, China has 1.3 billion people. Under this condition, it is already a miracle the gov’t can maintain high economic growth without major tension or conflicts for 20 years. I believe that has never been achieved in human history. So maybe there should be a Guinesse World Record for world’s longest peaceful economic expansion with the biggest population.

Of course I encourage people to fight for the rights they deserve. But people should complain less and appreciate the government more. Don’t be too demanding on the government. The government is human just like we are, what would you feel if you are asked to do this and do that everyday? I know I would certainly be very upset. So unless it is an emergency, try your best to put up with things and just go on with your life.

September 26, 2005 @ 8:29 pm | Comment

Isn’t this a Monty Python skit? “My freedom is greater than yours because I live in a larger country.” I think I heard this theory before when I was 16 and was smoking dope with some friends. It made A LOT of sense at the time. Less so when not stoned, however.

September 26, 2005 @ 8:43 pm | Comment

haha, what an idiotic comparison. when people from other countries like taiwan or singapore go to work abroad, they don’t get arrested! but there are plenty of things you can do in taiwan that you’d get arrested for here in China. anyone see the marches in taiwan on sunday?
so what if a “mingong” from anhui can travel to shanghai and work? when they get here, let’s say their boss doesn’t pay them (which, you may note, is a distinct possibility)? what are they gonna do then?

September 26, 2005 @ 8:44 pm | Comment

“But if I am a Mainland Chinese and I want to travel from Shenzhen to Xingjiang, or from Xingjiang to Guangdong, all I need is to carry a citizen ID just in case.”

Funny you say it this way. Because if you go from Xinjiang to Shenzhen you would need a permission. And I don’t know any other countries with such restrictions on movement..

September 26, 2005 @ 8:57 pm | Comment

I’m sorry 共产党万岁 , but your argument strikes me as plain silly.

The distance you can ride on a bicycle without dealing with the gov’t is a reliable indicator of freedom, “effective” or otherwise?

Your idea of “effective freedom” is completely arbitrary. What if someone else says that “effective freedom” is measured by how many books you can publish without gov’t permission? How many rallies you can organize without gov’t interference? How often people successfully sue the gov’t in court?

You tell me: which is a better measurement of “freedom”: publishing a book, organizing a rally, suing the gov’t, or … riding a bicycle???

Next time before you use this “geographic size = effective freedom” idea, maybe you should talk with someone from Iceland or Hawaii. 🙂

September 26, 2005 @ 9:02 pm | Comment

hmmm,

Actually a more relevant Monty Python skit is the one about the “Happy Kingdom”, where:

“There were no grumblers or dissidents or malcontents, because Wise King Otto had them all put to death under the Happiness Act”

September 26, 2005 @ 9:02 pm | Comment

Woops, simultaneous posting!

September 26, 2005 @ 9:04 pm | Comment

Ivan, don’t forget that King Otto also had all the trade union leaders put to death as well.

Just to be contrary, but technically all of China’s problems for the past 60 years ARE the result of foreigners bullying China. Without colonialism and the second Sino-Japanese war, there would be no communist rule of China. 😛

Jing, they are the result of foreigners bullying, but that doesn’t mean foreigners are responsible for the subsequent choices made by people in China. And I’d like to reiterate that no one here had anything to do with that bullying, and “foreigners” isn’t even a real group of people. There’s no such race, class, creed, organization, clan or network. It’s simply flat out xenophobia. In fact, the whole way I’ve ever “foreigners” exist as a group is in China… because we all get shoved in the same box.

There’s this fallacy:

X is bad
X is a member of Set A
Therefore Set A is bad

So, Bush is bad. Bush is an American. Therefore Americans are bad. This is as meaningless as: Emperor Hirohito was bad. Hirohito was Japanese. Therefore all Japanese are bad. OR: British Colonialists were bad. They were foreigners. Therefore an American of Irish descent is bad 150 years later.

