[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Richard Burger, 민들레 . 민들레 said: (Peking Duck) When it Reins…: Shaun on Google’s exodus from China. Phil Cunningham also outdoes himself on the sam… http://bit.ly/aNwflk […]

March 30, 2010 @ 1:55 am | Pingback

MIT’s Huang Yasheng offers an interesting view…
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/26/AR2010032603133.html

March 30, 2010 @ 2:58 am | Comment

Wait wait wait. Is this actually an article where Rein abstains from plugging his marketing firm? Did he forget himself?

March 30, 2010 @ 4:22 am | Comment

Richard, I was wondering if you were going to comment on the Cunningham “piece.” I was shocked that this guy is an academic. His writing sounded just like the crap I used to listen to from the CCTV 9 shills. It’s just shameless. Is Google altruistic? Of course not, it’s a business driven by seeking profit. Did Google decide to leave based on purely philosophical reasons? NO. They left because of long term thinking. They realize that maintaining trust in search results means that the Google brand will keeps its integrity. The real value brand is a what people think of it. That’s why Microsoft and Yahoo are reviled by so many people.

March 30, 2010 @ 4:23 am | Comment

It’s a shame that a Chinese “apologist” like Huang Yasheng has a faculty position at MIT. The faculty selection process has obviously deteriorated.

March 30, 2010 @ 4:41 am | Comment

I agree with the contrarian views of cunningham and rein. The only losers of this affair is google and people in china who uses google to search. I am sure many chinese already adjusted in using other search engines.

Google could’ve left china without making much of a stink and many chinese would’ve been more sympathic. But they decided to burn bridges and I doubt that they couldve go back to the chinese market.

Personally, I use bing to search now but I couldn’t find a compariable service to replace google voice.

March 30, 2010 @ 7:00 am | Comment

You know, is it just me, or has the general quality of commentary on the editorial pages about China gone through the floor since 2008? I seem to remember a time when news from China stayed in the news section, and not every event necessarily attracted a swarm of pro-and-con balderdash. Now it seems that anything which happens in China releases a flood of opinion, all of it trying to pass off as expertise the same 10-20 odd facts which anyone inclined to do so could have picked up themselves from the reportage produced by real journalists.

Lest anyone be inclined to think that I am only saying this because of the pro-CCP commentary linked to by Richard, it also goes for the China threat/collapse rubbish pedalled by people like Richard Chang, of which Richard Chang himself used to seemingly be sole proprietor. I guess the unifying theme behind all this is the seeming impression that China popped into existence 3-4 years ago and is on some inevitable path towards somewhere – either collapse or immediately imminent super-power status. A simple clear-headed view of the facts should tell anyone that this is not the case, but then I guess that this doesn’t make for good copy. There is a seeming timelessness to it all, Richard Chang, for example, never acknowledges that he was wrong about China back in 2002, nor does anyone else engage with their prior predictions – it’s as if they never happened.

March 30, 2010 @ 7:34 am | Comment

I Believe the Chinese People Should Not Be Afraid To Criticize The Chinese Government

Is it possible for the Chinese government to retaliate against those who criticize it? I believe it’s possible. Is it possible that the Chinese government will arrest those who criticize it? I think that is possible too. Is it possible that the Chinese government will kill the those who criticize it? Even that cannot be ruled out.

This post is intended for those who hesitate to criticize against the Chinese government for fear of this or that. This post wants to introduce a book written by an American, it’s called “Glory and Dreams”. It’s about a story in American society that spans from the 50’s to 60’s.

In this book, it refers to a state in America, the state of Mississippi. Historically, that state was full of racial discrimination, and whites and blacks must go to different schools, ride different buses. This by itself was in violation of the US Constitution, but the Whites of the state held firm these illegal laws and continued this violation for decades. Even worse, the governor of the State was elected based on racist campaign platforms.

There was a policy of the US government that gave free tuition to any retired Army officer. In this book, a black retired Army officer decided to take advantage of this benefit and applied to a white-dominated college. Initially, the college refused admission to him based on his race. And he sued the college and won. But his court victory angered the local whites, and when the court provided police escorts for this black army officer to enroll in the school, the governor of the state sent 20 state troopers and blocked the court police escort from sending this black man into the enrollment office. Then, the court sent even more police officers to enforce the enrollment for the man. As a result, many white residents of the state took their guns and crowded the college’s enrollment office to “defend” the college from the black man. Finally, the United States federal government sent the army down to Mississippi in an attempt to occupy the campus and repel the violent white protesters. Given that many of the white protestors had guns, a gunfight broke out between the protesters and the army, and it lasted an entire night. Finally, on top of the ruins of a campus full of blood and corpose, the black man finally was able to enroll in this school.

