China Law Blog on Kebab Boy

Most interesting.

______________

Richard Burger is the author of Behind the Red Door: Sex in China, an exploration of China's sexual revolution and its clash with traditional Chinese values.

The Discussion: 117 Comments

What? What the HELL? I didn’t think I ingested SO much vodka and SO many other drugs tonight to give me HALLUCINATIONS?

Am I hallucinating this? Is Richard actually citing (derivatively, via CLB) one of the luminaries of the NEOCONSERVATIVES, as a means of bashing NanHey?

(Comic relief aside, yes actually I’m totally sober at the moment.)

Um, Richard? You linked to China Law Blog’s so-called “deconstruction” of Nanheygrouchuan (and his blog, badbadchina@blogspot.com).
But the only – yes, read it carefully, the ONLY – ammunition China Law Blog used against Nanhey, was an article by Fareed Zakaria, NEOCONSERVATIVE LUMINARY, EXTRAORDINAIRE!

The one and ONLY (and just marginally) SUBSTANTIAL criticism in China Law Blog’s article about Nanhey:

“Nanheyangrouchuan seems to call for our boycotting China and I wholly oppose that. Fareed Zakaria recently came out with an excellent article (nominally about Burma), entitled, “Sleepwalking To Sanctions, Again
If the purpose of sanctions is to bring about a better system for a country, devastating its society is a strange path to the new order.” That article goes a long way towards explaining my views on why I favor engagement with China, not sanctions.

And now, a link about the “expert” China Law blog cited: Fareed Zakaria the neocon, in an article at the Village Voice:

http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0533,fpress,66881,6.html

What, what, WHAT? Richard? Are you now making common cause with the neocons? How, and why? You must admit, these are some troubling questions – and you might have some good answers – but you’ve left yourself vulnerable to those questions, so some hard thinking about your answers is warranted now…

Awaiting your answer, I remain,

(as American Gentlemen used to say in more polite days, as in the closings in the letters between General Grant and General Lee),

your true and obedient servant,
Ivan

October 29, 2007 @ 12:17 am | Comment

Zakaria can’t be described as a neo-conservative anymore, and it seems that like Thomas Friedman and Andrew Sullivan and countless other centrist types who supported Iraq, he’s come to deeply regret it over time.

In the meantime, he manages to write more thoughtfully about foreign affairs than just about anyone working in the US media, I’d say.

The deconstruction of nanhey gives him far too much credit, I think. I’ve had the dubious honor of having read dozens of his comments and they’re all…the….same. Just hateful, destructive spewing without any redeeming value.

October 29, 2007 @ 1:01 am | Comment

Zakaria’s criticisms of Bush in Iraq hardly qualify him as a neocon. Just because he doesn’t pander to the “international” view that the UN is always right and the US is always wrong may make some think that he is a minion of Darth Cheney.

Matt; jealousy is so unbecoming. No one cares what you think.

October 29, 2007 @ 3:54 am | Comment

What an interesting thread. Fat Cat, I’ve adored you for years – can’t you see I was being facetious in the extreme when I said this blog is modeled after the Republican Party. After all,m the GOP pretends to be “big tent,” while one thing I like about my own blog is that it really does draw together different factions from across the political spectrum. I hope you don’t forget that I am a liberal, a fierce critic of Bush and the right wing nuts who support him, a Democrat who likes Obama and Edwards, and the kind of person who likes to hear what everybody has to say. If you really think this blog has “morphed” into a Republican or libertarian blog, well…what can I say, except it isn’t true?

Dan, thanks for commenting. Sorry to drag you into this mess – it was surely not my intention.

October 29, 2007 @ 1:31 pm | Comment

Who would have thought that the words “most interesting” could create such impassioned comments. Ivan, this blog is modeled after the Republican Party – it is a big-tent blog that includes conservatives, liberals, communists, apologists and even a neocon or two. That said, I reject the notion that CLB is a neocon – he’s a very smart guy who I sometimes disagree with (kind of like you in that sense) but who I also consider a friend. Please, just a little tolerance, okay?

As for you, kebab boy, I care what Matt thinks, much more than I care what you think. You’re a smart fellow and usually there’s enough substance to your comments to save them from deletion (though not always, and I’ve happily zapped some of your nauseating “bad China” comments). But your repetitive rants make me and many others wonder what’s going on upstairs.

October 29, 2007 @ 9:09 am | Comment

I just wonder why CLB suddenly launches an attack on Nanhe, whom he coined as a ‘troll’. What could a ‘troll’ like Nanhe have done to deserve a ‘deconstruction’? Why would a decent blog owned by a self-proclaimed reputable American law firm denigrate itself by devoting a long thread to the vilifying a ‘troll’? – One can just wonder.

Am I correct in assuming that this over-the-top reaction has anything to do with the China Law Blog being blocked in China recently? Is this a desperate attempt to get back in the good graces of CLB’s Chinese friends in high places?

A Note for Nanhe: You are becoming a financial liability for the China Law Blog. That’s why you deserve what you get from Dan and Steve and Co. How dare you undermine CLB’s illusion about the imminent peaceful rise of a China that’s going to shake the world? Bad, bad Nanhe. Promise me, though, that you’ll keep up with you bad work for goodness sake.

October 29, 2007 @ 11:43 am | Comment

If the purpose of sanctions is to bring about a better system for a country, devastating its society is a strange path to the new order.” That article goes a long way towards explaining my views on why I favor engagement with China, not sanctions.
Ivan

In the case of Burma, the only reason to oppose further sanctions is to pad the pockets of Total and Chevron. Of course Zakaria will shill for profit opportunities for his paymasters and argue against sanctions which might limit those.

The Burmese junta has gone so far down the road to devastating the country, that further sanctions aren’t going to hurt the average resident any more than the current junta does.

The same cannot be said of China, but there is plenty of room for a rational call for boycotting the Olympics. Furthermore there are plenty of reasons to avoid China considering the consistent double standards for foreign firms and protectionist interventions by the CCP to protect their politically connected firms.

And to CLB, if you don’t believe everything is political in China, you obviously don’t know squat about China. From limits on foreign films to mandates for JVs to export inspection schedules, it’s all mandated by CCP politics.

As for calling nanheyangrouchuan a troll, I think it speaks volumes about CLB and his regular readers. And no, that isn’t meant as a compliment, since I tend to find CLB and his regular readers trite in the WSJ/Ayn Rand dogmatic capitalist sense.

October 29, 2007 @ 11:54 am | Comment

Oy. I had no idea I was opening a huge can of worms. As renowned digital media scholar and political analyst MAJ used to say, “Why is everyone so upset? It’s just the Internet…”

October 29, 2007 @ 12:17 pm | Comment

Richard,

Not upset. Just amazed.

Tom is absolutely correct about the WSJ/Ayn Rand connections. Even an Aussie who is not familiar with US politics knows that Ayn Rand is a goddess for the libertarian faction of the paleocons. So this blog has indeed morphed into a Republican style big-tent blog. Your association with the CLB has just about complete the story.

October 29, 2007 @ 12:46 pm | Comment

Richard,

I find it very strange how so many people seem to assume that when one blogger links over to another, it is an indication of agreement, rather than just interest.

Oh, and Tom, I have always hated Ayn Rand with such a passion that I have refused to read her books. My worldview is about 180 degrees from what hers was; it is actually much closer to Richard’s, and I base that on both his writings and our own private correspondence.

I wrote about nh because he is an important figure in the Chinese blogosphere. I disagree with nh at least 75% of the time, but I did not think it would make for a terribly interesting post for me to cite every instance. So instead, I focused on our most central disagreement. He calls for disengagement from China and I call for engagement. I don’t understand how people can assume that from that I am a NEOCON or an Ayn Rander. I picked the Zakaria article not because of his politics (of which I am actually unfamiliar) but merely because I thought he did a good job in discussing the usual futility of sanctions.

October 29, 2007 @ 1:04 pm | Comment

Um. Wow.

I think it’s a serious misread of Richard’s politics (and humor) to suggest that he’s become an Ayn Rand acolyte. Maybe he should start putting smiley faces after “Big Tent” type remarks.

I don’t read CLB enough to make too many assumptions about his politics, though I’ve certainly found the blog to be a good source of information about doing business in China and the Chinese legal system (or lack thereof).

As for Nan-h, I’d appreciate his perspective more if he would allow for a reality beyond a Manichean one and give up the simplistic and annoying “bad bad” repetitions. It’s sloppy, lazy writing, and I hate that.

Now I guess I’ll just sit back and wait for the feeble character assassination which is sure to follow.

October 29, 2007 @ 1:07 pm | Comment

And now that I know CLB hates Ayn Rand, I’m going to make it a point to go there more often. ;)

October 29, 2007 @ 1:10 pm | Comment

otherlisa said, “I think it’s a serious misread of Richard’s politics (and humor) to suggest that he’s become an Ayn Rand acolyte. Maybe he should start putting smiley faces after “Big Tent” type remarks.”

Are you seriously suggesting that I (and possibly Tom) don’t understand the irony of Richard’s “Big Tent” metaphor? Should I consider this as a subtle character assassination attempt?

otherlisa continued, “As for Nan-h, I’d appreciate his perspective more if he would allow for a reality beyond a Manichean one and give up the simplistic and annoying “bad bad” repetitions. It’s sloppy, lazy writing, and I hate that.”

So from what you say, it’s sloppy and lazy for Nanhe to keep repeating the “bad, bad China” rhetoric. But it is not sloppy and lazy for CLB to quote from Zakaria and then retrospectively declares that he is not familiar with Zakaria’s political idea.