September 26, 2005 @ 9:11 pm | Comment

Just to further comment on Jing’s idea that it’s all foreigners fault: if the last 60 years is the result of colonialism and the sino-japanese war, then that means that the CCP has been driven to every bad decision it ever made because it was preoccupied with the past wrongs of the “foreign devils”. That sounds more like the fault of a psychological disorder, rather than people in another country.

September 26, 2005 @ 9:18 pm | Comment

You cannot deny that China does have a much much larger degree of effective freedom than most of other nations, efffective freedom being defined by me.

Now you may say, that’s arbitrary! Well it is, but what is wrong with that definition, I certainly think that’s sensible. Of course effective freedom is only one aspect of freedom. So before you put my words in my mouth, I am simply claiming that China has more effective freedom than most other nations, that’s it. China may have less speech freedom than other nations, may have less this and that freedom, but on the issue of effective freedom, you cannot deny that China has more of that than most nations.

September 26, 2005 @ 9:45 pm | Comment

I define “effective freedom” as having blonde hair. There are more people in the Sweden with blonde hair than in China.

You cannot deny that Sweden does have a much much larger degree of effective freedom than most of other nations, efffective freedom being defined by me.

September 26, 2005 @ 9:48 pm | Comment

You see you see, now you are just using extreme examples trying to ridicule me, but of course your definition is insensible, please go back and re-think another one.

Sometimes I think WW’s, LZ’s, and DL’s all have rather slow brainpower in debates, sigh….

September 26, 2005 @ 9:50 pm | Comment

tell me, what are WWs, LZs and DLs?

September 26, 2005 @ 9:58 pm | Comment

Someone here please explain these to dave.

September 26, 2005 @ 9:59 pm | Comment

WW = A affectionate words for people who want Taiwanese independence, taken from the 2nd syllable of “Taiwan”, so WW is short for “wanwan”.

LZ = FLG supporters. Short for Lunzi (wheels), which is taken from the Falun Gong books, which says the whole universe is just a big wheel.

DL = Democracy-Lovers.

Those acronyms are not invented by me, but by Chinese on Chinese forums when referring to those people, as a way to introduce humor.

September 26, 2005 @ 10:01 pm | Comment

how about you explain it? I have no idea, either. And what is your secret handshake?

September 26, 2005 @ 10:03 pm | Comment

Oh, and “effective freedom” is just alot of semantic misdirection. You refer to everything else as the “freedom of this and that”, dismissing the freedom to speech, legal representation, assembly, self-determination, etc. and simply looking at the right to travel.

Which, by the way, you are in fact wrong about. It’s spelled Xinjiang, and no, travel from Xinjiang to Inner China is not unrestricted.

And what if I want to start a company selling punk music and its related paraphenalia? Will I get sent to prison for 7 years?

September 26, 2005 @ 10:03 pm | Comment

oh, this DA!

DA= dumb ass, as in a person who makes a meaningless point and then ignores all comments disqualifying his/ her meaningless point.

September 26, 2005 @ 10:06 pm | Comment

Now I wonder, why is this guy going on and on about Chinese “size?”

Does size really matter after all?

September 26, 2005 @ 10:06 pm | Comment

ah. so it is kind of similar to “liberals and terrorists” or “commies, fags, and jews.” Figures.

September 26, 2005 @ 10:07 pm | Comment

Size = “effective freedom”

Sounds like a good Pornstar name!
“Eff-cktive Freedom”

September 26, 2005 @ 10:08 pm | Comment

You see, now I can accuse you of “not engaging me.” But anyway, my definition of effective freedom is not pulled out of thin air, but has practical consequences, I think much more so than ambiguous things like freedom of speech.

For example, if I’m living in Mainland China, I can take my family and travel from Beijing to Guangdong, traversing several provinces in the middle, and enjoying endless sceneries of mountaines, rivers, local unique food, local cultures, local dialects, and will enjoy that vacation.

Now, if you are in Taiwan, it takes about 1 day to traverse the entire island, and sceneries of mountains and rivers will be much much more limited than in Mainland, so your vacation in Taiwan will be much less enjoyable. And this case is even more so than in Singapore or HK.

