23 posts tagged “china”

[Cross-posted] Sometimes I surprise myself on what comes up in blog comments. In a thread about the Iraq war and the short memories of nations over on Vox, I wrote the following. And as I wrote, I believed this to be a possible truth.

To go forth in the future we need to discover our past, a hard thing in an age of short memories as you say. … Leadership might not come from size but from those nations that have steadfastly refused to give in to the prevailing decline in so many places. Switzerland, for all its refusal to join the EU, has managed to maintain one of the greatest gun ownership rates in the world yet not have a single gun-related murder attributable to its own in most years; Singapore, retaining its Confucian philosophies, manages a city-state with limited natural resources.
   Their example needs to be communicated to the world, as well as the positive aspects of certain parts of the US or China—they exist, but they are hidden.
   This is one reason to like blogs because they can cut through the shield of the MSM and government propaganda. I do not think that we have reached any critical mass among netizens, networking citizens together in a form of moral leadership. … [T]here are pockets of good people everywhere as you and I have witnessed, just that we are not necessarily visible.
   But that critical mass can come—and if warfare now is at a terrorist, guerrilla level in so many places, I suspect moral leadership itself will come from a grass-roots base.
   The system needs idealists like us, reminding people of their short memories, and maybe change will be effected not through top–down governmental, propagandist methods or the MSM, but through one-on-few communications from each of us.
   I would rather hope that the next superpower, therefore, is not a nation or even an ideology, but a collective of humankind cutting through the BS and revealing the truth. Who says the ’net cannot be a force for good once more? If it can propagate hate and porn, it can just as easily propagate hope and truth.

   I get reminded of this every now and then by others who feel the same way: Chris, at the Edutainment & Convergence blog, wrote to me privately and inspired me. And when I think back to books like Beyond Branding and Typography & Branding, I think there was a great deal of post-9-11 optimism and the desire to build a better, more understanding world. I find passages of my Typography & Branding inspiring, if an author is allowed to be inspired by his own work, and I can’t have been this cynical back then.
   It’s a good zone to be in and I haven’t felt this hopeful about the potential of the ’net in about a year.
   Last year, I was bemoaning the decline of the blogosphere as it began looking more and more like the darker parts of society, with gossipmongers and rude, anonymous commenters finding their way on to it. Where were, I asked, the globally minded idealists of the 1990s?
   On the other hand, their entry into this world surely puts them closer to the hands of the idealists who can now shape agenda, creating more hopeful sites and messages.
   And maybe channelling or finding the above message from my subconscious helped me put things into perspective more. If indeed the state nation is less relevant and change is better effected by people helping people directly, because technology has now made that possible, then the moral vacuum caused by various changes in society can be filled.
   All it needs are willing participants prepared to get together to make the world a better place, regardless of their political, cultural or religious stripes.
   That’s really why I got into media.
   If we agree on this target, then the rest must follow.

Whether you support the war in Iraq or you don’t—and here in New Zealand we have the luxury to criticize the United States—David Horowitz’s recollection (video found originally on Humbled Infidel’s blog) of why the US went in certainly correlates with my own. It’s why I have always held back attacking President George W. Bush, because faced with what he had in front of him, I cannot honestly say I would not have done the same thing. As Horowitz reveals, neither would Al Gore, who supported Bush’s ‘axis of evil’ speech in 2002.
   The end of this video (cut short) goes into the rationale for war surrounding UN Security Council resolution 1441, which PM Tony Blair managed to sell to Parliament—but which, I always felt, the US was less successful at doing. There are legal arguments there based on the UN Charter but it was always about 1441. 
   This is one of the problems I tend to have with the US Democratic Party, for all my own left-leaning tendencies. Right now, for example, constituents are begging the super-delegates that they should not select who will best beat Sen. John McCain and the Republicans, but who represents their position. The fact this question has even arisen is disturbing: as representatives of the people of course one should represent the citizens. The minute you do not, you do not have a democracy: it is a quest for power among élites ignoring the citizenry, the sort of thing people were getting away from when the US was founded. 
   I am not saying that the GOP wouldn’t look after its own, but given that they have fielded men like Sen. Bob Dole—who from a marketing perspective was a tough sell against President Clinton—it seems that it might be more willing to represent its base than look at seizing power. The 42nd president gifted them the Monica Lewinsky situation, which hurt the Democrats. I would say that they never forgave the GOP or Kenneth Starr who were steadfast in their condemnation and investigation. That power-hungriness from the Democrats is very apparent in the way the Bush administration has been undermined in the last eight years.