I want to call on all Chinese to learn from this black man.

In other words, if a Chinese decides to go up against the government, do not be afraid of this or that, just openly say what you want, openly reveal your name. “Yes, you evil Chinese government, I am criticizing you today, what are you going to do? Arrest me? Go ahead. Persecute me? Go ahead Shoot me? Go ahead. The Chinese Constitution guarantees me the freedom of speech, therefore I have nothing to be afraid of.” This is that attitude that one should adopt. The Chinese Constitution is a flag, if every citizen is afraid of this and that, then the Constitution would lose its meaning. Only when you fight bravely under the flag of the Constitution, without regard and fear of the consequence or sacrifice, only then, can you pave the way for more brave people to stand up and fight for their rights. Only then are you a hero.

So to all the people in China, if tomorrow you decide to say something to the Chinese government, just say it out aloud, and even if you get crushed by a tank, it’s worth it, you’ll be a hero, and don’t complain. I’ll erect a memorial for you. But if you just hide overseas and just write posts on the Internet anonymous, then you must be a great coward.

March 30, 2010 @ 10:24 am | Comment

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/30/world/asia/30riotinto.html?hpw
“The case heightened the fears of foreign investors doing business here. The four were initially detained on espionage charges, fueling concerns that the prosecution was politically motivated and intended to punish Rio Tinto for its clashes with Chinese companies.”

Makes one wonder how staying in CHina, obeying the CCP rules and regulations, is going to make any difference. I also read there’s a hint of protectionism by the CCP of it’s homegrown companies at the expense of western companies…but that may or may not just be sour grapes….
However, I fail to see how the Chinese people are winners in all this. They don’t have choices, merely the same with a different name. If you are restricted as to what services you can offer, what choices can you provide? I did read that there was a surge of people wanting to read “forbidden” topics when they fleetingly became available – but when that door shut, of course they went back to the same old, same old – the choice was removed.

Did like Shaunrein4eva’s comment in the link 🙂

March 30, 2010 @ 10:30 am | Comment

Pug, I am shocked that you are embracing Rein’s and Cunningham’s arguments with open arms – shocked.

FOARP, are you thinking of Gordon Chang, author of The Coming Collapse of China? It’s not surprising at all that he hasn’t been called on his folly. With 24/7 news and a public attention span that lasts about a quarter of a second, how can you expect the media to follow up and demand accountability? And re. your apparent surprise at the tsunami of media bloviating on China – come on, China is The Next Big Thing. China is everything. Terrorism has already gotten stale, but China continues to sizzle, and just about any interesting news out of China, true or false, dominates all the global media. Get used to it.

Math, good to see you’re still in business. That was definitely one of your weirdest diatribes yet, and some of your others have been very, very weird.

Mike, the Rio Tinto story is a classic damned if you do, damned if you don’t scenario. If you don’t grease palms in China you get nowhere. If you do, whenever the government wants to get you, it can zero in on the bribes you had to pay – and which their system demands you pay – and screw you. Their system is utterly perfect. You must give them credit for ensuring they can always get you if they want to. You do not want to mess with the CCP.

I also like some of those comments in response to Cunningham, especially like the one that says Google is leaving because they’re “the biggest purveyor of porn” in the world, and China’s responsible filtering is stopping them from distributing porn. Brilliant.

March 30, 2010 @ 11:34 am | Comment

Richard, wife tells me how corruption works in China. My brother in law complains about it but in the same manner I complain about taxes and traffic jams – it just is the way it is.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/epic/rio/7536576/Rio-Tinto-hoping-for-better-relations-with-China.html
Seems the whole RT affair shows you get screwed for dealing with the Dragon. Either it’s the Chinese way or…. which is probably as good a reason as any for Google (and the others) to make an exit. At least for now.

