A week-in-review weekend links edition

Via the recently launched Somo Gallery

For those who want a rundown of this whole Wang Lijun escapade: C. Custer has you covered. [China Geeks]

Corollary: Wang's (fake?) open letter via sociologist Li Yinhe begins: "When everyone sees this letter, I’ll either be dead or have lost my freedom. I want to explain to the whole world the reasons behind my actions. In short: I don’t want to see the Party’s biggest hypocrite Bo Xilai carry on performing: When such evil officials ruling the state, it will lead to calamity for China and disaster for our nation." [Danwei]

You had me at "Cormac McCarthy": "Some 20 million people lost their lives, many of them in grotesque ways. There are enough beheadings, flayings, rapes, suicides, disembowelments, mass killings and acts of cannibalism in 'Autumn in the Heavenly Kingdom' — more about these things in a moment — that it can seem like a version of Sun Tzu’s 'Art of War' spat into being by Cormac McCarthy." [NY Times]

This month in history, and such. "Westerners still tend to underestimate Chinese military prowess, viewing China as a historically peaceful nation frequently invaded by bellicose neighbors: Huns, Mongols, Manchus, and, of course, Japanese. During World War II, U.S. and British propaganda strengthened this image by depicting China as a hapless victim of a modernized, assertive, and militarily effective Japan. // Most westerners even believe that the Chinese invented gunpowder but never used it in weapons, reserving it for fireworks. In fact, the first guns were developed in China, as were the first cannons, rockets, grenades, and land mines." [The Diplomat]

Well, if you need a reminder that in this city of ours they tear shit down, Jonathan Kaiman is here. "The demolition of Beijing's historical courtyard alleyways, called hutong, has long been one of the city's most controversial issues. At the height of the city's headlong rush to modernity in the 1990s, about 600 hutong were destroyed each year, displacing an estimated 500,000 residents. Seemingly overnight, the city was transformed from a warren of Ming dynasty-era neighborhoods into an ultramodern urban sprawl, pocked with gleaming office towers and traversed by eight-lane highways." [The Atlantic]

The Economist launches China blog: Banyan.

Your Jeremy Lin reads of the day: Deadspin, China Smack, Yahoo. Also from Deadspin: "What appears to be New York Knicks superstar Jeremy Lin's Xanga—chinkballa88.xanga.com, naturally—popped up on Reddit earlier this week, but somehow we missed it, and now it's password-protected. Drat."

Rupert Hoogewerf on China's super rich: "...the second thing is that these people are sending their children to study overseas. This is a phenomenon that's unbelievable. We estimate that 85 per cent of the millionaire class in China are now thinking of sending their children to study in, it's America, UK, Australia, Canada are the big four." [Shanghaiist]

NON-CHINA READ: Because no doubt you will have found James Fallows's analysis of Obama's presidency through other means, I present you this: "The injections came without warning or explanation. As a low-ranking soldier in the Guatemalan army in 1948, Federico Ramos was preparing for weekend leave one Friday when he was ordered to report to a clinic run by US doctors. // Ramos walked to the medical station, where he was given an injection in his right arm and told to return for another after his leave. As compensation, Ramos's commanding officer gave him a few coins to spend on prostitutes. The same thing happened several times during the early months of Ramos's two years of military service. He believes that the doctors were deliberately infecting him with venereal disease." [Nature]

The Peter Hoekstra campaign needs to learn the definition of satire

The following ad ran in Michigan during the Super Bowl. In it, former Rep. Peter Hoekstra, currently bidding for a US Senate seat, appears at the end to say, "I think this race for US Senate is between Debbie Spend It Now and Pete Spend It Not. I'm Pete 'Spend It Not' Hoekstra, and I approve this message."

Here's the message Pete Spend It Not Hoekstra so approves of:

It's a nice red herring, if anything. For you see, politicians in America make a career out of saying shit they don't mean, either because they think their constituents need to hear it or because the DNC or RNC told them to say it, and the good politicians -- I mean those truly adept at the asinine game of politics -- are the ones who get away with bald-faced hypocrisy.

Example: Hoekstra. An ad featuring a Chinese girl on a farm. A fucking farm, even though more than half of Chinese live in cities. Ah, never mind that. What does China have to do with anything?