   I say if one opposes the war, then there are ways to do it without resorting to revisionism. I might not agree with our PM, Helen Clark, on her courses of action, but at least she took a position based on the facts before her and said ‘No’ to going in to Iraq. She has never gone and revised history, and simply held firm on her principles. She has good support for it because most New Zealanders opposed the war and carried out her job (on that occasion) as a servant and representative of the people.
   The consequences of Resolution 1441 were always clear but the means of acting upon them were less so because of the way the UN Charter is written, and that ambiguity effectively gave some countries a chance of opting out. Our PM took it, as did the leaders of many other nations. It is respectful, even if she later made a gaffe about how she did not think a Gore presidency would have gone to war. (As Horowitz reminds us, that is probably an incorrect position.) They believed that an extra resolution was needed before war; the US, UK, Australia and others did not.
   The Democratic Party and the anti-war movement probably think that this is all too tough to sell to the public, so they engage in other tactics, shaming US troops or the administration and pressuring those who have short memories to join their cause. I am not saying that what they have uncovered is all untrue—of course I accept there are dodgy dealings surrounding the war and I even accept some misconduct—but they’d earn my respect if they didn’t flip-flop or cover up the truth. Sen. Clinton, who voted for the war, who voted for the increase in expenditure alongside Sen. John Kerry, is one of those very high-profile politicians who has changed depending on the trade winds of public opinion.
   Of course a senator or a future president must be representative but she must also stand on truth. ‘I was wrong to have supported the war because …’ would have been a good start. ‘Now the American people are telling me that it is time to withdraw our troops.
   ‘My support was founded on the belief that resolution 1441 was inviolable. It was not, and we have carried out the due punishment needed on Saddam Hussein’s régime.’
   There are millions of ways to spin it, especially ways to do it without demoralizing the young men and women serving in Iraq—and I am not even a politician.
   This would also mean she’d have to go against her husband’s attacks on Kosovo, which also did not have that additional Security Council resolution but was a preemptive strike by the US. George W. Bush is not alone, just that the media give him more grief over it.
   But a mea culpa is not flip-flopping and it is not pandering. It is being honest, something the Beltway sees very rarely.
   What concerns me, however, is that the road to war is a serious matter. It should not be so easily bent because the decision should be founded on principle—and if those principles existed after resolution 1441 was broken then they exist today. Congress voted for the war, with bipartisan support. There needs to be a far bigger shift for any US representative to say no to the war now—so what is it?
   A poor entry strategy, a poor exit strategy, the belief that the US’s only task was to oust Saddam Hussein, the belief that the parameters of the original declaration of war have been fulfilled—what? Certainly Sen. Clinton needs to tell us.
   She has said that she would not have voted for the war if she knew there were no WMDs. But as Horowitz points out, the existence of WMDs was not the basis for war. Did Sen. Clinton “misspeak” again?
   There is a popular notion that that was what resolution 1441 was all about and we all remember Sec. Powell’s Powerpoint presentations to the UN.
   But unless Sen. Clinton has misremembered this incident as well, resolution 1441 on November 8, 2002 was about Iraq’s non-compliance with conditions laid down by the international community over disarmament, which included WMDs, but they were not the core issue.
   When Iraq lied about what it did with its WMDs, which the international community confirmed it had as late as 1998, the US took a hard line.
   Iraq itself never offered an explanation on the discrepancy between its claims and tests by the inspectors.
   That was one legal justification for the US and the UK, and, skipping over a few issues, the war began.
   I sure wish the US politicians would just tell the truth about the vote at that time because they should have a better understanding of it, having been there—rather than let people like me catch them out.
   This is another reason to not dislike Bush: he said he would stay the course, so he did. The majority of Americans voted for him in 2004 (regardless of whether one is counting the electoral college or the popular vote) and knew this full well. And while I think some of his spending has sent that US deficit soaring, he has stayed firm on his belief in his tax cuts. He seems content because he thinks he is protecting the Constitution and that he needs to continue his strategy. Maybe that is the Bush world-view. (He saw how his Dad got burned on the ‘No new taxes’ and learned from it. He saw how his Dad lost the support of the right wing of the GOP and learned from it. And he saw how he was criticized for being too smart when he ran for Congress—which is where the folksy public image comes from. Welcome to Bushland.)
   Had the war successfully concluded people would praise him on his steadfastness.
   For if a leader bends based on the trade winds, then will she bend based on pressure from other sovereign nations? If Saudi Arabia put pressure to bear on the US, would Sen. Clinton cave in? If a communist nation put pressure on Sen. Obama, would he? Or, for that matter, how far will Sen. McCain bend to foreign pressure? 
   We cannot turn back the clock now and see how the message could have been better communicated to the US. We should know, from the Horowitz video, why the US went in and understand who is now lying to the American public: that is important. For all his failings in everything from the Patriot Act (which I am no fan of, and it has restricted the movement of people who could benefit the US) to the Alberto González judicial appointments, I do not think it was President Bush. I have never called him a bare-faced liar.
   The next presidential election is a chance to address those failings. The economy can be fixed but what is in dire need of repair are the values to which not only Americans want moral leadership, but most of us in the western world. Get the values right, get the truth right, and the rest will follow.
   At the end of the day I care not if the president is a Democrat or a Republican, and I have no say in it anyway, as long as our common values are restored and preserved, and the leader is truthful. And that the decision for staying the course or withdrawing is also founded on truth.

