Let me be the first to wish you all in Asia, and everywhere else, a slightly premature Happy New Year!

December 31, 2005 @ 7:55 am | Comment

Happy New Year to all.

December 31, 2005 @ 8:40 am | Comment

Finding happiness as a seeker & recommending reality visits to:
http://www.democraticunderground.com
http://www.watchingamerica.com
http://www.thechurchofreality.com
http://www.oiladdictions.com
Overcome search problems by using Google search.
http://www.googlesearch.com
“Trying to understand the understanding of understanding”… is
one basic premise of the church of reality … {recognizing our need to
evolve continually from Plato’s Cave … visiting reality}.

December 31, 2005 @ 2:26 pm | Comment

Richard,

Thank you for all your insight and wisdom in 2005. And thanks to your other contributors and commenters who make this the great site that it is.

I wash all good health and fortune in 2006.

December 31, 2005 @ 4:51 pm | Comment

Happy new year ! 🙂

December 31, 2005 @ 8:10 pm | Comment

Happy New Year!

I just saw Hu Jintao’s speech on TV – anyone know what his real New Year’s resolutions are? 🙂

This is a fine blog, Richard. Keep up the good work and all the best for the New Year

January 1, 2006 @ 1:00 am | Comment

This post will raise a hypothetical proposal for “virtual leaders”. Of course this is a product of an engineering mindset, it simply suggests something that may be useful. In other words, this suggestion may be used by good people, but it may also be used by bad people. Ok, let me continue this post.

We know that for any group of organized people, good or bad, its leader is very important. Therefore sometimes I’m very perplexed as to whether it is people who create history or heroes who create history.

The attitudes, styles, mindsets, and abilities of a leader will play pivotal roles. For example, China was lucky to have Mao Zedong and Deng Xiaoping. The USSR was unlucky to have Khrushev and Gorbachev. The terrorists are lucky to have Bin Laden and Al Zaqarwi(sp). If those leaders die, or assassinated, then the entire course of history may change. For example, the length of Arafat’s death has great bearing on the Middle East Peace process.

On the other hand, I am looking at the development of computers. When Deep Blue defeated Kasparov, was it really a victory for Deep Blue against Kasparov? I don’t think so. I believe it is the group of engineers that designed Deep Blue that ensured the victory. In other words, it looks as if it’s a computer playing a man, the core of it is still men against men.

Nowadays, there are “virtual newsbroadcasters” in Europe. It is just a computer generated person who looks very much like a real person with real voices, facial texture, etc. Of course this virtual broadcaster is backed up by a group of experts who design its personality, face, style, etc. This is better than a real broadcaster in that the station does not need to pay it any salary, it won’t leave the newsstation, and it won’t ever retire. The cost is simply the group of experts who maintain and refine this computer image.

I believe this concept can be extended to political leaders. For example, in a country’s election, real people can be banned from running, and all candidates must be computer generated images. So the election is not a battle between 2 people, but between 2 teams of people who design their respective “images”, including its voice, its expressions, its dress, its platforms, its ideas, its everything. So it’s really not an individual leader, but a group of leaders behind the scene (If you think about it, modern US elections have already become somewhat close to that). The individual on camera is literally fake, yet its decisions and its actions are all a result of the collective decision-making by the people behind the scenes. Yet those people will not be allowed to become leaders themselves or even appear in public.

This kind of virtual leader, if made realistic enough through high-tech computers, will achieve the same purposes of a real leader without deaths or “verbal accidents” like Bush, or emotional unstability, etc. It can be as perfect as the people want it to be, and will be more effective in rousing support and morale of the people. The real policies and real busineses of governance will be left to those behind the scenes of course.

Of course there are disadvantages to this. One of them is the possibility that terrorists might create their virtual leader as well. If that’s true, then they may create “Omasa La Binden”, who does not exist in real life but will go on TV everyday and give rousing speeches crafted by its designers, or made to visit certain areas, and he can be made to look very charming, or sound very brave, or have any favorable traits that the people like. So it will provide the exact same inspiration and drive for the terrorists’ movement as a real leader would. This will be a big trouble for the US because Omasa La Binden, unlike Osama Bin Laden, cannot be captured, and will be there forever, maybe for 100 years.

Today, there are software like 3Dstudio, Photoshop, Maya that can create very realistic renditions of human faces and bodies. But the realism is not good enough. Perhaps in 20 years the technology will be there. As for the voices, it’s feasible to just let one person be the voice of the virtual leader, or computer synthesized voices may be used. In fact, I will be very willing to work for the design and maintenance of such leaders, I think that’ll be a very fun and interesting job.

Of course this is a hypothetical idea, and will have a lot of issues to overcome for real implementation.

January 1, 2006 @ 12:32 pm | Comment

Math,

You’ve never had sex, have you.

I mean, with a Human.

January 1, 2006 @ 5:15 pm | Comment

Math,
To believe in something isn’t the same as simply knowing something. Intrinsic to the concept of belief is the implication that there is indeed an opposite of belief, disbelief. Not everyone will believe something is true, but all sane and rational people will acknowledge an observable fact.
For example, I can claim that I believe that it will rain at 3:00 AM, six years from today, and someone may agree with me and believe the same thing. If I hold a rock, and drop it, all who are present will acknowledge that a rock had been dropped… unless they are just choosing to be childish, whimsical, or are a philosophy major. The difference between the matter of the rock and the matter of the rain is the difference between an observable fact, and a thought accepted as a fact. One is present, provable, undeniable and concrete, the other, howsoever fervently believed, is not. The rain could come, my belief about it could be true enough, but there is no observable proof. There is nothing to point to, nothing to show, nothing to touch, nothing to smell, nothing to be experienced by the senses of others or myself. Facts can be experienced both in the mind and by the senses…and what is more, unlike a mental hallucination, the sensory experience can be shared with others. This means that all beliefs have as part of them an implied doubt. Facts cannot be doubted, they are observably real.
Beliefs can be, and often are, wrong.
Children in my culture often believe in Father Christmas, in the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy. To them, with their simple minds, these beliefs are facts. This is because very young children may not have developed sufficiently to discriminate between belief and fact. However, even adults can fall prey to such immature thinking, because they are afraid, because they are disturbed, because they are mentally ill, because they are filled with excitement, or a whole host of reasons. Hallucinations can occur that seem so real that they convince the brain that it has experienced observable fact. Such events add false certainty to beliefs.
Understanding always that beliefs are not facts, is the fundamental component of sanity. Confusing the two inevitably leads to catastrophe.
If I believe that by rubbing a hunk of quartz, I will gain the Power of Absolute Indestructibility, and I act on this belief as though it were a fact, I will quickly die under the metal onslaught of the first train I attempt to block. My belief might be true, but I have no proof. Acting as though I did have proof would lead to my destruction. When any belief is accepted as fact, catastrophe is inevitable. I remember (continued tomorrow)

January 1, 2006 @ 7:42 pm | Comment

Keir is on to something!

Listening to Math is like hanging out at the bus terminal, listening to the schizophrenic winos rattling off their theories about how space aliens have put computer chips in their skulls…

January 1, 2006 @ 8:06 pm | Comment

Ivan? That was YOU? You were the guy eavesdropping on me down at the bus terminal?

January 2, 2006 @ 2:42 am | Comment

Slim,

Hey, everybody needs a hobby!

January 2, 2006 @ 2:51 am | Comment

I want to inform everybody, that my identity was kidnapped for a short time in the last open threat when I was still in the midth a bacchanal Christmas and new year time. I have an assumtion who that evil terrorist could have been. Do you hear me Ivan?
I recovered and everything is back to normal by now, I hope.
Happy New Year everybody.

January 2, 2006 @ 6:54 am | Comment

Happy Belated New Year, everyone – I was at a party across town to mark the occasion.

Hope the coming year brings good things to all of you…

January 2, 2006 @ 2:45 pm | Comment

MORE tension between Japan and China!
Sounds intriguing: “China accused Japan on Thursday of “vile behaviour” for blaming the suicide
of a Japanese diplomat on Chinese agents, setting off a new round of tensions between the Asian rivals.
China’s Foreign Ministry criticized a statement by a Japanese government official Wednesday that said a Japanese consulate official in Shanghai killed himself in May 2004 as a result of “an impermissible act by the Chinese security authorities.”
http://www.mytelus.com/news/article.do?pageID=world_home&articleID=2131393

January 2, 2006 @ 6:28 pm | Comment

A mass-friendly official is also a uncorrupt official. This year, dirt bags like Han Gui Zhi were digged out and severely punished. Across the entire China, a total of 73000 corrupt officials across all levels have been investigated and punished. This gave a long sigh of relief to the people who felt victimized by some of those cheaters of the public.

