Let’s try again

PLEASE NOTE: This site has been hacked by our favorite commenter. I apologize for all the damage done yesterday. For a while I’ll be moderating all comments on a one-by-one basis so please bear with me, as comments may not appear for a few hours after you post them.

A new thread.

The last one may have been the strangest ever. To my sockpuppets and mischief-makers, I know how you work.

Possible topics:

Chinese New Year
Apple Iphone mania
Taiwan elections
Alleged torture of a Chinese dissident
Or, of course, the latest Forbes column by….well, you know. (Includes a swipe at James Fallows.)

Or talk about anything else. A gentle reminder: If you try to impersonate other commenters or play games as in the last thread, you’re out forever.

______________

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: 148 Comments

Well the latest fallout from the Taiwan election is…

the good:

Former DPP chair and Presidential candidate Frank Xie said that the party should rediscuss it’s cross-strait policy, that everything should be on teh table and they should not be bound by old stereotype.

the meh:

Many DPP / Small party and even some KMT (mostly those that lost) cried that the new election system is no good and we should go back to the old way, (Taiwan’s current method is basically a strait forward winner take all single district, while the old way use to allow multiple winner in a single district). the problem though is that the current system was largely created by the DPP in the last consitutional reform, though there is some consesus that we probably should still adjust the system a little to some way.

The ugly:

Former Tsai campaign spokesmen came out and said DPP supporters should boycott HTC products because it’s chairwomen supported Ma in the final days before the election, obviously a comment so crazy even the DPP is trying to distant themself rom.

January 19, 2012 @ 11:21 am | Comment

Shaun Rein’s entire column exemplifies that China is ruled by man and not by law, yet he refuses to say so: “One of the things many people forget is that local officials are people too, and they don’t want to stick their heads out, because if something goes wrong they are the ones who will get in trouble.” As far as I can tell, the moral of the story is that Chinese officials make decisions arbitrarily and favor those who with connections or cash. But in Reinland (located somewhere along the Yangtze river presumably), he simply says “there is a very conservative bureaucracy at the lower level.” As opposed to the higher-level bureaucracy, which is known for it’s adventuresome risk taking? Come on.

Feel free to carry on with the ROC election discussion. Picking on Shaun Rein is too easy.

January 19, 2012 @ 12:01 pm | Comment

Why does Rein get not one, not two, but three portraits on the left side of his column?

January 19, 2012 @ 12:19 pm | Comment

Some of our illustrious visitors here are not alone
http://www.thechinabeat.org/?p=4064

January 19, 2012 @ 1:02 pm | Comment

What I found odd about the Forbes column was the three paragraphs about James Fallows. All that Fallows did was link to this article in the UK Guardian and saying China should know better. How he sees this as “jumping the gun” is beyond me.

There is something sweet about Rein’s bending over backwards to deflect any blame on the central government for his book being banned while, as always, pointing at “lower-level officials,” just as he did in this instance. CCP always good, local officials sometimes bad. Even if they block me, it’s not their fault.

Rolling Wave, I enjoyed the “strait forward” in your comment!

January 19, 2012 @ 1:04 pm | Comment

Poor Shaun. I sincerely hope he is allowed to profit from Chinese mainlanders with his book in China.

Wonder how many portraits of himself with (insert mid or low level Chinese official here) adorn his office walls?

January 19, 2012 @ 2:44 pm | Comment

Dry your tears, SR will do just fine.

Anyone see any good movies lately? Watched Up the Yangtze last week and thought it was a masterpiece

January 19, 2012 @ 2:59 pm | Comment

@Richard – Yeah, the idea that some of his erstwhile fishing buddies might actually, you know, be part of an apparatus of dictatorship that arbitrarily blocks and censors writing which is even mildly critical of them, does not seem to be one that Shauny-baby wants to accept. The very fact that he does not know, cannot seem to find out, what the grounds on which his book was banned were, demonstrates this arbitrariness.

@RW – Perhaps when the much touted KMT-facilitated forced annexation fails to appear, some people will finally admit that they were wrong about the dangers of electing the KMT.

It’s hard to see what more could be done by the KMT though vis-a-vis the cross-strait issue though. Most of the non-political topics are already out of the way. The idea of a peace treaty (which Ma has backed away from) seems somewhat meaningless if it does not result in the CCP calling an end to its threat to invade Taiwan, which I don’t see them ever doing without concessions that it is impossible to imagine the Taiwanese public accepting.

BTW – you should start a blog.

@Slim – Fascinating article – and the author is right to point out that this is what seems to be happening in discourse in China (as everywhere else) – but this does not preclude his other scenario. You too should start a blog.

January 19, 2012 @ 3:11 pm | Comment

@FOARP: heh, I’m not concentrated enough to do longer term blogging.

The most immediately obvious stuff are indeed fixed by Ma during his first term, though a lot of details are left to be desired, for example though Mainland Tourist are now allowed in Taiwan, the restriction on them is still often more than a little borderline insulting to say the least. The most talked about short term goal seem to be finalizing insurance agreements and investment protection between the two sides, which gets slightly more touchy for the PRC since it would require them to at least not deny the existence of ROC laws.

January 19, 2012 @ 3:50 pm | Comment

deleted

January 19, 2012 @ 8:39 pm | Comment

deleted

January 19, 2012 @ 8:55 pm | Comment

deleted

January 19, 2012 @ 9:11 pm | Comment

deleted

January 19, 2012 @ 9:30 pm | Comment

The S.O.B.s have hijacked your ID, Richard. (#10 – 15)

January 19, 2012 @ 10:18 pm | Comment

deleted

January 19, 2012 @ 10:25 pm | Comment

Of all the people to pick on… James Fallows??

January 19, 2012 @ 10:32 pm | Comment

deleted

January 19, 2012 @ 10:35 pm | Comment

Gray Hat — That’s not me.
To make things clear, I am going to stop posting here, since it’s impossible for people to tell whether it’s really me or not. If people want to see what I write, they can go to my blog.
Any comments that appear anywhere else — don’t presume they are real.

I presume the troll doesn’t like to be ignored.
So when he is ignored, he creates a fake back-and-forth that makes it look like people are criticizing him. Or something like that.

January 19, 2012 @ 10:38 pm | Comment

Richard — you might consider moderating or pre-screening your comments — and I mean that in the kindest way. You just can’t be here 24 hours a day catching someone pretending to be you, me, or other commenters.

January 19, 2012 @ 10:40 pm | Comment

FOARP

Perhaps when the much touted KMT-facilitated forced annexation fails to appear, some people will finally admit that they were wrong about the dangers of electing the KMT.

That assumes the KMT are really planning to suddenly disarm Taiwan and give the keys to China. I don’t think they would because there’s no advantage to it. But I wouldn’t be surprised if they gradually continue moving Taiwan ever closer to China, such that eventually Taiwan is completely dependent on its neighbour.

There’s already a body of thought that one reason Tsai lost the election was because she didn’t subscribe to the 1992 “consensus”. We know that the 1992 “consensus” was invented because the KMT negotiator admitted a few years ago that he made it up. So why suddenly did Tsai have to accept that Taiwan is part of “China”? Because the KMT has managed to trick some Taiwanese into thinking it’s the only way to have good relations with China.

I don’t see the danger of the KMT being a Chinese takeover. To me it’s that relations with China progress to the point where Taiwanese are terrified of China’s displeasure and keep re-electing the KMT to office. You could say that’s their right, but I don’t think voting for a government out of fear is democratic. And I do think that many voters fail to realise that voting KMT “because it’s good for business” could result in Taiwan’s eggs all being put in China’s basket.

The idea of a peace treaty (which Ma has backed away from) seems somewhat meaningless if it does not result in the CCP calling an end to its threat to invade Taiwan

If it sets out in writing that Taiwan is part of “China”, it would have a lot of meaning, just the wrong sort.

January 19, 2012 @ 10:43 pm | Comment

I am going to pre-screen all comments for at least a few days. This is evil stuff.

January 19, 2012 @ 10:46 pm | Comment

Serious apologies to everyone. From now on at night (Phoenix time) comments may take a few hours to appear. During the day I can check them every few minutes. This is definitely Wayne, who warned me in an email he was going to get revenge on me for banning him.

Joyce, don’t go. I will make sure he can’t do this. It may take longer for comments to post but I am working on a solution.

January 19, 2012 @ 10:52 pm | Comment

Can you take legal action against Wayne? Or out him completely by name and location so someone can pay him a friendly visit? On a crowded planet, shark food or coyote bait is about the only use I can think of for this person.

January 20, 2012 @ 12:30 am | Comment

Another Chinese dissident whose sole crime was taking issue with the government has been sentenced to ten years in prison.

This article makes an important point that somehow goes right over the heads of naifs who insist these atrocities are solely the work of local governments. As if there is no connection between local and central authorities.

It is unclear why Mr. Li was singled out for punishment, but it is possible his writings and memorials for Ms. Lin angered local officials, the research coordinator for Chinese Human Rights Defenders, Wang Songlian, said in a telephone interview.

“This environment encourages local party officials to hand out very harsh sentences because they can get away with it,” Ms. Wang said. “The national green light has been give to the local authorities.”

How true. As if local officials operate in a vacuum.

On a totally different note, don’t miss this time-lapse video showing the construction of a 30-story hotel in Hunan Province built in 360 hours. Amazing.

And then check this brand-new article. True to form.

January 20, 2012 @ 12:32 am | Comment

Nothing illegal about what Wayne is doing. But I agree with slim. Out him completely. Email, IP address, everything you got. Morons like that deserve no quarter. I gotta say, even among CCP apologists, he is more juvenile and idiotic than most.

January 20, 2012 @ 3:20 am | Comment

He is using a proxy and always has a new IP address. I’m pretty sure he’s in Hong Kong based on his earliest posts when he used the same IP address. He used to use the name Mark Lau but I highly doubt he’d use his real name. I see what he is doing on other blogs and I wonder how they can allow him to take over. You don’t need to be a genius to see what he’s up to.

January 20, 2012 @ 3:23 am | Comment

I believe there are ways to block proxies …programs that essentially reach through the proxy to identify the IP at site of origin. Never looked into it in earnest before, and I’m definitely no expert. But if he was using a consistent IP before, that’s likely a real one. I’d just broadcast that…and see what happens.

January 20, 2012 @ 3:38 am | Comment

I revamped my filters this morning and I don’t think he’ll be able to do it again. I figured out how he took my identity and made some changes to prevent it. If he can do it again I’ll know I need to do more.