March 30, 2010 @ 3:16 pm | Comment

China doesn’t need outsiders telling it what to do. It needs its own homegrown search engine, with built in switches to vary degrees of truth, censorship and nationalistic pride. That’s why we will soon be launching choogling.com
See details at http://chinareallysucks.com/Site/New_Stuff/Entries/2010/3/29_Google_goes%2C_but_you_can_keep_on_Choogling.html

March 30, 2010 @ 4:54 pm | Comment

glad to stay abreast of S Rein’s views in USA Today.. Wouldn’t want to miss him! EECH.

March 30, 2010 @ 8:24 pm | Comment

@Richard – Gordon Chang, quite right, don’t know why I thought the guy was your namesake. And your explanation does make sense, except that they always introduce him as the author of The Coming Collapse of China, without pointing out that the central premise of that book – that China’s collapse was imminent in 2002 because of a crisis in the banking sector due to non-performing loans – has quite obviously turned out to not be the case.

Whilst I’m at it, businesses planning on exiting China – well, to be frank, unless you have good business reasons to do so, why? Your there, you’re making money, you’re employing locals, paying taxes – what’s wrong with this picture?

March 30, 2010 @ 8:26 pm | Comment

Per FOARP, I found myself utterly surprised and saddened at the poor logic employed in the Google saga of pro-China writers like Cunningham, Fool’s Mountain, Angry Chinese Blogger and Chinayouren. By Rein’s standards, that USA Today comment was relatively balanced and sensible.

But broadly, yes, everyone is jumping on the China punditry bandwagon. Look at that Megatrends hackery — arguably one of the worst books about China to appear in modern times.

March 30, 2010 @ 9:09 pm | Comment

Many International companies coming to China wants to come to gain marketshare and are willing to lose money. Given the global recession many want to curb cost so the first regions to go are the ones which are losing money. Of these companies are complaining of sour grapes blames the Chinese government. It is the same as with starting a small business here in the US, 1/3 of the would fail within 2 years, and more than 1/2 would fail within 4 years.

As for the Rio Tinto case, I think the main problem is not about the bribes and stuff, but rather the seemingly unstable market of iron ore leading up to 2008. It seems that Rio Tinto which have a distinct advantage of the supply side of iron ores and took advantage many Chinese companies and having inside information. I think China realized that they need to have good relations with Rio Tinto in order to get a steady supply of iron ore and rather bury the hatchet with Australia and Rio Tinto.

March 30, 2010 @ 10:06 pm | Comment

putz_ster: “I agree with the contrarian views of cunningham and rein.”

You agree with everyone who says anything, no matter how stupid, in defense of China.

putz_ster: “Google could’ve left china without making much of a stink and many chinese would’ve been more sympathic.”

A stupidity factory, that’s what you are putz_ster. I spent the entire afternoon today in an office full of university educated Chinese. The hot topic of discussion? Google and the complete block of its search engine. Not a single person expressed anything but support for Google and disgust for the Chinese government’s censorship efforts.

Richard: “[A]re you thinking of Gordon Chang, author of The Coming Collapse of China? It’s not surprising at all that he hasn’t been called on his folly.”

It’s not exactly true that Gordon Chang hasn’t been criticized. In a recent book “China’s Communist Party: Atrophy and Adaptation” (UCP, 2008), political scientist David Shambaugh of George Washington University and the Brookings Institute addresses the subject of Gordon Chang’s book. In a broad discussion of the various theories regarding the health and future viability of the CCP, Shambaugh writes the following (apologies in advance for the long quote):

“These three leading specialists [i.e., Roderick MacFarquhar of Harvard, Susan Shirk of UC San Diego, and Richard Baum of UCLA] on Chinese politics think that the CCP regime’s days are numbered. These views are also shared by a large number of Chinese emigre scholars, who also perceive an increasingly incapacitated party-state. Among them, Minxin Pei has marshaled the most damning critique of CCP rule. Yet even Pei comes up short of predicting regime collapse – envisioning instead protracted stagnation. Only Gordon Chang and Bruce Gilley predict collapse and democratic breathrough (respectively).