This year’s economic achievements are truly significant. Growth has been steady at 9.4%, GDP broke 1,500,000 billion. Total imports and exports reaches 14,000 billion, ranking at number 3 globally. The successfuly launch of Shenzhou XI stimulated the entire nation for a long while. But to add sweets to sugar, a recent research shows that the 2004 GDP was underestimated by 16.8 %. This is a new “wallet” that was picked up by our hardworking Chinese people, perhaps it is a gift for Chinese New Year.

Watching international news, they are often filled with gun shots, explosions, “human meat bombers”, blood etc. I truly am grateful that these are not happening in China, and I’m a citizen of China.

To win more peaceful developing space. China started multilateral diplomacy and enforced friendly cooperation with neighbors and kept stable relations with main powers of the world. Hu met with Bush many times, and pushed forward the US-China relationship. A security dialog was started with Russia, and successfully held a military exercise with the Russian Army. When sentimates towards Japan became too stimulated in China, the media skillfully rechannelled the direction, and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs maintained rationality and principality in dealing with Japan. At the meeting of the 60th anniversary of the UN. President Hu gave the now famous “A Harmonious World” speech, earning a 20-minute thunderous applause, a record in the history of the UN General Assembly.

In dealing with A Bien’s “Taiwan Independence”, Hu raised the famous “Four No’s”. The National Assembly passed the Anti-Secession Law. Soon after, the leaders of KMT, Qing Ming Dang, and the New Party all visited China. The Central Government also suggested including Taiwan in China’s next 5-year economic plans, and resolving the high tariffs of Taiwan’s agricultural products on the Mainland market. It promised to push for the chartered flights between Taiwan and Mainland in 2006, by increasing the number of flights. These are all powerful political strikes against the Taiwan Independence forces. With regard to Hongkong and Macau, our government used economic, political, and diplomatic means to maintain the propserity and stability of those 2 places.

“He who worries for the people, the people will worry for him in return”. Giving a heart-felt Chinese New Year’s greeting to our President Hu who toiled for our livelihood this year, this is simply not too much to ask. Of course, our problems are still many, and there are quite a few places where we are not satisfied. But this is exactly why we need to unite more closely. A poet once uttered, “The Sun is new everyday”. Well, I say, “what is new is not the Sun, but the lives of the people who live under the Sun.”

In this new year of 2006, I sincerely wish our nation towards newer and greater tomorrow!

— Math, penned 1/03/2006

January 2, 2006 @ 11:12 pm | Comment

And just to top things off, China cured cancer, developed new energey resources making oil obsolete, cleaned all the world’s polluted water and air, ended poverty, gave blind people sight and discovered the keys to eternal youth and eternal life.

January 3, 2006 @ 12:28 am | Comment

@richard
not to forget the singing soya bean.

January 3, 2006 @ 12:56 am | Comment

Hongxing said: “Watching international news, they are often filled with gun shots, explosions, “human meat bombers”, blood etc. I truly am grateful that these are not happening in China, and I’m a citizen of China.”

“human meat bombers”?

Is this some new PETA tactic I’m unaware of? Or was “homicide bombers” just not gruesome enough for FOXNEWS?

January 3, 2006 @ 2:59 am | Comment

And as we know, no blood is ever shed in China.

January 3, 2006 @ 3:05 am | Comment

2005 Imagethief Statistics and Greatest Hits

That was the year that was.

And I suppose that this is the year that will be. Until we reach 2007,…

January 3, 2006 @ 4:00 am | Comment

There is something missing here. Or did I have a halluzination some hours ago?

January 3, 2006 @ 8:30 am | Comment

I’m still pretty new to this place, but also want to say happy new years.

Any of you guys watch Syriana? It’s a movie about US government, big companies, the middle east, and the nations competing for oil. China was also in the movie, but to a small extent. The movie reminded me of Maslow’s hierarchy, describing human behavior:
1. Physical survival
2. Need safety and security
3. Need to socially belong
4. Need for self esteem
5. Need for self actualization.

http://www.pateo.com/images/maslowmaster4ts.gif

I think countries have similar needs. I put this list up in xinhua.net when China did their Anti-cessation law, but it got pulled off after an hour.

Thinking of democratic nations like the US, my guess on the government policy is something like:
1. National security
2. Economic prosperity (this and the following affects Taiwan)
3. Spread institution of democracy (or hegemony, for our pro CCP audience)
4. World peace

For China, however, it’s probably more like:
1. Maintain tight control and power over the country (and incarcerate people who like to stretch in groups in public )
2. National security
3. Economic prosperity
4. Need for self esteem and respect (because we shot ourselves in the foot with the cultural revolution, destroying a generation of scientists/intelligent people, and eradicating our own culture which we’re now trying to bring back in attempt to create Economic prosperity)
5. World peace

This is Taiwan:
1. National security (but even we can’t agree on what this is because the US is being Strategically Ambiguous in recognizing us)
2. Economic prosperity (we have no control over the first one, so we work on this)
… hmm can’t think of any more for Taiwan.

So as complicated and weird as any country’s national foreign policy is, I believe they can be predicted by these needs. The list might need refinement though.

BTW, the highest execution per capita is Singapore. Highest incarceration per capital is the US. And since China wants to be like singapore rather than the US, here’s an idea of what’s to come in 2006 and beyond.

I know this might seem off topic, but given we’ve already gone to virtual s3x / virtual world leaders, this isn’t too bad , eh?

January 3, 2006 @ 12:26 pm | Comment

Math,

This is what your “2005 China in Review” sounded like to me.

President Bush was once again elected by Americans everywhere to become the leader of the free world. Across the nation, black or white, rich or poor made their testiment to the leadership of Bush and his leadership. Numerous corporate and government scandals identified the cheaters such as Tom Delay and Martha Stewart. This gave a long sigh of relief to the people who felt victimized by some of those cheaters of the public. Now everything is clean and dandy.

Economic acheievement was no less significant. We’re number ONE. And we still are. The world’s only space shuttle fleet, under the leadership of the GOP,and the american public, continued to work on the International Space Station, in a form of “interstellar harmonious universe.”

Europe again decided not to sell advanced military weapons to china, a ban set after Tianamen squre. The people of europe have spoken on this issue. In unrelated news, China agreed to buy tons of Boeing aircraft instead of Airbus not in retaliation to the weapons ban, but because our aircraft are superior.

In international news, we’re spreading democracy everywhere. The Iraqi people have stood up with our help, and so have the people in Afghanistan. The color revolutions that resulted from the GOP’s leadership in the middle east is a testiment to the will of people of the world that they will not rest until democracy is achieved everywhere.

Unfortunately, there have been insurgents. But unlike Vietnam in the 70’s or China in the 40’s, we have learned from our mistakes. The famous Secretary of defense Robert McNamara, described our mistake in Vietnam: we wanted to spread democracy while they thought we wanted to colonize. In China’s case, Secretary Marshall rebuilt Europe while our government neglected China, where the local insurgents were sponored by foreign communists from Russia. As freedom in our country increasinly depends on the freedom of other nations, we continue to fight for freedom of the world. We’ll never give up, we’ll stay until the fight’s won, GI Joe will dare. GI Joe, a real american hero. GI Joe.

In China-Taiwan-US relations, the US said “we won’t dance” to the military posturing of China, when a senior Chinese General said they would rather go to war and lose their entire eastern seaboard rather than lose the island of Taiwan, which the PRC has never controlled in history. We accepted their apology and hope to work with them in the future.

January 3, 2006 @ 1:26 pm | Comment

There is something missing here. Or did I have a halluzination some
hours ago?

A commenter usurped my identity and posted comments pretending to be me, and then responded to them in a fake dialogue, in the Dr. Ann Myers style. We all know who this commenter is.