October 29, 2007 @ 1:48 pm | Comment

Otherlisa and Richard:

My “bad bad ___” line finds its intended mark and is highly effective for the use I designed it for, so I’m sticking with it.

The Republican party is a big tent for anyone who agrees to agree with them and support the corporate titans as they try to reconstruct a new gilded age, the Democratic tent is big enough for anyone who hates them for any reason or no reason.

Sanctions are the only tool that the international community seems to accept especially because they are generally useless in hurting those actually in power and are easily circumvented.

And it is typical of the international community to hail the rise of China as something glorious when China has never, ever been a force for good when it was strong.

I actually am starting to hope more and more big shots and big corporations invest in China because once they get their hand in the honey pot, they’ll discover it is a giant finger trap and they will never be able to get their profits out of China. CLB and Chris D-E already know this and I think many others do too, but optimism and greed are two sides of a pair of blinders.

And not only will investors and banks never be able to get their money out, but manufacturers and IT firms will never be able to take out their equipment, software, cash or sensitive information. Not even GE, IBM, Siemens, Thyssen, or Microsoft among others.

What I have said on the internet pales to what I’ve sent to Chinese new sites via email.

October 29, 2007 @ 1:49 pm | Comment

Fat Cat, what am I supposed to think when you accuse Richard of becoming an Ayn Rand-loving WSJ capitalist?

As for my critique of Nanhe’s writing, it has nothing to do with CLB’s understanding or lack thereof concerning Zakaria. That’s not what I was addressing. I’m talking about my reponse to Nanhe’s work over many months – well, a couple of years now. I think Nanhe would be much more effective at making his arguments if he didn’t undermine them with lazy rhetoric and an overly rigid woldview.

I don’t mean to talk about you in the 3rd person, Nanhe. And aside from your reflexive defense of a stupid and overused rhetorical device, the points you raise above are really interesting. I’m paying attention. I honestly don’t know what will happen in China. I could see it going either way. So the pessimistic perspective is something I’m interested in hearing.

So I guess it depends on what you’re trying to accomplish. If you just want to rally people who already are inclined to agree with you, “bad bad China” away. If you want to educate/convince others who don’t necessarily share your views, you might want to rethink your approach.

October 29, 2007 @ 2:08 pm | Comment

“So I guess it depends on what you’re trying to accomplish. ”

Have you read Shanghaiist’s interview of me? Take a read, I left clues as to my intentions. While I won’t disclose them, I will say that what I am doing is part of a plan that actually started while I was living in China. And Kenneth Tan provided me with all the reinforcement I needed when one of his interview questions came out as;
” 21. Do you ever consider that you could be stoking the fire of xenophobia and racism and thus be counter-productive to your said-cause?”

I felt all warm and fuzzy when I read this…

October 29, 2007 @ 2:16 pm | Comment

I guess you’re too subtle for me, Nanhe. I read it and I don’t get it. I can’t wrap my mind around how encouraging xenophobia and racism could be a good thing, especially after living the last seven years in the US, where Big Lies and trivialization has become a substitute for any kind of national discourse.

We’re living with the results of hate-based politics, and I don’t like it much.

October 29, 2007 @ 2:20 pm | Comment

And while the masses bicker and chatter, the capitalist acts and profits.

China is for doers, not bloggers.

October 29, 2007 @ 2:21 pm | Comment

Hah, Nanhey, I left a comment on CLB about you… I wonder if my impression is what you intend.

Are you trying to provide Chinese people with evidence that people are agsinst China? I get so annoyed when I hear Chinese people saying that the West hates China or this or that about people who don’t want China to succeed, I try to tell them its not ture and that its only the communist party that totally sucks butt, ..

But you always say bad bad China, it really bugs me cause CHINA IS NOT BAD, the CCP is a *@#* and thats why CHINA SUCKS, The culture of China is good the land was beautiful,parts of it still look good, the arts, the language, the stuff and whatnot are all superb, so that’s why i think you a re paid by the CCP to fuel what the CCP promotes, (that there are forces that hate China (anti-China forces they call them (they don’t exist as far as I know, they think the Dali Lama is some force to bring down”China”)))

You seem to be educated but what is the source of the disgustingness of the societal culture at present in China? Can you answer that? Is it really that China is bad? Or is it the CCP?

I think some people are too tense about labels and whatnot, anything should be up for dicussion, Richard is not obliged to spoonfeed us what he thinks is best for us to think, we can think for ourselves.

October 29, 2007 @ 2:26 pm | Comment

“the capitalist acts and profits.”

True, but capitalists who don’t pay attention to politics get burned and foreign capitalists who try to repatriate their profits are unpleasantly surprised.

Snow, Ken Tan asked me that question too, so you’ll have to read my answer on my blog.

Can’t tell you my plan, but the question I quoted from Kenny tells me that things are moving along as planned.

[Rakim]
Thinkin of a master plan
Cuz ain’t nuthin but sweat inside my hand
So I dig into my pocket, all my money is spent
So I dig deeper but still comin up with lint
So I start my mission- leave my residence
Thinkin how could I get some dead presidents
I need money, I used to be a stick-up kid
So I think of all the devious things I did
I used to roll up, this is a hold up, ain’t nuthin funny
Stop smiling, be still, don’t nuthin move but the money
But now I learned to earn cos I’m righteous
I feel great! so maybe I might just
Search for a 9 to 5, if I strive
Then maybe I’ll stay alive
So I walk up the street whistlin this
Feelin out of place cos, man, do I miss
A pen and a paper, a stereo, a tape of
Me and Eric B, and a nice big plate of
Fish, which is my favorite dish
But without no money it’s still a wish
Cos I don’t like to dream about gettin paid
So I dig into the books of the rhymes that I made
To now test to see if I got pull
Hit the studio, cos I’m paid in full

October 29, 2007 @ 2:32 pm | Comment

Nanhey said, “And not only will investors and banks never be able to get their money out, but manufacturers and IT firms will never be able to take out their equipment, software, cash or sensitive information. Not even GE, IBM, Siemens, Thyssen, or Microsoft among others.”

Now that’s eloquent. I couldn’t have said it better myself. Yet it’s just hinting at the tip of the iceberg.

As far as the Communist Party is concerned, all things (and persons) within China are, without exception, “internal affairs” of China. Contrary to popular belief (or self-delusion) that includes Western expats in China, whose liberty is only at the provisional, arbitrary sufferance of the Communist Party, and subject to be revoked at any time, overnight, without explanation or justification.

And as your bodily person is not secure in China – as the Communist Party believes it literally “owns your ass” as long as your ass is in China – a fortiori, you ain’t gettin’ your assets out. Ever.

October 29, 2007 @ 3:18 pm | Comment

I believe that if things ever did go south for Chinese social order, the CCP would tell expats to get out via your consulate within a certain time period or you are on your own.

And as Richard Gere foresaw in his famous movie about what is really going on in China, many westerners would be horribly shocked to see themselves pushed back by consulate/embassy security so that executives and their spawn can get out first and fast. English teachers and university students without rich and famous parents would SOL.

October 29, 2007 @ 3:23 pm | Comment

But even the handful who are lucky enough to get out, wouldn’t be permitted to take any property or assets with them other than maybe a change of clothes and a toothbrush.

“Assets? You Americans no longer have any assets in China! We changed our mind last night, after the coup.”

But that’s assuming a unified China would still exist. Isn’t a more likely scenario a sudden breakup of China into provincial statelets run by local economic warlords and their hired thugs? That’s pretty much how it’s governed already, so….

October 29, 2007 @ 3:55 pm | Comment

“isn’t a more likely scenario a sudden breakup of China into provincial statelets run by local economic warlords and their hired thugs?”

Its kind of a confederacy of provincial bosses including PLA officers. The county and village bosses can ignore Beijing, but they have to two the provincial line.

I can forsee a breakup of China but it would be an unstoppable slide rather than a sudden breakup. And what to do about the PLA’s NBC arsenal? Some of the new nations would be wealthy and powerful (Wu, Hong Kong-Macau, Guangdong) and some would be desperately poor and abandoned (Sichuan-Qinghai, central and NE China).

That is why I laid out my “blueprint for the permanent deconstruction of China” which really seemed to rankle the China blogosphere.

October 29, 2007 @ 4:06 pm | Comment

Richard,

I’m not accusing you of becoming a closet Republican (and that’s why I don’t see why Lisa needs to be defensive on your behalf). I’m just trying to point out the inconsistency, least you didn’t notice it. CLB has posted some good articles before. But you have to admit that this is certainly not one of them. That’s why I’m questioning the rationale for posting the link.

October 29, 2007 @ 4:12 pm | Comment

“That’s why I’m questioning the rationale for posting the link”

Because I’m in your heads.

October 29, 2007 @ 4:17 pm | Comment

Um, because Richard is my friend and I was flabbergasted by the accusation in any case?

October 29, 2007 @ 4:21 pm | Comment

As for you, Nan, I’m thinking about your stated purpose, as I understand it. And you’re either a joker or a meglomaniac, and in either case, it’s not funny.

Maybe I misunderstand what you’re about, but promoting hatred and laughing about it strikes me as problematic, to say the least.

October 29, 2007 @ 4:23 pm | Comment

otherlisa:

What I am attempting to do is anything but funny but I feel it is necessary. The only thing I laugh about is some of the responses of expats, especially those who don’t care much for what I do.