Well... it makes us talk about China, an issue that has not divided America (I think most Americans are solidly in the "Huh?" camp). It makes us forget to focus about Mr. Spend It Not himself.

But that's where we come in. We have his voting record. So we're able to see that he...

Voted YES on $15B bailout for GM and Chrysler.

Voted YES on emergency $78B for war in Iraq & Afghanistan.

Voted YES on $266 billion Defense Appropriations bill

Voted YES on making the Bush tax cuts permanent.

Voted YES on Tax cut package of $958 B over 10 years.

...i.e. voted to increase spending while decreasing income.

So, Hoekstra campaign -- your response?

The Hoekstra campaign called the advertisement “satirical” and explained the broken English in the video as a reflection of China’s increasingly competitive education system. [Politico]

Oh. You're still talking about China. I'm not entirely sure you know what satire means, but hey, we didn't all get a good education. Speaking of education though, I understand you have something to say about that?

“You have a Chinese girl speaking English - I want to hit on the education system, essentially. The fact that a Chinese girl is speaking English is a testament to how they can compete with us, when an American boy of the same age speaking Mandarin is absolutely insane, or unthinkable right now,” Hoekstra spokesperson Paul Ciaramitaro told POLITICO. “It exhibits another way in which China is competing with us globally.”

Yes! Hoekstra is obviously for American education. He obviously believes as I do, that education the foundation of our country and -- more importantly -- the foundation of an individual, and perhaps shares Nicholas Kristof's belief that "the difference between a strong teacher and a weak teacher lasts a lifetime." Great, so Hoekstra...

Voted NO on additional $10.2B for federal education & HHS projects.

Voted NO on $84 million in grants for Black and Hispanic colleges.

Uhm. Is he for... the environment?

Voted NO on tax credits for renewable electricity, with PAYGO offsets.

Voted NO on tax incentives for energy production and conservation.

Voted NO on investing in homegrown biofuel.

I clearly see how he does not support public education or the environment. But I wonder, on an off-chance, could he support education and the environment, like, together?

Voted NO on $40B for green public schools.

Voted NO on environmental education grants for outdoor experiences.

Uh-huh.

Say, how much did Mr. Spend It Not spend on his Super Bowl ad?

Hoekstra's campaign is spending $75,000 to air the ad statewide Sunday.

Well, fuck.

And fuck you, good Sir Spend It Not. What a shitty moniker.

Also see: Sinostand.

Gingrich and Romney [EDIT: Sorry, no Romney] try to out-dumb one another, and NY Times goes after Apple again

Via Shanghaiist, from the ATV 20th Miss Asia Awards in Hainan province

These are America's leaders:

"And I'd like to have an American on the moon before the Chinese get there." Newt Gingrich, everyone.

"I do not want to be the country that having gotten to the moon first, turn around and say, 'It doesn't really matter. Let the Chinese dominate space. What do we care?' I think that is a path of national decline. And I am for America being a great country, not a country in decline." Mitt RomneyGingrich, everyone.

THESE ARE AMERICA'S LEADERS.

Do you hear that, Chinese people? You have absolutely nothing to fear from the U.S. Now get off its back.

[Quotes via Shanghaiist]

EDIT: Well, that's embarrassing. Thanks to Kenneth Tan for pointing out my quote attribution error. But my feelings about the Republican field of nominees remains the same.

The NY Times on Apple, China... again. "People like Ms. White of Harvard say that until consumers demand better conditions in overseas factories -- as they did for companies like Nike and Gap, which today have overhauled conditions among suppliers -- or regulators act, there is little impetus for radical change. Some Apple insiders agree." Meanwhile, other Apple insiders designed to drink some orange juice. [NY Times]

The first thing that should signal something is awry is the subhead: "For China's rise to continue, the country needs to move away from the model that has served it so well." Stop doing what works... OK, gotcha. But I hate this headline for another reason. The Economist is implying that there are only two options: 1. Western, the model we know; 2. Anything else. And if you're doing "anything else," there's no chance of you succeeding, or mending the model so that it guarantees future success. Why? Because it's not the model we know. [The Economist]

Stan Abrams of China Hearsay then finishes the takedown. "Fourth, religion. Not surprisingly, I find this one laughable. China needs religion to help the poor and to offer people a meaning to their lives beyond economic growth? From reading The Economist over many years, I thought economic growth was an end in and of itself! // But seriously, the government is certainly capable of dealing with poverty on its own; indeed, modern China can boast of having lifted more people out of poverty than any other nation in the history of the world. Thanks, but no thanks, religion. As to the meaning of life, this was a throwaway line in the article not elaborated upon, so I think I’ll ignore it." [China Hearsay]