Here’s an Autocade series for the Brits. Remember these? Well, maybe all but the last one. I haven’t put in the data for the MG ZR yet though.

Triumph Acclaim. 1981–4 (prod. 133,625). 4-door saloon. F/F, 1335 cm³ (4 cyl. SOHC). Anglicized version of Honda Ballade, made on the BL production lines at Cowley. Notable as one of the first Japanese designs to be built within the EEC, to bypass the gentlemen’s agreement where Japan limited itself to an 11 per cent share of the European market. Cramped in the rear compared with rivals. Limited-edition Avon Acclaims with more equipment and turbocharger; CD trim model later added as luxury version. Last Triumph car.

 

Rover 213/Rover 216. 1984–90 (prod. 418,367). 4-door saloon. F/F, 1342, 1598 cm³ (4 cyl. SOHC). Nicknamed ‘SD3’ or ‘Ronda’, successor to Triumph Acclaim followed the same formula: begin with a Honda Ballade. This time, Rover input was greater, evident on the cars themselves, which looked more distinctive. Reliable, advanced for its time thanks to 1·3 unit, slightly less up with the play with 1·6 derived from old Austin Maxi unit but still economical. Intended to be a niche player but had very healthy sales in comparison with other Austin Rover products of the time. Facelift in 1987 including revisions that Honda itself adopted for its Civic and Ballade.

 

Rover 214/Rover 216/Rover 218/Rover 220 (R8). 1989–98 (prod. 708,003). 3- and 5-door saloon, 2-door convertible, 2-door coupé. F/F, 1396 , 1590 cm³ petrol, 1769, 1905 cm³ diesel (4 cyl. OHC), 1588, 1590, 1994 cm³ (4 cyl. DOHC). Twin to Honda Concerto with even greater Austin Rover input than prior Rover 200 series, and probably the company’s most competitive range against ageing Ford Escort and even newer rivals such as Fiat Tipo. Some diesels sold with Honda badges but Rover bodywork. Cabriolet from 1992. Three-door launched 1992 with more powerful versions competing as a hot hatch; two-door coupé, codenamed Tomcat, well regarded as a performance derivative, from 1993. Two facelifts, including 1994 one grafting on formal Rover grille. Saloons deleted with launch of R3, but coupé and convertible carried on to 1998 without 200 name.

