Watching Eliot Spitzer’s resignation on TV. Yes, he was a hypocrite. Yes, he had to resign. But I hate seeing people’s careers ruined for their private failings.

March 13, 2008 @ 12:46 am | Comment

Writer at WSJ takes a shot at the question of why Chinese are sensitive about foreign criticism:

English version:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120519880045526067.html

Chinese version:
http://chinese.wsj.com/gb/20080310/llw145458.asp

The English version is a very poor translation… especially so since it leaves out, in my opinion, a critical part of the original Chinese column.

Here it is:

当然，我们也不应该期望西方主流媒体只报道中国经济高速发展，而对同时产生的问题轻描淡写甚至不报，因为这不符合西方媒体的报道原则。他们对自己国内的问题报得更多。

Of course, we shouldn’t expect that the Western media would only report China’s high speed economic development, while making light of or even ignoring the accompanying challenges. That wouldn’t match the Western media’s reporting standards. They have even more negative reports about problems in their own countries.

美国人又是怎样看待对国家和政府的批评呢？

And how do Americans perceive criticism towards their country and government?

多数美国人，无论是保守派还是自由派，认为人民批评政府是天经地义的事，而且他们从小受的教育就是要敢于挑战权威。

For most Americans, regardless of whether they’re conservatives or liberals, perceive popular criticism of government as a natural thing. They’ve been taught from a small age to be willing to challenge authority.

住在田纳西州的室内设计师Aimee Pearson是布什总统坚决的支持者。住在辛辛那提的投资咨询师Alan Schauer是民主党总统候选人奥巴马的支持者。虽然两人的政见相悖，但都说政府做得不对的时候就应该批评，而且都不认为外国人对美国政府的批评与自己有什么关系，更不会为此而生气。Pearson夫人说：“我们美国人既批评自己的政府也批评别的政府……我能理解别的国家的人不喜欢这样，因为我们什么都敢说。”

Aimme Peterson, an accountant from Tennessee, is a supporter of Bush. Investment advisor Alan Shauer from Cincinnati supports Democratic candidate Obama. But despite political differences, they both say that the government should be criticized when it’s in the wrong, and that foreign criticism of their government doesn’t affect them in any way, and certainly wouldn’t anger them. Mrs. Peterson says, “we criticize our own government along with other governments… I can understand that people from other countries might not like this, because we’re willing to say just about anything.”

美国言论自由、挑战权威的传统在９１１后和伊拉克战争初期曾一度受到挑战。来自德克萨斯州乡村音乐组合Dixie Chicks主唱２００３年在英国表演时说，她为布什总统是德州人而感到耻辱，结果乐队遭到歌迷抵制。２００４年前总统里根的儿子说，民主党总统候选人 Howard Dean到处散布反战言论应该以叛国罪被捕，甚至处以绞刑。２００３年，一些美国人对法国反对美国发动伊拉克战争不满，将法国薯条（French fries）改称为自由薯条（Freedom fries），还有人把法国葡萄酒倒进马桶。一个国家在没有安全感的时候最容易产生冲动的民族主义情绪，不能容忍不同的声音。

The American tradition of challenging authority and preserving freedom of speech was challenged in the aftermath of 9/11, and in the early days of the Iraq war. When Texas country singers Dixie Chicks were performing in England, the lead singer said she was ashamed George Bush was from Texas. As a result, many of their fans initiated a boycott. In 2004, the son of former president Reagan said that Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean should be prosecuted for treason due to his anti-war speeches, and should even be hung. In 2003, some Americans were offended at French opposition to the Iraq war, and renamed french fries to “freedom fries”, and even poured French wine in the toilet. When a country lacks that basic sense of security, emotional nationalism arises very easily, and there is little tolerance for dissenting voices.

我个人认为这是美国历史上黑暗的一段。言论自由是这个国家的建国原则之一，失去了这个，她就失去了很大一部分魅力。

I believe this is one of the darkest periods in American history. Freedom of speech is one of the principals on which this country was founded; if it was lost, she would have lost much of her attraction to the rest of the world.

当然，我从一些美国读者的来信中也可以看出，他们对外国人的看法还是很在意的，但到现在为止我还没有碰到一个人认真地问我喜欢不喜欢他们的国家。我也还没有准备好“正确答案”。

Of course, based on some of the letters I’ve received from American readers, I can see that they still pay a lot of attention to foreign opinions. But so far, I have yet to meet someone who really cared whether I liked their country. And I haven’t yet prepared my “correct response”.

March 13, 2008 @ 1:43 am | Comment

“””””When a country lacks that basic sense of security, emotional nationalism arises very easily, and there is little tolerance for dissenting voices.””””

I agree with that. The Chinese people are told that it is of catastrophic impotance to support the party but at the same time the party sucks, so no doubt they are in a very difficult situation where their defences of the party are forced into action by emotionla nationalism which is based on brainwashing..

How could the Chinese people be truly and authentically proud of whats become of their great land?

March 13, 2008 @ 2:51 am | Comment

How could the Chinese people be truly and authentically proud of whats become of their great land?

I know you ask the question rhetorically, snow. But let’s turn it around, and ask it seriously.

How can the Chinese people be truly and authentically proud of whats become of our great land? What are your solutions?

March 13, 2008 @ 3:45 am | Comment

@CCT

1)Transparency

2)Accountability

3)People’s (Demo) Government (Kratos)

March 13, 2008 @ 4:06 am | Comment

@CCT:

A much more simpler solution: Seek real facts, and not believe just what you are told to believe, except in religion.

March 13, 2008 @ 6:32 am | Comment

Bill / ecodelta,

Those sound like bumper stickers, not actual suggestions or policies. I’m hoping for more of the latter.

March 13, 2008 @ 7:05 am | Comment

A video making the rounds, showing the ugly side of China.

http://tw.youtube.com/watch?v=CubK6IVWfjA

The story (reportedly) goes something like this:

– a former soldier living on welfare is riding an illegal (unlicensed) motorcycle,

– he comes across a traffic police checkpoint,

– he abandons the motorcycle and runs for it, traffic cops pursue.

– he jumps in the river, traffic cop beats him to the other side.

– he treads water in the river, refuses to come out.

– he cramps. fisherman offers to help him, cops tell the fisherman to go away.

– he drowns to death.

– crowd surrounds and beats the policemen, allegedly one is beaten to death (seen at the end of the video).