October 29, 2007 @ 4:37 pm | Comment

What’s “necessary”? And that includes promoting racism and xenophobia? Forgive me, but saying that this gives you a “warm, fuzzy feeling,” how am I supposed to respond to that? Do I take you seriously? Laugh it off as a rhetorical excess? Just like I’m supposed to laugh off folks like Glenn Beck & Ann Coulter? The stuff they say, oh, it’s just a joke! Don’t be so serious!

All kinds of people throughout history have justified their actions by saying they were “necessary.”

You’d better have a really good justification, beyond “bad bad China.”

October 29, 2007 @ 4:42 pm | Comment

Nanhe said, “Because I’m in your heads.”

No, don’t flatter yourself. You are not in my head. I’m not Kenneth Tan and won’t fall for it. I have nothing for or against your position (that is if you have one) or what you said. Your views on China is nothing new or original: there is plenty of truth and some exaggerations. Nevertheless, you are entitled to your opinion. And I to mine.

But you have to admit that the CLB did a rather lousy job at “deconstructing” you. And now Dan couldn’t even make up his mind as to whether he should condemn or exonerate you. So I rest my case.

October 29, 2007 @ 4:47 pm | Comment

“But you have to admit that the CLB did a rather lousy job at “deconstructing” you”

And any lawyer worth a damn would have been able to do a better job of it. And of getting his own blog un-blocked in China. Not a very impressive legal mind at work there…

October 29, 2007 @ 5:16 pm | Comment

I picked the Zakaria article not because of his politics (of which I am actually unfamiliar) but merely because I thought he did a good job in discussing the usual futility of sanctions.
Posted by: China Law Blog at October 29, 2007 01:04 PM

You say you dislike Rand and are much closer to Richard’s world view? In what sense? Every time I drop by it tends towards “taxation is confiscation”, “state intervention = failure”, and “personal profits are morally redemptive”.

The whole near-religious fervor for “the market” and capitalism as inevitably leading to a better system that will produce freedom and human rights and liberal democracy, which is a hoot after 25 years of Dengist reforms resulting in the continuation of a one party system which zaps blog providers and search engines for political ends.

As for the reasons sanctions fail??? Greed of those placing the sanctions. GDumbya will work long and hard to find a sanctions regime to put in place against Burma that he can trumpet in the press to push his notion of “freeance and peance”, but he will avoid at all costs placing sanctions on Chevron (with their former Board member and oil tanker named Condoleezza Rice) and on Houston oil services companies doing business there. Same thing as the sanctions regime in Iraq, which allowed the people to suffer but allowed oil companies and Saddam to profit with a wink and a nod from the US and the rest of the UN Security Council. If the backers of the war in Iraq won’t sacrfice for an actual shooting war with thousands of deaths, it’s silly to expect the same corporations to sacrifice profits for sanctions where the death counts are much smaller. (see also the tenuousness of the ongoing US and EU arms sanctions on the PRC)

October 29, 2007 @ 5:22 pm | Comment

Fat Cat, all I’ll say is that NH is a fixture on this and many other Chinese blogs, and I found CLB’s post to be quite interesting. I had no ulterior motives and wasn’t lobbying in favor of CLB’s viewpoint or NH’s. Please don’t be flabbergasted – I simply blog about things that catch my eye and that i think will be of interest to readers here. And obviously this choice struck a lot of nerves, for whatever reasons.

October 29, 2007 @ 6:39 pm | Comment

There’s really nothing wrong with believing China is a bad force for the world, but I’m with Lisa: being so predictable and lazy when commenting about it drives people crazy. It isn’t as if everyone who disagrees with you is a CCP-loving naive expat.

And I’m certainly not jealous of a man whose bizarre obsession in life, it seems, is to rant incessantly about a country he hates. I sometimes wonder if when you go to the store, you say, “Pack of Camels, a Snickers, and oh- China sucks, bad China”

October 29, 2007 @ 6:48 pm | Comment

i can’t believe that anyone would be willing to give nh the time of day let alone a blog entry. he is immensely childish – either “bad bad china” or this patronising i-know-everything-i-am-on-thinktanks-so-i-don’t-need-to-back-up-my-arguments-with-evidence bs. if nh really is in with the pentagon, then god help us all.

October 29, 2007 @ 9:40 pm | Comment

Hey…

Nanhey: have we met in that other world, the real world? I think I know you….don’t worry, your secret is safe with me.

The problem with the Olympic Boycott: t’s impossible not to see the sense in either side. Why oh why did it have to be given to China in the first place?

Michael

October 29, 2007 @ 11:02 pm | Comment

China was given the Olympics because it pulls the strings of big business, otherwise their presence in China is dubious.

Is it what I say is wrong? Or just un-PC? The China expat community is full of PCists, panda-lickers and “march to the beat of the corporate drum” drones.

And for the Chinese readers out there, you know its not just the CCP that is bad, the CCP and foreign companies work together to help each other and all you get is the “freedom” to buy things.

True or False?
Companies came to China to get away from western environmental laws. They consider those laws “communist” and every expensive.

True or False?
Companies came to China to get away from organized labor in the West. In China everyone is obedient towards the Big Boss and happily works 15 hours a day for a bowl of rice. Western Big Bosses love it when all of you stand line and shout company slogans like little soldiers.

They also love not having to worry about sexual harrassment laws that get them fired from their jobs and blacklisted in their professions in the West.

True or False?
Foreign managers at your company would still have comfortable lifestyles in their home country, but they would not have a full time maid and a driver, if not even more full time staff for other purposes.

True or False?
A white person in a western country, even with a good job, is just another face. In China and other developing countries, they are small gods.

October 29, 2007 @ 11:45 pm | Comment

China was given the Olympics because it pulls the strings of big business, otherwise their presence in China is dubious.

Is it what I say is wrong? Or just un-PC? The China expat community is full of PCists, panda-lickers and “march to the beat of the corporate drum” drones.

And for the Chinese readers out there, you know its not just the CCP that is bad, the CCP and foreign companies work together to help each other and all you get is the “freedom” to buy things.

True or False?
Companies came to China to get away from western environmental laws. They consider those laws “communist” and every expensive.

True or False?
Companies came to China to get away from organized labor in the West. In China everyone is obedient towards the Big Boss and happily works 15 hours a day for a bowl of rice. Western Big Bosses love it when all of you stand line and shout company slogans like little soldiers.

They also love not having to worry about sexual harrassment laws that get them fired from their jobs and blacklisted in their professions in the West.

True or False?
Foreign managers at your company would still have comfortable lifestyles in their home country, but they would not have a full time maid and a driver, if not even more full time staff for other purposes.

True or False?
A white person in a western country, even with a good job, is just another face. In China and other developing countries, they are small gods.

October 29, 2007 @ 11:46 pm | Comment

Tom,

I have never said nor have I ever believed “taxation is confiscation,” “state intervention = failure,” and “personal profits are morally redemptive.”

Instead of setting up straw men, I suggest you actually try engaging in real analysis.

October 30, 2007 @ 12:34 am | Comment

Woo hoo! I’m jumping on the Nanheyangrouchuanr blogging bandwagon, too! Anyone who doesn’t blog about NH is a punk!

@China Law Blog:
Actual, when we were talking privately yesterday I remember you saying these exact words: “I have long believed that state intervention always results in failure. Let me tell you, Michael, that taxation is nothing but confiscation!” Of course, I may be wrong.

Busted! Go get ‘im, Tom!

October 30, 2007 @ 2:53 am | Comment

Nh, which country does not have problems? Which country is perfect? Granted that China has this, that and those issues, that makes it a bad bad China? OK, bad bad world. Bad bad humans.

So China supports dictators? Which country does not? Certainly not the US. Is Karimov better than the Burmese junta? He serves both the US and China (he is helping China persecute your fellow Uighurs) How about the House of the Saud?

China breaking up? Not in your lifetime. Your homeland, East Turkistan? Hahaha, pipe dream.

October 30, 2007 @ 3:14 am | Comment

Let me get this straight.

1. Richard cites to a CLB post and says “interesting.”

2. I have never been able to figure out CLB’s politics, but if I had to say something I would call them middle of the road.

3. CLB criticized nh and cited to an article by Fareed Zakaria opposing sanctions in general.

4. It is the right wing that usually calls for sanctions against China.

5. Zakaria may have once been a NEOCON.

6. Therefore, Richard is a Republican and a follower of Ayn Rand.

It’s all very logical.

October 30, 2007 @ 3:45 am | Comment

FancyPants, thanks for that. I feel so much better now.
;) – (just in case)

October 30, 2007 @ 4:19 am | Comment

@FancyPants

Let me get your logic straight:

1. I consider Richard at TPD as a pal.
2. Richard is under attack by someone who calls him a Republican. How ridiculous!
3. Even Lisa has gone mad about it.
4. I don’t quite follow their argument or the topic of discussion.
5. But what the hell. If I say that their argument is illogical, did a parody about it and the whole world will buy it.
6. Now Lisa approves of my joke and that’s great.

But shit, I still don’t understand why Nanhe says “bad, bad China” all the time. Is there anything wrong with what he said? Richard, Lisa and Dan all say that it’s wrong. So it must be wrong. I suppose.