 

Rover 200/Rover 214/Rover 216/Rover 220SD (R3). 1995–9 (prod. 470,449). 3- and 5-door saloon. F/F, 1396, 1589, 1796 cm³ (4 cyl. DOHC), 1994 cm³ diesel (4 cyl. OHC). Originally designed as a replacement for Metro, but BMW and Rover nudged it upmarket where it was a premium product and rather expensive for its size. Smaller than former Rover 200 due to its Metro-replacing origins and cheaply developed at £200 million. Attractive David Saddington-styled car with ideas above its station, promoted by Sting on TV, aimed at the 20-somethings. As an Escort or Golf competitor, far too cramped. Most cars soon badged 200, regardless of engine size. Limited-edition BRM in 1998. Successor was eventually brought down to earth and sold in the Fiesta class.

 

Rover 25. 1999–2004 (prod. 217,620 all 25 incl. Mk II). 3- and 5-door saloon. F/F, 1120 cm³ (4 cyl. SOHC), 1120, 1396, 1588, 1795 cm³ petrol (4 cyl. DOHC), 1994 cm³ diesel (4 cyl. OHC). BMW-influenced facelift for 1995 Rover 200, designed to keep the car current till replacement ready in the 21st century—sadly, that never came. Repositioned lower in the market-place with price adjusted, making 25 seem better value. Introduction of Streetwise “soft-roader”: a 25 with cladding pretending to be an off-roader, but which had the same FWD transmission as others. Laughed at then, but now Volkswagen, Ford, Citroën, Peugeot and others offer similar cars. 

 

Rover 25. 2004–5 (prod. 217,620 all 25 from 1999). 3- and 5-door saloon. F/F, 1120 cm³ (4 cyl. SOHC), 1120, 1396, 1588, 1795 cm³ petrol (4 cyl. DOHC), 1994 cm³ diesel (4 cyl. OHC). Facelift and new interior—and last hurrah—for British-made 25, codenamed Jewel. Packaging dated but car still fairly handsome and reasonably good value. Streetwise faux off-roader continued. Lasted till April 2005 when MG Rover went into administration, and tooling now owned by Red Chinese state.

 

MG 3 SW. 2007 to date (prod. unknown). 5-door sedan. F/F, 1396, 1795 cm³ (4 cyl. DOHC). Subcompact crossover developed from Rover Streetwise. MG 3 SW (for Streetwise, not Station Wagon) a front-wheel-drive model with Rover 200 platform from 1995, made in Nanjing, China from 2007 after a two-year hiatus caused by MG Rover’s collapse. New to buyers in Red China, where most are sold.    

In my emails today. Good to know some in Red China have the guts to go against the Communist Party’s line and speak out freely.

Twelve Suggestions for Dealing with the

Tibetan Situation by Some Chinese Intellectuals

 

1. At present the one-sided propaganda of the official Chinese media is having the effect of stirring up inter-ethnic animosity and aggravating an already tense situation. This is extremely detrimental to the long-term goal of safeguarding national unity. We call for such propaganda to be stopped.

 

2. We support the Dalai Lama’s appeal for peace, and hope that the ethnic conflict can be dealt with according to the principles of goodwill, peace, and non-violence. We condemn any violent act against innocent people, strongly urge the Chinese government to stop the violent suppression, and appeal to the Tibetan people likewise not to engage in violent activities.

 

3. The Chinese government claims that “there is sufficient evidence to prove this incident was organized, premeditated, and meticulously orchestrated by the Dalai clique.” We hope that the government will show proof of this. In order to change the international community’s negative view and distrustful attitude, we also suggest that the government invite the United Nation’s Commission on Human Rights to carry out an independent investigation of the evidence, the course of the incident, the number of casualties, etc.