“Chang’s sensationally titled study ‘The Coming Collapse of China’ posited cataclysmic change, standing in stark contradiction to a parallel wave of publications at the time on the ‘rise of China’ or the ‘China threat.’ Whereas these other studies focused on China’s potential for external expansion and possible aggression, Chang looked inward at its potential for implosion. He argued that the signs of the CCP’s ‘disintigration’ were everywhere and that it was just a matter of time before the party was overthrown (he seemed to envision a revolutionary-type overthrow of the regime rather than a gradual demise)…

“Chang’s prediction was ridiculed by many scholars and China specialists. In 2006, five years after the publication of his book, he sought to defend his earlier prediction of Communist Party collapse by the end of the decade. He appears to begin his midterm assessment in the Far East Economic Review somewhat chastened:

[Chang] “The ‘Coming Collapse of China,’ my book, predicts the fall of the Chinese Communist Party by the end of this decade. We are now at the halfway point….So is China’s leading political organization on schedule for a fall? It certainly does not look like it is. On the contrary, China’s mighty one-party state is a wonder to behold….By ascending the ranks of nations at an accelerated pace, China is altering our notions of political governance.

“After this deflection, Chang proceeded to defend his original analysis and prediction by ticking off a laundry list of domestic problems afflicting the CCP and government – notably rising social inequities and increasing incidents of unrest (both of which have become more pronounced since the publication of his book). Curiously, he says nothing about China’s economy – which was the centerpiece of his earlier critique – and instead shifts his appraisal to the political realm and the CCP in particular. He offers a dire assessment of party rule:

[Chang] “The Communist Party has become incapable of reinvigorating itself. Once young and vital, it has been eroded by widespread disenchantment, occasional crises, and the enervating effect of the passage of time. The Party may be big, but it is also corrupt, reviled, and often ineffective. It is barely functioning in some areas, having been replaced by clans or gangs.

“Chang concluded his midterm assessment with the argument that socioeconomic change is outpacing the party-state’s capacity to manage it: ‘No one should think that the Chinese people will let the cadres control the pace of transformation. At one time Beijing’s officials were leading the change, but now they are struggling to keep up….The combination of growing alienation and declining government strength should make the last years of this decade a time of even greater instability….In sum, too much is happening too fast for any government – no matter how institutionalized – to hold on.” (p.26)

In the end, it’s clear that Gordon Chang and his book have received a pretty good beating these last few years.

Personally, I agree with those who believe that institutional failure and societal breakdown are far more likely outcomes than regime collapse. In fact, there are those who believe that the process of institutional failure and social breakdown are already well under way in China. Read, for example, Tsinghua University professor Sun Liping’s 孙立平 February 2009 essay 对中国最大的威胁，不是社会动荡而是社会溃败 (http://opinion.nfdaily.cn/content/2009-02/26/content_4943340.htm).

Again, from Prof. Shambaugh: “Not all systems experience eruptions or implosions. Rather, many simply continue to muddle through, while others (like China) attempt to procactively cope with challenges and change. Some engage in full systemic, adaptive reforms. As long as they keep control of all means of coercive power, such authoritarian regimes – no matter how despotic – can remain in power for an extended period. The world is full of examples of such regimes that never do experience a ‘democratic breakthrough’ (unless the regime is forcibly deposed by foreign powers).” (p.40)

Remind you of anyone?

March 31, 2010 @ 12:08 am | Comment

This is my impression of the Google affair

They reached a comprimise with the CCP to enter in China. The sold a piece of their own soul in exchange for providing higher quality of information to the chinese population and access to that market.

A pact with the devil in the end.

All was going well, more or less. Damage to Google image was under control… until some of the groups within the CCP decided to crack inside google systems breaking one of the pilars of the company, trust, specially trust with their own employes.

That, on one side, really pissed off Google, and on the other put a real danger on Google business. The trust of people of their own information to them.
IMHO the decision taken by Google was consistent with their principles and shareholder value. Yes, in this case share holder value is linked to Google principles.

I bet that the guys in this CCP group either didnt thought they were going to get detected, or if detected they could convince Google to cover it up somehow.

A case of ubris.

The end result. A big PR hit against China, a loss to the chinese netcitizens, and a warning to anyone doing business with CCP-China.

I don’t see yet the end of this story. There will be consequences to business from and in China. Availability of tools to go through the GFW will increase several orders of magnitude. The system will risk to get overloaded which will make internet access inside China even slower. I do not discard cracker attacks to the censorship infrastructure, from inside or outside, or even blocking of access to chinese internet companies to the outside.

But most important is that is has proved something I have read long ago about CCP from a US diplomat who has studied the CCP for a long time. These guys will always grab to power even if the actions to do it damaged the country.

The only limit they know is not to isolate it so much so it will fall to far behind in development, like in Mao’s era. But given the choice they would not doubt to ruin the country utterly to hold themselves on top of power.