January 3, 2006 @ 4:27 pm | Comment

ÑÎÎíÊÔÑéÏä
·ÛËéÉ豸
ÇÐƬ»ú

January 3, 2006 @ 5:52 pm | Comment

Math seems to be really into Hollywood political conspiracy film plots.

January 3, 2006 @ 6:59 pm | Comment

Wait a minute, I thought it was NORTH KOREA who ended poverty and gave sight to the blind and all that.

As we all know, you really should listen more to North Korea’s official news service. As we all know, every day the lives of North Koreans become happier under the correct leadership of the Communist Party of North Korea!

January 3, 2006 @ 7:52 pm | Comment

RE: China giving blind people sight.
You guys are so behind the times on this one. That happened a long time ago, at least with deaf mutes. Just go to the Morning Sun website (for those of you who have not fallen victim to the great firewall and can), and you’ll find a short film about how Mao Zedong Thought cured deaf mutes.
It is just as touching as it is believable.

January 3, 2006 @ 7:59 pm | Comment

Madge, take your mental illness off of my blog and bring it elsewhere – okay?

(Fake comment attributed to me deleted.)

January 4, 2006 @ 2:08 am | Comment

How quickly the New Year becomes like any other………year.

January 4, 2006 @ 4:28 am | Comment

Anyone who is not naive and has studied a little bit of Chinese history should know why the CCP suceeded so magnificiently in the Chinese revolution. Any attempt to blacken that, or to contain it, has failed with many shames (such as the invasion of North Korea and the american war in South Vietnam). It is stupid to try something that is so insignificant, such as verbally demonizing China in this forum. Just remember that the Voice of America had been doing the same from Hong Kong for a long time. It used to be very popular in China in the 80’s when it was banned. Now that VOA is legal in China, no one listens to such trash. LOL.

With 8 million troops and all heavy weaponry from USA, the enemy of the Chinese people lost the entire mainland in 3+ years. It was a “Waterloo” on the battle field. USA stood by cowardly, watched it. HAHA. Amelikans tried again with its own troops under the command of WWII hero MacArthur. That failed too, shamefully, and MacArthur and Truman pointed blame at each other, ending with the firing of MacArthur by Truman. HAHAHAH, too laughable!

Well, whatever you want to say, such as “xxxx protests” in China. To make it short, why not just send one million of your troops to invade China if you think the time is “ripe”? Stop joking me!

Don’t be cowards. We are waiting for you.

January 4, 2006 @ 3:34 pm | Comment

Which part of Korea is doing better? North or South?

You obviously don’t get any news outside CCP sponsored channels. The “economic miracle” in mainland China today happened half a century ago in non-CCP China: HK and Taiwan.

January 4, 2006 @ 4:14 pm | Comment

Richard
Enough is enough. After that Hong Xing’s last comment, he clearly shows he is without any intellectual merit and is simply a provacteur in the same form as MAJ. “the invasion of North Korea”?!?! He clearly hasn’ graduated from any respected educational institution if he gets that wrong. The US stood by ‘cowardly’? Obviously he has never heard of Stilwell, or how if it wasn’t for the courage of America, China would be kowtowing to Japan right now. The US courageously stopped helping a corrupt and incompetent regime. That’s cowardly? No, that woul be the Chinese way, where any regime, no matter how evil (Burma, DPRK, Zimbabwe) can expect support and encouragement from a morally empty CCP. And as for all those peasants betrayed by the comunists left with nothing but are forced to sufer and protest, according to this fascist they should screw themselves and shut up as only war and national honour matters.
Can we have votes a la Big Brother to kick people out from TPD house? There have been precedents. Offensive coments are one thing, but when they are not backed up by any evidence or moral regard (tell the Tibetans and the peasants suffering from GLF, CR etc etc etc that “the CCP suceeded so magnificiently in the Chinese revolution”) they are beyond uselessness.

January 4, 2006 @ 4:36 pm | Comment

Hong Xing,
Following you logic, Amelika retreated from invading China and left it to CCP’s control. Instead of strengthening China in 20 years following WWII, it was 20 years of infighting, leap backward, sons persecuting fathers, students beating teachers, teenagers destroying cultural relics and treasures. During that time, a war torn Japan and S. Korea rose from the ashes and created a larger wealth in both monetary and humanitarian means for their citizens. China should have out performed its neighbors by 1970’s, but didn’t.
Sorry, Hong Xing, without both genuine as well as the conditional help of the foreigners, China would not be easily where it is today. China took in both. Agree? Ok. See, it’s not that hard to accept the truth.

January 4, 2006 @ 7:09 pm | Comment

Keir,

HongXing actually serves a purpose here and I would not want to ban him. He helps to reinforce my own points about robotic nationalism and blind xenophobia. No one takes him seriously (not even himself) and he doesn’t cause harm. The other commenter you compare him to is a different story altogther, having gone out of his way to interfere in my personal life, to try to get me fired from my job and to harass me in an incredibly immature and destructive fashion. If HX ever did anything like that, he’d be out in a heartbeat. As it stands, I actually think he does more good than harm. He parodies everything that is rotten in the system he is allegedly defending.

January 4, 2006 @ 7:20 pm | Comment

Re: Mao curing deaf mutes:

Next time in Beijing I’m going to keep vigil by Mao’s tomb, to wait for him to rise from the dead. And then all of his disciples will be inspired to go around the world and teach the Mao’s Gospel of beating the shit out of little babies, and burning books and shitting all over civilisation….

…a man of miracles, he was….

January 4, 2006 @ 8:19 pm | Comment

I see richard’s point. It’s better to discuss here with people with opposing view points than to discuss on xinhua.net and have your comments pulled off because it’s not pro CCP.

Maybe it’s because I’m new but how do you know HX is not serious and seriously misinformed?

It’s down right scary for think that 1+billion people in this world are blind to reality and devoid of thought, self reflection, or rationality. More so than islamic extremism.

January 4, 2006 @ 8:21 pm | Comment

No, I don’t think guys like HX or Math are actually serious. This type of CCP guy needs to do a little chest-thumping now and then to shore up his sagging nationalistic ego. This type of person is hyper-sensitive to being “looked down upon”, and so feels the need to show a little false bravado now and then to keep the ol’ face in place.

The easist way to deal with his like is to just skip their comments.

My only wish is that the commenter’s names appeared before their writings. The ones I want to skip are inevitably l-o-n-g and require scrolling to see who wrote it, then scrolling back up if it’s worth a read.

January 4, 2006 @ 8:38 pm | Comment

hmmm, something was banned, which made people want to do it, then when people were allowed to do it they found their interest in doing that certain thing lessening.

funny how that works

January 4, 2006 @ 8:38 pm | Comment

HongXing has openly admitted his role in creating mischief on the Internet by passing around stories that discredit those whom the CCP has victimized or killed, such as Sun Zhigang. It’s really cool to have a self-confessed CCP propaganda instrument trolling my comments (actually he’s one of at least three). It makes my job so much easier.

January 4, 2006 @ 8:39 pm | Comment

Jeff, that’s human nature.

January 4, 2006 @ 8:54 pm | Comment

Hm, I wonder if Mao ever met Dame Edna Everage? (“A most extraordinary Lady!”)

I’d just LOVE to hear Dame Edna talk about how Mao helped her with her charity work!

January 4, 2006 @ 9:03 pm | Comment

HongXing,
Ni shi bai chi [你是白痴]. If you have such strong convictions about the CCP’s glorified place in world history and how its people are sharing paradise in terra with their comrades in N. Korea, why do you use a fake email address? Even Math, when he posts his pseudo intellectual, masturbatory, psychotic ramblings, uses a real email address.
HongXing, stop joking me. Either you stand behind your beliefs or you don’t. If you’re a real CCP propagandist, as you’ve claimed in the past, you’re missing all of the recognition that you should receive from the post above. HongXing, 你有问题, and you’ve probably heard this before.

January 4, 2006 @ 9:59 pm | Comment

I know, it supposed to be a sarcastic reply to HX’s post about the VOA and directed at the CCP in general.

Interestingly in Beijing they still block out the VOA radio waves with hi-tech magic or something (or at least last time i checked they did).