 

4. In our opinion, such Cultural-Revolution-like language as “the Dalai Lama is a jackal in Buddhist monk’s robes and an evil spirit with a human face and the heart of a beast” used by the Chinese Communist Party leadership in the Tibet Autonomous Region is of no help in easing the situation, nor is it beneficial to the Chinese government’s image. As the Chinese government is committed to integrating into the international community, we maintain that it should display a style of governing that conforms to the standards of modern civilization.   

 

5.        We note that on the very day when the violence erupted in Lhasa (March 14), the leaders of the Tibet Autonomous Region declared that “there is sufficient evidence to prove this incident was organized, premeditated, and meticulously orchestrated by the Dalai clique.” This shows that the authorities in Tibet knew in advance that the riot would occur, yet did nothing effective to prevent the incident from happening or escalating. If there was a dereliction of duty, a serious investigation must be carried out to determine this and deal with it accordingly.

 

6.        If in the end it cannot be proved that this was an organized, premeditated, and meticulously orchestrated event but was instead a “popular revolt” triggered by events, then the authorities should pursue those responsible for inciting the popular revolt and concocting false information to deceive the Central Government and the people; they should also seriously reflect on what can be learned from this event so as to avoid taking the same course in the future.

 

7.        We strongly demand that the authorities not subject every Tibetan to political investigation or revenge. The trials of those who have been arrested must be carried out according to judicial procedures that are open, just, and transparent so as to ensure that all parties are satisfied.

 

8.        We urge the Chinese government to allow credible national and international media to go into Tibetan areas to conduct independent interviews and news reports. In our view, the current news blockade cannot gain credit with the Chinese people or the international community, and is harmful to the credibility of the Chinese government. If the government grasps the true situation, it need not fear challenges. Only by adopting an open attitude can we turn around the international community’s distrust of our government.

 

9.        We appeal to the Chinese people and overseas Chinese to be calm and tolerant, and to reflect deeply on what is happening. Adopting a posture of aggressive nationalism will only invite antipathy from the international community and harm China’s international image. 

 

10.     The disturbances in Tibet in the 1980s were limited to Lhasa, whereas this time they have spread to many Tibetan areas. This deterioration indicates that there are serious mistakes in the work that has been done with regard to Tibet. The relevant government departments must conscientiously reflect upon this matter, examine their failures, and fundamentally change the failed nationality policies.

 

11.     In order to prevent similar incidents from happening in future, the government must abide by the freedom of religious belief and the freedom of speech explicitly enshrined in the Chinese Constitution, thereby allowing the Tibetan people fully to express their grievances and hopes, and permitting citizens of all nationalities freely to criticize and make suggestions regarding the government’s nationality policies.

 

12.    We hold that we must eliminate animosity and bring about national reconciliation, not continue to increase divisions between nationalities. A country that wishes to avoid the partition of its territory must first avoid divisions among its nationalities. Therefore, we appeal to the leaders of our country to hold direct dialogue with the Dalai Lama. We hope that the Chinese and Tibetan people will do away with the misunderstandings between them, develop their interactions with each other, and achieve unity. Government departments as much as popular organizations and religious figures should make great efforts toward this goal.

 

 

Signatures:

 

Wang Lixiong (Beijing, Writer)

Liu Xiaobo (Beijing, Freelance Writer)

Zhang Zuhua (Beijing, scholar of constitutionalism)

Sha Yexin (Shanghai, writer, Chinese Muslim)

Yu Haocheng (Beijing, jurist)

Ding Zilin (Beijing, professor)

Jiang peikun (Beijing, professor)

Yu Jie (Beijing, writer)

Sun Wenguang (Shangdong, professor)

Ran Yunfei (Sichuan, editor, Tujia nationality)

Pu Zhiqiang (Beijing, lawyer)

Teng Biao (Beijing, Layer and scholar)

Liao Yiwu (Sichuan, writer)

Wang Qisheng (Beijing, scholar)

Zhang Xianling (Beijing, engineer)

Xu Jue (Beijing, research fellow)

Li Jun (Gansu, photographer)

