I’m curious why you “hate” the policy. It seems to be effective in its goals, and the goals will arguably end up beneficial for the well being of the earth.

It’s questionable whether an aging population is going to be better for China than a large population would have been, but of course “it’s too early to tell.”

January 7, 2008 @ 7:56 pm | Comment

Wesley, I hate what the policy has led to – infanticide. and serious gender imbalance. I hate the policy but think it’s probably the best solution. I look at it as I look at legalized abortion, which I am in favor of. I still hate abortions, but there are times when an abortion is a necessary solution.

January 7, 2008 @ 8:17 pm | Comment

Why the media should make a fuss over triviality like this? Nothing new at all. The CPC is no party in your westerner’s sense anyway, it is not even a privilege group you may think it is, or as most of the members hope it would be–the fact is most CPC members are no more than ordinary labourers toiling in a sweatshop producing cheap goods for you people. No one in this party is indispensable, every one is but cog, you guys should have known better about communist ideologue.

January 7, 2008 @ 9:57 pm | Comment

I once had a chance to join the great CPC, which I declined. Not that I was an idealist, capitalist, nonconformist or anything, only because I could see no point in paying all the extra money(the rate varies according to your income) for nothing(I would reconsider it if I work in government, or a state-owned enterprise).

January 7, 2008 @ 10:15 pm | Comment

One Flew, I actually agree with you about the average party member – ordinary people, many if not most doing what they can to make their country better.

January 7, 2008 @ 10:31 pm | Comment

The One Child policy in China has never applied to all citizens equally.

Ethnic minorities can have more than one child in the name of preserving their identity despite the majority of them look, sound and live exactly like the Han Chinese, with nothing special in their ethnic identity.

Rich and powerful can have more than one child by 1) giving birth abroad, 2) simply paying the penalties which mean nothing to them.

It’s inhumane (forced abortion), unfair (not applied equally), and disastrous in many ways (gender imbalance, pension, corruption from the policy enforcement). It’s one of the biggest crimes the CCP has committed to China and its people.

January 8, 2008 @ 1:10 am | Comment

No one in this party is indispensable, every one is but cog, you guys should have known better about communist ideologue.Posted by: One Flew Over Beijing Bird’s Nest at January 7, 2008 09:57 PM

I’d just finished watching Michael Moore’s “SICKO,” and wrote down some of the memorable dialogs in the movie. Democracy revolutionalized the Aristocratic continental west by giving the power to the people. America, I’m sad to say, don’t understand by way of experience of this privilege like they do in:

Canada:
An American single mom: I am an American who’s going to marry a Canadian for healthcare benefit.
The Canadian husband to be: I’ve been used.

England:

Michael Moore: How much for 30 pills , 60 pills or 120 pills, How about HIV drugs?
Pharmacist: 6pounds 65p regardless.(US$10)…unless you’re under 16 and over 60, then it’s all free.
Michael Moore to GP: …so, working for the government, you probably have to use public transportation?
British GP/Doctor: No, I have a car that I use…
Michael Moore: An old beater?
[Camera cuts to a frontal close take of the Doctor’s HOT AUDI parking]
Michael Moore: So, you live in the bad side of town?
British Doctor: I live in a three story Million dollar house.
Michael Moore: Can this be done in America?
British Doctor: Not if you want a 4 million dollar house and 4 cars and 7 TVs etc….
Michael Moore: Ah, here it says “Cashier.” So this must be where they pay there hospital bills.
Cashier: Nope, this is where we reimburse patients for transportation…

France: Je t’aime …

Michael Moore: What are your other big expenses?
French Housewife: Er, ze fish…

Je t’aime moi non plus
Michael Moore: After seeing all this, I began to wonder. Was there a reason our government and media wants us to hate the French?
Je t’aime …Are they worried that we might like the French?
The government is afraid of the people….

CUBA:

Michael Moore: OK, Ok. I know what you’re thinking. Cuba is where Lucifer lives. The worse place on earth. The most evil nation ever created. How do we know that? Cause that’s what we’ve been told for over 45 years.
Cuban: There is a pharmacy on every block and a hospital nearby.
Michael Moore: The problem was that Castro overthrew the dictator we liked and replaced it with one we didn’t like…himself. And so now, after all these years, one thing has become very clear. The Cuban people have free universal healthcare. They’ve became known around the world as having not only one of the best healthcare systems, but as being one of the most generous countries in providing doctors and medical equipment to Third World countries.