January 4, 2006 @ 10:13 pm | Comment

I’ve been able to listen to both VOA and BBC via shortwave from locations across China, although the BBC claims that their broadcasts are still jammed with some regularity.
I’ve never been able to access the BBC News website directly from within China. I can, however, access it through my organization’s VPN by connecting to Beijing, Xi’an, Chengdu, etc., once (and once only) from each new location. All subsequent attempts at connecting are blocked.

January 4, 2006 @ 10:34 pm | Comment

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4577672.stm

You guys have any idea why Taiwan doesn’t have any asylum law?

January 5, 2006 @ 12:13 am | Comment

It may be laziness, but I take comments from HongXing and his fellow travelers as expressing their true beliefs. Whenever I suspect that it might be irony, I remind myself that we are looking at a civilization that, for all its philosophical, literary, and scientific advances, bound women’s feet for over a thousand years. Indeed, the practice came under fire only after contact with the west. That in itself speaks volumes.

January 5, 2006 @ 12:59 am | Comment

JC, when did you learn to write Chinese??

Ed, good question. I don’t know why we don’t have an asylum policy here in Taiwan, but would guess it’s to curtail a potential tidal wave of refugees.

Lirelou, I think HX believes in the party, but I also think he’s playing a very cynical game and is fully aware of his deceit,

January 5, 2006 @ 1:20 am | Comment

Oh my god! Hong gained control over my beloved Xing. Xing is there any way I can help you?

January 5, 2006 @ 4:39 am | Comment

Shulan,

All Hong gets to eat is nasssty Elvises, and they don’t tastes very nice, Preciousssss…..

January 5, 2006 @ 4:48 am | Comment

A dilettantish attempt to express my feelings about the cruel fate of our beloved Xing:

In darkest night there shines a star
Brings hope and love that seemed so far
But ice-cold Angst grabs at my heart
The star turns red
All hope is dead

January 5, 2006 @ 5:23 am | Comment

I believe in the CCP, not because I have some inherent love for it, or that I am “brainwashed”, but that it has done a great job in China for the past several decades. Honestly, if you led the KMT or the US Democratic Party or the Republican party run this country of 1.3 billion, they would’ve done a better job. There are many areas of improvements, from the gap between the rich and the poor, the plight of the migrant workers, the degradation of the environment, etc. But you have to admit that the central gov’t is serious in tackling these problems. I mean, if the entire CCP is really that incompetent and utterly corrupt, how is it possible China, on the whole is rising quickly both economically and politically on the world stage? If the CCP is is really THAT HORRIBLE, wouldn’t China today be as poor and as failed a country like North Korea, or the entire continent of Africa? But clearly even most of you guys would agree that China today is “doing pretty well” even when you take into account all of its problems, right?

I mean if someone who has no knowledge about China, and comes to Peking Duck as the sole source of news and information about China, he would form an image of China has an utterly backward and utterly oppressive nation where every citizen is secretly crying and trying to flee, where the gov’t has not done anything sensible or good for its people, where it is on the verge of totally ruin, etc. Now, be honest, do you really think, from the bottom of your heart, that China today is such a country? The fact that most of you stay and live in China and are not suffering and mentally anguished means China is not that horrible a place after all, right?

In the US, most immigrants from other “dictatorial regimes” such as Cuba, Iran, Myanmar, etc have nothing good to say about their home countries. Their overseas communities are almost 100% against their home government. But Mainland Chinese immigrants often are split as to their opinion of CCP, and the feelings towards the CCP amongst overseas Chinese are not uniform at all. If you walk to the streets of New York or Los Angeles and ask a Mainland immigrant on their opinions of CCP (or even Mao), some will say the CCP is utterly evil and should be gotten rid of as soon as possible, but I bet an equal number of people will say the CCP has its problems, but it has gone through a lot of reforms and they still think it is and will do a good job. And somehow I’m willing to claim that the latter group is generally more educated and more intellectual.

The fact that there are debates like this going on about the CCP itself shows that it is at least legitimately arguable as to its “goodness” and “competency”, right? Would you at least concede that? I mean you don’t hear people defending the North Korean government or the Iranian government or the many African dictatorships (other than some extreme Leftists).

I can’t convince some of you of course, because like I said before, our “positions” are different. As a Chinese, I am optimistic about China’s future, let’s just agree to disagree.

January 5, 2006 @ 9:45 am | Comment

Honestly, if you led the KMT or the US Democratic Party or the Republican party run this country of 1.3 billion, they would’ve done a better job.

Should read “they would not have done a better job”

January 5, 2006 @ 9:46 am | Comment

“I mean you don’t hear people defending the North Korean government or the Iranian government or the many African dictatorships (other than some extreme Leftists).”

The Iranian government is certainly defended – by China for example. And the African dictatorships are protected by their neighbours – even South Africa backs Mugabe.

Plus when was the last time the UNSC censured North Korea?

January 5, 2006 @ 11:38 am | Comment

I read a book by John Fenby, on Chiang Kai Shek. He visited CKS’s museum in mainland China and asked the curator (a mainlander) what he thought of CKS. The curator’s comments were that had the KMT maintained control of China, things there would probably be the same way they are today, except that China would not have had to suffer through the communes and cultural revolution.

When people say how the KMT was corrupt in mainland, they certainly have a point. But that needs to be in context of how the CCP has been. Given that comparison I think it suffices to say corruption (guanxi, etc) is abound in Chinese culture.

People saying how China is doing so well never seem to open their eyes to how Taiwan has done. At the end of the day, the CCP screwed up for decades ideologically, economically, and now are playing catch-up.

Now that the government has gotten out of people’s way and allow them to do business, sure, of course the Chinese people will do well. It is not because of the CCP – it is in spite of the CCP. In this respect, China is like Taiwan before 1980. Certainly, with the help of WalMart and other US vendors technology is being transferred more quickly today, so we can expect China to grow faster.

That’s the thing about totalitarian societies like mainland China. If you grow up in it, you have no other perspective. As a result you rationalize why the existing leadership is great, as opposed to really thinking critically.

Just about every newspaper I saw in Shanghai was smaller than my high school newspaper. HIGH SCHOOL NEWSPAPER! Too bad they can’t get the South China Morning Post up there.

January 5, 2006 @ 12:47 pm | Comment

By the way, China_Hand, I agree China has made some good strides under the CCP. But given my comments above from John Fenby’s book, it is pretty clear to me that the just about any other party with a similiar amount of control (KMT, etc) could have done an equal or better job.

Keep in mind, whatever party runs China, it’s really the same people. But having the CCP running China means that there is some serious ideological baggage, such as:

1) re-writing history (what is the “Chinese anti-Japanese allied army”? – nothing more than rewriting history to say CCP fought the Japanese, when it was all KMT )

2) military posturing against Taiwan (Taiwan is of no military or economic significance to communist China, so it seems to me it is really just to rally the people and consolidate support, not unlike Leopoldo Galtieri trying to rally Argentinians with by invading the Falklands)

3) oppressing people who like to stretch in groups in public (and other group activities) because they can’t really recant on that decision now.

I’m sure the Nazis could have done a decent job running post WWII germany, if they gave up killing jews and invading more countries. CCP running China is not so different than a reformed Nazi party running Germany.

January 5, 2006 @ 1:14 pm | Comment

All the above problems you cited are not unique to CCP.

Every government re-writes history to some degree to paint itself in the best possible light. This is called “winners write history”, or more specifically winners have the power to interpret history. The US government does not admit that it’s wrong to go into Vietnam, or install dicatorships in Latin America, etc etc. All American high school textbooks mention those issues, sure. But none will say explicitly “The US comitted many crimes in supporting dictatorships in Latin America , or in its treatment against Native Americans, etc” The most it’ll say is, “There is an opinion that the treatment of Native Americans was unfair and unjust”. If you say “but the CCP is worse at twisting history!”. Well that may be a valid point, but fundamentally it’s the same.

Military posture against Taiwan is simply poltical technique in dealing with Taiwan, just like in the Kennedy years the US militarily postured against Cuba (and actually did invade it). Right now, the US is also militarily posturing against Iran. This is a geopolitcal matter that is independent of government. These days, the foreign policy think tanks in the Mainland are developing new strategies against Taiwan, and clearly military posturing has been greatly diminished and replaced with economic incentives and political maneuvering.