Gao Yu (Beijing, journalist)

Wang Debang (Beijing, freelance writer)

Zhao Dagong (Shenzhen, freelance writer)

Jiang Danwen (Shanghai, writer)

Liu Yi (Gansu, painter)

Xu Hui (Beijing, writer)

Wang Tiancheng (Beijing, scholar)

Wen kejian (Hangzhou, freelance)

Li Hai (Beijing, freelance writer)

Tian Yongde (Inner Mongolia, folk human rights activists)

Zan Aizong (Hangzhou, journalist)

Liu Yiming (Hubei, freelance writer)

Liu  Di (Beijing, freelance writer)

If you thought the story of Amir Massoud Tofangsazan was embarrassing, what if something similar happened to a celebrity?
   Over the last few weeks, the Edison Chen scandal has rocked Hong Kong and even affected the Beijing Olympics.
   Chen, a Canadian-born actor about to make a big US début—already he’s a Pepsi spokesman in Hong Kong—took in his laptop for repair but forgot to take down his home-made porn, which includes 12 female celebrities.
   Just as with Laptop Guy (Thomas Sawyer) in the UK with Amir’s photos in 2006, someone at the computer shop decided they would post the 1,200-plus images and videos on to the ’net.
   If we think the Britney Spears Machine is bad, Hong Kong tabloids make that look like a old world gentlemen’s club.
   PC World offers this analogy: ‘Imagine photos of, say, Matthew McConaughey popping up on the Internet, showing him in various states of undress and sexual acts with, say, Alicia Keys, Kelly Clarkson and Kirsten Dunst.’
   One of the celebs implicated is Gillian Chung, who was supposedly going to perform at the Olympics. Not any more. Prior to this month she had a wholesome image—now she may be more associated with performing and receiving oral sex. (The logical thing now would be to revamp her image as Madonna does regularly, but whether that will go down well in the innocent Cantopop world is another matter.)
   Batgwa summarizes the other celebs:

The biggest female stars implicated were Gillian Chung (鍾欣桐) and Cecilia Cheung (張栢芝).
   Other less well known female celebrities were implicated too, including Bobo Chan (陳文媛), Rachel Ngan (顏穎思), Mandy Chen (陳育嬬), Candice Chan (陳思慧) and Edison’s current girlfriend Vincy Yeung (楊永晴).

   Chen has basically announced, at 27, his retirement from the Hong Kong scene. He might have to: some of the celebs may have Triad connections (there is some gang involvement in Hong Kong moviemaking) and he’s received death threats.
   Cops have arrested nine people so far in connection with the unlawful distribution of the images.
   While Chen is no saint, he deserved his privacy. The poster has essentially brought down the careers of several people. I suppose this is a reminder that when you are in the public eye, you need to take precautions. Putting your own porn on to a disc or a flash drive would be an idea—or simply be a role model and being less promiscuous in relationships and never fear these leaks.
   We may criticize Chen for his behaviour and we certainly should criticize the breach of trust from the shop, but the problem is wider. We need to ask ourselves just where our values are—and the way the Chinese people have reacted shows that they have not fled the free and occupied parts of China.