March 31, 2010 @ 1:07 am | Comment

My counsel to my company with any business in China.

Get sanitized portable computer, better brand new ones which never were used before. Put inside only the information needed for that business in particular, nothing more.

Set up a email server which is only used for that business project. Servers are physically separated from our company Intranet.

Absolutely forbidden for anyone to get access to their social networks/internet services while in China from sanitized computer.

Confidential information stored in USB sticks with military grade encryption and always kept by the person carrying it. Better wit a neck chain inside ones clothes.

As far as possible all documents are stored in the USB and never copied to the sanitized portable computers. These computers only provide the application to create/edit documents. Tools are provided to automatically delete any cached information.

On return from China, all project related computers and mail servers will be removed and destroyed.

In case of critical/sensitive business with China, in no circumstance use Chinese nationals within inner circles. They can be instrumentalized by the CCP-Government.

Even foreign citizens of Chinese origin are at risk. CCP has no qualms to go after them, no matter their nationality. (Rio tinto case)

March 31, 2010 @ 1:28 am | Comment

Gangrene,

I assume that these Chinese University students are NOT in China. Google leaving china has little difference for most Chinese searching google. Except for google.cn being redirected, it is pretty much business as usual unless he/she search on sensitive subjects. If google wants to be a ‘do gooder’ to get rid of censorship, why don’t they complain about censorship issues in democratic countries in Australia, Germany, South Korea, France, and etc… Doom and gloomers like Gordon Chang and many people here who wish doom to China, and rather see China to be in the Opium war era than this kind of ‘dictatorship.’

March 31, 2010 @ 1:50 am | Comment

Gan Lu, don’t bother with pug. He has literally no idea what he is talking about, no matter what topic he is addressing. No one here “wishes doom to China.” Pug has voices going on in his head – and that’s all there is in the void between his ears.

I wasn’t saying Chang has never been called on his doom and gloom scenario. But absolutely everyone is making predictions about China, many of them in direct contradiction to others, so a large number of the “experts” making predictions simply have to be wrong; they can’t all be right. But our breathless media never has time to sort out who said what and whether they were right or wrong. If they did, we;d have a lot fewer “experts.”

March 31, 2010 @ 3:13 am | Comment

If you really want to mess things up, use an expert.

If want to mess things up even more then use more experts.

March 31, 2010 @ 3:51 am | Comment

I was just a day too earlier in posting this:
http://my.cnd.org/modules/wfsection/article.php?articleid=25401

and this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/24/opinion/global/24iht-opednote.html?ref=global-home

March 31, 2010 @ 3:51 am | Comment

@FOARP
“Whilst I’m at it, businesses planning on exiting China – well, to be frank, unless you have good business reasons to do so, why? Your there, you’re making money, you’re employing locals, paying taxes – what’s wrong with this picture?”
In a past life as a petroleum company employee, I recall the business pulling out of Russia. Things just got too difficult and the returns weren’t worth the investment. As the big boss said at a lavish dinner (before the lay-offs began…Russia apparently chewed through all the profits…) it was like screwing a skunk. Sure, it kinda felt good but it’s not something you’d try again 🙂

March 31, 2010 @ 4:18 am | Comment

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/google/7539350/Google-change-triggers-China-block.html
Ah, the beauty of an open internet 😉

March 31, 2010 @ 4:22 am | Comment

Yes, Yu’Er, Singapore censors, too, though their Internet is not filtered. And I was reading about Gu Ge last night – very clever.

March 31, 2010 @ 5:57 am | Comment

@pug_ster: I think China realized that they need to have good relations with Rio Tinto in order to get a steady supply of iron ore and rather bury the hatchet with Australia and Rio Tinto.

That doesn’t jibe with the all the secrecy, and the rather stiff sentence handed down, in the Stern Hu trial.

March 31, 2010 @ 9:36 am | Comment

Eco’s comment # 19 is spot on.

These measures are the only possibility that your systems won’t be compromised when operating in China.

March 31, 2010 @ 10:29 am | Comment

Not that Rio Tinto were squeaky clean in all this either…
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/hamish-mcrae/hamish-mcrae-dealing-with-china-will-never-be-easy-1931451.html

Mind you, they’ll probably gain from this, in a way…
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/29/business/global/business-us-ironore.html

March 31, 2010 @ 10:43 am | Comment

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/31/world/asia/31china.html?hp
“The infiltrations, which involved Yahoo e-mail accounts, appeared to be aimed at people who write about China and Taiwan, rendering their accounts inaccessible, according to those who were affected. In the case of this reporter, hackers altered e-mail settings so that all correspondence was surreptitiously forwarded to another e-mail address.”