What is the point of a government? A government is a “lesser evil” (corruption, police, bureaucracy, social injustice) that people accept so that the “big evils” (Wars, famines, anarchy, cannabalism, etc) can be avoided. A government, or more accurately, a regime, is simply a tool to keep the status quo in a state. This is the same in every country in the world. And government keeps its control through the use of police, military, courts, media, bureacracy, laws, etc etc. You may see these things as “good” things, but in reality every one of them is an “evil” thing that goes against humanity. But the alternative is worse, so we all accept those little evils.

The highest state of the world is one in which there’s no concept of country or government, no need for courts, militaries, constitutions, news medias, etc.

Perhaps this may surprise you, but Mao wrote in his collected essays that “All regimes in the world will be smashed by history. The Chinese Communist Party and myself will also be smashed to pieces. Is this a sad thing? No, I think this is quite a happy thing. Our job is to make the Chinese Communist Party and ourselves be smashed sooner rather than later.”

January 5, 2006 @ 1:47 pm | Comment

China_hand, if you’re from mainland China, you are one of the most well informed and reflective person I’ve come across. China’s problems are certainly not unique.

Military Posturing
However, mainland China’s military posturing against Taiwan is hardly comparable to the US-Russia cold war, which is what Cuba/Kennedy was all about. Attack on to Cuba was by all exlied Cubans. Can you find 1500 Taiwanese militants that want to go liberate Taiwan in China? Also, unlike Cuba, Taiwan isn’t pointing nuclear missles at anybody.

And US posturing against Iran is in line with the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, a treaty which China supports. If the NPT fails, N,S Korea and Japan will want nuclear weapons. And be sure that if S Korea and Japan gets nukes, Taiwan will be soon to follow, irrespective of whatever threats come from the mainland.

Iran’s presidents is also crazy, claiming during his UN speech he felt a supernatural presence supporting him. He’s trying to make himself a prophet, and acquire nuclear weapons. President Chen in Taiwan is a little more mentally stable to my knowledge. CCP is building support in China by continuing the civial war either in a military, political, or economic fashion.

January 5, 2006 @ 3:32 pm | Comment

China Hand, here’s my proposal to you to offset the ‘China has so many problems’ tendency you see on this site: Put all of your energies into making the mainland a place where a public debate can be held by Chinese about Chinese issues. I mean look at the US – people are so busy arguing with each other that nobody cares what suggestions some foreigners have about US issues, and groups of people can make known to the rest of the world that they don’t support the war, ect. Believe me, we all would like to hear about what ordinary Chinese people think of their country’s issues, and the noise from that debate would completely drown out the small voice foreigners have on this site.

January 5, 2006 @ 3:35 pm | Comment

Hand, there certainly are distortions in the histories of all nations. There’s a certain amount of self-preservation on a cultural level that kicks in because a society has to maintain a reasonable level of self-confidence.

But historiography in the PRC has some distinctions from the common histories of many Western nations. For one, history is not dictated by fiat from a central state authority in the U.S. I’ve mentioned many times that official PRC histories of Xinjiang begin, ad nauseum, with the phrase “Xinjiang has been an inseperable part of China since ancient times” or some small variation on that theme. It is so ubiquitous that anyone who studies Xinjiang historical materials from the PRC that it is nothing less than a mantra. Never mind whether its true or not, for the sake of argument I’m willing to concede that it is. The point is that this is the official history, as handed down from the government in Beijing. History books that have disagreed have been banned and suppressed.

US schools, on the other hand, have far greater freedom to choose history textbooks. A recent book, Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong, is not only widely available in bookstores (I challenge you to find a “Lies My PRC Textbook Told Me” equivalent), but if you visit the authors website (he is a professor at the University of Vermont), you will find tips for teachers, and comments like this one:

“I . . . just finished reading your book, Lies My Teacher Told Me, and I absolutely loved it! It really inspired the way that I am looking at my curriculum. As a matter of fact, I was up at 3AM planning out how to revise my semester.” — Brandon Hentze, high school history teacher, via hotmail.com.

School boards in the U.S. have a far greater degree of freedom to select textbooks at a local level than those in the PRC, and teachers have a great deal more freedom to incorporate books such as “Lies”.

You can say that there is an underlying similarity between the PRC and the US as far as any nation, culturally, has difficulty facing all of its dark past simply to protect itself. But that is where the similarity ends. History in the US is a public sphere for conflict over truth, identity and culture. What is “mainstream” history is decided through a constant public debate between the various interests in American society. History in the PRC is an exercise in ideological reinforcement and the state’s explicit justification of itself, with no public debate. Just ask a Uyghur.

I’ll point out, also, that the PRC actually takes this principle of self-preservation and bends it to the will of the state. Take the official history of Modern China before 1949. PRC official history has heavily emphasized this as a period of humiliation and shame. After 1949 is depicted as a recovery from this shame. That’s because it legitimizes the communist government as the savior of the Chinese nation. Ironically, the Party preserves itself by denigrating its ancestors. Modern Chinese history involves a much greater degree of self-loathing than most other nations, even compared to many other victims of colonialism. The flip side of emphasizing the failures of the Qing and the Republicans, of course, is to ignore many of the achievements and successes they did have.

January 5, 2006 @ 3:46 pm | Comment

The Purpose of a Nation
There is a theory that Romans changed Christianity to focus on eternal life rather than self enlightenment to gain control of the people. Mao’s comment is similar in saying that “our goal is a heaven with no need for any gov institutions,” implying that anything we do to achieve this goal is justified.

The point of a government, or a nation, I believe, is to maintain a way of life. People are like animals without the proper incentives of law and enforcements. However, these laws must be ethical, enforcible, and benefits the nation as a whole.

Running a country, unlike crossing a river, is like managing a complex system of differential equations. Incentives must be set up to allow people to form groups with similar interests to ensure that people’s voices are heard. This way, if the poor are too numerous and destitute, they can push for change. In China, people express their greivances by either 1) going to the CCP, and getting no response, 2) protesting and risk getting beat up or killed

The argument that “even democracies have flaws, like totalitaians or authoritaians like China, so it’s all the same thing” is the biggest BS I’ve ever heard in my life. With that logic, you’re no different than a thief because you cheated on a spelling test in the 7th grade.

Of crouse, there are problems with democracies, and giving people information and bargaining power. For example, we can’t just kick people out and make a railroad or power plant. But then people get to be more informed, and nobody has to die because of it.

January 5, 2006 @ 3:48 pm | Comment

Another interesting thing about US textbook adoption: according to the Thomas B Fordham Institute, which appears to be a pro-charter school thinktank:

Evidence that centralized control of textbook adoption leads to dumber students? Not sure, but an interesting thought.

January 5, 2006 @ 4:14 pm | Comment

Shulan (scrolling up),

You threw down the gauntlet! Now you’ve provoked me into a Bad Poetry duel!

Here’s mine – aspiring to get it published in “Private Eye”:

So farewell then,
Xing.
Maybe in another
Life, it can be very convenient
When you can teach us
Xinglish.

January 5, 2006 @ 5:36 pm | Comment

Seriously, I’d like to hear dave rip apart the CCP’s catch-all retort to any “Foreigner” who confronts them with information they don’t want to hear:

“You don’t understand China”…

…it’s the reasoning of a three year old child. The CCP are like infant tyrants, like tiny children who actually DO have absolute power.
A three year old child doesn’t care about truth, or evidence, or reality.
A three year old child just presumes that whatever he wants to be real, is real.

“I am Superman” says the three year old child. “No, you are just a silly child,” says the adult. And then the child says, “No, I really AM Superman, you just don’t understand!”

“Mao saved China,” say the CCP. “No he didn’t”, says a rational adult. “Yes he did! You just don’t understand China!” says the infant-tyrant CCP.

January 5, 2006 @ 6:04 pm | Comment

…and Communist Peter Pan says to the whole audience:

“Everyone in the audience! Clap your hands if you believe in the Tinkerbell Communist Party, or else she will die! Clap, everyone! Clap your hands if you believe in the Communist Party, or else Tinkerbell will die! Clap your hands if you believe in Fairies!”

January 5, 2006 @ 6:07 pm | Comment

There too many responses, and I can’t address each individual one (and many of those points are valid).