Michael Moore: In the mean time, I’m going to get the government to do my laundry.

United States of America: HMO
Public service drown in Capitalism

– I think there are two ways in which people are controlled – first of all frighten people and secondly demoralize them with debts, keep them hopeless and pessimistic

-If you can find money to kill people, you can find money to help people. Tony Benn

The Rothschild empire owns half the world’s wealth (500 Trillion dollars) which could feed and cloth every human being on earth.

-An educated, healthy and confident nation is harder to govern.Tony Benn (65% of Americans can’t find England on the map) There is just so much that is wrong about today’s America.

January 8, 2008 @ 4:40 am | Comment

Meh, let’s be honest. No high-rankers would have been involved. I wouldn’t be surprised if medium-ranking members were ignored. These will be ordinary members made an example of.

Nothing will change until there’s rule of law in China that applies to everyone. If mid and topped ranked officials can get away with this sort of thing, people will just aspire to those positions and hope they get into a safe position before they’re caught.

January 8, 2008 @ 5:55 am | Comment

I look at the one child policy in the same way I look at wire-tapping in the states. Sure, wiretipping likely WILL prevent terrorist attacks. Just like the one child policy HAS prevented a lot of population problems. But, so what? They are both horribly wrong policies that go against human rights. And human rights trump EVERYTHING. The ends do not justify the means, and I say kudos to anybody who breaks this law that shouldn’t exist in the first place.

January 8, 2008 @ 10:05 am | Comment

Wait, I should clarify. It’s not fair for people who are too poor to afford the fines, and hence most people who DO break the law are wealthy enough that it doesn’t affect them. So it is unfair in how it is applied as well. I just meant to emphasize that the law shouldn’t be there in the first place, and there are much better ways to control the population than this.

January 8, 2008 @ 10:08 am | Comment

Mao’s policy was based on the assumption of an impending third word war–even if half of China’s poplution would be wiped in the first round of nuclear attack, China would still outnumber it’s enemy, namely the United States, and later USSR . The Korean War was basicly a prime example: a race btw China’s man power and US’s fire power. As we all know, the WWIII failed to come, and China’s priority turned to economic prosperity, and a large labour population still plays a role for China’s economic achievement, but a less important and increasingly so, and there is limit to this advantage too.
One child’s policy is a hard choice, but it is a sound one in the sense that it prevented millions of new population coming to a already overcrowded coountry to suffer. It maybe is not just or humane, but remember, choose the lesser btw two evils.

January 8, 2008 @ 10:38 am | Comment

Chip, with all respect, the analogy of one-child to wiretapping is bogus. No illegal wiretap has ever stopped terrorism, not once, not ever. If there really is a need to wiretap, it is very easy to get a warrant to do so, even after the fact if there is a “ticking time-bomb” scenario (which is horseshit, but we can pretend it’s a serious argument).

One-child has measurably slowed down China’s population growth rate. I repeat, illegal wiretapping has never, ever, ever achieved any benefits, at least none that we know about. What we DO know, however, is that once you give this right to the NSA they overreach their boundaries and abuse it, wiretapping totally innocent Americans in direct defiance of the US constitution and our rights to privacy.

January 8, 2008 @ 10:53 am | Comment

Richard, to your “wiretapping totally innocent Americans in direct defiance of the US constitution and our rights to privacy”
How can you be sure who is innocent and who is not in an age of turbulence? We just try to make sure you are by wiretapping you;-)

January 8, 2008 @ 11:11 am | Comment

How can you be sure who is innocent and who is not in an age of turbulence?

Well then, let’s assume everyone is a terrorist and take away all their rights to privacy. After all, if they’re innocent they’ll have nothing to hide, right? Fuck the Constitution. We’re living in “turbulent times” when we need tough guys like Giuliani to batter the population and keep everyone in line, traditional American values be damned.

Since, according to your logic, we don’t know who is innocent or not, what about the wiretappers and those giving them their orders? Whose to say if their motives are devious? This is why we always need checks and balances and search warrants and other safeguards to protect those who are truly innocent.