January 20, 2012 @ 3:43 am | Comment

Here’s the other thing. If he’s posting via proxies anyhow, why not just post as himself? Why the juvenile antic of pretending to be someone else? And of course, this blog is your living room, and you’ve made it clear he’s not welcome. Yet he still insists on barging into your space. Somebody’s parents didn’t do a very good job of raising this little runt.

January 20, 2012 @ 3:44 am | Comment

He’s having a blast creating havoc by using other people’s names and making them look like idiots. As we all know, Mongol Warrior is a very mature, thoughtful, well-balanced guy. Not sure if you saw the incredibly anti-Semitic comment he made under my name. He definitely has something wrong with him.

January 20, 2012 @ 3:47 am | Comment

And the guy already has his own space to play, and his own crowd to run with. You’d think this would be enough. Pity he has to soil your sandpit too

January 20, 2012 @ 10:06 am | Comment

@ S.K. I’m not saying Richard should do any more to this user than he is already doing.

But, if there are racist rants, repeated threats of violence sent to someone personally, etc. they can start entering area of hate speech, verbal assault, stalking, etc. Arizona, where I believe Richard is based, has laws against “harassment by computer.”

In HK, the cybercrime enforcement seems to focus mostly on financial scams. But last month, there was talk in the news of new, tougher anti-stalking laws in HK.

Again, I’m not saying that applies in this case. With trolls, I think you just ignore them and hope they go away. But certain types of messages can trip into being illegal.

January 20, 2012 @ 10:29 am | Comment

I’m not qualified to say whether what he has done is legal, but I felt that a reasonable person could interpret one of his posts about a certain child as a threat of violence. Second, impersonating an individual (in effect, signing documents in his name) in order to harm that person’s reputation doesn’t sound legal to me . . . just sayin’.

January 20, 2012 @ 10:52 am | Comment

To Richard #24,
curious (and rather hilarious) that Foreign Ministry spokesman Mr. Li would liken the dissidents to OWS. For one thing, the OWS protesters weren’t sentenced to 10 years in jail for protesting, whereas that is the ballpark of what the latest group of dissidents is looking at for writing essays and poetry. It seems even Foreign Ministry spokesmen are comparing apples and oranges, so I guess it’s no wonder that CCP apologists have an innate tendency to do the same.

It’s also another blow to the concept of rule of law, given how these “dissidents” were tried. Family not allowed to observe proceedings. Can’t hire their own lawyers. In a sense, that is surprising. We know the judgments will be a crock anyway, so I wonder why they wouldn’t appear to at least give the proceedings the thinnest veneer of legitimacy. On the other hand, since everyone knows it’s a crock, I guess they figure they might as well go all the way.

It defies logic to suggest that these local officials are completely independent of the central government. At the very least, the apparent enabling of local corrupt officials represents gross negligence of oversight responsibilities on the part of the central government. As the quote suggests, the central government is certainly not conveying the message that local officials need to go easy with the legal travesties.

January 20, 2012 @ 2:15 pm | Comment

any thoughts on the above clip?

January 20, 2012 @ 4:08 pm | Comment

@Raj:

(“That assumes the KMT are really planning to suddenly disarm Taiwan and give the keys to China. I don’t think they would because there’s no advantage to it. But I wouldn’t be surprised if they gradually continue moving Taiwan ever closer to China, such that eventually Taiwan is completely dependent on its neighbour.)

———————————————————————-

Economic intergration doesn’t really equate to political onces, if you look at the politics between the USA and Mexico, would you say that the USA completely control Mexican Politics? Due to geographical proximity Taiwan’s obviously going to have strong economic ties with China, that’s just common sense, the Lee and Chen era policy did nothing to stop that, it only fattened the pockets of Hong Kong and various off-shore tax haven in the process while screwing many domestic busniess at the same time. Ma’s policy so far is in all essence simply normalizing busniess, I’ve pointed out many times that as late as 2008 Taiwan was esssentially in Iron Curtain mode with China, how can any sort of argument really justify that?

———————————————————————–

(There’s already a body of thought that one reason Tsai lost the election was because she didn’t subscribe to the 1992 “consensus”. We know that the 1992 “consensus” was invented because the KMT negotiator admitted a few years ago that he made it up. So why suddenly did Tsai have to accept that Taiwan is part of “China”? Because the KMT has managed to trick some Taiwanese into thinking it’s the only way to have good relations with China.)

————————————————————————
No, it’s beacuse Tsai and the DPP have not managed to convince many folks that she knows what the “other way” is, she essentially said she’ll “start thinking after she gets elected” (which is what the whole Taiwan Consesus thing was, the only concrete thing she ever said about it was that it’ll be discussed after she’s elected) how’s that going to convince anyone with stakes in the game?

The KMT’s real change in the cross-strait game came because Lian Zhang met with Hu Jin Tao in 2005, that convinced most folks that the KMT can talk with the CCP, the DPP had many years already to make similar proofs, they have not. there are many reports out recently in Taiwan that the CCP actually have tried to establish links with the DPP over the years but the DPP have refused.

———————————————————————-

(I don’t see the danger of the KMT being a Chinese takeover. To me it’s that relations with China progress to the point where Taiwanese are terrified of China’s displeasure and keep re-electing the KMT to office. You could say that’s their right, but I don’t think voting for a government out of fear is democratic. And I do think that many voters fail to realise that voting KMT “because it’s good for business” could result in Taiwan’s eggs all being put in China’s basket.)

———————————————————————–

Raj, you do realize that espeically in 2008 (and to some extend this year as well) there were all those pro-green folks going around saying that if Ma’s elected it’ll be the end of Taiwan’s democracy right? how’s that for fear politics?

You’re assuming the US is an idle player in all this, it’s not, this time around they went about as far as they could to try and get Ma elected as well, (they had annoymous official quotes in articles in the Finacial Times criticizing Tsai before she even ended her US visit and the retired ex-AIT head came out in a open interview in Taiwan just days before the electiondoing the same).

Let me be perfectly honest, if the USA one day decide that it doesn’t want to (or can no longer sustain) the first chain island strategy in containing China, Taiwan’s screwed no matter what, China doesn’t need to invade, it dosen’t matter how intergated the two sides’ economy is, all it needs to do is simply to pass a UN resolution to do crippling sanction on Taiwan (if the US doesn’t Veto this is simple). And who’s to blame? China? or the countries that don’t let us into the UN? (aka everyone? and espeically the USA? )

At the end of the day, what we’re really banking on is that improved ties help speed up China’s own political progress, in most likely cases oneday down the line the US probably won’t be able to contain China in the west pacific, at that point the only way we would be able to retain our soverignty or safty is if China is a better place than it is today. If it’s a free democracy, or something close enough to that. the news perhaps you didn’t see is that this year China actually did NOT censor almost any of the news on Taiwan’s election, that all the Presidential debates and policy debates were aired live in Chinese internet as well, that all their political talk show and online political chats talked frevently about Taiwan’s election as well, would this happen if Xie was elected last time around? you know the answer.

January 20, 2012 @ 5:32 pm | Comment

@Grayhat – Under English law it is certainly an offense to harrass someone by sending threatening messages.

@Raj -

“I wouldn’t be surprised if they gradually continue moving Taiwan ever closer to China, such that eventually Taiwan is completely dependent on its neighbour.”

Economic ties between Taiwan and the mainland were growing at quite a pace even before 2008. I don’t see how electing the DPP would prevent this.

“why suddenly did Tsai have to accept that Taiwan is part of “China”? Because the KMT has managed to trick some Taiwanese into thinking it’s the only way to have good relations with China.”

They may have been right – and what exactly has been sacrificed by the steps they have taken so far?

“If it sets out in writing that Taiwan is part of “China”, it would have a lot of meaning, just the wrong sort.”

Except that according to both the DPP and the KMT Taiwan is part of “China” – but they differ on how exactly to interpret this.

@RW -

“The KMT’s real change in the cross-strait game came because Lian Zhang met with Hu Jin Tao in 2005, that convinced most folks that the KMT can talk with the CCP, the DPP had many years already to make similar proofs, they have not.”

I could point to the three small links as an example where the DPP have successfully dealt with the CCP. Lian Zhan’s visit to the mainland didn’t settle anything concrete and I’ve never met anyone who had their minds changed about the KMT by it. Sure, the CCP prefer to deal with the KMT because they both share the goal of eventual unification, but I think the next four years are going to highlight that the KMT too has red lines that it will not or cannot cross. So long as the KMT are a viable alternative, the CCP will continue to co-operate with them, but if the DPP put in a strong show in 2016 then they’ll have to sit down with them.

“you do realize that espeically in 2008 (and to some extend this year as well) there were all those pro-green folks going around saying that if Ma’s elected it’ll be the end of Taiwan’s democracy right? how’s that for fear politics?

Yeah, this one of the things that made me move away from the writing in Taipei Times and other maniacally pro-pan-green commentary – their simple inability to learn from the failure of their doom-laden predictions to come true. To take a few examples:

- The ECFA was not a treaty of annexation.

- Police links does not mean that Chinese police will be given power to arrest political opponents in Taiwan – or anyone else for that matter.

- Increased tourism and allowing mainland students to study at Taiwanese universities has not left Taiwan much more open to espionage than before.

- And no, there has been no pro-KMT coup.

Yet when I flip to TT and similar sources all I see is the same old tired nonsense comparing Ma to Mubarak, or saying that Taiwan needs to have a Jasmine revolution, or that insurrection might be necessary if the DPP did not win this year’s election (no, really), or picking on boilerplate statements made by KMT officials as evidence of a secret plan for annexation. It’s garbage which will never convince anyone, and Tsai did well to distance herself from it.

Sure, there’s been some pretty crazy stuff coming from the pan-blue side as well, and some stories which appeared to have some truth to them and could have worrying implications (the spying one, for example) but the DPP will not win by being just as bad as the KMT, and things like Spy-Gate are perhaps to be expected (but punished if true) in a young democracy like Taiwan.

“the news perhaps you didn’t see is that this year China actually did NOT censor almost any of the news on Taiwan’s election, that all the Presidential debates and policy debates were aired live in Chinese internet as well, that all their political talk show and online political chats talked frevently about Taiwan’s election as well”

My understanding is that censorship eventually came in a few days before the election, not so? At any rate, they were mote willing to give it coverage, but at least part of that is because the CCP has been so successful in painting Taiwanese democracy in a negative light (not that it doesn’t have plenty of help in doing so from both sides of the aisle in Taiwan).

@Mark Lau – Oh dear, seems that none of your comments are getting through any more. What a pity.

January 20, 2012 @ 9:13 pm | Comment

Above comment from me (AKA FOARP) by the way.