October 30, 2007 @ 10:31 am | Comment

Richard,

Here is the section that started the ball rolling:

“I hope you don’t forget that I am a liberal, a fierce critic of Bush and the right wing nuts who support him, a Democrat who likes Obama and Edwards, and the kind of person who likes to hear what everybody has to say. If you really think this blog has “morphed” into a Republican or libertarian blog, well…”

I was amazed why you’re so defensive and assume that I’m accusing you of converting to Republican ideology. Good gracious. Of all people commenting here, you know very well that I’m not interested in American politics. There is something that I don’t want to spell out aloud because of my respect for you and for this blog. So in a circumlocutious way I am trying to point out the inconsistency: that it is ridiculous to quote from CLB’s poorly written “deconstruction” of Nanhe while there are many issues MORE worthwhile discussing at TPD. In a way, I’m trying to remind you about the QUALITY of this blog!!! Please don’t prod me toward saying what is on my mind in an overly direct, overly harsh manner inconsistent with my admiration for you.

October 30, 2007 @ 8:13 pm | Comment

“which country does not have problems? Which country is perfect?”

C’mon pfeffer, you can do much better than to repeat CCTV 9 editorials.

“Is Karimov better than the Burmese junta? He serves both the US and China (he is helping China persecute your fellow Uighurs) How about the House of the Saud?”

Has Karimov recently slaughtered thousands of his own and burnt countless villages to the ground? And that is one guy, and China is in on the act as well.

House of Saud? If they weren’t ruling SA with an iron fist, the Wahabiists would be ruling SA like the Taliban (and would control the world’s oil). SA is starting to reform socially, including educating women and the like. Consider them the lesser of two evils in SA.

Try harder pfeffer.

October 30, 2007 @ 12:38 pm | Comment

“which country does not have problems? Which country is perfect?”

C’mon pfeffer, you can do much better than to repeat CCTV 9 editorials.

“Is Karimov better than the Burmese junta? He serves both the US and China (he is helping China persecute your fellow Uighurs) How about the House of the Saud?”

Has Karimov recently slaughtered thousands of his own and burnt countless villages to the ground? And that is one guy, and China is in on the act as well.

House of Saud? If they weren’t ruling SA with an iron fist, the Wahabiists would be ruling SA like the Taliban (and would control the world’s oil). SA is starting to reform socially, including educating women and the like. Consider them the lesser of two evils in SA.

Try harder pfeffer.

@ Fat Cat:

Why do I say “bad bad China” all of the time? Because “bad bad China” achieves certain effects I need as part of my plan, so “bad bad China” will be repeatedly endlessly across the blogosphere until all are talking about how bad bad, bad China really is….it is bad.

October 30, 2007 @ 12:40 pm | Comment

Nanhey-

In May 2005, Karimov ordered his security forces to crack down on an anti-government protest, killing perhaps as many as 1,000 unarmed civilians. You can browse the Google links for evidence: just type “Uzbekistan” “massacre” and “Andijan”.

In addition, he has long subscribed to the process of boiling his political enemies, something that began long before Donald Rumsfeld flew to Tashkent in late 2001 to secure access to Uzbek air bases.

Try harder my friend.

October 30, 2007 @ 1:35 pm | Comment

Fat Cat: “Richard, Lisa and Dan all say that it’s wrong. So it must be wrong. I suppose.”

I don’t think I ever called it wrong. I do call it boring, stupid and a form of trolling – to keep chanting the same nasty slogan everywhere day in and day out. Some aspects of China are really, really bad. I appreciate NH whenever he discusses these things rationally. I can’t stand him when he jumps in and repeats the same slogan like an automaton.

October 30, 2007 @ 1:38 pm | Comment

One more point. It isn’t that your opinions about China are that far out of the mainstream. Many people I’ve met, including expats, would agree in principle with much of what you say.

But you like to portray yourself as a sort of beacon of truth, uncovering lies spun by these so-called “naive expats” who refuse to criticize China for unspecified reasons. In addition, you’re “evidence”, if it can be called that, is fully of sloppy tossed-off assertions, unnecessary snide remarks, and poorly thought-out analyses. If you were to present your objections to China empirically, backed by actual reliable research, then perhaps more people would take you seriously. At least I would.

A side note- Richard, if you’re a Republican, then what does that make me? A member of the John Birch society?

October 30, 2007 @ 1:44 pm | Comment

Fat Cat: (if I’m following you correctly) Because it’s bad, bad, sloppy writing. It’s lazy. I’m a writer. I hate that.

Also, based on what Nanhe himself has said here, he seems to think that stirring up racial hatred and xenophobia is just fine in the service of his larger cause. I disagree. I think it’s reprehensible. I am hard-pressed to think of any cause that justifies this.

October 30, 2007 @ 1:52 pm | Comment

“In addition, he has long subscribed to the process of boiling his political enemies, ”

He probably picked that up from the Russians. But the West didn’t deal with them because there weren’t 1.3 billion potential slave laborers and consumers.

But I guess if he boils them, he can’t harvest their organs for sale on the international market, now can he? And Kim Jong Il’s estimated 2 million victims, not counting the ones actually taken to jail using a barbed wire as a harness (witnessed by PLA soldiers), usually starved to death or from dehydration.

Killing fields anyone? China and it’s “Red Brothers”.

Keep trying.

@ Matt:

Your requirements for research to back up anyone’s assertions about the true nature of the China expat community and China itself would only result in summary dismissals, calling it “second hand information” or simply saying “I was there last week and I didn’t see anything like that”. All in attempt to silence the blogger who posted any evidence, which might force said poster to give up or to run around like mad trying to dig up more documentation.

@lisa

If you are a writer in Hollywood, you have alot more bad, bad writing to answer for than me ;-)

October 30, 2007 @ 2:03 pm | Comment

Nuh uh, Nanhe, you’re not pinning the Hollywood label on me!

In Hollywood, I’m primarily a bureaucrat. My limited experiences with writing for Hollywood money (or a fraction thereof) convinced me to switch to novels. Not terribly lucrative yet, nor do I expect it to be. But I enjoy it.

October 30, 2007 @ 2:06 pm | Comment

nanhey, dont forget polpot

October 30, 2007 @ 2:27 pm | Comment

The kim jong regime is @$#*ed up totally, thats something all the commies have in common, the freaked up science experiments and crazy mad torture methods. I have seen some documentaries about the freak tests they do on political prisoners in these countries, its sadly not a surprise that the CCP steals peoples organs to sell, back during the cultural revolution, they were feasting on dissidents, and I dont doubt they still feast on aborted babies, so messed up, so communist ei no spiritual beliefs, just materialistic and warped to hell.

The BBC did a series on NKorea

October 30, 2007 @ 2:34 pm | Comment

Richard said, “I appreciate NH whenever he discusses these things rationally. I can’t stand him when he jumps in and repeats the same slogan like an automaton.”

But Richard, if you can’t stand hearing slogans repeated in automaton-like ways, China must make you want to commit suicide.

October 30, 2007 @ 2:36 pm | Comment

@ snow,

I didn’t, see “killing fields anyone?”. pfeffer is busy figuring out his Mizu phone.

October 30, 2007 @ 2:56 pm | Comment

@ snow,

I didn’t, see “killing fields anyone?”. pfeffer is busy figuring out his Mizu phone.

@ Lisa,

So have you now or ever been involved with publishing Rush Limbaugh or Anne Coulture?!

October 30, 2007 @ 2:57 pm | Comment

Also, based on what Nanhe himself has said here, he seems to think that stirring up racial hatred and xenophobia is just fine in the service of his larger cause. I disagree. I think it’s reprehensible. I am hard-pressed to think of any cause that justifies this.
Posted by: otherlisa at October 30, 2007 01:52 PM

Lisa, can you point me to something that Nanhe has written that stirs up racial hatred and xenophobia? My reading of the interview led me to think that Nanhe finds the accusations amusing, since they are typical wedge issue attacks thrown at opposition figures. Much like the accusations that Nanhe is a China hater.

as for CLB, let me start by winding the clock back a week to your post on Hong Kong where you celebrate the lack of capital controls and low taxes as the basis for a financial center. (and the link to the “Offshore Asset Protection Blog” you chose to highlight the low tax sentiment speaks volumes starting with the highlighting of the Heritage Foundation’s economic freedom index.)

Let me also note that HKU blog post on the “independent judiciary” that even comes complete with a positive shout out to Mike Rowse reads like a government PR release that has been cleared by the CCP’s Liaison Office.

October 30, 2007 @ 3:02 pm | Comment

Ivan: “But Richard, if you can’t stand hearing slogans repeated in automaton-like ways, China must make you want to commit suicide.”

If you haven’t noticed, this blog has a long and proud history of pointing out the stupidity and inanity of CCP sloganeering. Pity that my own government in recent years has fallen into the same bad habit (“We’re fighting them over there so we won’t have to fight them over here!”)

October 30, 2007 @ 3:03 pm | Comment

Tom, if you are right, then that is a huge relief. Nanhe was being very coy about the whole thing, and I wasn’t sure how else to interpret this. But I am not always a very subtle person.

Nanhe, in a world, NO! God. No.

Okay, that was three words.

October 30, 2007 @ 3:10 pm | Comment

Tom,

So based on some links I made that may or may not reflect my opinion (I am constantly making links to sites espousing all sorts of political viewpoints without for a moment embracing them myself) you are going to ascribe the most bizarre views to me that I assert I have never held.

With all due disrespect, you are a complete idiot and I am not going to waste any more of my time responding to you. For some completely unknown reason you want to pin the rap of right wing fanatic on me and if you would read my blog or knew me at all you would know that is completely wrong.

October 30, 2007 @ 3:12 pm | Comment

Richard, they hate us for our freedoms.