I have friends who live in Singapore and HK, and they often complain “I like living here, but it’s so boring! There’s nothing to do during vacations because the island is the size of my testicle!” What they are really complaining is that their effective freedom is too small and limited.

If you don’t believe me, how come no one in Mainland has had the same complaint as Singaporeans and HKers?

So why not start a international convention on effective freedoms, and accuse HK and Singapore and Taiwan of having so little of these freedoms.

September 26, 2005 @ 10:10 pm | Comment

And please do not say things like “How come you are ignoring freedom of speech, freedom of elections, freedom to curse at the govt! etc etc” . Well my post is about effective freedom, so why are you trying to derail the debate by bringing up other freedoms, my post only talks about effective freedom, and not other freedoms. So please stay on topic, otherwise you are not engaging me!!!!!!!

September 26, 2005 @ 10:12 pm | Comment

I totally agree, DA! Have you ever asked Sun Zhigang about how he appreciated his “effective freedom” to travel to other cities and provinces? I think he really enjoyed it.

September 26, 2005 @ 10:12 pm | Comment

nah, a better porn name would be:

¹²²ú Dong.

September 26, 2005 @ 10:14 pm | Comment

You see you see, trying to derail the conversation by bringing up Sun Zhigang. You must think “Bringing up Sun Zhigang will place me in a moral highground and beat the other person to the ground!”. But I’m sorry, this is illegal, please go-back and re-write that post.

September 26, 2005 @ 10:15 pm | Comment

More CCP pornstars:

Dong Zao-Piing

Mao Say Tongue

Jack Ze Men

Who’s Jit Towel

September 26, 2005 @ 10:15 pm | Comment

DA, you’ve been ignoring everything we’ve said from comment #1. So deal.

Even if we ignore the point that travel within the mainland is sometimes restricted (and ignore it you did, well done, 10 points for consistency), your “effective freedom” is still retarded. I could put you on Antarctica with a really, really good transportation network. You’d have more effective freedom than anyone else in the world, but I question how much you’d enjoy it or it would matter.

If you’re interested, I’d be more than happy to help you get tickets to move there.

September 26, 2005 @ 10:19 pm | Comment

Looks like now you are resorting to pornography to defend, sigh.. how sad… It’s no wonder that all the democracy activists and FLG’s receive so much funding, try so hard to collapse CCP, and yet fail so badly. If CCP is against people above, then it has nothing to worry about.

September 26, 2005 @ 10:19 pm | Comment

I could put you on Antarctica with a really, really good transportation network. You’d have more effective freedom than anyone else in the world, but I question how much you’d enjoy it or it would matter.

Antarctica has nothign but ice and coldness, does it have sceneries, mountains, rivers, restaurants, local delicacies? So clearly that is not a valid comparison

September 26, 2005 @ 10:20 pm | Comment

“Why are you trying to derail the debate by brining up other freedoms?”

Oh, NOW I get it. This really is a typical CCP robot. Only a Communist would be SO arrogant to demand that someone else’s blog limit the acceptable scope of “freedoms” to one narrow definition which suits the CCP.

Jesus H F—ing Christ.

September 26, 2005 @ 10:20 pm | Comment

You must think “Bringing up Sun Zhigang will place me in a moral highground and beat the other person to the ground!”. But I’m sorry, this is illegal, please go-back and re-write that post.

Uh, I think only Richard has the right to declare any position “illegal” on this site. Be careful, DA, he might take away your “nominal freedom”.

September 26, 2005 @ 10:20 pm | Comment

Even if we ignore the point that travel within the mainland is sometimes restricted (and ignore it you did, well done, 10 points for consistency

Given all the restrictions in travel within China, an average person can still get to more places in China than in Taiwan, don’t you at least agree with that? I mean I can buy a ticket from Shanghai to Chongqing, and enjoy everything along the way. That already covers more distance than in Taiwan, does it not? Don’t tell me you need permission to go from Shanghai to Chongqing in China.