March 13, 2008 @ 7:09 am | Comment

@CCT
Democracy, as nicely as it does fit on a bumper sticker, has been a solution to some problems for some countries (though not for all, as you have pointed out). If we accept the pattern that states seem to reach a certain level of industrial and economic development under a dictatorship and then democratise, wouldn’t it be possible for the PRC? Wouldn’t it be desirable? Is there any reason why continuing with the current system would preferable to you, or any citizen of the PRC?
I’m prepared to concede that the PRC is currently a prince among authoritarian regimes (unless you count Singapore), but is it really preferable to democracy?

March 13, 2008 @ 7:27 am | Comment

And I’m not asking rhetorically.

March 13, 2008 @ 7:34 am | Comment

@Lime,

Democracy, as nicely as it does fit on a bumper sticker, has been a solution to some problems for some countries (though not for all, as you have pointed out).

Really? Which countries? Any of them poor developing countries?

Lime, I know we talked about this, and I’m not going to give room on the conclusion we reached last time. The problem isn’t that democracy isn’t a solution for “all” developing countries… the problem is that it hasn’t been a solution for ANY developing countries remotely comparable to China in the modern era.

March 13, 2008 @ 7:40 am | Comment

@CCT
“the problem is that it hasn’t been a solution for ANY developing countries remotely comparable to China in the modern era.”

Which country has been remotely comparable to China?

March 13, 2008 @ 7:55 am | Comment

@ecodelta,

Direct comparisons are always difficult. But I’m willing to look at *any* developing country with a low education rate, poor physical infrastructure, decent population (50 million+?) and not sitting on a gold mine + oil wells.

So… India, Brazil, Mexico, Nigeria, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Indonesia, Ethiopia… that’s the general category I have in mind. All of the above are nominally democracies, by the way.

Which one represents a good example for China?

March 13, 2008 @ 8:04 am | Comment

You know, we can really expand that even further. I guess 50 million+ is still a rather exclusive group of “large” countries.

Let’s look at *all* developing countries (largely poor/rural/uneducated) that came out WW2 + post-colonial period with a population more than 10 million.

Which countries are the successful democracies that China should emulate?

March 13, 2008 @ 8:09 am | Comment

@CCT
“Those sound like bumper stickers, not actual suggestions or policies. I’m hoping for more of the latter.”

Denying the question again CCT?

Take democracy index, take corruption index, openness index, etc,make a correlation of standard of living.
Where is the greater density of countries with higher developent and standards of living? Which form of government do they have?
With which countries you would like China to be compared?
With Sweden, Norway, Finnland, Switzerland, Ireland, Spain, US, Japan,Uruguay, Mauritius ?
Or with Belarus, Cameroon, Yemen or Haiti?

Yes. You may argue that taking an antibiotics does not cure 10% of all people with an specific disease, but curing 90% is a good enough argument for to me take it.

In China they have tried almost all authoritarian government systems. Have they ever tried a representative (no strings attached) system.
Come on…I invite you to a round!!

March 13, 2008 @ 8:11 am | Comment

@ecodelta,

Where is the greater density of countries with higher developent and standards of living? Which form of government do they have?

I don’t know how the “where” question is useful… since China isn’t moving from where it is geographically.

As far as *which* form of government do they have, I will absolutely give you the answer you’re looking for here: the vast, vast majority of developed countries are democratic.

But now here’s the part you’re not quite getting, and I really do hope you take the time to process this. There’s a major difference between correlation, and causation. The fact that wealthy countries are democratic does *not* necessarily imply that democratic countries become wealthy. It could be the other way around… that wealthy countries become democratic, right?

To figure out which is the answer, here are the two questions I think we should be asking:

– are poor developing democratic countries successful,

– and, are the countries who’ve been successful in the last 5 decade democratic.

I answered the first question above: I don’t think poor developing democratic countries are successful.

Economies who’ve risen out of poor, under-educated developing status in recent decades include Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan… and all of these were *not* democratic until they had reached developed status, with a GDP/capita 4-5 times what China has today.

March 13, 2008 @ 8:22 am | Comment

Excellent WSJ link. THANKS CCT.

richard was right: “Not everyone’s Lou Dobbs in America.”

Whenever I hear Lou Dobbs on CNN say “Communist China,” I grab the remote control… But these kinds of reports don’t represent the whole,”

“Of course, we shouldn’t expect that the Western media would only report China’s high speed economic development, while making light of or even ignoring the accompanying challenges.”

Whenever I feel crappy I switch from CNN to CCTV.
Whenever I want to know what’s really going on, I get on the internet. Finally, whenever I want to get some good opinions, information, cliches and silly rhetorics as materials for “cultural-exchange sessions” at the pub I’d post something here and like magic –lightning flashes and thunders roll from both sides of Heaven and I’d usually leave feeling balanced with a smile on my face and giggling out the door. You guys are great.

Cheers : )

March 13, 2008 @ 9:53 am | Comment

“Economies who’ve risen out of poor, under-educated developing status in recent decades include Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan… and all of these were *not* democratic until they had reached developed status, with a GDP/capita 4-5 times what China has today.”

CCT, When You are right, you are right. You’ve said the same many times, some people just don’t get it . I admire your patience – you’d make a great professor / writer. I’ve learned a lot from you. Thanks. Hopefully when you’ve had enough of the business world you’ll consider being an educator.

March 13, 2008 @ 10:21 am | Comment

Richard said:

Watching Eliot Spitzer’s resignation on TV. Yes, he was a hypocrite. Yes, he had to resign. But I hate seeing people’s careers ruined for their private failings.

Richard, Richard, Richard, What the hell are you thinking? Ruined for his private failings? Are you friggin kidding me?

People in public service are and should be held to a higher standard – our tax dollars are paying their salaries (public service = public scrutiny). Elliot Spitzer was a high-profile prosecutor who made a living of putting people like himself in prison. He is a hypocrite of the worst kind and he deserves to lose more than his position in public office; I hope he’s handed a lengthy prison term.

March 13, 2008 @ 11:22 am | Comment

THM, he still went down due to his private failings. I said he had to resign. I said he was a hypocrite.

March 13, 2008 @ 11:27 am | Comment

I would also like to add that public officials (of any party and all levels) should receive twice the punishment for breaking the law.

March 13, 2008 @ 11:28 am | Comment

Come on…I invite you to a round!!

You keep saying this but you do not address the ways in which democracy would objectively be a huge disaster for China, and how its not exceptional anywhere.