January 8, 2008 @ 11:25 am | Comment

Richard,

I hope I’m not being misunderstood, I was just addressing the arguement used by those who support wire-tapping. Even if it were to actually prevent terrorist attacks (the arguement for it), it’s still illegal and wrong. And you’re right, it hasn’t prevented any terrorist activity.

The main point of what I was saying is that we cannot use the ends to justify the means. Even if China was able to succesfully implement the one child policy throughout (it’s pretty flakey in it’s results so far) and guaranteed a population of only 700-800 million people, it would still be wrong. I mean, the event at tian an door square provided “stability”, right?:P

January 8, 2008 @ 2:09 pm | Comment

Thanks for the clarification, Chip. I am admittedly ambivalent on the one-child policy. Based on my own conversations with many Chinese people over the years I would have to say it has been a net plus, as painful as that admission may be.

The argument of those in favor of illegal wiretaps is totally bogus. The argument in favor of the one-child policy is more credible. Even if the results have been imperfect, there is no question many, many millions of families in China’s cities now have only one child, while before the policy they would have had more. So I don’t see it as a fair comparison.

January 8, 2008 @ 3:04 pm | Comment

Chip,

Glad that seems you have a very high ethical awareness –“ends can not justify means” (Kant would be happy if he knew he is so popular today)

Let’s discuss the problem-solving instead of principles that have never been applied with any meaningful success through history: what is your”much better ways to control the population than this”?

January 8, 2008 @ 4:23 pm | Comment

Chip,

Glad that seems you have a very high ethical awareness –“ends can not justify means” (Kant would be happy if he knew he is so popular today;-) but for me, if there is a chance to go back in time to kill Mao, I would do that to prevent the misery he would cause, even though I know you would disagree because “ends can not justify means”)

Let’s discuss the problem-solving instead of principles that have never been applied with any meaningful success through history: what is your”much better ways to control the population than this”?

January 8, 2008 @ 4:28 pm | Comment

My co-blogger Ned Kelly has just posted an article in reply to this post by Richard of TPD. Here is the link

January 8, 2008 @ 10:35 pm | Comment

P.S. Here is the link to Ned Kelly’s article “An American Blogger�s ‘Final Solution’ to China�s Overpopulation”

http://tinyurl.com/yqm8b

January 8, 2008 @ 10:37 pm | Comment

To be honest, I kind of have to agree with that criticism. It is far too easy to claim to “understand” China’s “unique situation” and claim that the one-child policy is a necessary evil. However, that is considering the issue from a macro-perspective. When you get down to a micro-perspective, and someone you know is forced to have a late-term abortion against their will, one would be much more hard pressed to consider it a necessary evil.
Cultural relativism and China’s “unique-ness” should never be used to mask human rights abuses, and there is no reason for the people of China to be deprived of the rights that other people around the world enjoy, just because the dumbasses in the Party once encouraged people to have like 10 children.
Ah…. if only the one-child policy could have prevented the births of Mao, Deng, Jiang, and Hu…

January 9, 2008 @ 5:51 am | Comment

Furthermore, if they want to continue this policy, they should take a benefits-based approach rather than a punitive approach.
For example, rather than practicing forced abortion, they could reward those who have only one child with financial benefits, etc.
Of course, such simple and sensible reasoning is beyond the reach of the tyrants that run the country, which is a shame.

January 9, 2008 @ 5:54 am | Comment

Mao’s policy was based on the assumption of an impending third word war–even if half of China’s poplution would be wiped in the first round of nuclear attack, China would still outnumber it’s enemy, namely the United States, and later USSR. One flew

@One Flew….
In other words it was a gross miscalculation, and not his only. What’s the saying? “When the sun starts to shine, People will take off their jackets without need of anyone forcing….” Many countries in the world are experiencing negative population growth. China is decades behind modern thinking, but it’s catching up.

Fuck the Constitution. We’re living in “turbulent times” when we need tough guys like Giuliani to batter the population and keep everyone in line, traditional American values be damned. Richard
@Richard,
Indeed, The Constitution and Bill of Right is what made America great but unfortunately the American people have been betrayed and lied to and are not doing enough to right things. For example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ueEfRXZCVA&feature=related

Instead of rooting for the Champion of Constitution/Bill of Rights guy, America is forced to choice between the better of the bastard sons and daughter of the Devils. This is America’s greatest tragedy!