September 26, 2005 @ 10:22 pm | Comment

By the way, everyone – Simple Worker and this new comenter 共产党万岁 are one and the same (IP addresses never lie). Shanghai Slim in another thread spotted him pulling a Madge (copying directly from other people’s writings, with no attribution) and even suggested he IS madge (which I strongly doubt).

Notice how he brought up his BS about “effective freedoms” and is now insisting we all “stay on topic” — on HIS topic. He drags the discussion every which way, then insists we stick to his paramters. I’m enjoying the coments. Just remember, this guy is not for real, and you might as well be banging your heads against a wall.

September 26, 2005 @ 10:22 pm | Comment

Hey, DA, I’m the first one to make pornographic remarks about my OWN leaders, Dick and Bush.

September 26, 2005 @ 10:24 pm | Comment

Sorry, DA, but your article on “effective freedom” mentioned nothing about scenery. It only mentioned size. Antarctica definitely has that.

If you want to talk about what you can and can’t do within that region, whether its big like China or small like Singapore’s testicle, then that’s another discussion. But based on your writings, that’s irrelevant to effective freedom.

Have fun in Antarctica!

September 26, 2005 @ 10:24 pm | Comment

Why is it too much to ask to stay on topic? If I go offtopic, I will be attacked like a sheep in a crowd of lions, do you not agree with that?

September 26, 2005 @ 10:24 pm | Comment

Why is bringing up Sun Zhigang illegal? He’s the tragic poster child for everything that sucks about one-party rule in China.

September 26, 2005 @ 10:24 pm | Comment

DA, just because you don’t have the brain power to respond to the Sun Zhigang issue does not mean that I should rewrite my post.
Aren’t Sun Zhigang’s movements a perfect example ofthis “effective freedom” that you love to talk so so so much about?
Do you think that there’s an inscription on Sun’s grave that says “Bless China’s Effective Freedom!”?

September 26, 2005 @ 10:26 pm | Comment

Well, Sun Zhigang is tragic, but that does not refute the claim that the average Chinese has more effective freedom than most nations. One case cannot be used to overthrow it, don’t you agree?

Clearly, the majority of Chinese are not Sun Zhigang, because if they are, then most people will be beaten to death and most Chinese people will be dead. But China’s population is still 1.3 billion, so you agree that the majority of Chinese are not Sun Zhigang. So, SunZhigang is an isolated case that may happen in any nation, like the African American who was beaten to death by LA police.

Anyway, I’m not Sun Zhigang, so I do not care too much about it.

September 26, 2005 @ 10:29 pm | Comment

DA, please use the freedom we provide you with here in the US for something more constructive. We know you won’t take dave’s offer to move to Antarctica — it’s easier to get a greencard here, probably, anyway. Try bowling or line dancing. I think it would suit you better than rational debate.

September 26, 2005 @ 10:29 pm | Comment

Yes, I am currently under the process of getting a green card, because it is convenient for me to have one, so I can work in the USA and travel to China easily.

I am never a good bowling. I enjoy solving mathematical questions from the International Math Olympiad in my free time.

September 26, 2005 @ 10:31 pm | Comment

Shit – I wonder if this blogger hasn’t been a victim of China’s “efective freedoms.” I suspect that is exactly what happened. It’s a risky thing he was doing. (Sorry, it’s a blogspot link, and as part of China’s effective freedoms, you can’t access it. Enjoy your freedom.)

September 26, 2005 @ 10:31 pm | Comment

Macrame — I’ll bet DA would be really good at that.

September 26, 2005 @ 10:33 pm | Comment

>>Yes, I am currently under the process of getting a green card, because it is convenient for me to have one, so I can work in the USA and travel to China easily.

Field day. I won’t even bother. Too easy.

September 26, 2005 @ 10:34 pm | Comment

Here is a conspiracy theory: Richard titled this thread “Let 1,000 comments bloom”, could there be a hired gun to make it really happen?

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm, now think about that before you go to bed……..

September 26, 2005 @ 10:37 pm | Comment

So, using the defintion of effective freedom as set out above. Since there were no national boundries in existence at the time when Cro Magnon (sp??) man walked the Earth that indicates that mankind was effective the most free during those periods since presumably they could walk (or ride their bicycle) anywhere they wanted?