But the larger issue is that there seems to be such an absolutist view what is “right” and
“good” for a country and it is a result of the “gospel” of democracy and freedom that’s been spread around the world backed by the US and it’s so entrenched in everyone’s heart that you cannot imagine how can anything other than the “three branches of gov’t”, “checks and balances”, “independen judiciary”, “congress and parliaments”, “due process”, etc possibly be good.

Those things (by “those things” I mean the whole package of ideas such as the ones mentioned above) may be good for US, for Western Europe, for Japan, for Taiwan,etc. But all that proves is that those things have SO FAR been good for THOSE SPECIFIC countries with their SPECIFIC conditions during specific periods of time (post WWII, or maybe from 1900’s on for some countries). But how do you know there aren’t other possibilities out there, other ways of governing, other different ideas? And how do you the systems these countries have now won’t prove to be totally ineffective 50-100 years down the right, when we wil be in a totally different time?

Sure, I grant you that for the last 50 or so years, that set of ideas have worked well for many countries. But 50 years is nothing but a blink of an eye in the riverbed of history. What about the next 50 years, and the next 50 years? Is it possible that maybe a authoritarian gov’ts start to be restored across the world 100 years from now as people slowly start to see some serious problems with their old systems? And historians 200 years from now will only regard democracy has an idea that had its run of popularity and success for about 50-80 years and then quickly was shown to be a fundamentally flawed system? Well, I don’t know, but I’d like to keep an open mind.

I have a lot more to say, but I’ll stop for now to gather my thoughts and maybe talk more on some points later.

January 5, 2006 @ 6:46 pm | Comment

This is a very funny yet telling post from Imagethief:

http://news.imagethief.com/blogs/china/archive/2005/11/08/5039.aspx

How to Write a Generic China Bird Flu Story
——————————————————

1) Alarmist headline:

Rural Chinese farms perfect incubators for planet-destroying superbug!

2) Rustic introductory scene to demonstrate China’s backwardness and ignorance:

November 8, Choukeng, China: In the remote village of Choukeng, chicken farmer Shen Jifen wades through a veritable lake of chickenshit.

“Chickens, chickens, chickens. It’s all we know in this village,” said the 103 year old, dirt-poor illiterate farmer as he lazily swatted a wheezing, mortally ill chicken off of his head. “We raise chickens, we eat chickens, we wear chickens. I treat these chickens like my own children. Except for the slaughtering.”

3) Inducement of disgust to drive home backwardness and ignorance:

So numerous are the chickens in Choukeng that the entire village is three feet deep in warm chickenshit. To get to market or visit neigbors, villagers pole small, flat-bottomed boats through the fetid chickenshit. The flimsy houses are built on stilts, and anything heavier than a chicken rapidly sinks.

“Last year three people drowned in chickenshit,” said Shen. “We buried them in coffins of baked chickenshit. It’s our primitive and destitute way.”

4) Sinister hint of biological menace, amplified by rural backwardness:

But now the stream of chickenshit is drying up as Choukeng’s once nearly infinite supply of chickens begins to drop dead. Avian flu has arrived here, carried by the Siberian booze-cranes that stop to feed in Choukeng as they follow their migratory route from Smolensk to winter drinking grounds in Lan Kwai Fong.

Instead of culling their sickening flocks or incinerating the dead birds, the villagers of Choukeng are unwittingly creating an environment ripe for the rise of pandemic bird flu.

“When chickens die, we collect the blood and rub it all over our bodies,” said Shen. “The blood of chickens that have died from infection is a well known cure for wind.”

5) Raise the specter of government incompetence:

Now the Chinese government has arrived in Choukeng to manage a cull of sick poultry. But instead of helping, they may be making the problem worse. Local officials are using compensation money provided by the central government and intended for farmers to stage bloody, baijiu-lubricated cockfights and to build the world’s largest, free-standing concrete chicken statue in a bid to attract more tourists to the impoverished region.

6) Gratuitous journalist abuse:

A journalist who attempted to sneak into one of the cockfighting sessions disguised in a chicken suit was detained by plainclothes police and forced to write ‘I am not a giant chicken’ 1000 times on a blackboard, before he was stripped of all clothing and possessions, sprayed with superglue, rolled in glitter, and turfed out of town with the Chinese words for “dangerous lunatic” written on his forehead in permanent marker.

7) Alarm bells from the international health bureaucracy:

“They’re making a righteous screw-job of the whole thing up there,” said Bjorn Neutral-?0‰0bserver, a Beijing-based representative of the World Health Organization. “The Ministry of Health would cover up news of acne if it could get away with it.”

Mr. Neutral-?0‰0bserver stressed, however, that bird flu remains confined to poultry and migratory birds.

“For the moment, it’s still perfectly safe to visit remote, unsanitary shitholes infested with thuggish police,” he said before boarding a plane bound for his apocalypse bunker buried deep in the Swiss Alps.

8) Vox populi:

Foreigners living in China are paying little heed to the brewing health crisis in the hinterlands.

“What? What are you talking about? What’s this about chickenshit? And why do you have ‘dangerous lunatic’ written on your forehead?” commented a Beijing based PR consultant and blogger who gave his name only as ‘Imagethief’.

9) Tear-jerking rural finale:

But in remote and smelly Choukeng village, the crisis is already all too real.

“When all the chickens die, the lake of chickenshit will dry up and become hard,” said a wistful Shen. “Our way of life will come to an end. And it will be really hard to pole those little boats around.”

January 5, 2006 @ 7:08 pm | Comment

Of course, that is not limited to Bird Flus, but I think that formula can be applied to any reports on China we read in the AP, Reuters, or the NY Times.

January 5, 2006 @ 7:09 pm | Comment

“Those things (by “those things” I mean the whole package of ideas such as the ones mentioned above) may be good for US, for Western Europe, for Japan, for Taiwan,etc. But all that proves is that those things have SO FAR been good for THOSE SPECIFIC countries with their SPECIFIC conditions during specific periods of time (post WWII, or maybe from 1900’s on for some countries). But how do you know there aren’t other possibilities out there, other ways of governing, other different ideas?”

China_Hand, you are wrong. The “package of ideas” these countries hold sacred, are NOT governing styles or systems; they are a set of values that have been obtained and tested over and over in human history.

As you already concede, these countries, namely the U.S., Western Europe, Japan and Taiwan are governing well under those “packages”, but it has been an on-going process that also never stopped. These nations didn’t by accident chose to revere these humanistic ideals in the government just to “prove” anything. They did it because they know and believe that this packages of ideals are worth fighting and striving for, for all the generations to come.

You see, your problems are that you continue to forsake those package of ideals that are in fact universal; Chinese sages of antiquity have long claimed the equivalent. Differences in “governing” is not what we ultimately stipulate about CCP; it’s the actions and consequences of CCP’s governing which have manifested its continuous disregard of liberty, humanity and individual dignity that we have quams about. As a foreign educated elite from China, you owe yourself at least the acknowledgement of that same “package of ideals” are in fact beyond borders.

January 5, 2006 @ 8:09 pm | Comment

Suddenly so much juice flowed from so many people’s mouths! There’s even one person who even spoke some Chinese to me. JC, how many pieces of bones did your Amelikan father throw you? Let me give you a Chinese phrase for free: ²ÙÄãÃÀ¹ú°Ö°ÖµÄ³ôÉ©±Æ, ÃñÔËÖí.

I am not too good in English and I cannot write long writings like some of you trashe garbages can. China hand, you are a great patriotic man, do not stop attacking those wild raby-dogs!!!!

Ivan, quickly phone home to your mom, she was yesterday diagnosed with late stage lung cancer, I’m serious!!!

January 5, 2006 @ 8:10 pm | Comment

HongXing,

My mother was born before Communist China and she will outlive it. And she was doing charity work for Asian orphans back when YOUR mother was a Red Guard beating up old Chinese men and old Chinese women.

January 5, 2006 @ 8:57 pm | Comment

No doubt she was tenderizing them for typical Red Guard recipes…

January 5, 2006 @ 9:20 pm | Comment

HongXing,
Saw an article yesterday on the BBC News website that I think you’ll appreciate titled ‘Chinese company wants “dog” staff’.
An excerpt sums it up: “We believe that people born in dog years are born with some good characteristics such as loyalty and honesty,” Mr Dong, personnel manager and himself a dog, told The Associated Press.
I assume you were born in either 1946, 1958, 1970, 1982, any of which would make you a dog. Enjoy the article 狗屎 !