January 9, 2008 @ 8:37 am | Comment

@Rumorhasit

I would not say it was a “gross miscalculation” given in 1950s the threat of a nuclear war was much realer than it is now. Also, you should never forget the communist ideologue, which is almost everything opposite what you stands for, namely, humanitarianism, idivudualism, etc. Idividual is nothing in that context, at least nothing that matters. I guess your argument does not make much sense to Mao, just like his to you.

What makes Mao looks stupid today is that China has undergone too dramatic change, so is the rest of the world. China is now a country Mao would be mad to see, though the ruling party shares the same name with the one under his reign.

January 9, 2008 @ 10:33 am | Comment

I haven’t commented on TPD before. I find this blog a good read for anyone seeking a variety of viewpoints, but, sadly, I too often disagree with either Richard, or his commentators. Including some of the points raised here about the One Child Policy.

That said, I take a strong exception to the post referred to by Catherine, above. Not because it disagrees with Richard, but because it is a chemically pure, offensive crap. A case of an apparently intelligent man, raving about what he thinks Rich wrote, not what he actually did!

But do not take my word for this – go find out for yourselves. All I can add is, that I wish people learnt to see what is, not what they expect, or wish to see.

And to Richard, thanks for the good efforts, any disagreements notwithstanding. Wish you well.

January 9, 2008 @ 10:47 am | Comment

Another thing, I do not think the moralist tone in some arguments here, which I believe is either too naive or specious. Seeking moral certitude in policy making is nothing less than suicidal, as every politician knows.

Ends can not justify means? Sounds good, but the reality gives perfect proof that the opposite is always the case, contrary to many’s childish wishful thinking: All’s Well That Ends Well. Suppose Bush believed in the Kant’s fallacy, there would be no Iraq War, because “ends can not justify means” Neither would there be the neclear catastrophe of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

January 9, 2008 @ 10:53 am | Comment

Bing

“Ethnic minorities can have more than one child in the name of preserving their identity despite the majority of them look, sound and live exactly like the Han Chinese, with nothing special in their ethnic identity”

To give some measure of favour to the ethinic minority is what being termed as “affirmative action” which is approved by most mainstream ethical philosophers of today. To assert that “the majority of them look, sound and live exactly like the Han Chinese, with nothing special in their ethnic identity” makes your argument racist, if not stupid.

January 9, 2008 @ 11:09 am | Comment

Neddy, thanks for that comment. The post in question was so patently absurd that I did what seemed the only smart thing – I ignored it. I think readers know that post is a grotesque and rather strange distortion of my beliefs.

January 9, 2008 @ 11:48 am | Comment

@ One Flew,
“guess your argument does not make much sense to Mao, just like his to you. What makes Mao looks stupid today is that China has undergone too dramatic change, so is the rest of the world. China is now a country Mao would be mad to see,”

Actually, I agree with your analysis…ONLY.with a 20/20 hindsight, that we decide that it was a gross miscalculation, and besides it was the PEOPLE who heard what they’ve always wanted to hear and joyfully did they naturally enjoyed doing, hence millions of babies were made.
And very well said regarding
“the majority of them look, sound and live exactly like the Han Chinese, with nothing special in their ethnic identity” makes your argument racist, if not stupid.”

@ Chip,

(it’s pretty flakey in it’s results so far) and guaranteed a population of only 700-800 million people, it would still be wrong.Posted by: Chip at January 8, 2008 02:09 P

I came across this and other very disturbing articles. Does anyone know anything about them?
PC Agenda:
“I shall have to admit that I studied the politics of AIDS (HIV disease) for over a decade before I finally came to a horrifying conclusion. The real motivation behind efforts to block utilization of standard public health measures to control further spread of the HIV epidemic was “population control.” That was not an easy concept for me to acknowledge, despite the fact that I had long recognized that the twentieth century has been the bloodiest hundred-year period in all recorded human history.”The Population Control Agenda
Stanley K. Monteith, M.D.

http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/index.php?page_id=178

Stop Codex: Protect Health Freedom :HealthFreedomUSA.org

Explains why Codex Alimentarius threatens Americans’ health and freedom by restricting natural health care, and tells how people can join the effort to …

http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/

January 9, 2008 @ 11:51 am | Comment

“”affirmative action” which is approved by most mainstream ethical philosophers of today. To assert that “the majority of them look, sound and live exactly like the Han Chinese, with nothing special in their ethnic identity” makes your argument racist, if not stupid.