Paper Republic's Eric Abrahamsen writes about Han Han. "'When the drivers in China turn their high-beams down as they pass each other on the road, they will be ready for revolution,' writes Han Han. 'Of course, by then, revolution won’t be necessary.' Instead, he argues, the process will be a gradual one, in which the cultural values conducive to democracy evolve along with democracy itself. 'Democracy is a long process of negotiation.'" [LA Times blog]

The death penalty. The Economist reports on netizens' support for 31-year-old Wu Ying, sentenced to death for "illegal fundraising." Really, China should practice more leniency, and judging by many of the comments in these two China Smack posts, it seems the people feel the same. I know the government really, really hates drugs and all, but smuggling doesn't warrant a death penalty. Sorry, it doesn't.

A glowing review of James Palmer's Heaven Cracks, Earth Shakes. [The Peking Duck]

NON-CHINA READ: "The accelerating rate of incarceration over the past few decades is just as startling as the number of people jailed: in 1980, there were about two hundred and twenty people incarcerated for every hundred thousand Americans; by 2010, the number had more than tripled, to seven hundred and thirty-one. No other country even approaches that. In the past two decades, the money that states spend on prisons has risen at six times the rate of spending on higher education. Ours is, bottom to top, a 'carceral state,' in the flat verdict of Conrad Black, the former conservative press lord and newly minted reformer, who right now finds himself imprisoned in Florida, thereby adding a new twist to an old joke: A conservative is a liberal who’s been mugged; a liberal is a conservative who’s been indicted; and a passionate prison reformer is a conservative who’s in one." [New Yorker]

Former national security adviser on China, Obama

Apologies this is slightly belated. From Financial Times via Slate:

"The Chinese are really good at diplomacy – and even at making their interlocutors feel very uncomfortable," [Zbigniew] Brzezinski says. "Sometimes they look at you while you’re making a point and they start laughing. And you’re saying to yourself, 'Am I really a fool? What am I saying that’s so ridiculous?' I very early on realised that their negotiating technique is a form of masterful manipulation. I was also struck by how well informed the top Chinese leaders are about the world," he says. "And then you watch one of our Republican presidential debates ... " Brzezinski does not feel it necessary to complete the sentence but he later adds: "The GOP field is just embarrassing."

It's not a very long article, but it's good enough to warrant a second quote:

Brzezinski quotes a senior Chinese official who reportedly said of America: "Please don’t decline too quickly." He then lampoons the standard American candidate’s response to any talk of decline, which is simply to assert that America’s greatness will return if only people would believe in it. "'Help is here. Smile a lot. Everything will disappear. It will be fine' – well, sad to say, it doesn’t work that way. People are ignorant and scared. It will take more than that."

So how did Slate's supposedly liberal, intelligent commentariat take to the piece? Surely their minds were opened. Surely they had some cogent follow-up questions. Surely they liked that quip about the GOP...

Here are two comments:

(Dude "liked" his own comment?)

China is the bad guy, like the USSR was the bad guy in the movie Red Dawn, or the Body Snatchers were the bad guys in Invasion of the Body Snatchers (just basically a metaphor for the USSR), or the aliens in Independence Day, or the aliens in Battle of Los Angeles...

I wonder if Americans have grown so snug in their copacetic suburbs that they're no longer capable of venturing outside their intellectual comfort zone to consider that another country with a non-democratic government might have interests that aren't demonic, or even a culture that isn't intertwined with said government. Could they believe in anything other than the narratives they've been fed by their country's myth-makers (TOTALLY not propaganda, dude!), forever sucklings on pop culture's fat pink teat? Because Hollywood has conditioned them to believe that nothing is real except the life they live, and of course they're not living the life of a former national security adviser, or even a diplomat, so of course China isn't real. China is a bad guy, who could be played by Gary Oldman. America is hero. And if history were to write a script in which the bad guy wins, well, there's always a sequel to be made, and you know the underdog narrative sells...