March 13, 2008 @ 11:30 am | Comment

Richard, I’m not sure I understand how this can be a “Private Failing”. He was the governor, a public servant. I know people who have lost their jobs for receiving a DUI; also a private failing. Seems fitting.

(seems like you and I are the only one’s on topic)

March 13, 2008 @ 11:32 am | Comment

@CCT

Economies who’ve risen out of poor, under-educated developing status in recent decades include Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan… and all of these were *not* democratic until they had reached developed status, with a GDP/capita 4-5 times what China has today.

Valid point. But their political systems were not nearly as flawed as the political system in China.

March 13, 2008 @ 11:55 am | Comment

I really think the CCP is a horrid plague on China so of course I would reccommend a NON CCP GOVERNMENT for China (and the world!)

I don’t feel zealous about democracy, I dont think it is absolutely necessary. SOme countries in history have been very prosperous and peaceful without ‘democracy’ (or specifically, the illusion of democracy, hah)

The CCP is sooo corrupt and what have they said in response to who will monitor their behaviour, THEY will monitor themselves!

So just to be brief of course…I know it would take a lot of work to change to democracy, so I suggest (like what ecodelta said), transparency and accountability. That means that there should be free media and NGO watchdogs who can publicize and investigate freely the goings on so as to hold the government and everyone else accountable….

Maybe not necessarily democracy, but if the government totally sucks, there should be a system whereby the people could vote them out.

Also, as long as the ultra evil CCP is in control of everything, China will have no justice system since all institutions are currently in place to defend the CCP under any circumstance.

If there was more media and NGO freedom, a system of justice would not be too hard to maintain since China’s biggest problem is corruption an reverse justice due to CCP stupidness….If there was n CCP, I think most people would agree about what is a criminal act. Currently anything that gives the CCP a little feeling, they use the illusion of a justice system to combat opponents, this has destroyed the Chinese morals and intelligence and created a phoney and very shameful “justice’ system…

Thanks for the interesting comments.

March 13, 2008 @ 12:42 pm | Comment

A Proposal to Get Rid of the Current Chinese Government

These days, it is not hard to deduce that many people in the world, and especially on this blog, believe that the Chinese government is not a good government, and that it needs to be replaced.

So, it seems that the they believe that the “senior management team” that runs China is ineffective, and that a new management team is needed to run China better.

Today, I will admit that the current management team is indeed very ineffective, and a new management team is needed. So, let’s start looking for new management.

First, we agree that given China’s size, population, and complexity, running that country is not a simple task. So any new management team we want must be very capable, very smart, and hopefully had previous experience in running “big and complex things”. Now, since democracy-lovers and anti-China groups are the ones that proposed the idea of changing management, can you help me look for a new team? Does any of your group intend to be this new team and run China? If any of you want to try it out, perhaps I can organize an interview for you, and you and your group and come into my house, and maybe we can talk more in detail.

Now you may say “Math! we just want to topple the Chinese government, why do we need an interview?!?!”. Well, as I said, running China is a very tough and complex job, and even if you don’t care about China, I at least do. So I want to make sure that after displacing the current management team, the new team will be better, and can do an effective job. So, as the head of the committee assigned by the UN to seek a new management team for China,I must ask you to present a detailed plan on certain issues facing China. For example, I may ask you, “what are your ideas on solving the high-unemployment issue in China?”. “what are your plans for health-care reform in China?”, “what are your plans for reducing income gaps between urban and rural areas in China?”. I do not want some slogans, but detailed substantial policy documents, at least 100 pages on each issue. So maybe I can give you these questions 2 months before your interview, and you can come to the interview with some detailed platform so I can review them. If any of you are interested, I can certainly organize such an interview, and we can just do it in my house. I can even treat you a nice dinner, and you can meet my family. Don’t worry, it will a very relaxed atmosphere, you do not even have to wear a suit.

Now, if you say “How the hell would I know how to run China! I just want to curse at the Chinese government! and I hope it dies!”. Then, well if you just wanted to curse at the government, you are free to of course. But make sure don’t do it in public, otherwise you may be viewed as someone who just fled a mental institution.

Also, for that interview, if you or your group don’t want that job, then perhaps you can refer someone to me?

If you don’t want to help me, that’s fine also. Maybe I can post this open position in Monster.com, and maybe the position name would be “Seeking senior management team to run the People’s Republic of China.” Of course, since this is a high-level job, the requirements will be very tough. The applicant (team) must have previous experience in running another country, or maybe another big organization/corporation. For example, the Democratic Party of the US may see this open position on Monster.com, and they may want to try it out, since they are out of a job anyway. I believe if they applied, they may be a very strong candidate. They can say on their resume that they had half a century of experience in running the USA, and helped turn the USA into the world’s number-one power today. They can give me some detailed info on their governing philosophy, their party structure, their financing information, etc etc etc. Or the Nationalist Party in Taiwan may also be a good candidate, since they not only have experience in running Taiwan, but they are Chinese descent, and have cultural advantages.

If the management team of a big corporation like Microsoft or Sony applied for this job, I think they may also be good candidates. Even though they have not run countries, they have run big corporations, and I think those experiences may be very relevant. So depending how the interview goes, they also have a good shot at this job.

But, if I post this open position online, and after a year, no one applied. Or after a year, a lot of people applied, but most are jobless males who can barely read, or some anti-China groups whose only experience was writing dramatic slogans like “Down with Red China!”. Then I’m sorry, perhaps there is no suitable candidate for this job. And we may have no choice but to continue the current team in China, until we find a better candidate. Do you really want me to hire a group of people with no experience for such an important job?

So anyway, if any of you are interested in this job, you can contact me to either interview you, or you can give me a list of potential candidates and I’ll contact them, or I can post a job opening online. What do you think?

March 13, 2008 @ 1:12 pm | Comment

@CCT
I was in a hurry when I wrote my last set of questions, and phrased them poorly (and perhaps got carried away by all the democratic enthusiasm so abundant on this blog). I understood and conceded your point that no country since WWII has been able to make the transition from a ‘developing’ to ‘developed’ nation under a democracy (with the exception of the special case of Isreal), and that democracy cannot logically be seen as a solution to elevating a poorer nation to first world status.
What I was trying to ask you was more of an ideological question about your view of Chinese democracy. I’ll try to qualify it a little better; if China continues to grow in wealth until it reaches a point comparable to where the ROC or South Korea were on the eves’s of their democratic revolutions, is it possible/probable/inevitable that China will follow the same path? And, more importantly, in your opinion, would it be desirable?