October 30, 2007 @ 3:12 pm | Comment

BTW, at the risk of making assertions that I can’t really prove, and correct me if I’m wrong…I don’t think Zakaria was ever a full-on Neocon in the Poderotz (sp.?) mode. IIRC, he supported the Iraq invasion but has backed off considerably since then. He’s written some things that struck me as pretty sensible and sober � a category in which, with rare exceptions, arguing for engagement over confrontation belongs.

October 30, 2007 @ 3:23 pm | Comment

Richard said, “If you haven’t noticed, this blog has a long and proud history of pointing out the stupidity and inanity of CCP sloganeering…”

But you don’t seem to have a problem with Hu Jintao repeatedly using meaningless expressions such as “socialism with Chinese characteristics” and “scientific development”. Don’t you count those as stupid and inane sloganeering? What makes Hu different from his predecessors (apart from the fact that he is far more mediocre and much less charismatic)?

October 30, 2007 @ 3:44 pm | Comment

And don’t forget the Harmonious Society! I know I won’t.

October 30, 2007 @ 3:48 pm | Comment

Fat Cat, I have mocked the CCP’s newspeak ad infinitum. How can you call me out for not mocking a specific Chinese expression? Do a search on this site for the words “with Chinese characteristics” to see how many times I have done this.

What’s going on in this thread? It’s as if everyone’s forgotten what I’ve been writing about for nearly five years already.

October 30, 2007 @ 4:07 pm | Comment

China Law Blog wrote: “For some completely unknown reason you want to pin the rap of right wing fanatic on me … ”

No, from what I understand, Tom is not calling you a right wing fanatic. He is simply pointing out that you do not share a similar worldview as a true liberal democrat (such as Richard and Tom). For you, calling yourself “progressive” is just another trendy catchy phrase to use. You don’t give a damn about social justice. You are only there to sell your “engagement” politics so that your clients will have a clear conscience doing business with a corrupt and dictatorial regime.

October 30, 2007 @ 4:22 pm | Comment

Fat Cat,

I have never called myself “progressive.” I have never thought of myself as “progressive.” I am not “progressive.” I have never been “progressive.” I am not even sure what it means to be “progressive.”

You are absolutely right about me not sharing the “worldview as a true liberal democrat” but I did not realize true liberal democrats are the only ones who care about social justice. Do you really believe that? What, pray tell, is the “true liberal democrat” view on China, anyway?

Do you really think my clients give a damn about getting my “approval” to go ahead and do business with China? I believe in engagement with China because I have seen what happens when countries are isolated and I think we should be very careful about doing that. Am I to presume then that you were in favor of sanctions against Iraq pre-war and if not, why not?

October 30, 2007 @ 4:34 pm | Comment

Okay. Wow. Hang on here.

Fat Cat, by your argument, anyone favoring any form of engagement with China is by definition not progressive and “doesn’t give a damn about social justice.”

This is a somewhat sweeping statement.

Again, I am not a daily reader of CLB, but I do read the blog, and I really could not say much of anything about his politics – it’s a blog about the nuts and bolts of doing business in China.

So are you saying that doing any business with anybody in China is wrong?

Does that apply to every expat working in China? Teaching? Studying?

How about NGOs? Greenpeace China? WWF China?

I agree that there are a lot of gray areas here, especially when we start talking about companies like Cisco, for example, where you can make the argument that they are actively supporting the regime’s repression. But does that apply to every business involved with China?

I do get that there’s an argument to be made that it does. I don’t happen to agree. But by that argument, anyone involved economically with China in any capacity is culpable.

I personally think the “gray” part of this is the reality. That the Chinese government is not a monolith and that the how of conducting business there is what’s essential.

I mean we make these kinds of moral decisions every day, regardless of where we live. Does what I’m doing help or hurt?

It’s not always easy to answer that question.

Which is a long, roundabout way of saying that I don’t get the hostility towards CLB here.

October 30, 2007 @ 4:39 pm | Comment

@otherlisa

First off, thank you, and I mean that sincerely.

I think some people just see so clearly they can see both black and white while others see merely gray. ;) – (just in case)

October 30, 2007 @ 4:55 pm | Comment

After “The Fantabulist,” this may take 2nd prize for most bizarre thread in the history of this blog.

Fat Cat, you are a brilliant and extraordinary person. I want you to look at your last couple of comments in a day or two, and tell me you really stand by them. My whole blog is about fighting the badness of stereotyping. I detest NH’s stereotyping of China as much as I detest HongXin’s stereotyping of the US. Now look at us, stereotyping CLB and me and Lisa. In my very first comment I made a simple request, that we be a little more tolerant. I repeat that request now.

October 30, 2007 @ 4:58 pm | Comment

You’re welcome.

I am all about teh gray…and teh nuts n’ bolts.

October 30, 2007 @ 4:58 pm | Comment

China Law Blog,

If you scroll up to your earlier comment, you’ll notice that you are the one who claim that you share a similar worldview as Richard. In this same thread further down, Richard called himself a Liberal Democrat. So no one is putting words in your mouth. You volunteered this information yourself. What Tom did was to test your claim against a few traditional liberal democratic values to see whether there is evidence to suggest that you advocate government involvement in alleviating poverty, in ensuring social justice and in promoting progressive taxation. It seems that we can only find evidence to the contrary. And so now you’re back-tracking trying to deny that you’ve ever made such a claim.

Do I believe that there are true Liberal Democrats? Yes I do. Are Liberal Democrats the only people who cared about social justice? No they aren’t. I’m neither an American nor a Liberal Democrat. But I do care about social justice. And that’s why I’m questioning the sanity of pursuing a full-on market economy in China while there is no political or legal tradition to ensure civil liberties are protected.

October 30, 2007 @ 5:55 pm | Comment

Richard,

I did not stereotype you, Lisa or CLB. I just want to prove a point.

When I saw incosistencies in your postings, I asked questions. But I didn’t expect to get such strong reaction from you or from Lisa. (Well I kind of expect it from CLB because the questions that I asked him is sort of confrontational.) Your reactions provoked more questions and comments from me. And so the thread now is about the feud between Fat Cat and CLB, not about Nanhe.

Now I hope you understand how Nanhe’s “bad, bad China” skit works and why he says that it is effective. I don’t intend to “deconstruct” Nanhe. His existence does serve some good purposes, even though I don’t believe that he deserves that much attention. But for those who are wondering, just ask yourself who Nanhe’s real target audience is. If you can answer this question, you are getting one step further to “deconstructing” his intention.

October 30, 2007 @ 6:37 pm | Comment

Okay, a few things:

1. Lisa said, “I don’t get the hostility towards CLB here.”

I do. This thread BEGAN with a link to CLB’s hostile blog post about Nanhey. Furthermore, there was almost nothing in CLB’s post actually “deconstructing” Nanhe except for a lame link to Zakaria at the very end. In other words, there was almost no substance in CLB’s blog about Nanhey – or in this TPD blog which simply linked to CLB – almost nothing of substance there, other than expressions of CLB’s hostility to Nanhey.

So, you really believe being “fair and balanced” and/or acknowledging “gray” is a cardinal virtue?
If so, then let CLB’s hostility to Nanhey – a hostility for which he provided virtually NO substantive evidence to justify it- let CLB’s hostility to Nanhey be met by hostility to CLB, mutatis mutandis.

I mean, you DO believe in being “fair and balanced”, yeah?

2. Richard (and I still regard you as a friend, but
you of all people agree that occasional disagreements are part of real friendship) – Richard said: “Now look at us, stereotyping CLB and me and Lisa”

In response, I say:

A. In my first comment here, I didn’t stereotype anyone (except for Zakaria as a neocon). I just raised some questions.

B. In other words, I didn’t say you were a necon (although I do perceive tendencies in CLB overlapping with the neocons and their kindred spirits the libertarians); I just raised some questions – evidently pretty good questions.

C. Aren’t CLB and some commenters “stereotyping” Nanhey as some kind of mindless racist or hatemonger? Is EVERY hyperbolic expression of outrage over China, categorically “racist” or “hatemongering?”
I don’t agree with everything Nanhey says, but he does make some good points and he has never written anything truly racist or otherwise hatemongering in his blog, except for hatred of the CCP’s regime. He is more subtle and much more intelligent than most of his critics think.

3. I wish I could remember the name of the wise old sage who taught me, “Everything in moderation, INCLUDING moderation!”

4. Lisa said she’s “all about the gray”, implying that she strives for objectivity (which does not exist) and fairness and balance in all things, and in acknowledging that in this world, there is no absolute “black or white” among mortal humans.
Well, I of all people believe all humans are morally “gray” – but that’s because I believe in the reality of evil, and of God, and of Original Sin (Man’s tendency to choose evil, willfully.) But MY belief in the “grayness” of morality, stems from my fundamental belief in the reality of Good and Evil. “White and Black”, morally, really do exist in the spiritual realm – they’re just mixed together in the souls of all humans.
Lisa, who (correct me if I’m putting words in your mouth, Lisa) does not believe in any God or in transcendent spirit, or in a cosmic conflict between Truth (good) versus Lies (evil) – as a non-believer in any transcendent God, Lisa’s meaning of “gray” is very different from mine.
When Lisa says “gray”, she means a denial of the existence of any transcendent good or evil spirits (or spiritual qualities) at all.
So, let’s all just be clear about this: I DO believe in “gray” as the essential human condition. But I believe in “gray” in a way opposite to Lisa’s: to me, “gray” indicates sin, and evil, the essential condition of all humans, and it is something which needs to be cleaned up
and made, if not purely “White”, then at least a more HONEST kind of “gray” whose honesty is conditioned by an acknowledgement that PURE GOOD REALLY DOES EXIST! Only it does not exist in any Humans (other than Christ, so I say), but it does exist.