January 20, 2012 @ 9:17 pm | Comment

Except that according to both the DPP and the KMT Taiwan is part of “China” – but they differ on how exactly to interpret this.

You are referring to the CCP and the KMT, aren’t you?

January 20, 2012 @ 9:45 pm | Comment

@JR – I mean the DPP, whose position is that the ROC is Taiwan, as Tsai said:

“The ROC is Taiwan, Taiwan is the ROC, and the current ROC government is no longer ruled by a non-native political power”

Pursuing the goal of de jure independence requires you to recognise that you are still de jure part of another polity. De facto, of course, Taiwan has been independent of the mainland for some time now, and neither the KMT or the DPP show any sign of wishing to end this in the near future.

January 20, 2012 @ 10:05 pm | Comment

echoes of MAJ, I guess

January 20, 2012 @ 11:12 pm | Comment

@Leo #35 – Damn, a sustained anti-Hong Kong tirade on the flimsiest of justifications (mainlanders and HK’ers arguing on the MTR). I haven’t watched Chinese television properly in a long time, but is that the kind of nationalistic garbage they’re showing nowadays? Or is that just a one-off?

@t_co – My understanding is that, although MAJ messed about with sockpuppets, he never actually got threatening against anyone. Anyway, nil nisi bonum.

Speaking of Mark Lau, where did he go?

January 20, 2012 @ 11:54 pm | Comment

@Gil – i don’t watch chinese tv that often either. the guy is a professor at peking univ and was referring to this incident

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=wEComrx76uY

personally i think both parties over-reacted. feel bad for the kid.

January 21, 2012 @ 3:32 am | Comment

FOARP

Economic ties between Taiwan and the mainland were growing at quite a pace even before 2008. I don’t see how electing the DPP would prevent this.

It’s about management – prevention is impossible nor necessarily desirable. The KMT wants ties to expand as quickly as is practically possible. The DPP would want guarantees and safeguards to ensure that China isn’t gaining an unfair advantage. The DPP might also properly pursue trade deals with other countries. The KMT said Taiwan would have a raft of free trade agreements with other countries once the agreement with China was ratified. But I still don’t see anything concrete, just some talks with Singapore and theoretical talks with a handful of other countries.

They may have been right – and what exactly has been sacrificed by the steps they have taken so far?

Except that according to both the DPP and the KMT Taiwan is part of “China” – but they differ on how exactly to interpret this.

I think you’re misinterpreting Tsai’s comment. She and the DPP see Taiwan as an independent state with the name “ROC”. They don’t see it as part of China, i.e. the big geographical entity that’s next door to them.

And agreeing that Taiwan was part of China would give China a huge boost to its position, both politically and diplomatically. It would then be easy for China and the KMT to say that the default position was one of eventual unification. Slowly they’d make Taiwanese think it was inevitable.

Finally you can’t ignore the fact that the DPP has a very large number of supporters that can’t accept the party adopting a “one China policy”. China will automatically reject anything that’s not the same as the KMT’s position. The DPP won’t suddenly suck up millions of KMT votes for adopting a one China policy, but it would lose a large whack of DPP votes, who would stay at home or vote for a minor party. The DPP won’t get elected by alienating its supporters.

January 21, 2012 @ 5:28 am | Comment

@Raj: We shall see about that, ALL the allowed Chinese agricultural imports from China into Taiwan (which is porbably the single most worrisome aspect of free trade between the two side) were passed by the DPP… and Negotiated by Tsai Yin Wen herself during the whole WTO talks, that’s a pretty hard sell for them. Ma have 4 more years, I’m fairly willing to bet that within 4 years Taiwan will have alot more various treaties down with other countries (they’ll probably get TIFA down with the USA by then, it seems likely they’ll reach a comprimise with the US on the beef issue soon which seem to be the main obstical), what’s the DPP going to sell then?

January 21, 2012 @ 3:37 pm | Comment

#43-

It isn’t a one-off in the sense that that professor (I want to call him Wang Xiaodong but I think that’s some other noted ultra-nationalist prick) is consistently nuts. What was the last thing I read him saying- stay away from Hollywood films because they’re controlled by the CIA? He’s a truly first-class douche. It’s really hard to believe that he is supposedly an educated person, let alone a professor at China’s top university.

January 21, 2012 @ 4:25 pm | Comment

Raj:

We shall see i guess, Ma has 4 more years to prove his point, there have been plenty of minor agreements between Taiwan and other places (like open sky pact with Japan, and almost everyone including the USA giving Taiwan passports visa exemptions agreements etc), that went down, though yes no major FTA have been signed yet, though as far as I can see that TIFA with the USA not being signed so far has almost nothing to do with the PRC, but rather our disagreement on the USA on it’s beef standards (that’s a problem with almost everyone, see how some South Korean legislator went as far as blasting a freaken tear gas in their parliment because of that)

In the end, I think the that sort of argument from the green side is empty, and they had many years to shown that it didn’t really work, my uncle belived in Lee Teng Hui’s policy at first and set up a factory in Indonesia in the mid 90s, only to see it go under within a few years and himself nearly killed by angry mobs in the whole fiasco during the Asian Financial Crisis there, he later setup shop in Xiamen and that factory have stood for over a decade now (he has a big one in Taiwan as well, they make industrial paper )

At the end of the day, if only simply from geographical POV, there’s no reason that Taiwan busnises should not be heavily invested in China, using political reason to steer away from economic common sense simply isn’t benificial to everyone in the longer run.

January 21, 2012 @ 9:57 pm | Comment

@Nulle – I agree that this is the kind of thing I would expect to hear from ultra-nationalists like Wang Xiaodong and Song Qiang on their blogs, and I do remember occasionally hearing thinks a bit like this on talk radio in China, but I don’t remember ever hearing anyone spewing this kind of stuff on mainstream television in China. Admittedly, I have not watched much Chinese television in recent years.

@Raj –

“The DPP would want guarantees and safeguards to ensure that China isn’t gaining an unfair advantage.”

And the KMT not? I do not think either of the main parties wants mainland business to get an ‘unfair’ advantage, but it would be true that the DPP does draw more support from those areas most likely to suffer from competition with the mainland.

“I think you’re misinterpreting Tsai’s comment. She and the DPP see Taiwan as an independent state with the name “ROC”. They don’t see it as part of China, i.e. the big geographical entity that’s next door to them.”

I understand that – my point is that the DPP does not dispute that Taiwan is part of “China” at the moment, but defines the Republic of China to include only Taiwan and it’s associated islands.

“China will automatically reject anything that’s not the same as the KMT’s position.”

. . . and also much that is the KMT’s position. Since Ma cannot stand for re-election, and since there is a bit of an absence of credible replacements in the KMT (although it is early days to say for sure), it’s entirely possible that the DPP will come back in 2016. The CCP will then be faced with either cutting deals with the DPP, or spending another 8 years trying to ignore their existence – and one would hope that they’ve learned that this does not really work.

January 21, 2012 @ 11:51 pm | Comment

youtube version got taken off

http://v.youku.com/v_show/id_XMzQ0NzU0MzAw.html

January 22, 2012 @ 12:21 am | Comment

Whoa, what the hell? Youtube removed it for “hate speech?” They must have received a lot of requests to remove it, because this is really not that big of a deal compared to a lot of other things on Youtube. Frankly, while I find Kong a thoroughly disgusting individual, his “earthy” language is, let’s say, not altogether atypical of China. I doubt Youtube would remove a video of somebody saying “New Yorkers [for example, I don't believe this] are a bunch of assholes.” And I think lobbying to get this thing taken down is the wrong approach; boycott PKU or whatever, but don’t take away people’s chance to see for themselves what a colossal dickhead this guy is.

January 22, 2012 @ 3:39 am | Comment

yup, how ironic. something got censored out by an american website and i had to go to a chinese site to watch it.

January 22, 2012 @ 3:47 am | Comment

@Leo,
I wonder who requested the video removed from youtube. (maybe the CCP agents?)

@Gil,
ultra-nationalistic BS is not unusual for chinese television. In fact, it may be government sponsored similar to the mobs at the Japanese and Korean embassies. However, what concerns (and lit) me (up) is this type of solid excrement is considered more mainstream and have a large netizen following.

January 22, 2012 @ 9:09 am | Comment

what inflames up is the quote from the 73th generation grandchild of Confucious stated on TV that “people of HKG are dogs. Those who doesn’t speak manadrin are [profanity]” (–人「也」是狗,不說普通話就是王八蛋)

the idiot is still unapologetic with his comments. There are suspicions that the CCP is behind/support/condone this idiots’ actions.

I urge everyone to join/like the facebook group below 萬人圍堵中聯辦活動,要求孔慶東向–道歉 and send a letter to Beijing University to force this idiot to apologize
http://www.facebook.com/pages/%E8%90%AC%E4%BA%BA%E5%9C%8D%E5%A0%B5%E4%B8%AD%E8%81%AF%E8%BE%A6%E6%B4%BB%E5%8B%95%E8%A6%81%E6%B1%82%E5%AD%94%E6%85%B6%E6%9D%B1%E5%90%91%E6%B8%AF%E4%BA%BA%E9%81%93%E6%AD%89/214826381941851

January 22, 2012 @ 9:54 am | Comment

I would like to point out the irony that the PRC citizens need a visa to get into dogland ;)

January 22, 2012 @ 10:01 am | Comment

@RollingWave,
there are a lot of pregnant mainland chinese ‘bitches’ using multiple entry visas to enter ‘dogland’ to born their ‘litter,’ buy doggie brand name bags, doggie luxury goods, buying dog houses (driving them skyward) and becoming ‘fleas’ by applying the CSSA/welfare and subsidized low-rent housing.

what lit me up further is these ungrateful mainland ‘parasites’ still say “China is great” despite they have immigranted to North American countries and on welfare, food stamps, subsidized housing and pogey/dole while still have a pension in China!

January 22, 2012 @ 11:03 am | Comment

@mulle

I doubt it’s CCP, else it should the youku version down first.

January 22, 2012 @ 11:16 am | Comment

@mulle
I doubt it’s CCP, else it should be the youku version taken down first.

January 22, 2012 @ 11:17 am | Comment

plus based on facebook comments, it seems most mianland chinese don’t see anything wrong with what the professor said. my guess is that the CCP officials would agree.

January 22, 2012 @ 11:22 am | Comment

@Leo,

I disagree given Youtube gets a world audience and CCP needs the face. While Youku is domestic China and CCP is supporting the idiot(supported by what you stated on comment#60), sadly the CCP intended to dilute the identity of HKG citizenry (similar to Urghur and occupied Tibet) when drafting their Basic Law.