One of main arguments for proponents of AA is that it’s important and necessary to respect and promote diversity. If the group of people, who by chance are descended from a different ancester in the remote past, have everything else (religion, culture, language, appearance and whatever characteristics you use to identify a group of people) in common with others, what is the diversity here to respect, preserve or promote? What good can you get out of making policies in favor of them?

Second, do you consider AA applicable universally in everything?

You can force companes to hire ethnic minority people in proportion. That’s fine because ethnic majority people can still get a job “legally” only with a tougher competition.

You can force universities to admit ethnic minority people with lesser performance. That’s fine because ethnic majority pupils can still get a place “legally”, again, only having to work harder.

As to one child policy, the fact is, No Han Chinese has any way in China to have a second child “legally”.

What about having a law in the US dicating that only Asian descendants could have a second car, or second gun or Tele, or iPod? What would be your reaction?

One child policy is a discriminative policy again a whole race. This is national racism.

Last but not the least, this one child policy, same as so many others, has never been approved by the people of China. It was made up by a tiny minority who couldn’t care less about the feelings and lives of the ordinary.

January 9, 2008 @ 7:58 pm | Comment

I get your point on one-child, Bing, but my own observations lead me to believe most Chinese people actually are in favor of the policy. This is not scientific but I’ve been asking Chinese people their thoughts on this since 2001, and I usually get the same answer, that they beieve it was necessary and good for their country. Of course, these same people will also tell you Taiwan is a rogue colony of China, that the crushing of the Tiananmen Square demonstrations was regrettable but necessary, and that China has made life blissful for the Tibetans. So this widespread support of one-child could be more the effect of propaganda than personal conviction.

January 9, 2008 @ 8:05 pm | Comment

“Taiwan is a rogue colony of China”

Exactly what I would tell you back 5 years ago when I just got out of China.

I still remember attending a conference banquet in Oxford and telling the Taiwanese guy sitting besides me how 90% of Chinese would say “yes” to a war against Taiwan should a formal independence declared. What I said is probably still true, but I’m ashamed of myself having said that back then.

“the crushing of the Tiananmen Square demonstrations was regrettable but necessary”

I have known better of what really happened then, but have to admit in my heart I still think there might be an element of truth in this argument, regarding what happened to USSR after the sudden collapse of Communist government.

“China has made life blissful for the Tibetans”

Again, have known better but have no idea what really should be done to sort this out. Being brought up to know China’s land territory resembles a dawn breaking crowing rooster (a beautification of the mother land), and we have there the tallest mount on a highest plateau in the world, it’s hard to see its tail plucked with an independent Tibet followed by an independent Xinjing.

It’s quite understandable that Chinese would say they agree with the one child policy somehow. Because they grew up with the propaganda “it’s best to have just one Child” and because the policy does reduce the population and bring some short-term benefits. Many though believe there are other ways to curb the population. Especially with the development of economy and change of lifestyle people tend to have less children and population tends to decrease as what has happend in many developed countries. Not to mention the long term disastrous consequences many have long predicted.

January 9, 2008 @ 9:10 pm | Comment

I really appreciate your comment Bing; very intelligent. One sentence, however, stuck out:

I still think there might be an element of truth in this argument, regarding what happened to USSR after the sudden collapse of Communist government.

I hope you realize that this, too, is a CCP talking point that they embed in the minds of the citizenry at an early age, just like Taiwan and Tibet. The idea is, if you make a big change you’ll have chaos and anarchy and crime. Better to stick with the all-knowing CCP! Well, look at Russia today. Ten years is a very short time, and it would be a fine price to pay to open up China’s political process.

January 9, 2008 @ 9:26 pm | Comment

@Bing

“What about having a law in the US dicating that only Asian descendants could have a second car, or second gun or Tele, or iPod? What would be your reaction?”