September 26, 2005 @ 11:27 pm | Comment

First of all, please don’t encourage anyone like DA to move to Antarctica. Within a year they’d turn it into the “Development Zone of Antarctic Province of China” and destroy all the water. Think of the penguins! The poor penguins!

Second: All of the feeble, overly abstract rationalizations the CCP uses about how one-party dictatorship is just a “different”, “special” kind of freedom, all follow the same pattern of abstracting freedom into nothing – and it always reminds me of the argument the British Government used about “Virtual Representation” of the American colonies:

That is, back around 1776, the British government’s main argument against the Americans’ rather limited requests for basic self-government, was to say: The American colonists have “VIRUTUAL REPRESENTATION” in the British Parliament.

This very abstract concept basically said that the Americans don’t really need their own elected representatives – because the members of Parliament from England and Scotland will do a fine job of looking after the Americans’ interests.
The argument was that even though they were not directly elected by Americans, still, they “virtually” represented the Americans.

Rather like the CCP today, “virtually” represents the People of China. And by the same reasoning, China has “virtual” freedoms. Or as DA says, “effective freedoms.”

All abstract bullshit.

September 26, 2005 @ 11:36 pm | Comment

I am never a good bowling. I enjoy solving mathematical questions from the International Math Olympiad in my free time.

That explains sooooooo much.

September 26, 2005 @ 11:57 pm | Comment

International Math Olympiad?

Alright, here’s a Chinese math puzzle, one which I was never able to solve when I lived through the SARS epidemic:

If CCTV tells you there are only 12 confirmed SARS cases in Beijing, then how many REALLY are there?

September 27, 2005 @ 12:16 am | Comment

Ivan I believe you answered the inverse of that problem in another post relating to Mao’s 70/30 legacy.

September 27, 2005 @ 12:21 am | Comment

Madge appears to have an attention deficit disorder, no seriously, it is a nasty business. Usually caused when the parents either ignore thier children and/or the children already have an attention deficit disorder to start with and they feel deprived if their parents don’t dote over them 24 hours a day.

They spend their entire lives trying to get as much attention as possible.

September 27, 2005 @ 12:54 am | Comment

By the way, Richard, Martyn, where are all the new posts today? Are you both busy?

September 27, 2005 @ 12:55 am | Comment

Daniel, now that I’m working fulltime again, the number of posts will be limited, at least for a while. On some days there may be no new posts at all. Sorry, but we’re not a public utility. 🙂

September 27, 2005 @ 2:15 am | Comment

Richard, I wouldn’t worry too much about the Leaking State Secrets site. It has recently been brought to my attention that large chunks of it are mere fabrication.

He’s no Mandeville, but it does rather take the wind out of the site’s sails, so to speak.

September 27, 2005 @ 2:30 am | Comment

Richard,

What do you MEAN, you’re not a “public utility?”

Sure you are. Don’t you know your Monopoly board? When you or Martyn or Lisa post – or when some of us comment – then it’s the Electric Company.

And when maudlin self-loathing nationalists like DA chime in, then it’s “Waterworks.”

Suggest any revision of the party line on June 10-minus-six? “Go To Jail.”

Put on trial for protesting against theft of your farm? “Railroad”

And the hotels all fall apart before the game is over.

September 27, 2005 @ 2:33 am | Comment

Ivan, very clever.

JD, I have met the proprietor of Leaking State Secrets and I don’t believe for an instant that any of it was fabrication. If you make a statement like that I hope you can back it up.

September 27, 2005 @ 2:40 am | Comment

I too have met him and found him quite an agreeable fellow.

Nonetheless, I can indeed back it up, and the question on people’s lips is “why bother embroidering what’s already quite interesting”? Chinese editorial meetings are of interest to all sorts of people, so why add bits – a minor example is in that entry about no one knowing about The Sisters of Mercy. He mentions one guy by name, who wasn’t even in the country at the time.