January 22, 2012 @ 11:35 am | Comment

@nulle

i was about to say the same thing. perhaps the clip was intended for chinese domestic viewers.

January 22, 2012 @ 11:40 am | Comment

I wonder how Ma considers the growing negativity of HKers towards CCP while pushing Taiwan for closer ties with China.

January 22, 2012 @ 11:48 am | Comment

@Leo,
Unfortnately, the clip is watched by the HKG citizenry and becoming worldwide news.

Even significant amount mainland chinese see something is wrong with what 73rd generation grandchild of Confucious said and ask him to apologize and resign.

If you read the coverage, even mainland Chinese is ashamed and angry of what idiot descendant of Confucious said.

January 22, 2012 @ 11:54 am | Comment

Richard, that sucks. The viciousness of so many commenters is the main reason I remain with Google Blogspot even if it is inferior in so many ways to other platforms — Google has the resources to keep out bad’uns.

No, it’s beacuse Tsai and the DPP have not managed to convince many folks that she knows what the “other way” is..

There were many factors. Low turnout in the South was a major one. Voter supression — the KMT had the CEC schedule the election right at the end of the semester for most universities and right before Chinese New Year. Many students could not afford time or money-wise to take a trip home to vote.

Tsai probably got it coming and going — the base in the South apparently wanted to hear more Taiwan independence rhetoric, while in the north the big boys feared Beijing would revenge itself on Taiwan if she were elected. Note also that the money inflows from China are creating new loyalties to the KMT in many areas; in the south for tourists, for example. I think also that the property bubble was a major driver — many property and stock holders, who pay no taxes, probably worried that she meant what she said about social justice, and voted for Ma because he is at heart a one-percenter politician and can be trusted not to take away their parasitical little wealth bubble.

In the end, Ma was supported by Washington, Beijing, Wall Street, organized crime, big business, and the bureaucracy including the police and military. Hard to beat that powerful a combination.

The KMT’s real change in the cross-strait game came because Lian Zhang met with Hu Jin Tao in 2005, that convinced most folks that the KMT can talk with the CCP, the DPP had many years already to make similar proofs, they have not. there are many reports out recently in Taiwan that the CCP actually have tried to establish links with the DPP over the years but the DPP have refused.

You’ve got everything wrong in this paragraph. KMT-CPP direct communications began back in the 1990s. The DPP had negotiated successfully on China with all sorts of stuff — 3 small links, student exchanges, charter flights, etc. But in Chen’s second term Beijing’s strategy of not dealing with the DPP really began to bear fruit (it had been suggested to them by the KMT in talks during his first term). It was China, not the DPP, that refused to talk. Everyone already knew the KMT and CCP were talking long before Lien Chan went back to serve Beijing.

Once again, my sympathies, Richard.

Michael Turton

January 22, 2012 @ 12:41 pm | Comment

Gil, this is wrong:

Pursuing the goal of de jure independence requires you to recognise that you are still de jure part of another polity. De facto, of course, Taiwan has been independent of the mainland for some time now, and neither the KMT or the DPP show any sign of wishing to end this in the near future.

The status of Taiwan is undetermined; pursuing de jure independence does not mean that you are declaring independence FROM something. Rather, it only means that the DPP is changing the current status of the island from undetermined to formal nationhood.

The DPP position on the ROC is as the other commenter described above — the ROC = Taiwan, Taiwan = ROC, and ROC is independent sovereign state. This dates from 1996 in DPP parlance, the first free Presidential election.

Michael

January 22, 2012 @ 1:12 pm | Comment

Since Ma cannot stand for re-election, and since there is a bit of an absence of credible replacements in the KMT (although it is early days to say for sure), it’s entirely possible that the DPP will come back in 2016.

The DPP has the same problem. Su Tseng-chang will be too old, Chen Chu does not want to run for President, and almost everyone else except Su Chia-chuan has no experience running a complex local government or is too southern, like Wm Lai or Su Chih-fen in Yunlin. The KMT has one excellent choice, Eric Chu who is now head of New Taipei City, and one dullard heavyweight, Wu Den-yi who is nearly as widely detested as Lien Chan. No one else really stands out. Perhaps Lien Chan’s son Sean lien might figure in the campaign, he is being floated as a possible Taipei mayoral candidate for the next election.

Hence the 2016 election is going to be very interesting….

Michael

January 22, 2012 @ 1:37 pm | Comment

@Michael Turton,
given the current economic integration/dependence between the mainland and ROC, the military buildup, and chinese military technology catching up with ROCs.

what do you see as possible scenarios given mainland will assimilate ROC, one way or another? would mainland go to all out military campaign? or ROC submits to mainland economic threats once the economic integration is irreversible? or use other factors (soverign funds/economic) to force the UN to void ROC altogether?

January 22, 2012 @ 2:17 pm | Comment

Sigh:

Michael: Tsai lost by about 6%, voter turn out was 74% this time, it was 80% in 2004 and 76% in 2008, even if we assume 2008 figure, your going to have a hard time convincing anyone that Tsai would have every single person in between that difference vote for her, which she would need to roughly tie Ma. let alone beat him.

If that’s what you think, you can see if DPP go for a even stronger TI message next time around and what happens, I can almost guarantee you that if they do that they would lose by even more, no matter how blend the next KMT candidate is, but then, I guess you would harp that there wouldn’t be a next election? just like there wouldn’t be one in 2012 ? (which your site seem to be harping back in 2008).

At the end of the day, most Taiwanese’ folks are in business that are effected by world trade, and those folks see very little reason to give up a huge share of the world market for idealogical reasons only.

January 22, 2012 @ 3:48 pm | Comment

what do you see as possible scenarios given mainland will assimilate ROC, one way or another? would mainland go to all out military campaign? or ROC submits to mainland economic threats once the economic integration is irreversible? or use other factors (soverign funds/economic) to force the UN to void ROC altogether?

I don’t know what will happen, too many wild cards, I go round and round. Lay out some scenarios:

1 — Taiwan’s democracy presents a fearsome problem for the CCP. I think that if annexation occurs the most likely scenario will be a more formal ratification of what already exists, the agreement between ROC and PRC politicians that Taiwan is formally part of China, probably in the form of a “peace treaty” that cannot be repudiated because it would be disturbing the peace. That is why Ma is so important — he exists to deliver something like his arrangement while giving it a veneer of democracy. Ma could probably get a One-China/1992 consensus treaty rammed through the legislature. Note that promises of referenda will be ignored in practice.

2 — straight up peaceful capitulation, do with us what you will. I don’t see that at all, no way the KMT gives up the bargaining chip of Taiwan, which they need to get into the big money games in China.

The stumbling block to any credible peaceful scenario is the fact that the Taiwan public does not want it. Annexation to the PRC has near-zero support. That is why it might come down to some kind of military operation.

3 — a short sharp military operation, really a variation on 2. With KMT and military assistance, China accepts the surrender of Taiwan after a brief operation. Lots of the “China will never invade” claims founder on the fact that major upper elements of the ROC military think of themselves as Chinese and might welcome an invasion. Of course there are plenty of diehards who won’t. Think Japan and the US would go war over Taiwan if Chinese troops were already there?

4 — protracted military operation. Ma’s election hasn’t dampened war prospects, it has simply re-arranged them. Suppose an increasingly powerful and nationalistic PRC decides it can take Taiwan via (3) and badly miscalculates. Or an operation against the Senkakus turns into an operation against all three islands, Taiwan, Okinawa, and the Senkakus? Many possibilities…..

The problem with the “they would never” commentary is that it flies in the face of history — Japan pursuing policies to go to war with the five largest empires in the world all at once, Germany going to war with the rest of Europe not once but twice, etc. Historians on the list will be able suggest further irrational stupidity like that, from firing on Fort Sumter to practically all the invasions of Afghanistan. Humans are not rational calculators of probabilities.

The purpose of ECFA was to lay the ground for the long-term assimilation of Taiwan. But it hasn’t changed any minds here in Taiwan. At present there is no reason to think the status quo will be preserved, and no clear way of how it will change. We could well be having this same conversation in retirement twenty years from now.

Michael

January 22, 2012 @ 3:49 pm | Comment

Raj, you do realize that espeically in 2008 (and to some extend this year as well) there were all those pro-green folks going around saying that if Ma’s elected it’ll be the end of Taiwan’s democracy right? how’s that for fear politics?

The KMT does the same thing. The Deep Blues are told that they will be kicked off the island if Tsai wins, that China will start bombing immediately. Etc.

Michael

January 22, 2012 @ 3:52 pm | Comment

Michael: Tsai lost by about 6%, voter turn out was 74% this time, it was 80% in 2004 and 76% in 2008, even if we assume 2008 figure, your going to have a hard time convincing anyone that Tsai would have every single person in between that difference vote for her, which she would need to roughly tie Ma. let alone beat him.

Yes, that was obvious. But stating the obvious does not explain it. Especially when you front your comments with a rather stupid “sigh” as if you were actually saying something intelligent rather than merely noting that the sky is blue. What is needed is an explanation of why turnout was so low.

If that’s what you think, you can see if DPP go for a even stronger TI message next time around and what happens,

It doesn’t matter what I think. Post-election analyses both public and private show lower turnout in the South, as the DPP feared prior to the election. The reason stated by intelligent observers I know were that the DPP base in the South felt Tsai wasn’t pro-independence enough for them. This is based on both anecdotal evidence, interviews, and DPP polling. I have no idea how the DPP will get around this problem in 2016. If the DPP base is stupid enough to stay home and let KMT politicians elected to office, perhaps they will get what they deserve ;) . One of the major differences is the ability of the KMT to mobilize its voters.

So, as I said, Tsai got it both ways — the DPP base was cold because she was not a fiery independence leader, while the small group of swing voters split down the middle. Ma collected almost the entire KMT base — I suspect Soong actually got about half swing voters for his meager <3%. To win Tsai would have had to collect the entire swing vote, but that was never in the cards.

Michael

January 22, 2012 @ 4:03 pm | Comment

As for Lian Zhang’s meeting, most people seem to get this wrong, yes the KMT and CCP established ties in the early 90s (actually more like late 80s), but they were mostly broken by the end of Lee’s term (it happens when one side end up lobbing missiles into the other sides’ back yard). talks between the two foundations ended in 1994 with the basic agreement on how Taiwan’s citizen can go to the mainland (aka via Hong Kong and the assorted pseudo visa they issue) . then Lee Teng Hui made his 2 country theory remark and all talks ended until Ma was elected again, Chen’s 8 year saw very very little interaction with the mainland, they tried to talk VIA the more formal mainland affairs counsel but the only thing they managed to get through was the small 3 opening in Kinmen, (which was actually passed through in the last days of Lee’s terms, but let’s overlook that for now).