“Yahoo, which merged its China operations with the Chinese e-commerce company Alibaba, has faced criticism for cooperating with government security officials in the past. In 2006, Yahoo turned over data that officials used to help prosecute several dissidents. One, a journalist named Shi Tao, was later given a 10-year sentence for leaking a secret propaganda directive.

Unlike Google and Microsoft, Yahoo maintains servers in China, a factor that has driven many privacy-conscious Chinese away from the company’s e-mail services.”

Yahoo out of China soon?

March 31, 2010 @ 11:01 am | Comment

More from the stupid factory (i.e., putz_ster): “If google wants to be a ‘do gooder’ to get rid of censorship, why don’t they complain about censorship issues in democratic countries in Australia, Germany, South Korea, France, and etc.”

Comparing the very limited forms of censorship in the countries you mention here to censorship in China is just plain stupid. If the Chinese government had simply asked that Google block porn and free Tibet/Falunggong websites, I’m sure there wouldn’t have been much of a problem. The fact is, however, that Google’s problems with China went far beyond requests to censor a very few sensitive topics (as is the case in Germany and France, for example, where there are laws against Holocaust denial, neo-Nazi propaganda, and forms of speech that violate another person’s rights). The truth is that China engages in such widespread censorship that it amounts to nothing less than a decades-long wholesale effort to dumb down the Chinese people – and then to keep them that way. Ever heard the words 蒙昧主义 and 愚民政策 (i.e., obscurantism), putz_ster? You’re walking proof that such policies work. One theory regarding free speech is that it elevates the quality of a people by making them more tolerant and open to different ideas. It seems to me that the Chinese people could really use more free speech. You more than most.

putz_ster: “Doom and gloomers like Gordon Chang and many people here who wish doom to China, and rather see China to be in the Opium war era than this kind of ‘dictatorship.’”

I don’t believe that I’ve ever met anyone who “wish[es] doom to China,” though I’ve met many who look forward to the day when the CCP is gone, Mao’s stinking corpse removed from the center of town, and the Chinese people free to speak, assemble, and associate as they please. If looking forward to such a day is equivalent to “wishing doom on China,” then I’m guilty.

Please spare us all the lame allusions to the Opium War. I’m embarrassed for you.

Richard: “Everyone is making predictions about China, many of them in direct contradiction to others, so a large number of the ‘experts’ making predictions simply have to be wrong; they can’t all be right.”

I suggest that you add some scholarship to your daily dose of journalism. For a start, try David Shambaugh’s book (“China’s Communist Party: Atrophy and Adaptation”) for an even-handed, learned, and accessible take on the CCP. David Lampton’s “The Three Faces of Chinese Power: Might, Money, and Minds” (UC Press, 2008) is also very good.

March 31, 2010 @ 11:56 pm | Comment

Thanks for the tips, Gan Lu. God knows I’ve read plenty of books on the CCP, but there’s always more to learn.

About pug: he does stand out among the trolls because everything he says is simply wrong. Not even debatable, but flat-out absurd. At least Merp and otherg put up arguments that sometimes show traces of reason.

April 1, 2010 @ 12:53 am | Comment

Gang Stew,

One theory regarding free speech is that it elevates the quality of a people by making them more tolerant and open to different ideas. It seems to me that the Chinese people could really use more free speech. You more than most.

Oh really, here in the US, you can tell that to the party of No or ‘hell no’ when they want a compromise on a health care bill. So no, your basic idea of ‘free speech’ elevates the quality of people is pure crock. I’ve seen some of the ‘legislative sessions’ in youtube and it is more like a circus rather than a working government. That’s western style democracy for you.

I don’t believe that I’ve ever met anyone who “wish[es] doom to China,” though I’ve met many who look forward to the day when the CCP is gone, Mao’s stinking corpse removed from the center of town, and the Chinese people free to speak, assemble, and associate as they please. If looking forward to such a day is equivalent to “wishing doom on China,” then I’m guilty.

I’m sure that’s what everybody says. Many people complain about the nasty things about the CCP government, but they have enabled the prosperity of China for the last 30 years. Isn’t that a human right? At least they ARE doing things to address the social and economic issues about China.