Thus, when Lisa says “gray”, she means something the oppposite of what I mean: she means nihilism, the denial of any pure Good (God) at all.

Ah, but wait! Lisa might retort, “Nature is a pure good”, or that there is some categorical pure good. If so, then she would need to reconsider her denial of God, because she’d basically be talking about the same thing, “Nature equals God.”

But then that would raise another question: If nature equals God, and as Nature is full of violence and stupidity and lack of any compassion at all, then (for example) Hitler was correct in his religion of “survival of the fittest.”

Hmmm.

Is there no absolute “white?” If so, then just shut up about any and all morality, because if you deny any absolute moral good, you thereby surrender your credibility to criticise any violations of what you consider to be “good.”

If all things are grey, then, Lisa, so are your morals, and if you believe that, then if you have ANY integrity (like some HONEST nihilists like Nietzsche did), then you ought to shut up now and forever about any and all moral criticisms or concerns. [Sentence deleted by Richard for inappropriate content.] But otherwise, Lisa, you belong among the other “gray” souls in Dante’s Inferno, among the “indifferent”:

“These of death
No hope may entertain: and their blind life 45
So meanly passes, that all other lots
They envy. Fame of them the world hath none,
Nor suffers; Mercy and Justice scorn them both.
Speak not of them, but look, and pass them by.�

http://www.bartleby.com/20/103.html

Both Heaven and Hell refuse the “gray” who believe in neither good nor evil. They are consigned to a meaningless place of eternal motion without purpose, a place resembling (in spirit) Hollywood…….

The Earthly Paradise, on the other hand – Heaven on Earth, as imagined by the Medieval Troubadours (Christian Knights with just a WEE bit of unorthodoxy, like me) – they imagined it as a place peopled by sinners who, after all, did acknowledge the difference between good and evil, and beauty versus ugliness – in the words of
Wolfram von Eschenbach (c 1215), the soul of a Knight of the Holy Grail is “mixed of both BLACK AND WHITE”, like a magpie’s plumage!”

But there is no “gray” in a magpie. The black and white remain separate, on the same creature. God can redeem the bits of black in us all, but “gray” is just boring shit. Or, dare I say:

The Devil is not Black. He/She is Gray.

October 30, 2007 @ 7:00 pm | Comment

Fat Cat: “When I saw incosistencies in your postings, I asked questions. But I didn’t expect to get such strong reaction from you or from Lisa.”

Can you please cut and paste what you feel my strong reaction was so I can get a feel for why we are where we are now? Thanks a lot.

October 30, 2007 @ 7:41 pm | Comment

Ivan, I really cannot tolerate your talking to my friend and co-blogger Lisa with language like that. Most of your comment is eloquent and intelligent and then you ruin it with gutter language and a mean personal swipe. Even though I, too, do not believe in God, I still have my own moral standards and this morality demands that I excise that remark from your comment. I realize this will strike some as censorship or thuggishness. All I can say is that I am living up to my own moral standards. Although I don’t believe in god, I believe I can distinguish between good and bad, at least to my own satisfaction, and what you just wrote about Lisa is clearly in the bad category, as there was simply no need for it and besides, it isn’t true. How can someone so bright and so full of love for god be so intentionally hurtful, so cruel?

About stereotyping: I don’t think NH disguises the fact that his posts are intentionally hateful and designed to rile people up, often verging on racism. This is not stereotyping but a matter of fact, as much as anything can be a matter of fact. On the other hand, labeling CLB as a “luminary of neoconservatives” seems sloppy, presumptive and indefensible. Characterizing me as not being critical enough of Hu Jintao (I suspect I’ve criticized him more than nearly any other blogger) is another peculiar charge made in this thread.

Anyway, I hope my editing your comment doesn’t create too much bad will. But again, my moral code can’t tolerate that sort of thing. I wouldn’t let anyone say it about you, either.

October 30, 2007 @ 7:58 pm | Comment

Fat Cat, maybe there was simply a misunderstanding, in which case we can just let it be. It happens sometimes.

Anyway, as i said earlier in the thread, I post about what catches my eye, when I even have time to post. It’s not always the most important stuff in the world, I admit it.

October 30, 2007 @ 8:29 pm | Comment

Richard, answering your above comment:

1. The fact that you edited one of my recent comments (on a DIFFERENT thread) directed toward one of your friends, does not change my friendship with you. This is your sandbox, and because I AM your friend, I will never complain about your editing or deleting ANYTHING I write. Cool? :-)

2. WHERE (in THIS thread ) did I use any “gutter language”? As you are an honest man, you will admit: “Nowhere.”

3. Just taking you to task for a logical dilemma your above comment posed: you said: “All I can say is that I am living up to my own moral standards”…

…so far so good. In my opinion (as one sinner among several billion since the Human Race began), Richard, I think your moral standards are better than most. But when you say you are living up to YOUR moral standards – as if that were the end of the question – then how can you
criticise others, like Hitler and Heydrich, who lived up to THEIR moral standards, unless there is some transcendent moral standard above both yours and theirs?

And one more thing, Richard – and as my Friend I will trust you to keep the background of this confidential – you asked me:

“How can someone so bright and so full of love for god be so intentionally hurtful, so cruel?”

[Ivan, I am doing it again, and editing your comment. I apologize for using the phrase "gutter language" - it may have been too strong. But not much. I want to be friends with you, but I want you to keep your personal issues with people, based on events far outside the scope of this blog, off of these pages. And let me simply tell you something you know already: Things that are told to us third-person often get lost in translation. Something that was said in innocence may be misconstrued. Maybe, maybe not. But maybe it's time to turn the other cheek, or at least to let it go, or at least to acknowledge that all of us fuck up at times and there is more to us than our fucked-upedness. I know, it's hard to do, swallowing our pride and our honor and our dignity, but sometimes it's a healthy exercise. I really don't believe that Jesus would be wrathful and vengeful in a similar situation, even if everything you describe were true to the letter. All of us at times will do wrong things, thinking at the moment they are right. Forgiveness is the best remedy, nearly always.]

October 30, 2007 @ 8:46 pm | Comment

Richard, although I do not agree with your reasons for deleting part of my above comment, I respect your right to do so according to the light of your own conscience.

I disagree with how and why you deleted part of my above comment, but it’s your sandbox, and I remain
- as I said in my FIRST comment on this thread,

your true and obedient servant (meaning, “true friend”),

Ivan. Oh but please allow me – if you will, Richard? – to post a link to one of my favourite songs, relevant to my enduring friendship with you. The song is about old enemies of the USA, who remained friends with their former enemies after all – “The Night They Drove Old Dixie Down”.
I am, as you know, a relative of old Virginians who fought in that war, so this song means a lot to me, and Richard, as long as you can remain a friend (in a chivalrous way) of the people to whom this song is dedicated, you will remain my friend, too – if you see what I mean about chivalry and being able to love your enemy. Here you go:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=2gp-CWcbnFQ

October 30, 2007 @ 9:35 pm | Comment

Thanks a lot, Ivan – but tragically, youtube is hard-blocked by our dear leaders here, and I have to get a new proxy before I can watch the video. Appreciate your gentlemanly understanding.

October 30, 2007 @ 10:01 pm | Comment

Well, I read to the bottom of the whole damn thread, and it’s still a puzzle what all the friction is about. NH writes some posts that contain both intelligent and insulting material….got it. CLB has a blog that’s not left-wing…..got it. Some guy who’s supposed to be a neocon writes a pretty persuasive article against sanctions…..and? Lisa gets hit with Ivan’s magic moral turpitude weapon, but still…..

Are you guys just warming up for election season, when it can be a black-and-white ragefest? Us-vs-them, Hitlers and saints all the time on all the channels?

October 30, 2007 @ 11:28 pm | Comment

“I agree that there are a lot of gray areas here, especially when we start talking about companies like Cisco, for example, where you can make the argument that they are actively supporting the regime’s repression. But does that apply to every business involved with China?”

Pretty much, businesses in China help support the CCP by fostering an environment which in some ways has improved the lives of a few chinese but also has made the lives of many others much worse . In other words, to pull 200 million up, 1 billion were pushed down.

And don’t go arguing that “rising tide” crap. Check out the petitioners in Beijing or a construction site anywhere in China. And take a swig of tap water or a lung full of air while you are at it.
Now how does the benefit balance out with the cost?

So why did foreign companies come to China in the first place? Ultra low labor costs, abusable labor with no rights and no environmental enforcement. The cost to them was handing over tons of money and training senior cadres (sending them to business school or engineering school in the west, etc) and in the case of industrial manufacturers and IT companies, significant technology transfer takes place and much of that technology magically turns up in the PLA which is hardly healthy for China’s neighbors.

So yes, doing business in China is bad, companies and entrepreneurs doing business in China are bad and all of the above mentioned parties are doing their part to build a PLA super killing machine and continue to foul China and Asia’s environment.

NGO’s are there in name mostly as their activities are highly controlled.

October 31, 2007 @ 12:13 am | Comment

@ Sam S — Good analysis.

@ Richard — You are right to go after Ivan for his attack on Lisa. How can Ivan know Lisa’s innermost thoughts based on her view that not everything is black and white. Apparently for Ivan, who sounds like a complete nutjob, there is black and white out there and HE is the guy who determines it. That alone allows him to presume to know Lisa’s entire worldview and to criticize it as horrible. Now I myself believe in good and evil and I believe I can distinguish between the two in many cases, but at the same time, I am constantly wary of my ability to do so. To put it bluntly, people like you scare the hell out of me as it does not take much to imagine you goose stepping.