Lian’s visit for the most part convinced that the CCP is still open to talking with the KMT again (and that the current KMT is far more open than the late Lee era version in this regard), that was far from a guarantee at that point, talks between the two side had ended for over a decade at that point.

It should also be noted, that the DPP was NOT always the anti-China party, in the later 90s there was a point when at least some voices within the DPP would be considered far more pro-china by today’s standard than the KMT mainstream at the same period under Lee, but then DPP chairmen Tsu Xin Liang’s going west policy lost out within the DPP’s own debate and after Chen got into the Presidency did the DPP began to really settle into their current ideological agenda in earnest. the DPP before the late 90s was a party with MANY agendas, TI was not the main one, (anti KMT was), because of the circumstances of the time it was a party that had both voices of TI and Pro-China.

Tsu was reinstated as a member of the DPP after 2008 though, and was the small 3rd candidate in their primary, still mostly harping the same tune that the DPP need to readjust their cross-strait orientation. but he’s mostly a maverick figure nowadays, the good news for the DPP is that they can still harbor members with different opinion like Tsu, though the bigger headliner news these days is that former Tsai campaign speaker going on a rampage about how DPP supporters should boycott HTC and all other pro-china business and that all members that don’t totally agree with their doctrine should leave the party, that’s not so good.

January 22, 2012 @ 4:54 pm | Comment

Michael:

[b]t doesn’t matter what I think. [/b]

Oh yes it does matter what i think, since I’m one of the few person talking here that actually have a vote on the matter, not to mention that not only do I have a vote on the matter, if things comes to it’s worse outcome, I’m fairly certain that I’m the only person in this thread that’s going to be in the ROC or Taiwan to face the problem, your post (and blog in general) reek of arrogance and bias, I hope you realize that.

January 22, 2012 @ 5:01 pm | Comment

Chen’s 8 year saw very very little interaction with the mainland, they tried to talk VIA the more formal mainland affairs counsel but the only thing they managed to get through was the small 3 opening in Kinmen, (which was actually passed through in the last days of Lee’s terms, but let’s overlook that for now).

Perhaps on your planet. On mine, the DPP conducted talks with China on all sorts of things, some of which I listed above: charter flights, student exchanges, cultural exchanges, and others. There were also other informal channels under which various players conducted their own China policies, a problem that persists down to the present.

that was far from a guarantee at that point, talks between the two side had ended for over a decade at that point.

No, they had been in communication throughout the first Chen term. How d’ya think they arranged the visit between Grandpa Lien and CCP officialdom? That was merely the outward manifestation of a growing private alliance.

but then DPP chairmen Tsu Xin Liang’s going west policy lost out within the DPP’s own debate and after Chen got into the

Hsu Hsin-liang. He later went to work for the KMT after leaving the DPP.

I’m fairly certain that I’m the only person in this thread that’s going to be in the ROC or Taiwan to face the problem

Don’t worry, I plan to be here, and have a son in the army next year. I feel sad that you feel that only people exactly like you can comment. It rather reminds me of the insularity you appear to be accusing the DPP of.

your post (and blog in general) reek of arrogance and bias, I hope you realize that.

Oh yes, your comment has TOTALLY made me have an EPIPHANY!

Michael

January 22, 2012 @ 5:15 pm | Comment

@Michael –

“Yes, that was obvious. But stating the obvious does not explain it.”

The obvious point that RW was pointing out that even had the “low” turnout (actually what in the UK or US would be considered quite a high turnout, and only 6% less than the highest turnout seen in Taiwan) of this year’s election not been Tsai still would have lost. Talking about a “low” turnout is therefore immaterial. The same goes for the “suppression” argument.

“One of the major differences is the ability of the KMT to mobilize its voters. “

Forgive me if this sounds a little flip, but this sounds just a fancy way of saying that more people voted for them.

“The KMT does the same thing. The Deep Blues are told that they will be kicked off the island if Tsai wins, that China will start bombing immediately. Etc.”

You might have more of point if a deep-blue blogger who posted this kind of crazed paranoia, deleted descenting comments, and accused the posters of such comments of being “pro-Taiwan trolls” was commenting on this thread.

Some of us actually remember the kind of things that were said in 2008.

“The stumbling block to any credible peaceful scenario is the fact that the Taiwan public does not want it.”

Nor does the KMT want any peaceful unification without democratisation. Only people who basically believe that a conspiracy is going on to annex Taiwan to the PRC over the heads of the Taiwanese people – a conspiracy for which there is no evidence – say otherwise.

@RW -

“since I’m one of the few person talking here that actually have a vote on the matter”

Which is why I think you should set up a blog.

January 22, 2012 @ 11:41 pm | Comment

Hi Richard, #76 and #77 were faked.

January 23, 2012 @ 2:28 am | Comment

Everyone, please see the post above this one about identity theft.

January 23, 2012 @ 2:42 am | Comment

To win elections is an important goal for a political party. But to remain true to their goals is no less importants. The DPP has left a pretty positive impression on me during the past years, as far as cross-strait relations were concerned. What seems to be important to me is that they don’t become sectarian.

January 23, 2012 @ 2:44 am | Comment

One more thing, Richard – #77 is the fake, but the one you deleted were procedural suggestions, and added nothing to the discussion anyway.

January 23, 2012 @ 2:47 am | Comment

I am seeing a bunch of articles saying we are seeing “the end of Cheap China.” Here’s just one example: http://www.technomicasia.com/blog/2012/01/20/the-end-of-cheap-china. What do you-all have to say about this?

January 23, 2012 @ 4:22 am | Comment

@Francis – I’d say that a lot of people are rightly linking to an interesting article written by Dan Harris, which further examines a situation which he’s been telling us all about for a few years now – rising costs in China mean that the cheapest manufacturers are moving out.

January 23, 2012 @ 4:56 am | Comment

Gil –I’d say that was a good thing though…firstly Chinese workers are getting fairer wages, and secondly it has been predicted that strong productivity and relatively low wages would help the US move ahead of China as a base for making goods which will be sold in North America.

January 23, 2012 @ 6:55 am | Comment

BTW, Global voices has a good summary of the Hong-Kongers are dogs controversy, and the youtube video from the HK subway that kicked it off, here.

Apologies if this was already posted. As noted, the youtube video of the mainland professor was removed.

January 23, 2012 @ 7:22 am | Comment

The obvious point that RW was pointing out that even had the “low” turnout (actually what in the UK or US would be considered quite a high turnout, and only 6% less than the highest turnout seen in Taiwan) of this year’s election not been Tsai still would have lost. Talking about a “low” turnout is therefore immaterial. The same goes for the “suppression” argument.

I think we’re having a comprehension issue here. I was talking about the low turnout in the South. You two have seized upon that to run somewhere else.

Forgive me if this sounds a little flip, but this sounds just a fancy way of saying that more people voted for them.

I forgive you. The DPP’s local networks aren’t as good as the KMT’s, meaning that it can’t mobilize its core voters as well as the KMT can, contacts them less, doesn’t educate them as well, etc. It’s a perennial problem. A good example is the TSU taking 9% of the legislative party vote. My extended family, pan-Green people got together to organize their votes to ensure that the TSU got some. This total came largely from DPP voters. That should not have happened. The low turnout of the DPP base was another problem of this nature.

You might have more of point if a deep-blue blogger who posted this kind of crazed paranoia, deleted descenting comments, and accused the posters of such comments of being “pro-Taiwan trolls” was commenting on this thread.
Some of us actually remember the kind of things that were said in 2008.

Translation: “You’re perfectly right, and I can’t think of anything to say, so I’m just going to be stupid.”

Michael

January 23, 2012 @ 7:47 am | Comment

Want to hear something really funny? Shaun Rein is ranting about others using his “end of cheap China tag-line” and he complains about this here on twitter: https://twitter.com/#!/shaunrein/status/160862416064888833. He’s claiming this is being done to hack his own precious SEO. But he ignores that he himself took the “end of cheap China” line from others because it has been around since at least 2008, as can be seen in this video here called “End of Cheap China.” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZStE5MUfCc. I think he’s worried that other websites are going to use it so much it will push his little book out of the top ranks of Google, which seems already to be happening and will happen even more as others keep using the term online and as the other usages get the Google clicks. Poor little Shaun.

January 23, 2012 @ 3:03 pm | Comment

@MT –

“I was talking about the low turnout in the South. You two have seized upon that to run somewhere else.”

Sorry to re-state this (again) but even if she had got people in the south to vote as they had in previous election, she would still have lost.

“Translation: “You’re perfectly right, and I can’t think of anything to say, so I’m just going to be stupid.””

Accusing the people you are talking to of being stupid is sign #1 that you do not actually have anything to say. No-one on this thread has been uncritically relaying KMT paranoia directed against the DPP. The reverse, however, is not true.

Here’s piece you wrote back in May 2009:

“As the Taipei Times noted, reports had been circulating on the net for the last few days:

“Let’s wait and see — first it’s the police, next it will be the military,” an anonymous Internet user wrote on an online forum. “Once Chinese police and military can be legally present in Taiwan, it would be like telling the world we’ve been ‘liberated.’”

“Chinese police will soon be allowed to make arrests in Taiwan,” an Internet user with the screen name “cw” said. “Wuerkaixi, Professor Ruan Ming [阮銘], Tibetan dissidents and Taiwanese independence activists will be the first on the list.”

Both Wuerkaixi and Ruan are Chinese dissidents taking refuge in Taiwan.

Not just dissidents from China taking refuge here, but recall that independence supporters here are all labeled “terrorists” in China. Now recall the tale of Wang Bingzhang, the PRC dissident now doing life in China. He was kidnapped by Chinese secret agents in 2002 in Vietnam and dragged off to China. If the Chinese aren’t going to scruple at taking people from Vietnam… and they have precedent: the US rendition program, our illegal kidnap and torture program. Not merely a US national shame, it also creates a legal precedent for similar PRC activities. The US can hardly criticize the PRC if Tsai Ing-wen disappears in the night.”

The catalyst for this? A straight-forward speculation piece by the TT about police cross-postings which, even if carried out, could not conceivably have given mainland police powers of arrest.

Here’s something you wrote in March 2009:

“Anschluss will be in the air this summer. Some have speculated that KMT heavyweights are aiming for formal annexation to take place in 2011, the 100th anniversary of the founding of the ROC. Things are certainly proceeding fast enough…. and we’re certain to see another round of “warming relations between Taiwan and China” in the international media, when what are warming are CCP-KMT relations….”