There are problems that China has that go beyond simple economics. The video of the welfare recipient with the unregistered motorbike being allowed to drown by the police, if at all representative of how law enforcement works in China, would be one problem that, in my mind at least, is unconnected to the GDP of the nation.
Then there is the authority of the state’s apparent fragility. The scariest thing about the Hu Jia case was not that they locked up him up for what he did, but rather that they felt they had to. I don’t think the CCP is inherently petty, meanspirited, or chronically thin-skinned, so what it must mean is that one angry man with a camcorder and an internet connection must have constituted legitimate threat to the state.

Your points here have been consistently thoughtful, so I am sincerely interested to hear your answer to my question. Hopefully I have articulated it a little a better this time.

March 13, 2008 @ 3:18 pm | Comment

@Amban,

Valid point. But their political systems were not nearly as flawed as the political system in China.

Not “nearly as flawed”? By what standard?

Taiwan lived under martial law until the late ’80s, with arbitrary arrests of political dissidents far more common than it is in mainland China today. There was no legal opposition party in Taiwan until the early ’90s. Are you aware that as recently as 1984, the Taiwanese government is accused of using a hitman to kill a political dissident in the United States?

In 1980, only 9 years before 6/4/89, South Korea’s governmen killed a few hundred civilians at Gwangju… a body count not very different from the final body count at Tiananmen. Considering the population difference between China/South Korea (factor of 30), and the population difference between Beijing/Gwangju (about factor of 10)… that’s saying quite a bit.

I don’t really want to compete in a game of “bad” political systems here, because it’s not exactly something to take pride in winning… but I really don’t see a qualitative difference in Taiwan, South Korea, and mainland China’s political system during the transition period. The length of this transition period might differ, but once economic output reached a certain point, it seemed democratic reforms became inevitable.

March 13, 2008 @ 3:26 pm | Comment

@snow,

You seem to be a man of faith in many areas, no insult intended. And this seems to color your perception of the Chinese Communist Party. But I think your faith in the powers of a “free press” and societies ability to dynamically organize itself (when freed of the Communist Party) is misplaced.

Keep in mind what we’ve seen in China from the press. The “reporter” killed last year (or was it the year before?) bought a journalist badge, never wrote a single article, and was instead using it to blackmail illegal mine owners. It’s also an open secret that the press is bought left/right; a few thousand yuan in the right hands will buy you a favorable story in the local newspaper tomorrow. Journalistic principals don’t exist in a vacuum… they *have* to be part of a functioning society. And unfortunately, developing countries tend to be short on this front.

I’m also not at all optimistic that just because the “evil” Communist Party is replaced by a democratically government, China will immediately become a healthy functioning society.

And this is where examples from other poor democracies can guide us. *Everyone* is trying to develop; no one likes to remain poor. But what’s going on in all these other countries? There’s a long list for each, ranging from crude populism, to racism, to electoral controversy, to corruption… we can discuss in detail if there’s interest.

March 13, 2008 @ 3:44 pm | Comment

@Lime,

if China continues to grow in wealth until it reaches a point comparable to where the ROC or South Korea were on the eves’s of their democratic revolutions, is it possible/probable/inevitable that China will follow the same path? And, more importantly, in your opinion, would it be desirable?

Your question here is much more clear, and very fair. Thanks for rephrasing.

I sincerely believe that political reform similar to what happened in South Korea and Taiwan will become inevitable as China’s economy grows. The Communist Party’s paternalistic ways will become nonsense, because there will be no realistic fear of “instability” left.

Our peers will no longer be the poor nations which are in constant upheaval (see: racial/electoral violence in India, Kenya, etc, etc…)… it will be wealthy, stable nations ruled by a transparent government, with a wealth of civic rights. Definitely, China will be democratic some day.

Now, I said “similar” to the reforms seen in those other countries… but do I want them to be identical? Do I want multiple political parties fighting it out in China every 4 years for the presidency?

In my own very humble opinion (as one of 1.3 billion), I’m honestly not really sure. This is rather far in the future, and my crystal ball is very hazy about what will work best. In fact, at this point, it isn’t really commentary about China any more… but rather my observations on democracy in developed countries, today.

I very much admire the independent, reliable judicary and media we see in these developed countries. I very much admire that the law restricts government as much as it restricts the average citizen, and that all of us live in a well-defined system. I very much admire that these governments have to constantly struggle to gain the approval of the public.

And on the local level, I very much admire an opportunity for direct democracy. Neighbors engage neighbors in discussions about exactly how budgets should be set, how development should occur, and how to deal with local social problems as they arise. Political parties are meaningless… we *know* the candidates on a personal basis.

But I’m not positive I like the West’s formula for how things are done at the *national* level. It’s hard for me to see campaign season as anything but a political beauty pagent. It’s widely accepted that politicians are lying or exaggerating in order to win the job. It’s widely accepted that politicians are constantly adjusting their position on the “issues” based on what the polls tell them, not on the basis of what they actually believe. Voters are poorly educated about the issues, and often vote along typical party lines. Elections are won on the basis of impressions, television ads, and slick wardrobe.

I don’t really see how that type of dishonesty is healthy for government. It seems to me the West is moving toward a system where elected national politicians will increasingly be excellent actors, rather than intelligent, informed, decisive statesman.

I mentioned one alternative earlier; I’m excited by the concept of citizen juries. I’m not completely positive what political scientists mean by that term, and what China is doing today, but I can imagine a system where a group of *average citizens* are empaneled for 12 months, given the task of studying a specific issue. They will be advised by think-tanks, and skilled solicitors will argue both positions in front of the panel.

Should Beijing eliminate the “One China” policy? Should water be piped into Beijing for a better Olympics experience? Should taxes be lowered on the rich? Let’s bring in 100 (qualified) average citizens, put in front of them the best arguments both for/against, and then let them decide these issues in private.

In essence, I want democracy with a small ‘d’. I want for China a government that guarantees me rights; I want a government which takes into account my opinion, and gives me the ability to supervise their actions… but I also want a government that remains efficient and makes the best decisions for the country as professionally and objectively as possible.

My 2 cents.

March 13, 2008 @ 4:16 pm | Comment

“In essence, I want democracy with a small ‘d’. I want for China a government that guarantees me rights; I want a government which takes into account my opinion, and gives me the ability to supervise their actions” isn’t this what Hu Jia wants?

“… but I also want a government that remains efficient and makes the best decisions for the country as professionally and objectively as possible.”

remains efficient? makes the best decisions professionally and objectively? the ccp??!??!?