@Fat Cat

I think I now understand part of the problem. I did not realize until you used the sentence “Well I kind of expect it from CLB because the questions that I asked him is sort of confrontational” that English is not your first language. You obviously do not understand the difference between progressive and liberal. And, as a non-American, you do not understand how the word liberal is used over here. Anyway, when I said my views were closer Richard’s than to Ayn Rand’s, I certainly did not mean to say Richard and I think alike on every issue, because I know we do not. What I did mean to say, however, is that both of us share core values relating to civil liberties and justice. I know this from our past and present history of email correspondence. Both of us are extremely concerned about extremism from both sides, and how that extremism often eventually leads to horrible things, such as Stalinism and the holocaust.

It would appear you have now been reduced to criticising Richard for running this post instead of another (rather than anything substantive) and criticizing me for being too hard on nh. Okay.

I do not believe I was too hard on nh. I pointed out his right to speak and noted I had “censored” him only once.” I pointed out that we often agree. But, I do believe nh does have a tendency to go overboard at times and I am bothered by his sometimes veering off into sexist and racist comments. If you disagree on that, fine, but to conclude from that disagreement that you are for social justice and I am not is both jejeune and absurd. And for you to presume a whole litany of beliefs I purportedly hold based on my nh post (including the “fact” that I am a neocon) is also crazy. In fact, if you actually were to read my blog, you would see time and time again that I talk about how utterly absurd I found it from day one that the United States would before able to bring democracy to Iraq when that concept is obviously completely foreign to the Arab world. And since the belief that exporting democracy is at the heart of neoconservatism, that alone puts me outside its rails. You would also have seen me frequently talk about the profound influence the book, The World On Fire, has had on my worldview relating to that issue. To grossly summarize that book, it says that democracy should not be rushed too terribly much or bad things might result. Sort of a “no wine before its time” theory of democracy. I am a huge believer in democracy as THE system to be strived for and as much as I would like it to be the case that it can be created instantly or from outside, I am of the view that the empirical evidence is otherwise. Therefore, though I believe in encouraging democracy, I do not believe it can be forced.

October 31, 2007 @ 1:16 am | Comment

Ivan, if you want to believe in God, Santa Claus, the Flying Spaghetti Monster or any other Invisible Cloud Being, that’s your business.

I’ll take my heaven and hell here on earth, thank you.

I don’t know what you think I’ve done to you, but telling me I deserve to be damned for it strikes me as a bit out of propoortion.

Lay off the vodka. It’s not helping. Try counseling.

October 31, 2007 @ 1:19 am | Comment

Ivan,

Oh, but thanks for referring to me as a luminary. I never thought of myself that way before.

October 31, 2007 @ 1:19 am | Comment

And CLB, thanks for that.

I misjudged Ivan. I thought at one time that he was a bright, funny guy carrying a load of heavy baggage.

Well, at this point, the baggage is carrying you, Ivan.

Your own words here are evidence of that. You attack people, ascribe to them all kinds of motives that you can’t possibly know, you can’t handle any kind of criticism, you lash out.

I hope you have other people in your life telling you this, because obviously you aren’t going to listen to me.

You need help. Your demons are you.

October 31, 2007 @ 1:32 am | Comment

@CLB:

“. Therefore, though I believe in encouraging democracy, I do not believe it can be forced.”

But encouraged doesn’t just mean lip service, it must be cultivated and nutured. Otherwise we have the “global community” sitting around and talking…and talking.

@CLV, Richard and Lisa

I’ve noticed that you and others have a hard time swallowing “black and white” issues. There is a right and a wrong and there is so much wrong about doing business in and with China. All that is really happening is that the CCP is floated by foreign money and technology while the Chinese people are pacified with brand name baubles and good imitations of them.

When worse comes to worse, such as land confiscation or suing for injuries caused by pollution, we see what the real China is and this real China is what anyone and everyone who buys a “made in china” product or does business with China helps support.

As I said on CLB’s blog, shame on all of you who teach your kids about right and wrong then proceed to confuse and obfuscate in the name of “business with China”.

October 31, 2007 @ 1:44 am | Comment

@nh

There you go again (and I hope Ivan and Fat Cat do not use my quoting from Ronald Reagan as proof that I am a neoconservative when it is merely because I think it is a great line!). You are trying to turn a policy issue into a moral issue and I disagree with the playing field. Yes, China’s government is bad, but there are those (myself included) who actually believe that engaging it is the best way to make things better. Believing this, the only moral thing is engagement and that is what I will teach my children. I do not see your views on this as immoral, nor do I see my views on this as immoral. We simply disagree on the effectiveness of two very different tacts. But if it makes you feel better to play holier than thou, that’s fine. That’s fine because I will not purport to have any clue about your morality because I do not know you and I know you have no clue about my morality because you don’t know me.

I have absolutely no trouble “swallowing black and white issues” and it is rather unfair of you to make that accusation against Richard, Lisa or me, when all you really know about any of the three of us is that we do not see the issue of sanctions against China as a moral issue. You have absolutely no clue how I lead my life and I am guessing you have no clue how Richard or Lisa lead their lives either. I know it makes life simple (or black and white?) to suppose to be able to judge us on one issue, but that is really pretty unfair.

October 31, 2007 @ 2:08 am | Comment

Holy shit! I think this back and forth has run its course and then some. A blog post of two words has generated something like 10,000 words in response. Enough already…

October 31, 2007 @ 2:08 am | Comment

NH, you are welcome to check my blog (not much activity there lately) and see the kinds of posts I’ve put up about China. The environmental crisis is a particular interest of mine.

October 31, 2007 @ 2:35 am | Comment

And…yeah…there are plenty of things I’m willing to say are right or wrong…but an entire country of a billion plus people? Not so much.

October 31, 2007 @ 2:38 am | Comment

@nh (again),

I actually have two daughters and I teach them nothing about China politics and very little about politics in general. I see my obligation as teaching them right and wrong (the big picture) and teaching them how to analyze issues in general (recognizing that there are rarely simple issues and that there is usually a yin and a yang to everything. For example, environment vs. jobs, government assistance vs. government intrusion, etc.) but when it comes to politics, I really do not care what their views end up being, so long as they conduct a thorough analysis. When it comes to politics, I am seeking to arm them with thinking tools, not teach them what to believe.

October 31, 2007 @ 3:12 am | Comment

What is this? Fat cat etc. shelling pro-CCP, pro-China labels hard on people Richard and Dan etc. are busy washing off the “panda hugger” thingy?

Yeah if you don’t think the CCP is evil, you are nuts. If you actually like China a bit, just a bit, you are a dead man and you will be investigated by the FBI, CIA and NSA upon your return. You must be paid by the Chinese.

If this is a I-am-no-fan-of-China contest, you all lose. The winner is clearly nh. Hands down.

October 31, 2007 @ 7:09 am | Comment

Ivan wrote:
4. Lisa said she’s “all about the gray”, implying that she strives for objectivity (which does not exist) and fairness and balance in all things, and in acknowledging that in this world, there is no absolute “black or white” among mortal humans…. PURE GOOD REALLY DOES EXIST! Only it does not exist in any Humans (other than Christ, so I say), but it does exist.

CK wrote: . Of course “PURE GOOD REALLY EXISTs” and MOST CERTAINLY pertains to and existing “among” humans. For example, the complication-free smooth relieving sensation of regular everyday toilet experience’s got to be purely good. ( If you think an odorless dump’d improve it to celestial plane, then go be a full-on vegetarian, which incidentally is the other purely good, albeit limited, matter known as free choice/will.) However, if by absolute goodness and the rest of it are, as the likes of Ivan, so narrowly and fallaciously defined and unequivocally attributed solely to the monotheistic Judeo-God – then this is where we part company and declare war on each other, figuratively speaking of course. Peace be with you.

Ivan wrote: Ah, but wait! Lisa might retort, “Nature is a pure good”, or that there is some categorical pure good. If so, then she would need to reconsider her denial of God, because she’d basically be talking about the same thing, “Nature equals God.”

What? That is pure mumble jumble. What kinda logic validates the assumption that an apple equals a gardener? As for “Denial of god”? For Amun-Ra’s sake, we are always inventing and reinventing gods, not the other way around. It’s a very bad habit that some part of the human society is very very slowly awakening to and unceremoniously discarding.

Ivan wrote: then (for example) Hitler was correct in his religion of “survival of the fittest.”

That is the problem with religion – it assumes and presumes on the infinite and almost always contingent on the finite mind of one or a mere handful of ingenius but no less finite minds. And thus, invariably, as a consequence, CONSUMES gullible body, mind and souls enmass.

Ivan wrote: If all things are grey, then, Lisa, so are your morals, and if you believe that, then if you have ANY integrity (like some HONEST nihilists like Nietzsche did), then you ought to shut up now and forever about any and all moral criticisms or concerns.

Did honest Nietzsche shut up? Then why should any nihilist? Not only will they speak up, but they’d, while so doing, also be laughing in your face with your superstitious faith-based philosophy-cum-complicity to oppressive Pharisiac laws and the hierarchy of the rulership of the few.

Finally…

Ivan wrote: But there is no “gray” in a magpie. The black and white remain separate, on the same creature. God can redeem the bits of black in us all, but “gray” is just boring shit. Or, dare I say: The Devil is not Black. He/She is Gray.