January 5, 2006 @ 9:21 pm | Comment

JC, stop insulting dogs.

January 5, 2006 @ 10:02 pm | Comment

Hey, this is getting cool! HX has become unhinged and begun to hurl old fashioned Chinese political denunciations! “Your mother is a dog! Your father was a hamster! I fart in your general direction!”

Two suggestions:

1. HX, PLEASE insult my Mother MORE! She has a great sense of humor, and she would love it if I sent her some REALLY GOOD Chinese insults! If I tell her, “Hey Mom, a Chinese Communist said your mother was a bitch!” …well my mother might actually agree with that….. 🙂
(So would my Grandmother. She would think being insulted by HX was great fun…..)

2. Let’s start a game! (Or maybe even a new thread, just for this game!) We can call it: “Cultural Revolution” – going around and around with political denunciations.
Kind of like “Musical Chairs”, but with Chinese style political denunciations!
The rules are: You have to denounce EVERYONE on the thread, and then the NEXT person has to denounce everyone in a DIFFERENT WAY, and if you repeat what someone else said, you lose your place.

I’ll start! First:

1. Richard is evil American Duck, if he is dinner he will taste bad! Richard American Duck, you are no good duck dinner, only good for cats to chase!

2. Other Lisa is Other than Correct, she is tigress only to make into fur coat!

3. Davesgonechina, go away, be gone! HAHA!

4. Ivan is Russia pretend be America, down with all Russia revisionist, down with Krushchev! Shame on Ivan, get out of Siberia and send China your gas! Ivan like Russia, only good for gas!

5. Shanghai Slim is like animal in street of Shanghai! Nobody feed the Slim! HAHA! Make him ashamed now!

6. ….hang on, let me think of some more. Meanwhile the rest of you can join in whenever you like….. 🙂

January 5, 2006 @ 10:23 pm | Comment

Hey guys, is HongXing retarded? It’s a serious question.

China_hand, you certainly have a point that not every system fits every society, and that not all countries can be immediately ready for democracy. During the Chinese civil war when the US ordered the KMT to suspend its campaign against the CCP for 4 months because they wanted everybody to happily move into democracy was naive indeed. These are two groups both of which had violently been killing each other. They are not about go to the polls together.

China is no longer in civil war however, and I think even in the mainland they’ve realized that commues don’t work. So today we effectively have a Democratic and Authoritarian China. Why you believe that PRC can’t move into democracy when Taiwan was able to? What makes China not ready for it? (other than the fact that the cultural revolution set the mainland back decades).

If your argument is that PRC shouldn’t move into democracy because we don’t think it’s a good idea, then you are pointing out that PRC wants to maintain the benefits of an authoritarian government. These benefits include a more responsive government, one more effective in certain endeavors because no public discussion is needed.

However, this government has no incentive to answer to the people. Certain good leaders might, but there is no system to enforce it. As a result, you have events like the Hundred Flowers Campaign, and abuse of power ensues. I used to work at a very large software company in San Francisco. Our VP wanted ideas of how we could improve and set up a hotmail account. This VP had already been doing a pretty bad job. The employees fumed at him. He close the account in a matter of hours. Kind of like Mao’s Hundred Flowers Campaign, except no one died. Countries should not be run like companies however.

Authoritarianism, under any leadership: CCP, KMT, Dem, Rep, or Bath party will eventually lead to abuse of power unless there is an effective mechanism to replace them with leadership more in tune with the people. (fake democracies like Singapore do not count)

If your goal is the Carl Marx idea of a utopia without government, how is an authoritarian government closer to this than a democratic one?

January 5, 2006 @ 11:33 pm | Comment

Ivan, you are really cracking me up. I loved the one about “Xinglish.” And the poem.

January 5, 2006 @ 11:34 pm | Comment

Ivan, I can’t compete with your effort! You win! You degenerate, splittist Kulak, you…

January 5, 2006 @ 11:39 pm | Comment

Ed (way, way back in the thread): Iran’s presidents is also crazy, claiming during his UN speech he felt a supernatural presence supporting him.

Bush has made practically the exact same statement, insisting that God is the one urging him to press on with his insane agenda.

January 5, 2006 @ 11:45 pm | Comment

OK, I’ll try:

1. Richard: Capitalist Roader trying to revive the bourgeois “ducktail” haircut and cowboy jeans.

2. Other Lisa: Murdered First Lisa, wrapped her body in a big character poster and dumped the body in the Yangtse (singing: We love the Yangtse, Yangtse Kiang / Flowing from Yushu down to Ching Kiang!)

3. Ivan: Writes Soviet Revisionisms in the blood of the working people. Loyal Red Guards, Moose and Squirrel, will smash him.

4. Davesgonechina: now undergoing re-education in a laogai.

5. Shanghai Slim: this bourgeois name disgraces his people, as it is inspired by reactionary capitalist Lindsay Lohan.

January 5, 2006 @ 11:48 pm | Comment

HEEEHEEEHEEE!!!!!

I can’t…performance anxiety…I…just…can’t.

Except that Richard is obviously a Western agent trying to weaken China through the spread of American-engineered duck flu.

January 6, 2006 @ 12:03 am | Comment

Ed: ey guys, is HongXing retarded? It’s a serious question.

I won’t allow anyone in here to denigrate retarded people.

January 6, 2006 @ 12:07 am | Comment

Richard,

If you don’t want to denigrate retarded people, then you should remove all of your posts about GW Bush.

January 6, 2006 @ 12:24 am | Comment

Hey trash garbages, I think you are about to make HongXing cry! He is calling help to China_Hand.

January 6, 2006 @ 1:18 am | Comment

richard, its one thing for someone saying his god guides him. It is quite another in iran’s president’s case: he claimed he felt a green energy around him when he spoke at the UN, and claims to be a messiah.

January 6, 2006 @ 1:20 am | Comment

Ah, I didn’t realize it was that peculiar. Still, I see parallels with bush’s insistence that “God told me” to do this or that.

January 6, 2006 @ 1:23 am | Comment

Not religious myself, not after the many hours of star trek.

January 6, 2006 @ 1:33 am | Comment

“You!!! What planet is this?!”

January 6, 2006 @ 1:47 am | Comment

Davesgonechina:

Ah, you threw down the gauntlet! Now we have an impromptu poetry contest going!

Let me bend the rules with a denunciation sonnet:

To R., the only true begetter of this sonnet:

A Red Star wobbled toward me, with a rose
Embalmed and pressed to two dimensions, as
He pleaded, “Ivan, my love for you chose
To prove my Love, by acting like a spaz.”
HongXing spazzed out, and turned into a freak,
In front of Richard, and an audience,
And so, I heard the Red Star madman speak,
And in the end, that fucker made no sense.
The Communists want Love. But yet they crave
Some sanity, as only others give,
And so, HongXing’s brain never can be saved:
His brain was filtered out, as through a seive.
And like a seive, I send this comment now:
HongXing, you’re still alive, you freak. But how?

January 6, 2006 @ 1:55 am | Comment

Ivan, your use of iambic pentameter puts Milton and Shakespeare to shame! I am truly impressed.

January 6, 2006 @ 2:38 am | Comment

Richard,

Thanks, but please DON’T compare me to Milton. You know I’m an English-Irish Catholic (never mind my Russian side), and Milton was a Puritan bastard. (Although, he did write pretty good poetry.) I have some old grievances against Puritans, an old family feud. Whenever I visit Westminster Abbey, I stomp on the site where Cromwell used to be buried, and then I spit on it. Literally, I always do this.

But Shakespeare is more than cool!

January 6, 2006 @ 4:00 am | Comment

Okay, I can’t resist getting into the act. Forgive me, John Milton!

To you at Peking Duck I wish to sing
A song of tribute to the great Hong Xing.
At times he seems to verge on mindless bawling,
Impelling some to name him “Red Star Falling.”
His asinine and so-contrived defense
Of Chairman Mao – while yielding little sense –
Informs me that, just like the neo-cons,
He’s basically a Red automaton,
Pre-programmed and devoid of thinking skill,
With neither conscience, morals or free will;
The talking points he utters are arcane,
The arguments he makes, clearly insane;
And yet he serves a purpose here, you see,
Providing for the likes of you and me
A fine example of the brainwashed jerk
Who spouts the party line and lives to lurk
Anon’mously in comments on my blog,
Where, shrouded in the mist of cyber-fog,
His dreary propaganda he can vent,
Immune to ridicule, embarrassment.
A specimen of CCP dementia,
HongXing, I really want to ask, “Who sent ya?”
Don’t answer –all I really want to know
Is what we need to do to make you go.
Okay, enough, Hong Xing has won the badge –
Officially I name him Son of Madge!
You won this honor for your strange endeavor;
Now please, be gone, depart my blog forever.