March 13, 2008 @ 5:49 pm | Comment

@CCT
Simply the most thoughtful pieces I read on the subject in a long time. Thanks.
Just one question:
Why the hell are you bothering with these peoples on this board?

March 13, 2008 @ 6:13 pm | Comment

@Hong,

I have to earn my $0.50. More seriously… I find it enjoyable. 🙂

@snow,

By the way, I went back and re-read your post. I think I missed a few things the first time. Your vision of a future China (in which there voters can supervise government without necessarily copying Western “Democracy”) is not very different from mine.

I think the only difference between you and me, is that you believe if the Communist Party disappeared *today*, everything else would magically work in China.

I think it will take another 20-30 years before the Communist Party should disappear, when China is far wealthier and better educated than it is today.

The video of the cop being beaten to death (?) is an accurate reflection of how things are in China today. It’s a brutal, cruel, primitive world. At a NPC press conference this week, the justice minister mentioned that only 25% of Chinese judges have law degrees. Think about that!

I’m afraid the Chinese are “only” human beings. Without education, without motivation, and without support… human societies are capable of great atrocities. Look, again, at the electoral violence in Kenya. Look at the violence in Gujrat. I’m very afraid that’s what we’d see in rural China tomorrow, if there was no strong central government.

In other words, snow… at the end of the day the only difference between our perspectives is the time frame.

March 14, 2008 @ 12:58 am | Comment

The silliest thing coming out of this is that prostitution is still illegal.

Wall St. is happy because he is gone after busting so many of their people for large scale theft (a real crime that hurts real people).

March 14, 2008 @ 2:03 am | Comment

“”””I’m afraid the Chinese are “only” human beings. Without education, without motivation, and without support… human societies are capable of great atrocities. Look, again, at the electoral violence in Kenya. Look at the violence in Gujrat. I’m very afraid that’s what we’d see in rural China tomorrow, if there was no strong central government.””””””

You got no self esteem boy. I understand nonetheless what you are saying, but I dont think you share my understanding that the brutal and degenerate society that is China today (to be general, not absolute) is (for the most part) the product of CCP indoctrination and manipulation through terrorism. It has bred this type of society through reversing morals to suit its evilness (example the FALSE judicial system and FALSE media)

I think you have a point in that if the CCP were to explode today, it wouldnt sove the fact that people are still bred by it and still brainwashed by it, that has to be undone. That is crucial. People need to know every little manipulation tactic and every false ideology the CCP bred in them for the sake of preserving their reign. How else will people ever know the real history and what the party has been doing to their culture, destroying the future and wonderful people!!!

Have you ever heard of this!!

http://chinainterimgov.org/en/index.php?news=6

China Interim Government.

I think this is a good solution cause until the party does piss off, they will resort to whatever they can to stay untouchable and that is pretty frightening, so if there is a temporary government, there will be a chance for groups to step up and contend for the leadership without fearing, oh boy, that would be the day that all the poeples mind could be free and everyone had the right to tell their stories and be protected by the true justice, ahh, that’ll be the day…

http://chinainterimgov.org/en/index.php?news=6

March 14, 2008 @ 2:04 am | Comment

@snow,

By some of your language and points, I had been wondering if you were a Falun Gong practictioner. I’m curious, are you?

I’ve heard of the ‘interim government’. I was talking about that with Amban on an earlier thread. This, the “future China university”, and a thousand other related projects are all the product of a very active, and incredibly organized Falun Gong movement.

I don’t want to distract this with a discussion about the FLG (should be a different thread entirely), except to say that their political propaganda is every bit as mind-numbing as what comes out of the People’s Daily, and that having the Communist Party replaced by the Falun Gong would not in any way, shape, or form be an improvement.

March 14, 2008 @ 2:44 am | Comment

I won’t answer you directly, just cause I think people can stay more objective if they consider both sides. I don’t want to take sides (so to speak)…

Anyway, I didn’t see a relationship between the Interim and Falun Gong. In any case I still think it is a good idea as long as it sticks to it’s word and is only stepping in to help balance things until someone more fitting steps up.

I have read what you consider Falun Gong propaganda. Personally, because of my background, I agree with most of it and think it’s cool, not only that but I Hugely respect what they are doing and what they are sacrficing to stand up to the party.

Whather it is “mind numbing”, that we would have to debate separately since they say a lot of stuff and we would have to be secific, also, what you mean by mind numbing?

My criticism of CCP porpaganda is that it is evil, not mind numbing, anyway, I am open to your perspective, it just needs to be specified more…

Whether I am or am not a Falun Gong practitioner, what difference does it make to you. I would like to know.

March 14, 2008 @ 3:43 am | Comment

@CCT
The idea of the citizens’ jury is interesting, but I don’t know how feasible it would it terms of preventing a concentration of power. I once had the idea to write a story set in a nation where the leadership was chosen by lottery rather than election, but I could never quite suss out how it would be sustainable, but creating large, temporary committees might be one solution.
If there was going to be any decisions made about what ‘qualified’ jury candidate meant, other than an adult without a criminal record, you would almost certainly need an elected multi-party parliament with the power of veto widely distributed (say a house with a hundred seats where any five seats could veto any candidate). This would make it somewhat similar to the trial jury selection process in most American states.
The other issue would be the selection process for the issues that the citizen’s juries would study and ultimately legislate on. I think this would require an elected parliament too, unless you had it programmed into your law code that a jury specifically for creating other juries would be created and dissolved over a set period of time. I guess it would work, and you might be able to do away with the elected parliament all together if you to make jury candidacy universal and unrestricted. If this was done, I think the juries would have to be large (500+ people) to overcome the effects of outliers (anarchists, communists, etc.).
There would problems with ability to react in crisis situations and with accountability. If it would have a chance of working, I think the power would have to be distributed between these juries and some kind of an elected parliament.
More important than democracy itself, when and if China achieves a greater social stability will be the decentralisation of power in my mind. I think a lot of the obvious civil problems could be solved by giving more responsibility and accountability to Provincial and Municipal governments.
I’ll think on this more, unfortunatly I’m chronically short of time at the moment.

@Snow
I have friends who are Falun Gongers, but I’m with CCT on this one. If you look at history, you’ll notice that a lot of ‘liberation’ governments end up being more brutal than their predecessors (At least initially). The CCP being a case in point. Where your reign of terror ends is where mine begins.