By George, the dude is confused and qualifies as a bona fide heretic, possibly demon possessed too. Hurry, usher him therefore to the square no later than the break of dawn in the morrow and see to it that the stake is firmly planted and the hay piled high and dry! How dare Ivan the mortal, indeed, the terrible, not only thinks but declares in print that grey is boring shit, when the Lord our imutable God declares everything to be very good as written in the good book.
Furthermore, whether be it a Holstein, a corvin bird, a chatterbox or a hoarder of colonies that Ivan was attemptin’ in portraying (or name-calling) Lisa of being, I do not care. But methinks of all the imagined creatures and gods, surely the Devil is the most colorful of them all.

Away with the heretic to the dark grey dungeon!

October 31, 2007 @ 9:38 am | Comment

The most reviled person on the China blogosphere but the most commented too.

October 31, 2007 @ 10:20 am | Comment

CLB, I didn’t say you were a Malkintent or a Coulter. I said you were Randroid, like Ayn Rand’s personal friend and acolyte Alan Greenspan. Greenspan is not opposed to civil liberties and justice, as long as the most important right is the ability to get rich, and neither was Rand and they usually self-describe themselves as “libertarians” instead of as “neo-cons”.

Of course I’m the idiot with the indefensible position, but I’m not the one running away from my own statements and own links. Though if low taxes and lack of capital restraints and independent judiciary were important for financial centers, the world’s biggest stock markets would be in the Caymans and Jersey instead of high-tax spots with lots of capital restraints like New York and London. Instead the Caymans and Jersey are tax-havens for folks who think taxation is confiscation, much like the guy you linked to on HK having low taxes.

and no, otherlisa, CLB isn’t just about the nuts and bolts of doing business in China. Lots of asides about America as an a priori force for good, that economic engagement is always the force for “good” (shades of Reagan’s “constructive engagement” with apartheid South Africa and refusal to place sanctions which might help that dread commie ANC Nelson Mandela or the claptrap pushed during the debate in the US years back on permanent MFN-status for the PRC which stated that increased free trade will lead to greater human rights protections and liberal democracy. How’d that work out?).

October 31, 2007 @ 12:13 pm | Comment

For the record, Ayn Rand did not regard herself as a libertarian and disliked the movement, thinking it an impure variation of her own Objectivism.

October 31, 2007 @ 12:21 pm | Comment

“Though if low taxes and lack of capital restraints and independent judiciary were important for financial centers, the world’s biggest stock markets would be in the Caymans and Jersey instead of high-tax spots with lots of capital restraints like New York and London.”

Sorry to keep dragging this thread in a tangent but this PoV is just too wrong to let stand. The Caymans and Jersey are emerging financial centers, dimwit. The amount of operations that financial firms send to those places grows by the day, while the amount of financial work done in New York and London (as a proportion of global financial services) drops continuously. Indeed, the only place which has seen steady growth has been Hong Kong, a place with good rule of law (which I do thank the Brits for, so hats off to your countrymen, Raj) low taxes, and low capital restraints.

As for the question of why London and New York are still strong financial capitals, there are three reasons: inertia (self-explanatory), digitizing of the entire financial system (which lowers provincialism of the financial system) and the fact that most of those taxes and regulations came about AFTER, not before, those cities became centers of finance. Correlation does not imply causality.

October 31, 2007 @ 1:22 pm | Comment

Tom, I am getting really sick of your lies and this will be the last time I am going to bother responding to you.

I have stated America is a force for good, sometimes. I have also complained about America. I do consider myself a patriotic American (nothing wrong with that, is there?), but I certainly do not see America as perfect. I have never stated, nor do I believe, that economic engagement is always a force for good. Where do you even come up with this crap and why do you find it necessary to make stuff up rather than dealing with reality.

I find you a despicable and sick person and I am not sure whether to pity you or revile you, but I am sure that I am going to start ignoring you.

I see that nobody reads your blog, nobody cites to your blog, and nobody comments on your blog. Does that not tell you something?

Good day.

October 31, 2007 @ 2:59 pm | Comment

China Law Blog,

Tom is a Deadhead. I don’t think I need to say anything else. It works on many levels. “Peace and love and power to the people, man.”

*

November 1, 2007 @ 1:41 pm | Comment

As Matt can attest, Kebab Boy has a history of mucking up more than a few comments pages. Recently the 88s wrote a very interesting and well-researched entry on the bombing of the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade.

Comments for the 88s’ “On the Bombing of a Chinese Embassy.”

Instead of providing evidence for his views, Kebab Boy retreats to claims of access to “deep sources” whose anonymity must be honored (oh brother!). In his attempts at ruining the comment thread there, he was joined by commenter Haohan. Still, the comment thread is worth reading for the other voices there.

*

November 1, 2007 @ 2:03 pm | Comment

Jeffrey,

My best friend in college (we are still friends) was a deadhead so I don’t think that explains much. That was a fascinating post at the 88s. I just think we won’t really KNOW what happened there until the documents are released in a bit under 50 years.

November 1, 2007 @ 2:50 pm | Comment

People like Jeffrey are stupid enough to believe that a little effort put into google will reveal all hidden truths.

November 1, 2007 @ 3:00 pm | Comment

nh,

Are you not just reinforcing Jeffrey’s point regarding your unwillingness to use actual evidence?

November 1, 2007 @ 3:21 pm | Comment

China Law Blog,

Okay, the Deadhead slur was indeed a cheap-shot. I was just having a little fun. Back in the 80s I lived in San Francisco and was more than a little amused by the conversations I overhead between them.

About the 88s’ post, I too found it a great read because it brought together both the personal and the cultural — the different starting points between 88 and his Chinese wife. While he and his wife moved beyond those starting points, most citizens in each country viewed the event through their acquired understanding of how the world works.

Here’s my bottom-line on the topic:

The mass of Americans and Chinese relied on different sets of basic assumptions of how the world operates. For Americans, it wouldn’t make sense for our military to bomb an embassy of a nuclear power of China’s stature for no good reason. For Chinese, it makes sense that Americans, as world bullies, would want to give the Chinese a little punch on the nose, just to show them who’s boss. Those are beliefs and attitudes that have not been radiated with pulses of logic.

What makes sense to each group of people is different and, as Swift understood, it is very difficult to get people to use reason to analyze views that were not created with reason in the first place.

I guess we’ll be waiting a long time for Kebab Boy’s “deep sources,” right? Heh heh.

*

November 1, 2007 @ 11:30 pm | Comment

“What makes sense to each group of people is different”

NOT saying you are right or wrong because

your LOGIC is 1) a [particular] method of reasoning or argumentation. 2) appropriate cultural, legal, artistic, historical etc principles of reasoning applicable to any branch of knowledge or study. (3) “My ways are not your ways.” (The Bible quoting the LORD GOD.)

This “as Swift understood, it is very difficult to get people to use reason to analyze views that were not created with reason in the first place,” however is geopolitical arrogance and intellectual ignorance.

Geopolitics: 1)a national policy based on the interrelation of politics and geography.
2). a Nazi (Updated Neo-con)doctrine that a combination of political, geographic, historical, racial, and economic factors substantiated Germany’s right to expand its borders and control various strategic land masses and natural resources.

I guess we’ll be waiting a long time for Kebab Boy’s “deep sources,” right?”

You’re Right. Kebab boy is but a boy blessed with an adult’s mouth cursed with an warped and underdeveloped brain.

November 2, 2007 @ 1:14 am | Comment

@richard,

I like how you put it,

“a matter of fact, as much as anything can be a matter of fact. On the other hand,”

there’re those which are “sloppy, presumptive and indefensible.”

Very well put, indded.

November 2, 2007 @ 1:27 am | Comment

@CLB

People like Jeffrey and CK need things put in front of them because they lack the ability to grasp what is intangible.

They’ve also become spoiled by search engines and Youtube and live by the idea that what can’t be found there doesn’t exist.

The ugly truth is that the big powers do occasionally throw real punches, the USS Scorpion may have been sunk by a Russian sub and did not sink due to a training accident, for example. And US and Russian special forces units did get engage in combat on Alaskan and Russian shores and islands.

If the liberal artsies in China blogosphere would rather use the bombing to debate “deliberate” vs “accidental” and everyone’s feelings about the matter, they are only short changing themselves from other possibilites and realities in the world.

November 2, 2007 @ 2:22 am | Comment

Chinese drug market unchecked, NYT

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/31/world/asia/31chemical.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

November 2, 2007 @ 3:51 am | Comment

LOL~ It’s Kebab Brain vs the living…..

“because they lack the ability to grasp what is intangible. They’ve also become spoiled by search engines and Youtube and live by the idea that what can’t be found there doesn’t exist.”
—vs—
“a matter of fact, as much as anything can be a matter of fact.

Bravo.

November 2, 2007 @ 9:02 am | Comment

CK, nice way to bow out gracefully. But you still lose.

November 2, 2007 @ 12:38 pm | Comment

This thread’s after all China Law Blog on Kebab Boy. Dude, You’re the man!
Therefore I Humbly bow to thee in retreat and accept my defeat, taking comfort in the fact I am on the side of the winning team patiently awaiting your cerebral growth process to restart or to your next and/or further endless defeats. Cheers :-)

China is undeniably full of problems, but it is nevertheless a great great great nation.

November 3, 2007 @ 5:13 pm | Comment

Nah, simply a nation full of great, great problems.

November 4, 2007 @ 1:47 am | Comment

WOW

November 7, 2007 @ 3:47 am | Comment

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.