Please HX? Please??

January 6, 2006 @ 4:47 am | Comment

Richard, in a friendly way you have thrown down the gauntlet to me, for me to try to write better extemp poetry than you have done.

Meanwhile, I say, that if I had different erotic inclinations, I would kiss you. Oh what the hell, I WILL KISS you! xxxx

Oh, that felt good!

Now give me a bit of pause, and let me create some poetry to match yours…. 🙂

January 6, 2006 @ 5:29 am | Comment

First, to all of you, a most Happy New Year (realizing, of course, that not all of you celebrate the start of a New Year in the same season, but regardless of your cultural allegiances, I hope that 2006 AD/CE is a year of success).

I invite all of you to make certain you read Tom Friedman’s article posted today (January 6) on the Peking Duck site. My wife says she is getting somewhat tired of Friedman because he keeps beating out the same message over and over again. I have to concede that he does — to some extent — but that, to me, is what makes Friedman so singular: unlike most columnists who just write on the “topic du jour” (although, to be just, many write well on it), Friedman writes about issues that are not front and center, but should be….and, which could haunt us for a long time.

Let me add to Friedman’s observation that the current administration are defeatists. That thought first came to mind whith the Bush tax cuts. Now, I have no inherent opposition to cutting taxes, but I think it can be done wisely or foolishly. The Bush tax cut was designed to protect inherited or dividend wealth. In other words, its purpose was to ensure people could hold on to what they already had. This strikes me as a tax cut built on the philosophy that the world is in decay, so — for those who have — the best course of action is to guard and protect what you’ve got. Had it been up to me, I would have designed a tax cut that would have rewarded entrepeneurs, innovators, inventors, etc. I would not have rewarded people for “holding tight” to what they had, but for investing it in growth. In other words, I would have encouraged some activism, and, yes, risk. And, clearly, energy development would have been one of the areas of focus.

I conclude with a personal observation. I served 31 years on active duty in the military, starting during the Vietnam era. I served in Operation IRAQI FREEDOM and went to Iraq a second time the following year. (Don’t worry, this is not a plug either for or against the war.) I am proud of my service to my nation, but arguably the most patriotic thing I ever did was, in 2001 before 9/11 and before they became popular, I bought a Prius. I wish I could have bought and American hybrid, but none existed at the time. I bought that Prius because I do believe in protecting the environment, but also because, even before 9/11, I was aware of the corrupting influence of global oil. Back then, the Prius was not cost effective; in fact, I used to overhear people comment on how stupid I was to make such a purchase. (Wish I could have a second encounter with those folks now.)

Sorry to have gone on. I expect this is to be a light-hearted chat room, and I got serious. But, I think Tom Friedman has put his finger on the issue of our times. We can’t wait for the administration to catch on and provide leadership. In this case, leadership will have to come from the bottom up.

Best to all,

Jacob

January 6, 2006 @ 6:33 am | Comment

This poetry duell exceeds my English skills by far, so I leave it to Richard and Ivan to fight it out.

January 6, 2006 @ 6:38 am | Comment

Alright, Richard, here you go, my Chinese Communist poem about TPD:
(Not in perfect iambic pentameter, but taking some Christian license, just like Jesus broke the law for good reasons)…

You dogs and snakeheads, spitting out your vile
And bad taste venom, at the True
And Righteous Party, as our Chairman Mao
Said: Tell me, tell me, how
Can we make eggs into real fowl,
Unlike the rocks? Tell me, fools, can YOU
Turn China into shit? Like Mao did, without aid
Of any rationality? And all true
HongXings and hands of China
Agree with me, that if you screw
With us, we’ll nail you to a tree!
Like Jesus – wasn’t he a Jew
Who said to Government:
“I speak the Truth, to Power”,
Richard, have YOU
Written such words?
Oh, yes you have.
And so,
All your trolls here
are turds.

January 6, 2006 @ 6:51 am | Comment

Shulan,

I have been waiting for you here! I need your help, for you Shulan/Frodo, to persuade HongXing Gollum, to go back into his NICE side!

Please, Shulan, can you turn Hong/Gollum back into Xing/Smeagol?

“Yesss, good Smeagol/Hong ALWAYS helps the Master, nice master Shulan! Master Shulan gives us many Elvises to eat, very tasty, very crunchable….”

I am powerless to do this, because as you know, I am Gandalf. 🙂
(Actually I look a lot like Aragorn, as played by Viggo Mortensen, so all my friends say – oh shut up Richard and Slim – but I took an internet test and it said I was mostly like Gandalf, the Holy Fool…. 🙂

January 6, 2006 @ 7:24 am | Comment

Ivan, hen bu cuo!!

January 6, 2006 @ 8:37 am | Comment

Jacob, nice to meet you and thanks for a great comment.

January 6, 2006 @ 8:39 am | Comment

now if only there were a good rhyme for ‘xenophobia’…

January 6, 2006 @ 8:56 am | Comment

“got control of ya”?

You guys made me snort my coffee…

January 6, 2006 @ 10:22 am | Comment

HA! This thread turned VERY COOL when we started doing some poetry!

Let’s do more of that in the future!

🙂

January 6, 2006 @ 10:32 am | Comment

Wow, so many irrelevant posts. Anyway, I think I made clear some of my points.

January 6, 2006 @ 2:45 pm | Comment

Last Survivor of China’s Gang of Four Dies

http://tinyurl.com/7efb4

January 6, 2006 @ 3:03 pm | Comment

Which point was that, China Hand? You mean when you dismissed any distinctions between the governments and national histories of the US and China as irrelevant? You mean when you didn’t respond to me, Ed, Jeff or Chester when we challenged you?

Is that why you’re refusing to participate in the current merrymaking? If I imagined us all in a room instead of the internet, we’re all gathered around reciting poetry and snorting coffee, while standing against the far wall, arms folded and nose in the air, is… why its China Hand!

Hongxing, meanwhile, runs around outside the window, crazed, wild haired and naked, gesticulating wildly and sounding like the Tasmanian Devil.

January 6, 2006 @ 3:06 pm | Comment

Which post do you want me to respond? There are too many posts and I can’t keep track of all of them.

January 6, 2006 @ 3:22 pm | Comment

HX = Tasmanian Devil?

HAHAHAHA!

China Hand = Wile E Coyote (with propaganda packaged by AcMao Company)

January 6, 2006 @ 7:26 pm | Comment

This thread is getting bloated. On to the next one.

January 6, 2006 @ 9:34 pm | Comment

China_hand, I’d like to get your perspective:

Summaring my points:

1) On the ultimate goal of no evil, no government, no institutions:
How is this relevant to CCP authoritarianism? And how is authoritarianism closer than democracy to the no evil goal?

2) On on-size fits all government:
Parliaments/congress has been an effect way to get the people’s thoughts for ages. It is not unique to the US. There is in fact a democratic China on Taiwan. What exactly about the mainland makes it not suitable for the mainland?

3) Authoritarianism:
Incentives are key to human behavior. Democracy is the result of centuries of evolution and leverages incentives to self-regulate the complex systems of a society. Totalitarian forms of government have no incentive structure for good leadership, and inevitably leads either to 1: oppression or 2: revolution. The conditions in China today certainly support this.

4) “But authoritarianism is better than cannibalism and starvation”
This argument doesn’t hold water today.

I’m going to shorten my posts from now on. It’s definitely more intersting here than mainland sites where my posts are removed after minutes.

January 6, 2006 @ 11:21 pm | Comment

correction on point 4) above:

Authoritarianism being better than cannibalism and starvation does not mean we should have authoritarianism when alternatives are certainly available.

Given we had to choose among the three, certainly we don’t want to start or eat other people. Would we?

January 6, 2006 @ 11:26 pm | Comment