For me, the local government here in the US is just a plain bureaucratic mess. I’m trying to schedule an inspection for my apartment to continue construction takes more than a month. Paperwork is long and fees are high. I’m trying to go to court for a legal matter against someone and it takes more than a month to schedule, and when you get there, there is a high chance there’s no judge to take your case and you have to come back next month. These are the symptoms of a non-functioning government. Personally, I like to see the whole government… changed, but I saying that would not be legal. Voting for the same corrupt bureaucrats is just plain useless. I vote the the person who is the lesser of the two evils, not because I want to vote for him/her. So who cares?

It is not that I don’t like the US, but just not the government.

April 1, 2010 @ 3:47 am | Comment

Oh really, here in the US, you can tell that to the party of No or ‘hell no’ when they want a compromise on a health care bill. So no, your basic idea of ‘free speech’ elevates the quality of people is pure crock. I’ve seen some of the ‘legislative sessions’ in youtube and it is more like a circus rather than a working government. That’s western style democracy for you.

They can say Hell, No, all they want. That’s the beauty of a democracy. But the bill passed by a lawful majority. The system worked. For all its faults, our democracy has worked relatively well in many areas. It doesn’t take a genius to see that America is well developed, has a huge middle class and has functioned better than most countries for many years, at least until Bush threw a hundred monkey wrenches into the system.

About your fees and long wait for an apartment inspection – ha. Ever deal with the Chinese form-crazy bureaucracy? Sorry for your inconvenience, but stuff like long lines at Motor Vehicles doesn’t mean America is broken. I’ve seen much, much longer line in Chinese banks, where I’ve wasted many a long afternoon.

Let’s just face it pug, you are a ball of rage swinging with two fists at America, 24/7. I mean, does your inconvenience with your apartment negate all the benefits of your life here, such as not having to pay bribes up the food chain, of knowing what’s in that can of food is pretty close to what it says on the label, of being able to surf to any website and meet with friends on the street to discuss how bad America’s system is and call for drastic change?

April 1, 2010 @ 5:16 am | Comment

Putz
Just for you http://fabiusmaximus.wordpress.com/2010/03/30/third/#more-14807

April 1, 2010 @ 5:16 am | Comment

at least until Bush threw a hundred monkey wrenches into the system.

Richard, that’s unfair. Reagan threw a hundred monkey wrenches into the system, all Bush (and Clinton) did was turn up the speed of the system so the wrenches could destroy it more rapidly.

April 1, 2010 @ 6:17 am | Comment

Twisted, that’s pretty much true, but there’s no doubt Bush drove it to insane heights with the Iraq War and all the accompanying baggage (Patriot Act, unvarnished corruption, complete unaccountability). Clinton has his share of the blame, mainly for continuing the deregulation and embracing the Greenspan-Ruben canard, but at least he was competent. Bush will be remembered for Iraq, Hurricane Katrina and My Pet Goat.

April 1, 2010 @ 6:57 am | Comment

Rich, I was being ironic and somewhat flippant.

April 1, 2010 @ 7:17 am | Comment

don’t know why I thought the guy was your namesake.

hahaha

April 1, 2010 @ 7:36 am | Comment

though their Internet is not filtered.

No but a blogger was thrown in jail for 3 years for posting something negative about Malays.

April 1, 2010 @ 7:37 am | Comment

Look at that Megatrends hackery — arguably one of the worst books about China to appear in modern times.

You’ve obviously never read the Comming Collapse of China by Gordon Retard Chang

April 1, 2010 @ 7:46 am | Comment

Rich, did you check Shaun on Twitter? He’s got a few hundred followers but he only follows three or four people back. This is all about him pushing word out about himself, never listening to others. Billy Joel: “Ooooh, and she never gives out, and she never gives in…” That just about says it.

April 1, 2010 @ 8:40 am | Comment

Truth be told, Fiona, I am a little sorry about this post and don’t want to gang up on Shaun Rein. But I also have a hard time keeping quiet when I think he is wildly wrong. In actuality he writes very good columns when he sticks to what he knows best, marketing. It’s when he crosses over into politics and economics and China’s policies that I have a very hard time. Getting ripped is the risk people take when they write articles like these, but I do want to be a little kinder and gentler. And I don’t follow Shaun on Twitter; he has blocked me, which is too bad.

April 1, 2010 @ 9:14 am | Comment