But that is, as I say, minor. More obvious is the creation of a fictitious “third man” style character for a car journey that was actually taken with a colleague he saw every day.

Another is the attempt to create the idea that foreign editors were always watched by writing as thogh the building repair guys were “uniformed guards” and so on. Personally, I think there’s more appeal in the portrayal of the state apparatus as quite ordinary and dull. So why create a false paranoia?

Elsewhere he has repeatedly mischaracterised his coworkers, not to mention maligned several for no good reason.

And I still don’t understand why.

September 27, 2005 @ 2:55 am | Comment

Heh, I know TPD is not a public utility but if you can’t post then where is Martyn? Not a utility but it is still a big China blog.

I do not understand this stuff about leaking state secrets, what’s the problem with the site? Has the man been exaggerating his posts or what??

September 27, 2005 @ 3:05 am | Comment

I can’t really comment about Leaking State Secrets except to point out that it seems to be gone, with past posts deleted. I thought the guy who ran it had a lot of integrity, but another commenter thinks otherwise. I just don’t know.

Martyn is travelling and I am too new at my job to start blogging from work; and I’ll be having Chinese classes most weeknights. If anyone wants to submit a guest post in the meantime, feel free.

September 27, 2005 @ 3:12 am | Comment

Ivan, your maths question about SARs is extremely hard. Although I always get full marks in maths, I simply can’t solve this one.

September 27, 2005 @ 3:14 am | Comment

samdl,

My mathematical puzzle about SARS is very easy to solve.

The answer is, that numbers do not describe the Human condition.

The answer is that I made out a last will and testament when I lived in Beijing during the SARS epidemic, and sent it to my next of kin.
I actually expected that I might die, and I didn’t give a damn about the numbers.

September 27, 2005 @ 4:14 am | Comment

Richard,

“… I don’t claim Chinese people agree with Hu Jintao or disagree – but I do claim that they aren’t even given that choice, at least not in public within their own country.”

Who gives that choice is a key. Or, by corollary, is it even a choice to be given? And, I’d agree, the history of the bullies must not to be considered a crutch when the Chinese think deeply into this question. At least the elites.

September 27, 2005 @ 4:45 am | Comment

You know I have a sneaking suspicion that Peking Duck is prominent enough to attract official representatives of the Chinese government’s propaganda wing. Have you ever checked how many different kind of China related searches on google get Peking Duck hits? There are many roads to Rome, but also many paths to Peking (Duck).

This commentator Simple Worker, (and his alter ego) strikes me as either a) a paid stooge of the communist party b) a parody, MAJ style, though not necessary MAJ himself … or maybe c) a gullible fool. But personally I doubt the third possibility, since he’s just a little too clever at twisting people’s words to make a trap for fools.

September 27, 2005 @ 5:41 am | Comment

First of all the story tracing the horses ass to the space ships are a urban myth with no truth to it whatsoever.
Second, if you where right we would still be hitting each other in the head with stones..

September 27, 2005 @ 8:59 am | Comment

Sorry the above comment was to a post that disappeared for understandable reasons…

September 27, 2005 @ 9:01 am | Comment

Richard, thanks for the tip-off about the duplicate IPs. Dupe IPs, cut-n-paste arguments, contrariness, long-windedness, and …

I am never a good bowling. I enjoy solving mathematical questions from the International Math Olympiad in my free time.

If that’s not a classic MAJism, it ranks with them, identical style down to the phoney Chinese English (a real Chinese would have written something like “I no good at bowling”).

Richard, the Banning Flail, please?

And I just fed the troll. 🙁 Learn from my feeble example!

September 27, 2005 @ 9:03 am | Comment

Is it just me or you guys love the so-called “troll”, I saw a lot of people jumping in and having a field day.

I’m still wondering how come no one commented on my conspiracy theory……………………….