Interesting, I think everyone can have as many ipods as they want and as many as their “leagal” income allow them becoz basicly an ipod is a harmless thing. Gun? I wish nobody in the world have one. Question: are kids more like an ipod or a gun? 😉

Let’s talk about the ethical issue involved here, in regard to policy making, my belief is that we should be responsible not only for this generation, but also for the generations to come. It would be selfish only consider your rights, even though it is your rights. Why people should choose a cleaner car, a SUV is perfect leagal! Why should we cut back on CO2 emission? Even if the global warming will finally destroy our civilisation, it would be hundreds of years from now and we who are having a good time arguing with each other here today probably will live long enough to see it happening. Take myself, I will graduate from university this year and I know how hard for me to get a decent job(by Chinese standard, if you are American, I do not recomend you do that kind of job, haha) Basicly, I am competing with the other 5~6 million who are in the same position. One reason I personally hate Mao is that he was partly responsible for my difficulty which could have been spared if he took the One Child Policy ealier.

I once asked my grandpa: why did you want so many kids? Answer? Not because Mao made him, just because it was much easier and cheaper to raise a kid back then, in another word, very little responsibility. Schooling and medication are free(though you know what kind of education and helthcare I am talking about here) and education is something to be dispised of in the Cultural Revolution days(better named as Anti-cultrue revolution) People were kept ignoran therefore “revolutionary”. Of course, it would be best that everyone was as enlightened as you are, so there would be neither population problem nor One Child Policy problem, but how can you count on people who are conditioned to be ignorant to be capable of such high awareness? (and my friend who had three sisters, all of them had to quit school to work under very harsh condition to pay his tuition fee)

The world is not ideal, that we have to have law is proof of it. And there are always people would evade it. High ranking people could get away with punishment, true, but that is no justification enough to abolish the law.

BTW, You made a mistake, some Han Chinese has a way in China to have a second child “legally”: In rural area(at least in Shandong Province where I am from), if your first child is a girl, you can still have another try, pretty nice, huh? Just show how considerate our great government is and they do have respect to our Chinese tranditional value.

January 9, 2008 @ 10:05 pm | Comment

@ Everyone

It is all very nice you people are so enthusiastic about China’s trouble, and you are all very nice, not like the American who taught me English, who I suspect is a white supremist, and once we chatted on QQ, he told me that Chinese people are “physically weak and mentally retarded”. Love you, hate him:-)

January 9, 2008 @ 10:19 pm | Comment

“the crushing of the Tiananmen Square demonstrations was regrettable but necessary”

Richard, I should have said that the crackdown might be necessary but the killings are unforgivable.

The most important reason that I say so is the fact that China does have made huge ecnomic progress since then. And we have good examples of South Korea and Taiwan, both of which only achieved their democracy after getting wealthy first.

Even for Russia, I say you are right it is more free and getting better. But Russia has always been a developed country and democracy as I understand tends to fall apart for the under developed ones.

I have doubt that China in 1989 would be in good form for democracy, especially via a coup led by inexperienced young, some of whom would rather sacrifice others to fulfil their own ambition.

The last twenty years could well be the best of the last one and a half centries for ordinary Chinese. Without the crushing of 1989, China might be better, but more likely worse.

But now it’s high time for a change and ten years might just be all we need and can afford due to the 20 year development for the transition.

January 10, 2008 @ 1:05 am | Comment

“the crackdown might be necessary but the killings are unforgivable”
That’s like saying “I was supposed to set your house on fire, but I truly apologize that it burnt down.”
1989 was not a coup.

January 10, 2008 @ 5:43 am | Comment

“the crackdown might be necessary but the killings are unforgivable.” Posted by: Bing at January 10, 2008 01:05 AM

I totally agree with that.

Half a million or more in HK marched against the killing that year, not for Democracy. It was certainly NOT for Democracy given that they never had democracy under the British themselves. Democracy has turn many countries in Europe into more socialistic humane societies, I think America ought to give THAT a try.
China was opening up to free trade and Capitalism in order to get back on its feet. Everyone knows that socialism is the only way for China to remain strong in the long run. Capitalism is like chemotherapy, although it is destructive, it is a short term necessary evil in curing some form of social cancer. Speaking of which, the USA is not at all a Democracy either. It is and has always been a Republic where most of the time the People’s Representatives fail to truthfully serve in their elected offices. ” Oh, yes, We the People are allowed freedom of Speech but the cries of its citizen mostly fall on the deaf ears of the the American plutocracy.