I was reading on Humbled Infidel’s blog that the US Marines’ recruiting office is going to get kicked out of town (or has already?) by the Berkeley, Calif. city council.
   I don’t get it.
   I don’t care if you are anti-war or pro-war, this is a legal organization which has, as far as I know, a very small number of staff, and they don’t even actively go out to hand brochures to university-age kids.
   The proponents of getting them out of Berkeley are a group called Code Pink, which has engaged in some questionable activities, including painting graffiti at the office.
   The talk at the council meeting included notions that the Marines were ‘bombarding’ Berkeley citizens with ‘propaganda’.
   As a non-American looking in, it’s another one of those ‘I don’t understand the US’ things.
   I have a cousin who is a cop in Berkeley so maybe I should ask him just what is up there.
   Here’s my thought. Since this is a legal organization, it should be allowed to stay. Those people who commit crimes against legal organizations should be punished, not given full reign at council meetings.
   I thought the Bill of Rights in the US Constitution protected both sides, not just one, and before you question this non-American, yes, I did study your constitution at law school.
   If anti-war families are concerned their sons and daughters are being affected by TV advertising and the presence of this office in Berkeley, then the answer is really simple: talk to your children.
   Talk.
   You’ll find it’s easier than dressing up in pink and campaigning to run the Marines out of Dodge.
   Talk to them about why you wouldn’t want to see them joining up.
   Talk to them about why you think this War on Terror is illegitimate.
   Talk to them about your feelings of loss if they were to give their lives for something you don’t think warrants it.
   What is stronger? The word of a parent or the word of a government? I would have thought the former, but maybe I am wrong when it comes to these folks.
   From where I sit, 7,000 miles away from California, this isn’t about the presence of the US Marine Corps. This is about some people being incapable parents, unable to engage in dialogue with their children all their lives. And now they are shocked that they have formed minds and opinions unaffected by parental dialogue that probably never existed.
   They say they support the troops while they call them thugs and criminals.
   And now they want someone to blame for their own inadequacies: the advertising agencies, the US Government, the lone Marine sitting in the recruiting office providing information to those young people who enquire.
   To the anti-war groups: propaganda only works if you allow it to. Why else would you yourselves engage in propaganda of your own? In the hope that yours will work if someone allows your messages to enter.
   By doing it at local level you hope to counter major advertising campaigns at a national level. That actually makes a lot of tactical sense.
   But if young people are going in to this office, then it’s their decision to sign up. They have minds of their own and at whatever the age of majority is over in California state, it’s up to them. You have any time to say to your own kids or to those close to you, ‘Hey, I don’t agree with Bush and Cheney on this. Here’s why. And now you have to weigh up your options.’
   Removing a single office won’t change much because the real bombardment of the propaganda you cite is coming from a national source through national media. And those kids who want to sign up, heck, this is California. They’re just going to hop in to their cars and find another office.
   I prefer peace to war. But I prefer freedom to censorship.
   Meanwhile, it seems that after hearing submissions, Berkeley does not understand the rule of law or the US’s own Constitution.
   The message the city is telling us is this: you can come, but only if you agree with us. We don’t care if your group is legal. We don’t care if you have free speech guaranteed and enshrined by our Constitution.
   If you don’t agree with us, then you are out of here. Berkeley is a dictatorship not subject to the laws of these United States of America.
   That’s what I am hearing.
   I know Berkeley is liberal and I have visited there many times. And I have no problem with liberal viewpoints. As a Confucianist I would probably be classed as liberal in the traditional sense. One political survey puts me as a left-leaning libertarian, to the horror of my good conservative friends.
   Yet I seem to have a lot in common with conservatives when it comes to respecting the Constitution and the little matter of some Amendments ratified in 1791. It may pay to read just why these were proposed by James Madison; without the First, Code Pink would not even exist.
   But the Bill of Rights should also protect the Marines. This is about liberty and justice for all. Not some. What about the Second Amendment or does that not apply in Berkeley?
   Liberal does not mean closing our minds to alternative viewpoints. Actually, it means the opposite: that others are free to state their viewpoints even when we disagree with them. The principle is that through engaging opposing forces we can find better solutions.
   However, many liberals have forgotten that and their finest days under FDR.
   In this context, Berkeley ain’t liberal. The Council seems to be a Politburo unto itself.
   Yesterday, I MCed a very fun show where I had to thank the Red Chinese Embassy. I did it. I even gave it its proper title, ‘the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China.’
   Anyone who knows me knows I think this is an illegitimate embassy for an illegitimate government, and that I do not believe in UN resolution 2758. I think Henry Kissinger was a dickwad for his part in being anti-freedom when it came to the Chinese people.
   But this blog is my space. This is where I can say what I like and if I want to rubbish the commies and Henry Kissinger, I can.
   The Embassy of the People’s Republic of China is legally recognized by the country I choose to live in, and I have to respect its status in New Zealand. I might not privately accept it, but I respect it—just as I think anti-war groups have to respect the presence of pro-war groups in their cities and towns.
   Privately I can say what I like about the Reds, about their human rights’ record and about the fact that the Chinese people are in a state of war even though no casualties have been taken for a half-century. I have my right to free speech and I am going to use it.
   Publicly I was there to do a job and to conduct myself professionally.
   If I want the Embassy out of Dodge, I’m going to do it the proper way and campaign, but not lose sight of the freedom of speech each side has. The only way to remove an Embassy is to go to the source and convince the government of its illegitimacy. That is a near impossible task, but I still won’t shut my trap.
   I can influence those around me and if I have kids I will explain to them why the flag of the Republic hangs in my office, then they can make up their own minds.
   On that note, maybe I just don’t understand what the 21st century American family is like if Code Pink and Berkeley councillors believe it has little strength in the face of the US Marine Corps and an elected President who clearly stated that he would continue the War on Terror.
   And maybe I just don’t understand why I should even be familiar with the US Constitution if some Americans themselves don’t seem to care about their founding document.