March 14, 2008 @ 3:43 am | Comment

“””If you look at history, you’ll notice that a lot of ‘liberation’ governments end up being more brutal than their predecessors (At least initially). The CCP being a case in point. Where your reign of terror ends is where mine begins.”””””

Sounds like a classic and insanely depressing excuse to maintain the disgusting status quo. Do you have a better solution? Yeah, most people and party’s have corrupt and greedy elements in them, sure, but if you knew what I know about the CCP, you would know that the best thing for China is to wake up and clean house. Lime, not everyone is a total bastard, some people actually have values and stuff and think about serving people and building a nice environment. there are not very many people like that, but I think they exist… Do you? If they don’t then whats the point of this ultra defeatist world that you live in???

Sorry for being a little emotional, I’m not feeling to strong these days (-:

March 14, 2008 @ 3:50 am | Comment

@Snow
I have some nihilist leanings, but I don’t think I’m a defeatist. As for solutions, among others, I am enthusiastic about what the Republic of China has become.

March 14, 2008 @ 4:02 am | Comment

Still @Snow
To be less specific, I like solutions where silencing people who disagree with you is not necessary.

March 14, 2008 @ 4:05 am | Comment

If you want not silencing people who disagree, then lets concentrate on that instead of assuming the worste right? I mean, if someone writes off possible solutions cause they COULD go wrong due to human falability, then there can never be any solution cause human beings are always falable. Any government will not be perfect and will be human… But there is human, and there is evil, one being unacceptable of course.

Sorry if evil sounds to biblical or whatever, I just mean malicious, canniving, low down, scum etc etc…

March 14, 2008 @ 4:16 am | Comment

@CCT

I know that the regimes of South Korea and Taiwan have a bloodstained past, but if you look at the fifty years following 1950 nothing these two regimes did remotely approaches the destruction that was wrought on China, both in relative and absolute terms. The PRC has a track record of violent and dramatic policy reversals every other decade and I’m not convinced that the current regime has been able to overcome the problems behind those upheavals. In fact, I think the CCP is uses chaos as a way to justify and perpetuate its hold on power. We may agree to disagree on that, but that’s the way I see it. I sincerely hope that I’m wrong, but I have not seen anything in the recent past that has convinced me that the CCP has changed.

March 14, 2008 @ 4:18 am | Comment

@Snow
The China Interim Government is, if not a project completely concotted by the Falun Gong organisation, at least one heavily supported by it. Pick up an Epoch Times, they like to talk about a lot. From what I’ve read of the Falun Gong dogma, it seems like a relatively benign religion, save for the rather frightening rejection of modern medicine. That said it is still a religion, and the problem with religions is that they tend to have very strong ideas about right and wrong, good and evil, and almost always believe that these should be universal. When a religious organisation is a government, it more often than not has some mechanism in place to root out heresy and enforce its version of truth on the minds of their people, believing that they are 100% right and justified. The Taliban, the Spanish Inquisition (which was not the government of course, but was a body of it), and Tenochtitlan are good examples, but even better is Mao’s China and the twentieth century’s other Marxist states.
I don’t think its a huge stretch to imagine that a Falun Gong based government would begin by purging former CCP members and creating mechanisms to promote their own beliefs at the expense of others, and this, to me, would be no improvement.
Perhaps I’m just cynical, but I believe, with no offence to Falun Gong as a religion, that China can do better for a government.

March 14, 2008 @ 6:59 am | Comment

“When a religious organisation is a government, it more often than not has some mechanism in place to root out heresy and enforce its version of truth on the minds of their people, believing that they are 100% right and justified. The Taliban, the Spanish Inquisition (which was not the government of course, but was a body of it), and Tenochtitlan are good examples, but even better is Mao’s China and the twentieth century’s other Marxist states.”

Not only Mao’s China, but China today (which is still governed by the same party) is a good example for the phenomenon you described.

March 14, 2008 @ 8:11 am | Comment

@Lime and CCT

I don’t care for Falungong and their preaching, but just like many other religious sects in Chinese history it did not turn violently anti-government until after the Chinese government clamped down on them in 1999. The point is that it is the Chinese government that decides how is seditious or not, not any one else. You may be thinking that you are collecting signature against a dubious land grab, but the government may decide that you are a counterrevolutionary and then you are screwed. With the exception of Hong Kong, there are no courts where you can challenge a verdict that you have set out to “overthrow party rule”. In other words, the government assumes what it should prove when it brands people and groups as counterrevolutionary and that is not the way to build the kind of civil society that CCT wants to see.

March 14, 2008 @ 8:56 am | Comment

@CCT

“Which one represents a good example for China?”

Spain perhaps?

1978 Transtion to constitutional democracy by national referendum.

Population 32 Million. No rich oil wells or mineral resources. Poor education. Low education. Civil war 1936. Authoritarian rule till 1978

Entry in EU, 8th biggest economy, New infrastructure build: highways, high speed train, airports, etc.

Free press, multiparty democracy, women parity in politics by law, rule of law, social safety net.

Need more details?

March 14, 2008 @ 9:04 am | Comment

@mor
Well no, not really. Although modern China is certainly a repressive dictatorship, and although they do still keep the trappings of Marxism, they seem to have largely given up on preaching Marx’s apocalyptic religion. They aren’t purging European or Angloshpere sympathising intellectuals anymore, or trying to re-educate the bourgoisie in labour camps. No more public rituals of self criticisms or talk of the rise of a perfect socialist state.
They are still using the Japanese government as a scapegoat and silencing individuals who are critical of the party/government itself, but these are tactics that any garden variety authoritarian state uses. I don’t think we can view China as a Marxist theocracy anymore, and, in my heavily prejudiced view, this is a huge improvement.

March 14, 2008 @ 9:07 am | Comment

@CCP

GDP per capita China 2005: 1553$

GDP per capita Spain:
1970: 1191$ Authoritarian regime
1975: 4164$ Transition to democracy
1986: 6383$ Joining the EU
2005: 26115$
today: a little more $

You have less than 5 years for a transition to democracy and multi party system….
You better hurry! 😉

You are invited to celebrate it in Madrid. Free beers rounds for you.
And ferin, youguys and Hong are invited too of course!!

March 14, 2008 @ 9:43 am | Comment

Corrections

today: a little more Euros. $ is going down fast.

March 14, 2008 @ 9:44 am | Comment

Just for preparing the celebration which beer will you prefer.

Mahou, Estrella Damm, Alhambra, Estrella Galilcia, Cruzcampo?

Alcohol free perhaps?

If necessary can get some imported Chinese beers too.

Waiting for you.