September 27, 2005 @ 9:08 am | Comment

FSN,

About your speculation that TPD might be monitored by (in your words) “official representatives of the Chinese government”…

….FSN, I think you are a good man to consider such things so carefully. But I will tell you:

Most intelligence services, especially in major countries, do not bother with pissing contests. They don’t have enough money or expertise to bother with closely monitoring little things like TPD. Not in major ways anyway.
They might recruit some useful idiots like MAJ to do some low level harassment. Some spooks at the lower levels might recruit some whores like MAJ, just to justify their salaries. But really, they really don’t give a shit about relatively obscure things like TPD.

And they can’t waste all the money to translate everything which is said on TPD. And they really don’t care, because it’s all in English here.
So they know that TPD will not subvert the masses of China – but it WILL inform any Anglophone Chinese officials who study it carefully.

AND, I do not have firsthand info about this, but my educated GUESS is, that the “official representatives of the Chinese government” mostly WANT TPD to carry on in freedom.
Because this is a place where they can hear what us “Foreigners” are thinking.

So, relax. TPD will probably carry on for a long time, including on the Chinese mainland – because it’s useful for the “organs” on the Chinese mainland to read what we are saying.

Except, I will say, as for MAJ or Simple Worker, etc, – I don’t trust him/them as far as I can shit.
It might be true that he is a spy and a provacateur. But a very low ranking one, and his bosses laugh at him for being such a petty and pathetic little whore…..

So just relax. It might be true that some Chinese organs are monitoring this site – but all of our posts and comments are good education for them, so, I predict that they will never shut this site down. Just carry on as usual, and continue to educate them…because they really WANT to hear what we all have to say….

Richard, you hear me, man?

🙂

September 27, 2005 @ 9:31 am | Comment

PS,

To any MSS officials who have read my last post:

Yes, I am a spy. I have close connections with Russia’s intelligence network.

I mean, some Russian spies played chess with me on a train and I drank a lot of vodka with them.

So, any Chinese spies here, do you want to know EVERYTHING I know about Russian intelligence?

Here is what I know:

The Russian spies all think the Chinese are even more confused and incompetent than the Russians are.

Oh and they also want to know why Chinese bread is so horrible. All Russians love good bread. What is wrong with Chinese bakers? Russia’s intelligence services want to know……

September 27, 2005 @ 9:43 am | Comment

The Leaking State Secrets blog seems to have disappeared. A victim of his own paranoia, perhaps? If it was made up, then it must have been based on some very specific inside information.

September 27, 2005 @ 10:46 am | Comment

I’d be happy to contribute…

September 27, 2005 @ 7:44 pm | Comment

FSN, as Ivan says, I think I’m too insignificant a voice for the CCP to bother with, especially since this blog is in English and will never incite thepeasants to revolt.
If this site is actually helping to educate the Chinese secret police (which I highly doubt), I’d be flattered.

Slim, you maybe right; his last monumental comment, zapped by a co-editor with my blessing, definitely had “Madge characteristics.” He was good for a laugh, but there is no doubt he’s a troll.

To the blogger who’d like to contribute – cool, but remember my audience: their primary interest is China, secondary is domestic politics. Let me know what you have in mind.

September 27, 2005 @ 8:17 pm | Comment

>>I think I’m too insignificant a voice for the CCP to bother with

Not by a long shot. I know (personally) of the CCP interfering in elections of Chinese student associations here in the US. You know, those subversive groups that organize bowling and movie nights? I know (personally) Chinese in the US who have been threatened by the CCP (directly and indirectly) for refusing to become moles — monitoring things like student associations, MITBBS, and other web sites here in the US.

You can say I’m paranoid, blah blah blah, but no fish is too small — even here in the US.

September 27, 2005 @ 9:04 pm | Comment

Leaking State Secrets appears to be up again. And a lot less paranoid. (Possibly something to do with being in HK rather than BJ?)

Of course, on the internet, nobody ever really knows who you are…and we all know that. But I keep on forgetting it and having to remind myself again. And I don’t think I’m the only one.

September 28, 2005 @ 1:10 am | Comment

This thread is hereby sealed. New one has begun above.

dishuiguanyin, thanks for the tip on Leaking State Secrets. I blogged it.

September 28, 2005 @ 3:30 am | Comment

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.