Two thousand and eight is the Year of the Rat. Which animal year were you born in?

The year of the rat. That wasn’t an echo.
   Happy New Year, everyone!

A lot of people chide Americans for not knowing their history. When a contestant on Are You Smarter than a Fifth Grader? answers that Abraham Lincoln was FDR’s immediate predecessor, it’s easy to make that criticism. My belief is that we are all largely in the same boat, with a limited awareness of our history, especially in the west.
   Germans are admired for their intelligence and if you examine their economy, you can generalize that many of their exports are founded on the intellectual endeavours of the German people. But there is a similar lack of awareness, as I read in an old Wired article today:

In November, the first children born after the fall of the [Berlin] wall turned 18. Evidence suggests many of them have serious gaps in their knowledge of the past. In a survey of Berlin high school students, only half agreed that the GDR was a dictatorship. Two-thirds didn't know who built the Berlin Wall.

   The criticism of the US comes simply from the fact that more of its citizens are exposed to international scrutiny. Mount the same number of cameras or do the same number of surveys in other nations, and I think the same pattern emerges.
   It reminds us, however, that not only do we have to be aware of our history, we must protect it from revisionism, something that is plaguing countries such as the Republic of China.

Since November, I have received scam emails from a company called China Net Technology Ltd. A page about the scam can be found in the comments here.
   The MO: a company finds a dot com and sends them a letter, saying that another company plans to register the same name, but for various Chinese territories (with the cn, tw and hk suffixes, among others).
   Your expected reaction: you panic and decide to negotiate with the company, because it claims it is a registry service for domain names.
   Their response: they send you a form for the domain names, at outrageous (thousands of dollars) prices.
   Initially, I was so naïve I started talking to these people. They did highlight a few domains our company planned on getting, so we registered those—but through our regular domain name registration service, paying a normal price.
   When they sent me the form, I said, ‘Forget it.’ I knew how much these names were actually worth and how they were probably phonies. Their response, sensing that the deal was about to slip through their fingers, was to say that the company wanting to register the domains was known for porn.
   By this point I didn’t really care.
   It got more suspicious as these emails kept on coming, either from another company or from the same one, but claiming yet another group was planning to register the same domains. I’ve had three more for one dot com and another for a dot org, same MO.
   Ergo: these are scammers.
   I was lucky. According to the E-consultancy page I cited, some folks even get called up by the scammers. I was fortunate that I was travelling when they first emailed me, so they never figured out where I was.
   So while you should protect your domain names, if you are interested in Chinese ones, do not get suckered in by these folks. Use your regular registry service or a respectable company.

 
My friend and distant relative May Yan contributed to this new book on Chinese cuisine, called Eating Stories: a Chinese Canadian and Aboriginal Potluck. It’s important for those of us in the diaspora not to lose some of our good eating habits and knowledge about traditional cuisine, and to be able to pass them on to the next generation. The way May described this book, it’s the sort of thing that I would regard as vital for my own well-being!