An what prompted this? Meetings between ROC and PRC military officials on the side-lines of a conference.

Michael, I know your something of a biblical scholar, so why not make your lesson for today Luke 6:42, or Matthew 7:5?

January 23, 2012 @ 3:31 pm | Comment

Does everyone here agree that the election outcome reflects the choice of the Taiwanese people?

January 23, 2012 @ 4:27 pm | Comment

@JR – I believe so.

January 23, 2012 @ 4:52 pm | Comment

However we should be careful to interpret the meaning of this vote. Taiwanese people have not voted to have unification or authoritarianism forced upon them, nor even is this a vote for eventual peaceful unification – only an extremist would think otherwise. In fact, a simple comparison of polling on identity and the election results shows that many people who regard themselves as Taiwanese first and foremost voted for the KMT this time around.

What this vote does show is that the majority of Taiwanese voters trust the KMT to be, in the main, as good as their word vis-a-vis cross-strait relations not being allowed to go too far or too fast. In the abscence of evidence to the contrary, and the record of the last four years, I agree with them.

January 23, 2012 @ 5:02 pm | Comment

@Lisa – I think it is fair for Michael to feel a little bit miffed that it was suggested that he had no interest in the Taiwan issue when, in contrast to the vast majority of Taiwan expat commentators, he does actually have “skin in the game”. However, I also feel it not unfair to point out that many of the expat bloggers who are most fervent in their support for a forthright pro-independence approach to cross-strait issues have not and will never adopt Taiwanese citizenship or make a permanent life for themselves in Taiwan. Michael Turton is an exception to this, and there are others of whom Robin Winkler is probably the most prominent.

January 23, 2012 @ 6:06 pm | Comment

Richard, I am sorry to hear that your site has been hacked.

Have been in your shoes recently. Some bastards two weeks ago twice hacked my wife’s site (I wonder who might get annoyed by Chinese woman writing something positive about “laowai”?)

Anyway, here is the lesson I learned. There is no way to protect your site against DEDICATED hackers.
But you can do one thing. Back up your site and your database every day (!) and make sure that it will take you considerably less time to restore your blog (from scratch) than for bastards to hack it.

January 23, 2012 @ 7:37 pm | Comment

Lisa…I saw the video..the level of nationalistic extremism coming from China is starting to become a really big headache around the world.

I did not write this.

Michael Turton

January 23, 2012 @ 8:14 pm | Comment

Sorry to re-state this (again) but even if she had got people in the south to vote as they had in previous election, she would still have lost.

Moving the goalposts again. I never argued that she would have won if the South had come out to vote, but the low turnout in the south needs to be explained. It’s a factor in the particular outcome of Ma winning by 6%, not in Ma winning. I hope that is clear.

Why didn’t you just say “Sorry I misunderstood what you were saying.”

My belief was always that she had to pick up almost all the swing vote to win, and she would never be able to, hence she couldn’t win. I’ve said that countless times.

Michael

January 23, 2012 @ 8:21 pm | Comment

your post (and blog in general) reek of arrogance and bias, I hope you realize that

Michael….no need to be so confrontational. Remember Richard asked for a kinder, gentler thread.

Ok, Lisa

Michael

January 23, 2012 @ 8:22 pm | Comment

I think it is fair for Michael to feel a little bit miffed that it was suggested that he had no interest in the Taiwan issue when, in contrast to the vast majority of Taiwan expat commentators, he does actually have “skin in the game”.

Actually, it was you who started the personal comments, Gil. I shouldn’t have responded in kind. Very sorry for that, Lisa.

But thanks for the defense.

Michael

January 23, 2012 @ 8:37 pm | Comment

Not just dissidents from China taking refuge here, but recall that independence supporters here are all labeled “terrorists” in China. Now recall the tale of Wang Bingzhang, the PRC dissident now doing life in China. He was kidnapped by Chinese secret agents in 2002 in Vietnam and dragged off to China. If the Chinese aren’t going to scruple at taking people from Vietnam… and they have precedent: the US rendition program, our illegal kidnap and torture program. Not merely a US national shame, it also creates a legal precedent for similar PRC activities. The US can hardly criticize the PRC if Tsai Ing-wen disappears in the night.”

Gil, this isn’t paranoia about PRC kidnapping of dissidents in Taiwan. It’s a criticism of US policy and the way it has opened the door for similar lawlessness by other countries. Selective quoting and deliberate misconstrual are shameful and unconscionable; I note you left off the last paragraph where I point out the real problem:

And don’t forget, the Chinese will then have access to all the information that local police have access to, in the very least. That, I suspect, will be far more interesting and useful to PRC intelligence than Ruan Ming or Wuerkaixi. Or even Tsai Ing-wen.

That’s really ugly, Gil. Really.

Michael

January 23, 2012 @ 8:46 pm | Comment

@ Michael: I stand correct on your son

Your going on and on about the voting rate in the south (which ignors many other factors but I will not really get to that), let’s just for the record (Since your talking as if eveyrone else here actually knows of the stats.) actually list them out first.

Overall change in voting rate:

04: 80%
08: 76%
12: 74%

Changes in Southern Counties during those 3 years (listed by the order of 04/08/12), deciamls rounded, for Tainan and Kaoshung which had distrcit merger I’ll post seperatly for 04 and 08 stats and use the same number for 12

Yunlin : 76/70/69
JiaYi : 78/72/72
Tainan County: 81/74/74
Tainan City : 80/76/74
KaoShong County : 82/77/76
KaoShong City : 82/79/76
PinDong: 79/74/73.

Now please, point out where in this number does it suggest that the South had considerable lower turnout THIS time around? Tainan was basically the average, Kaoshong was even higher, PinDong and JiaYi were within 2 % of the average, the only really noticablly different county may be YunLin, but it had the lowest turnout in all 3 election anyway. I could point out to the obvious that what the counties driving down the average the most (TaiDong / HuaLiang / and the outer isles) are huge blue counties in general with the possible exception of PengHu which is still slightly Blue)

There were talk of passing through absentee voting, but both party had all sorts of varing worries on that, both side apparently scared the other side would pull some trick on them. even the most simple one for soliders and what not was not agreed upon. But as you can see from the above there’s plenty of reason why absentee ballot wouldn’t neccearaily help the DPP either. even if we don’t open it for expats liviing aboard.

January 23, 2012 @ 9:56 pm | Comment

these threads sure grow fast

January 23, 2012 @ 10:44 pm | Comment

@Michael – I think reading those passages as saying that in 2009 you thought that Tsai Ing-wen and pro-independence activists might get abducted by the PRC as a result of KMT policies is fair. Why else even talk about the precedent set by the US? Why talk about Tsai Ing-wen being abducted?

I agree with your condemnation of US policy in this regard, but not with what appears to have been a knee-jerk reaction to a non-story. I don’t think including the final passage which I cropped for ease of reading substantially changes this.

It also seems a fair interpretation of the second quoted piece that in 2009 you were uncritically relaying rumours that their might be a forcible unification in 2011 as a result of the activities of a shady group of un-named KMT heavy-weights. Since it’s now 2012 and such an anschluss never took place, I think we can safely say that such rumours should have been treated with greater circumspection.

Again, I am not saying that people on the other side of the aisle do not also engage in scaremongering, but KMT-scaremongering cannot justify pan-green scaremongering.

Myself, I had my fill of the conspiracy theories coming from both sides before and after the 2004 election. It astounds me when people continue to give credence to the Taiwanese political rumour-machine after more than a few years of exposure to it. I think such people must have short memories indeed.

I also have to say that I think this kind of talk poisons the debate and leads to the kind of polarisation that you see in the United States. It leads to the kind of dangerous atmosphere where a significant minority of the population is convinced that either the leader of the opposition or of the government is a traitor working against the interests of the whole. It undermines democracy, turning it into a mere census of how many people belong to which interest group.

January 24, 2012 @ 12:18 am | Comment

To JR #89:
Yes.

And as FOARP/Gil points out in #91, that means Taiwanese people want Ma to lead them. But that doesn’t mean Taiwanese people want reunification, even if Ma might personally lean that way. His platform was not based on reunification. And this election was about the choosing of a leader, not a referendum on reunification.

January 24, 2012 @ 3:38 am | Comment

To Augis #93:
the racial bigotry of a certain subset of CCP apologist is truly something fierce…and rather comical.

January 24, 2012 @ 4:03 am | Comment

Racial bigotry is right and natural. It is the deracinated individual that is the creature of indoctrination, a thing of Communism. Any man who would does not feel a visceral unease at his female kinfolk fraternizing with the other is not a man at all. (S)he is an emasculated eunuch that deserves all the scorn that can be summoned.

S.K. Cheung, why do you consider racial nationalists to be apologists for the CCP? Or are your argument merely an ad-hominem so you can lump all your political enemies as, horror of horrors, Nazis of one stripe or another

January 24, 2012 @ 9:38 am | Comment

I’m sorry to say this, but… ROFL at Jing’s comment above. I guess I’m a eunuch then because I have no concern at all whether whites are together with people of other colors, but then I considered myself communist in my teens. The visceral unease just didn’t kick in yet.

January 24, 2012 @ 10:10 am | Comment

Are you a Jew?

January 24, 2012 @ 10:19 am | Comment

Jing, how does “racial nationalism” fit in with a multi- ethnic state such as China?

January 24, 2012 @ 10:29 am | Comment

Jing, you’re being unusually vile today. I am leaving it there for everyone to see. And as a Jew, I’d like to tell you, with affection, to go to hell.

January 24, 2012 @ 10:33 am | Comment

Don’t worry, Jing. One day you’ll get laid.

January 24, 2012 @ 10:33 am | Comment

Waaaahahahahahahahahah!

Man, I don’t think I’ve ever read a comment written by someone more in need of a blowjob before in my life :-D

Jing, you’re priceless! Keep writing – something might find you worth a shag ;-)

January 24, 2012 @ 10:41 am | Comment

Chingis, simply put, it doesn’t. The existing Chinese state is a Bolshevik abomination. China should be a unitary state for one race, the Han race. Instead the worthless Communists propagate Lies for their imperial ambitions (I will argue against empire at another date). It denigrates Han patriots and praises inferior barbarian savages as heroes. What kind of Chinese state praises murderous aliens like Genghis Khan as a hero? A self-negating Communist one.

This isn’t even the worse of their crimes. The deliberate murder of beautiful Han children in the name of population control while allowing so-called “minorities” to propagate to their heart’s content is outright genocide. While the race-traitors of the West are content to innundate their urheimat with unwashed third world hordes, the CCP has chosen to one up them by deliberately murdering their own race. The ostensibly “Chinese” Communist Party has legally declared than a Chinese life is worth less than that of a barbarian.