March 14, 2008 @ 9:51 am | Comment

“I don’t think we can view China as a Marxist theocracy anymore, and, in my heavily prejudiced view, this is a huge improvement.”

You are actually right, but they view themselves this way and that’s the standard by which they should be judged. That’s my heavily prejudiced view, anyway.

March 14, 2008 @ 11:02 am | Comment

Ecodelta, your numbers are all whacked. For starter if they are right, they are not adjusted for inflation. Inflation was much higher in the 70s than in the 80s and the 90s. If they are adjusted for inflation, in 2000 US$, the per capital GDP of Spain were:

1969 $6530 the first year I have data
1975 $8323 Franco died, Spain entered transitional period
1978 $8655 “democratic” constitution
1986 $9302 joined the EU
2007 $17787 latest

So the 6 years while Spain was an authoritarian state under Franco, its real per capita GDP growth rate was 4.13%; the 8 years while Spain was a democracy but not a part of the EU, it was 0.91%; and the 11 years while Spain was a democracy and a part of the EU, it was 3.14%.

I will let you draw your own conclusion.

March 14, 2008 @ 11:11 am | Comment

@JXie

Your data about inflation please
I lived those times I remember well how much growth we got..

The should apply to China.

Real take off took place in the 80s. Second half of the 90s

After growt in late 60 the 70s rather stagnated.

March 14, 2008 @ 3:50 pm | Comment

By the way

My sources

http://unstats.un.org

March 14, 2008 @ 4:09 pm | Comment

ecodelta, the source is the first page (Excel spreadsheet) searched thru google with keyboards “Spain historical gdp”. It’s hosted in usda.gov.

March 14, 2008 @ 9:15 pm | Comment

@JXIE

Thanks for the info.

I am using
http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/Macroeconomics/Data/HistoricalRealPerCapitaIncomeValues.xls

Graphically Comparing the data from Spain and China I see something that surprised me.

1970 both countries were closer together
Spain 6530$ China 105$

But year by year the difference increases. Even in spite of rapid growth increase in the last year the gap keeps widening.
Did not expected that last effect. I expected a closing of the gap. Rather the opposite is occurring. That is not good for China.

In Spain There is a period of slow growth rate after 1973. Oil shock of 1973?
Increasing growth after 1981, very clear after 1986 (entry in EU?)
Strong growth 1995 onward.

In GDP per capita growth beating soundly China year after year.
(Still to see if the house construction crisis does not bring a crash…)
All in all our inefficient democratic government system, volatile voters, and average intelligence leaders are doing it quite well.

I keep my democratic system, you may keep your authoritarian technocratic system if you wish.
You are too many to convince.
I still recommend it to you to give it a try to a “transition” nevertheless.
If the graph is true, year after year you are falling behind, no matter the advances.

I you need blueprints, I think I still can find some old dusty copies from our own transition to use… 😉

Of course. Not computed in the GDP per capita are other issues that affect greatly safety/quality/enjoyment of life, but that is stuff for other discussions.

March 14, 2008 @ 11:28 pm | Comment

Lasts data cross check.

You are not even catching up with Uruguay and Costa Rica.

Both are quite low in the democracy index, next to flawed democracy.

March 14, 2008 @ 11:54 pm | Comment

@ecodelta,

You disappoint me if you don’t understand the difference between growth rates and growth in absolute dollars.

Let’s put it this way. Let’s assume that you’ve worked very, very hard over the last year. But no matter *how* hard you worked, I assure you Bill Gates made more money while sitting on a beach, sipping cocktails. Even if he only lived off of bank interest of 3%, he would’ve generated income of hundreds of millions of dollars last year. I’m guessing you didn’t make that much.

Does that mean it’s hopeless? Does that mean you’ll never pass Bill Gates? No, it, really doesn’t. If Bill Gates remained complacent at 3% per year while you grew your income more quickly, you will eventually pass him.

As far as Spain goes… I’m sure you’re familiar with the term the “Spanish Miracle”? (el milagro español) According to this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_miracle

“At the heyday of the Miracle, 1974, Spanish income per capita was 79% of the western European average…”

My position is that if Spain had been democratic from 1950-1973, there would’ve been no Spanish Miracle.

March 15, 2008 @ 1:13 am | Comment

@ecodelta,

By the way, finally look at your excel document above (in 2000 numbers). It looks like Spain began to reform politically when GDP/capita reached around $8500.

This is actually (coincidentally?) very close to South Korea and Taiwan GDP/capita around 1990, when they embraced political reform.

China’s still off by a factor of 5. If China grows at a compounded rate of 8% per year every year, China will reach that number for GDP/capita in about 25 years. That’s about the time horizon that I’d expect for healthy political reform.

You are not even catching up with Uruguay and Costa Rica.

No, your terminology isn’t correct there. China is not yet passing Uruguay and Costa Rica (in terms of position), but it’s definitely catching up (in terms of acceleration).

March 15, 2008 @ 1:23 am | Comment

@snow,

I was just curious where you were getting your information/motivation. I don’t know of anyone in the West that’s ever heard of the “interim government” that wasn’t involved in Falun Gong. Same goes for the “nine criticisms” and “tuidang” movement… which I assume you’re familiar with, but probably most others are not.

I don’t have a problem with you practicing Falun Gong at all. I don’t know you, and it’s certainly your right to do anything you want. It’s not a faith that I share, but there are a lot of faiths that I don’t share. On a personal note, I’d suggest you consider looking into more established faiths that might better be able to counsel you emotionally one-on-one, if that’s something you’re having problems with.

I do have a problem with the Falun Gong *politically* however. All of the claims that the Falun Gong is apolitical and spontaneous is, of course, ridiculous. The Falun Gong is as political today, as the Roman Catholic Church has ever been throughout its 1000+ year history. And if you know European history, then you know that’s very political indeed.

I don’t want to diverge into that debate too deeply; I think that should be in its own thread. I’d prefer to focus on the non-religious/non-faith based discussion of the Communist Party and China.

March 15, 2008 @ 1:34 am | Comment

Well, CCT, I am not at all involved with Falun Gong and have heard of all of these movements. So now you’ve heard of someone.

March 15, 2008 @ 1:17 pm | Comment

Ecodelta,

You don’t have to convince me anything. Systems with higher democratic propensities, tend to be more stable in the long run, but inherently can’t grow as far as some systems with higher authoritarian propensities. The most efficient system in growth, is capitalism, which isn’t democracy. You get a vote per share, not a vote per shareholder.