No one can learn to read write and speak Chinese nor English overnight, Rome was not built in one day, neither is this 300 year old nation sandwiched between Canada and Mexico.. This once genocidal American government now with a million times greater firepower superiority is still an aggressive nation with an atrociously foreign policy record. So let’s get real and put away the ideological BS. Well, of course its not that simple, but since we are but simple folks that make up a complex society, let’s learn to get along one-on-one first before pretending to know what’s right and what’s best for our neighbors and who the good and bad guys were.

January 11, 2008 @ 10:22 am | Comment

Suspect I’m having Keyboard problem …words and phrases gone missing….

No one can learn to read, write and speak Chinese nor English overnight; Rome was not built in one day, neither is this 300 year old, sandwiched between Canada and Mexico, nation’s past all that laudable. This once genocidal unrepentant American government now with a 100 million times greater firepower superiority than ever is still an aggressive nation with an atrociously appalling foreign policy record is among the greatest threat to human survival.So let’s get real and put away the ideological BS.

Well, of course its not that simple, but since we are but simple folks that make up a complex society, let’s learn to get along one-on-one first before pretending to know what’s right and what’s best for our neighbors and who the good and bad guys were.

January 11, 2008 @ 11:03 am | Comment

@ One Flew Over Beijing Bird’s Nest

“not like the American who taught me English, who I suspect is a white supremacist, and once we chatted on QQ, he told me that Chinese people are “physically weak and mentally retarded”.

Could it be that your “white Supremacist English tutor” was only joking with you? America is very uptight with politically Correctness. You are probably an ace student and he must have expected you to get his sense of humor. I get racist remarks all the time from Americans but always in jest and to my face not usually through QQ/MSN/E-mail though.

Be cool.

January 11, 2008 @ 11:24 am | Comment

Re: hkonger

A sense of humor? I wish it was. But I could assure you it was not. The assertion of his I quoted here is the least offensive one in his hate speech. Well, I still keep the record of our chatting, give me your adress and you get a copy for free and you can judge for yourself (My Irish teacher after reading it, responded with something I could not agree either “many American people who come to China are rather strange people and you should be aware of this. They are either Christian missionaries or fruitcakes both should be avoided at any cost.”) But I do not think you would enjoy reading it unless you are like me who have passionate interest in this branch of linguistic study, namely, obcene and offensive languge.

“America is very uptight with politically Correctness” can’t agree more, but it is also true that while social institutions can repress some people expressing their “evil” thinking, it can not eradicate it from their mind. There is a whole range of books I could recommend you to read, one of my favorite is Lolita by Voladimir Nabokov.

The teacher was all right in class, the incident happened after he left the city and possibly China, so he thought he could say whatever he want to with perfect impunity. I have always been a bit sceptical about human nature, so it does not surprise me much. (people are animals, only some of them are more animal than others) I am not mad at anyone, I have nothing against American or any people (even Japanese some westerners take for granted that I must hate)

I am cool now, thanks.

January 11, 2008 @ 12:56 pm | Comment

Dear one flew over the Beijing bird’s nest,

I believe you. I am truly sorry that you had encountered a real prick. I had my shocking encounter when I was in Sydney, Australia as a naive 20 something myself.

“They are either Christian missionaries or fruitcakes both should be avoided at any cost.”

I am not religious but I do have friends who are. I don’t think you need to fear or avoid these people. Just be careful that you don’t fall into the trap that they’re in and are themselves unaware of. Perhaps there is a remote chance that you could help them, I don’t know, see the light, as it were?

You are also right that we are all animals, but more than that we are above all spiritual beings which therefore means we have the choice to either be kind or mean.

Ha ha ha, I’m afraid I am a bit like you who enjoys obscene languages, profanity and expletives. One of my favorite stand-up comedians is the one and only, foul mouth comic par excellence; the man, the legend, Mr. George Carlin:
Here’s one of his best, check it out http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeSSwKffj9o

Enjoy

January 11, 2008 @ 2:08 pm | Comment