January 24, 2012 @ 10:52 am | Comment

@ Richard. Did you take down a particularly vile comment some hours ago?

I think Jing is a bit out of step with general attitudes in China. Folk there don’t get particularly exercised by same sex attractions, possibly because they have little understanding how sexuality operates over the 100%, and probably because they have more important things to contend with.

Anti-gay rants usually point to repressed sexual indentity issues.
I will hazard an online diagnosis: self hatred/extreme denial due to those moments of past same sex weakness.

Possibly late stage syphilis.

January 24, 2012 @ 11:52 am | Comment

KT, no, I did not take down any of Jing’s comments.

January 24, 2012 @ 11:58 am | Comment

#111 Yes, terminal syphilis beyond penicillin. I will stake my professional reputation on it.

January 24, 2012 @ 11:59 am | Comment

No, it wasn’t a Jing comment if I recall, but it was all about enviscerating womem and it was up approx 10 or 11 hours ago. Lots of bold print and truly psychotic.

Pretty sure it was posted in Michael Turtons name, but it certainly wasn’t him.

I just about fell off the chair.

January 24, 2012 @ 12:08 pm | Comment

KT, that was Wayne aka Mongol Warrior usurping Michael Turton’s identity. That problem has been fixed. Now, if only Wayne could be fixed it would be a gift to humanity.

January 24, 2012 @ 12:10 pm | Comment

A day to late but Happy Chinese New Year!!!

January 24, 2012 @ 12:42 pm | Comment

To Jing,
sadly, I’ve come across a lot of morons in my time. But you are something else. Where to begin…

It is true that racial bigots and CCP apologists are not necessarily one and the same. However, in my travels, racial bigots have tended to be CCP apologists, although it is also true that not all CCP apologists are racial bigots. It does seem, though, that my pragmatism is premature when applied to your case. You do seem to come across as a racial bigot who is not a CCP apologist. I stand corrected, and will modify my presumptions accordingly.

I can’t say if racial bigotry is natural or not. It would require sociological twin studies where one subject is immersed in a uniform racial environment, whereas the other is exposed to interracial interactions. That would be the only way to know if racial bigotry, should it develop, is the result of nature or nurture. On a practical level, I don’t see how such a study could be conducted, especially in our era.

I can say that racial bigotry is wrong. As MLK said, people should be judged not by the colour of their skin, but by the content of their character. To me, the principle extends to race. For instance, I definitely wouldn’t want my children to associate with a flaming idiot like you, and that has nothing to do with your race, or skin colour.

I will say, however, that racial bigots like you also have a weird misogynistic streak. You seem to share that with the infamous Wayne. You should know (and if your parents did their job, then they should have taught you and you should have learned) that women are not chattel or “man’s” possessions. They are free to choose their mate as they please. If a woman of your race marries outside of it, that is neither your concern, nor your problem. That you would take personal umbrage to such an event speaks clearly of your mental imbalance, though I would hesitate to speculate as precisely as KT has as to its underlying cause (though I will say that catching an STD requires having sex, and if you come across IRL in any way like you do online, it would take one incredibly desperate woman to succumb to your “charms”).

I disapprove of invoking Nazis, because it diminishes their evil when there has never been a parallel. However, your eugenics philosophy would not be out of step with their general insanity. I am happy to recognize that even the most fervent of CCP apologist don’t typically espouse the type of drivel you spew on a regular basis. So you do deserve a category unto yourself. Whereas “CCP apologist” seems to be a fairly well-populated cohort, I truly hope yours is a rather lonely one.

January 24, 2012 @ 2:33 pm | Comment

Okay, the only one that is not me is #87. Our Dear Friend is hacking again. How silly.

What cracks me up is that Jing’s comments are NOT hacked. Wowzer.

January 24, 2012 @ 2:41 pm | Comment

Lisa, there is a very easy fix I implemented to stop MW. He can only do this once per commenter, then I can stop him. And yes, that really is Jing saying that stuff.

January 24, 2012 @ 11:48 pm | Comment

Oh, and what @SK said. I can’t tell you how many of these “nationalist” arguments seem to be at their core, “They’re f***ing our wimmins!” Newsflash: they don’t belong to you.

January 25, 2012 @ 3:12 am | Comment

Sometimes, I think that “trolls” are just little furry creatures.
They just shouldn’t be exposed to bright light, get wet and fed after midnight – otherwise they turn into “hackers”.

January 25, 2012 @ 4:51 am | Comment

S.K. Cheung the fundamental flaw of you and your kind is that your knowledge is incomplete. All that you think you know is merely received wisdom dictated by those with the will to power. Most people are simply not capable using their minds to piece together relevant facts together into a logical whole, either from simple lack of intelligence or intellectual chasms that they are incapable of bridging by themselves.

It is natural to be biased towards your co-ethnics. You do not need double blind twin studies to prove it, though a study has been done which showed that even infants will react more positively to their co ethnics than to obvious racial aliens in the form of playing with and sharing of toys. That you think such experiments cannot be conducted at all in this era shows that even you the overwhelming thought prison that individuals are ensconced in.

You argument that bigotry and discrimination are wrong flies in the face of what it means to be human and the evolution of our thinking. To discriminate is to make a deliberate choice of what is advantageous to us as individuals based on a limited array of information. It is a choice we make hundreds or thousands of times a day both consciously and subconsciously. The beauty of human thinking and what separates us from machines is that we are able to think heuristically and make quick decisions that are much more likely to be the correct than not.

You argue that individuals should be judged by the content of their character, yet no one is capable of making a tabula rasa assessment of everyone they meet nor do they have the time and inclination to do so. Instead they draw upon existing knowledge and biases and decide rather quickly with person A is friendly or person B is trustworthy.

Your regurgitation of King is another risible condemnation of what is wrong with Leftist thinking. The character of a great many individual blacks are unfortunately sadly lacking. King himself was a plagiarist, a Communist agent provocateur, a whore monger (with a taste for white women) that has been beatified as the patron saint of White Guilt by Jewish power. I say that rather than judge a man merely by his character, to judge him by his legacy. What King has left America is a state that is openly hostile to its original inhabitants and is actively engaged in its destitution. Commit a violent and savage crime; you’re excused because you are black. A poor student of mediocre ability, ; here is a college admission with a taxpayer back scholarship because you are black. An incompetent worker and shiftless worker; can’t fire you because you are black. The new King memorial in D.C. should be emblazoned with the words “Martin Luther, King of Kings. Behold my works ye whitey and despair!”

As to my alleged misogyny, you could not be more wrong. I love and respect women, but I also realize that they are different than men. That their responsibilities in life differ from that of men. That ultimately their reasoning and rationality is lesser than that of men. The role of a woman is to raise a family that will succeed in passing down the biological and cultural legacies of her ancestors. This has been the evolutionary imperative since the dawn of human history. To do otherwise is to fail at womanhood.

The problem today is all of the feminist garbage peddled by shrill barren Jewesses that demands to be the equals of men while declining the duties of men and maintaining the privileges of women. This has created a breed of entitled harridans that demand “tolerance” and “acceptance” of their dysfunctions, to them I give no quarter. It is this feminine irrationality that has so poisoned the discourse of our time. Cheung and no fewer than two other erstwhile men have chosen to attack me not through my arguments but through the petty slanders of womenfolk. I have no interest in mating with you, yet you have an inordinate obsession with my relationships. I was right to judge you all eunuchs because your words are not those of real men, but a gaggle of clucking castrati that liberalism creates.

January 25, 2012 @ 5:59 am | Comment

The problem with you, Jing, is perhaps that you were raised (and poorly at that) in a different era, but rather than evolve with the times, you have chosen to remain on the outdated side of the generational divide. That, of course, is your prerogative, just as it is mine to point it out to you in no uncertain terms. And do that I most definitely will. The “facts” you have supposedly cobbled together are actually not facts, but merely prejudices that you are too ignorant, possibly inherently, to recognize. And again, consider it my Good Samaritan deed for the day to outline those for you as well. To begin, you should realize that it is 2012, and not 1952, which appears to be about where your “thinking” has remained frozen in time. You might make for an interesting sociological specimen (heck, perhaps even anthropological). But one shouldn’t conflate your verbiage with intelligence; I certainly don’t.

For starters, you have your scientific evidence all wrong. Studies in fact have shown that babies will play and interact with babies of ANY colour, be they similar or different to their own. Racial bigotry is far more likely to be taught (or learned) (though to be fair I can’t say which is more likely; perhaps you can enlighten us since you appear experienced in the area) than to be innate. Affinity towards “co-ethnics”, as you call it, is a product of socialization. This is perhaps where your parents began to fail you, though it seems not to have ended there.

I agree that humans make choices, conscious or otherwise. And yes, sometimes choices are made in the absence of complete information. But that is not the point. You seem to make choices based solely on race, and on your discrimination against any and all races beside your own. That has nothing to do with evolution, or human thinking (which you may or may not be capable of). That is morally wrong, pure and simple. Clearly, we don’t share the same set of morals, which is just as well, because your set is abhorrent to me. To each his own.

People absolutely should be judged by the content of their character. If I choose to associate with someone, it is because their character is appealing, or at the very least acceptable, to me. I don’t choose based on their skin colour or race. I guess you do. On the other hand, if it’s just some guy walking down the street, you are correct that I would not have the time or inclination to judge his character. But such judgement is also quite unnecessary. Whether he is friendly or not, and trustworthy or not, is of no consequence to me. So once again, your point is irrelevant.

Your rant against MLK is pointless. You say you shouldn’t judge a guy by his character, but you suggest that he be judged by his legacy?!? How the hell do you do that a priori? How would you determine if someone is friendly, or trustworthy, on the basis of his “legacy”? Your argument is non-sensical. You seem to have a problem with affirmative action. Unfortunately, you appear to have allowed your anger to cloud your reasoning, which was of mediocre grade to begin with. But you have made quite clear again the depth of your racist attitudes, which really required no further affirmation.

Your little bit about women merely confirms your misogyny, and the fact that you are a product of the 1950s whose psyche hasn’t evolved since. You “love and respect women”, IFF they are barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen, I suspect. It is laughable that someone like you still walks the earth in 2012, and does put a small dent in Darwin’s theories. Suffice it to say that I sympathize with the women you supposedly love and respect. They deserve better. That you consider women to be little more than a walking uterus is quite emblematic of your overall views of your fellow man (ie archaic, detached, and deeply disrespectful).