FWIW, my favorite author is Ayn Rand. If you haven’t guessed it, I look at what’s best for China as a shareholder.

March 15, 2008 @ 11:15 pm | Comment

@ecodelta,
“You disappoint me if you don’t understand the difference between growth rates and growth in absolute dollars.”

Yo do not need to be so condescending CCT …

“I’m sure you’re familiar with the term the “Spanish Miracle”? (el milagro español) According to this:”

¡Por supuesto!

“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_miracle
At the heyday of the Miracle, 1974, Spanish income per capita was 79% of the western European average…”
You disappoint me when you rely just in Wikipedia without checking the information 😉

Now. Seriously. I can personally guarantee you that in no way was Spain close to 79% of that wester European average in 1974. That was reached in late 80s or earlier 90s if I remember well.

I agree with you that timing for any kind of social political reform is very critical.
You may be interested in the history of the Weimar republic in Germany before WWII. Here you can find a case of a democratic system breakdown due to unfortunate internal and external causes.

About China I consider 25 years too far away in time. I agree that China is not a monolithic country. There area areas where Democratic methods can be applied today, or sooner. That is certainly the case in Hong Kong (with no strings attached) and some other coastal areas and major cities.

My doubts about China is what the really intentions are inside the CCP, or which main power group will eventually define the future in China.
Are they a technocratic illustrated despots carefully, or are they an oligarchy willing to drop the social and economy advances to keep its grap on power if need be?

Maybe both options are true today, and no one knows the final result.

From my personal feelings I tend to think the second possibility is closer to the truth.

Anyway, I keep my invitation for at most 25 years more.

March 16, 2008 @ 4:47 am | Comment

@JXie
“The most efficient system in growth, is capitalism, which isn’t democracy.”

Not exactly. Capitalism has it good share of inefficiencies. For example, you only have to check history for some of the major economy crashes.

Without a good government control you may end up pretty fast with an oligopoly, monopoly, etc that brings the efficiency of the system down.

Someone compared capitalism with a Sport car. To get good performance you need some good fine tuning.
My opinion is that a representative from of government if the most effective for this tasks.

You may get initial high growth in an authoritarian system. But later you get stagnation or a runaway system.
And advance economy goes rapidly beyond the capabilities of a central command and control regime.

March 16, 2008 @ 4:58 am | Comment

Hi,

I dont really have time right now, but I was just having a look… I would have to explain a few things when I get a chance but Limes comments to me up there is all assumption, Ambams comments on Falun Gong are wrong and CCT, I disagree with you and I noticed you condescending me, offering me mental health advice? No thanks…

Anyway, I do find it odd the way three people have these extreme perceptions of Falun Gong and I dont see those things.

Some of the comments are not only assumptions but are slanderous falsities (depending on the truth which we seem to have very diverging views of)

Gotta go,

Peace

March 16, 2008 @ 12:11 pm | Comment

@snow,

I didn’t mean to be condescending. I think you mentioned being depressed and not thinking clearly; if you’re relying on Falun Gong exclusively to work through these issues, I’d suggest elsewhere for help as well.

@ecodelta,

The numbers are there in your spreadsheet. Can we agree at least that the PRC is a factor of 5 away from Spain’s GDP/capita, in terms of when Spain actually democratized?

As far as the notion that certain areas can be democratized sooner… while that’s a natural extension of the theory that higher GDP/capita = ready for democracy…. it doesn’t make for good policy.

For at least the next 25 years, the Chinese central government will need to rob the rich to give to the poor. Taxes will need to remain high, and possibly go even higher (in terms of actual collections) in urban/coastal areas, while investment and government services will have to go higher in rural/inland areas. And unfortunately, robbing the rich to the poor isn’t going to be viable if the rich are given a louder political voice than the poor. Even if we design some awkward system where this political voice is supposed to be limited to local decisions… it won’t stay limited. Coastal cities will start voting for mayors who promise to stand up to the central government.. .and what then?

I believe we really do have to look at the nation as a whole when we consider “readiness” for democracy.

@JXie,

I detest Ayn Rand. Sorry. 🙂

March 16, 2008 @ 4:46 pm | Comment

@CCT
“Coastal cities will start voting for mayors who promise to stand up to the central government.. .and what then?”

Hhhhmmm…….. I concede you have a point here.

But there is also the following problem. Your argument can be reversed. Denying greater representative government to comparatively richer coastal areas could put them also against the Beijing policies. As the social/environment in the richer areas increase in sophistication, the shortcomings of an authoritarian regime will increase. You would just need an economic crisis to fire things up.

We may differ on the timetable or political reform,
but rule of law, independent judiciary system and a freer press are urgently needed.
My problem is that I do can not see how they can correctly be implemented without some sort of representative power. The system will not be well balanced, IMHO.

Additionally I find, for a technocratic illustrated despotism, the prosecution of the different types of activisim and Human rights way overboard. That is one of the may reasons that make me think Bejing is rather ruled by an Oligarchy more bent at keeping power for selfish interest even to the point they are able to put the progress of the country in jeopardy if they feel they could loose their privileged position.

I may be mistaken of course. Also, the situation in the CCP can be far more complex, to the point that both things, oligarchy/illustrated despotism, are true at the same time.

What do you think?

March 16, 2008 @ 7:26 pm | Comment

CCT,

You wanna give me personal advic? Well, I dont think you and I can relate on a personal level. By your comments about the price of pork etc, i just dont think that I fundamentally can groove with you.

I think you dont know about Falun Gong and I think most people dont bother to look at it from the inside perspective, theres almost no one who says accurate things about them. At least they are doing something to help. i think you Chinese must be jealous that they are brave and actually active while all the other billion can just cowardly quiver and cry out,’ its not time, were not ready, but the price of pork…’, all sorts of excuses to snidely maintain the status quo.

March 16, 2008 @ 9:34 pm | Comment

CCT, I knew that you didn’t like Ayn Rand. Just curious, have you even gone through any one of her books, such as “Fountainhead” or “Atlas Shrugged”? It’s obviously that you like to debate. After going through her books, how would you debate her?

When you are facing a contradiction, check your premises again.

March 16, 2008 @ 11:42 pm | Comment

Perhaps you’re right, Snow.

March 17, 2008 @ 2:21 am | Comment

Respect

March 17, 2008 @ 11:48 am | Comment

The only fully successful socialist economy on earth is Singapore. And, it isn’t democratic.

March 17, 2008 @ 1:20 pm | Comment