Of this you can be sure. I can’t imagine anyone would desire your “tolerance” or “acceptance”, such as it were. You need to escape your closeted existence, and undergo some accelerated evolution to prevent more of the present from passing you by. Of course, to do so is entirely your prerogative, since the status quo for you actually serves as good entertainment and fodder for those around you.

January 25, 2012 @ 9:09 am | Comment

Jing:

Nice essay. I’m sure you will take it as a serious intellectual failing that all I have to say to it is “fuck off and get cancer.”

January 25, 2012 @ 9:13 am | Comment

To Mac,
I don’t think that’s necessary. Jing is clearly a knuckle-dragging Neanderthal, but his could serve as a good family cohort for longitudinal sociological evaluation. The key subjects will be his kids. They are clearly burdened with questionable genetic material, not to mention highly objectionable parental resources. But they will also be socialized in our enlightened times. It will be informative to see how the kids turn out in adulthood. If they have the misfortune of turning out like jing, that would reflect upon the influence of nature. But if they actually end up as well adjusted and non bigoted individuals, then that’s a shot for nurture. Should be a fun observational cases study.

January 25, 2012 @ 9:59 am | Comment

MAC, please don’t talk like that. It only makes this site look bad. But I know what you mean.

January 25, 2012 @ 10:05 am | Comment

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2009/09/04/see-baby-discriminate.html

Children readily discriminate and it comes naturally. Even a stilted social experiment organized by Marxists comes to this conclusion though naturally they advocate more propaganda and diversity programming for recalcitrant 5 year old counter-revolutionaries.

My “rant” against MLK was simple unvarnished truth. Nothing I said about him is unknown though the efforts to sanctify him have lead to much of it being suppressed.

You speak grandly of morals, I speak of survival, though I doubt in practice we are much different. There is a vast difference between declared preference and revealed preference. I suspect you will be singing an entirely different tune if you ever had the misfortune of living in a majority black neighborhood or had your children attend a public school with the same demographics. Diversity and equality is for the plebes; the little people that cannot afford the outrageously high home prices that keep the undesirables away.

January 25, 2012 @ 10:47 am | Comment

Huh, Jing, I’d match my IQ against yours any time. And my accomplishments.

And I live in a multicultural neighborhood, and I treasure that.

January 25, 2012 @ 12:09 pm | Comment

And newsflash, buddy: you don’t really “treasure” women if you refuse to grant them equal status and personhood to you. You condescend to them. At best.

January 25, 2012 @ 12:12 pm | Comment

I speak of survival

That is the comment of someone speaking through their arse.

January 25, 2012 @ 12:16 pm | Comment

To Jing:

http://library.adoption.com/articles/young-children-and-racism.html

“Children are not color blind; they recognize differences. Children develop racial attitudes based on their observations of their parents and society in general.”

What comes naturally is that children even as young as 6 months of age recognize visual differences. However, the tendency to affix judgements to those differences comes later, depending on what the parents have or haven’t done in guiding them. So children readily distinguish, and that does in fact come naturally. But “discriminate”? That comes later, and you can hang that on the parents.

And what’s with the Marxist-this, and counter-revolutionary-that? You need to lighten up on whatever it is you’re smoking.

I always chuckle when someone claims to have the “simple unvarnished truth”. So thanks for that. And your truth is actually mostly bullshit. It’s ironic that most ardent CCP apologist types are frequently pointing to the disparity of blacks in the US prison population, so you need to compare notes with them to reconcile your misguided impression that “Commit a violent and savage crime; you’re excused because you are black”. Affirmative action means in part that black people might benefit in the hiring process; but it certainly doesn’t preclude termination for cause, as you would erroneously suggest by saying “can’t fire you because you are black.” There is preferential treatment in college admissions. They are arguably given an easier path through the door. But to make it out the other side with a degree, they still need to make the grade, regardless of colour.

And it never ceases to amuse me when you guys try to suggest that such and such is “suppressed”, but you just so happen to know about it. Amazing. You must be tapped into the high and mighty to have access to such exclusive and previously undisclosed information, and it’s so good of you to share it with us. Either that, or you can add delusions to your list of ailments.

“survival”? Please. Spare me the histrionics and the emotive violin concerto. You don’t need to be a racist bigot to survive. To suggest that a non-black person living in a predominantly black neighbourhood would improve his chances of survival by hating on black people for no other reason than their skin colour represents fatal stupidity. Are black people necessarily saints? Of course not. But neither are they necessarily evil. And that’s the whole point. 6-month olds can make visual distinctions based on colour differences alone. Adults should be able to make judgements about people based on something more substantial. You should not be proud of that fact that, in this arena, you are still functioning at the level of someone who crawls around in short pants.

January 25, 2012 @ 2:47 pm | Comment

Jing. This eugenics stuff you are ranting about just doesn’t fly these days, and if it did, individuals with siphillic disorders are usually the first to be shipped off to camps.

January 25, 2012 @ 8:46 pm | Comment

Neither individuals nor collectives are “great” because they think they are – and as a rule, people who are unable take a critical look at themselves once in a while without breaking into tears are actually very small people. One of their characteristics is that they feel continuously challenged (especially by people who outperform them), and get chronically frustrated.

January 26, 2012 @ 12:38 am | Comment

The existing Chinese state is a Bolshevik abomination. China should be a unitary state for one race, the Han race…. I will argue against empire at another date.

LOL, take this to its logical conclusion and you will have to dismantle the ex-Qing empire, current PRC. China will be a lot smaller. I must say it’s not a line of thought that one associates with Han nationalists.

You’d better watch out, the fenqing will call you a race traitor and leave smelly stuff on your doorstep.

January 26, 2012 @ 5:20 am | Comment

Comment 122

WAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAH!

OK, just going to read it again…..

WAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA!

Oh dear, howls of derisive laughter in Aotearoa! I love it when people write stuff that makes them look so stupid, all the while thinking they’re coming across as intellectually superior.

Jing, stick with small sentences – that’ll stop your brain from aching ;-)

January 26, 2012 @ 5:31 am | Comment

“Most people are simply not capable using their minds to piece together relevant facts together into a logical whole, either from simple lack of intelligence or intellectual chasms that they are incapable of bridging by themselves.”

And then you go on to prove it :-D

Oh Jing, you’re too funny! If this is comedy, you’re wasted here! You need a larger audience!

January 26, 2012 @ 5:36 am | Comment

I actually think Jing’s engaging in performance art. Well done!

January 26, 2012 @ 5:49 am | Comment

@Other Lisa -

“newsflash, buddy: you don’t really “treasure” women if you refuse to grant them equal status and personhood to you.”

Why would anyone want to punish women by lowering them to Jing’s status and personhood?

January 26, 2012 @ 5:51 am | Comment

Also, now that Jing (like most of his intellectual forebears) has raised the topic of Jews I’d like to ask a question:

If such a tiny minority never managed to establish an empire or do any of the other things the “great” nations did, yet nonetheless are thought to have such power that they threaten other races who they supposedly manipulate behind the scenes, then aren’t they by definition the most superior race in the world? If so, then as a rational racist aren’t you interested in obtaining some of their genetic potential for your children?

Of course this is hypothetical because there may not be any Jewish women in the world desperate enough to consider having a child with someone of Jing’s ilk. I’m still curious however, Jing: if Darwinian survival is your goal and the only criterion that matters, wouldn’t it be a benefit to your children (if you have any) to have a touch of the “Jew brush”?

January 26, 2012 @ 5:56 am | Comment

@Gil, well, there’s that.

January 26, 2012 @ 7:41 am | Comment

Unrelated question:

Why don’t more dissidents who find it necessary to flee China go to Taiwan? Not having to worry about the language barrier is a big plus. More to the point, I worry that dissidents who move to the West will lose their street cred back in China, since they can be portrayed as traitors who have fallen in with foreign power brokers. Living in Taiwan, it would be harder to spread that story about them. I was thinking about this seeing the news about Yu Jie’s press conference in Washington. I can see where Taiwan might think it’s a little too dangerous to house an active dissident organization, like the China Democracy Party, but surely they would give asylum to someone like Yu Jie.

I’m curious: does a Mainland Chinese person who resides in Taiwan automatically get the right to vote in ROC elections? I would think that, legally, Taipei would have to treat them as ROC citizens.

By the way, Taiwan in the 50s and 60s has an interesting and little-told history as a “third pole” in the Tibet-China conflict. They put some effort into making themselves a continuing player in the region, although in the end their efforts added up to a footnote: basically Chiang Kai-shek was patron to a handful of losers in Tibetan exile politics. The 10th Panchen Lama (or rather, his coterie, since he was a child at the time) had been an ROC ally before the revolution and seriously considered fleeing to Taiwan in 1949; if that had happened, the KMT’s position in Tibet might have been a little stronger. The Panchen Lama no doubt came to regret this decision as well, since he was imprisoned for years by the PRC and most of his associates were killed.

January 26, 2012 @ 8:58 am | Comment

Otto, part of fleeing involves getting asylum or refuge. Could be that Taiwan is more concerned with $ through trade and not needling some neighbour of theirs too much. I dare say the US wouldn’t want too much controversy in that area either – easier to accept Chinese dissidents in the US mainland than risk a war of words that could escalate in the Taiwan Straits.

January 26, 2012 @ 9:29 am | Comment

Since Jews and Taiwan have been thrown into the pot, shall I mix in a bit of Tibet?
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/NA26Ad04.html

January 26, 2012 @ 9:34 am | Comment

LOL. Must be easy being a CCP government spokesperson. When in doubt, blame it on “separatist propaganda”. And, oh yeah, the government in exile made these monks set themselves alight. It must be liberating in some ways when one can speak without the constraints of logic and common sense, such as with these CCP talking heads.

January 26, 2012 @ 10:24 am | Comment

I heard a rumour that the CCP has camcorder footage of the Dalai Lama personally spraying down an immolator, who is being restrained on one side by an aristocrat and on the other by a British imperialist, with lighter fluid. However, they are refusing to release the footage in order to avoid damaging the reputation of China’s first Nobel Peace Prize winner and hurting the sensitive feelings of the patriotic Tibetan monks.

January 26, 2012 @ 4:14 pm | Comment

Off topic (to the extent there Is a topic) but http://www.nbr.org/publications/element.aspx?id=571

January 27, 2012 @ 6:06 am | Comment

Its a nation state zero-sum game, and any other spin on international relations is a lot of hippie utopianism. After a year or so of Beijing blow-hardism on the international stage, they will cut a very low profile this year. All sorts of economic and social rodents nibbling away at the acreage bank home in Sino-land.

January 27, 2012 @ 7:57 am | Comment

I am sending this thread to Thread Heaven.

January 28, 2012 @ 6:22 am | Comment

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.