Stupid people turn Sanlitun Apple Store into goddamn Guangzhou Railway Station

Picture from the Beijinger

The only thing about the iPhone 4S Beijing launch that you need to read. "Cold and hunger? Next time, pack a goddamn sandwich and wear a hat, Einstein." [Stan Abrams, China Hearsay]

Best candidate for China, Taiwan, and U.S. wins Taiwan presidential election."Taiwan’s incumbent president Ma Ying-jeou won re-election Saturday, a result that will delight China and calm worries in Washington that this island of 23 million people might veer away from a policy of rapprochement with its giant neighbor.... 'China will be very happy,' said Yen Chen-shen of the Institute of International Relations at Taiwan’s National Chengchi University. Ma’s victory, he added, shows 'Beijing doesn’t need to use missiles but can buy Taiwan through business.'" [Washington Post]

Are mainland Chinese international students failing America's higher education system? Another thought-provoking post by Dan Harris. [China Law Blog]

Paul Manfredi, in an introduction for the poet Xi Chuan: "Journalism, regrettably, is similarly ensconced in something un-viable, at least in terms of what is printed (virtually and non) in China. And this corruption of language is not restricted to Chinese case, as in outside journalism (by which I mean that written by authors in sites beyond China’s borders) we find the same problem. In Western-press writing about China we find language suffering less from calculated or otherwise strategized intent to mislead, and more from the unwitting and unfortunate failure to grasp what is really happening." [china Avant-garde]

Events That Don't Suck: Time Out is teaming up with The Hutong and Electric Shadows to present a series of films related to Spring Festival. They'll be shown at different times, so check the schedule. I'll definitely be attending at least a few of these. [Time Out]

New to the blogroll: The very heady China Debate. Here, you can start with this post about Nobel Prizes in economics, specifically why the committee is ignoring Chinese economics.

NON-CHINA READ: "But a landmark new research paper underscores that the difference between a strong teacher and a weak teacher lasts a lifetime. Having a good fourth-grade teacher makes a student 1.25 percent more likely to go to college, the research suggests, and 1.25 percent less likely to get pregnant as a teenager. Each of the students will go on as an adult to earn, on average, $25,000 more over a lifetime — or about $700,000 in gains for an average size class — all attributable to that ace teacher back in the fourth grade." [Nicolas Kristof, New York Times]

God, are American politicians STILL quoting Abraham Lincoln?

Here's what I found on Mitt Romney's website, which I had the misfortune of clicking on just now: "The best ally world peace has ever known is a strong America. The 'last best hope of earth' was what Abraham Lincoln called our country..."

...was what Abraham Lincoln called our country in 1862.

Here's what else Abraham Lincoln said in that speech: "The way is plain, peaceful, generous, just -- a way which, if followed, the world will forever applaud, and God must forever bless."

Plain, peaceful, generous... which, if followed...

Gee, and what fuck-all has America been doing lately?

The world's not applauding, folks.

POSTSCRIPT: Who is China's equivalent of Lincoln in terms of a historical figure abused for political capital? Mao would be the easy answer, but at least he was 30 percent wrong. Lincoln is American politics' version of goddamn Mother Theresa.

Which of these Republican presidential nominees knows what's up in China?

Let's play this game. All pull quotes from Wall Street Journal.

Is it Mitt Romney, the suave asshole who exercises with a shake weight?

...has taken a leaf out of Obama’s 2008 playbook with a promise to get tough on China’s trade policy. Day one of a Romney administration would threaten countervailing duties against Chinese imports if Beijing didn’t move quickly to float the yuan.

Is it Rick Santorum, that social conservative? (Further insults gratuitous.)

...He says that China should be challenged on religious liberty and the U.S. should be doing more to support human rights activists.

Is it Ron Paul, that lovably losing idealist? (Idealistic losing lover?)

...His promise to boost the dollar’s strength and reduce America’s foreign-policy entanglements could give China a freer hand on the exchange rate, and to flex its foreign-policy muscles in the Asia Pacific.

Or is it this guy?

As the former U.S. ambassador to China, he is the candidate with the most sophisticated views, arguing that the reality of Beijing’s own politics makes confrontation on the exchange rate unhelpful.

Good luck in New Hampshire, Governor.

Moral situation, moral situation, moral situation

Communist Party policy magazines are a hoot. On the heels of Hu Jintao's comments, there's now this latest (as reported by Global Times)...

The morality situation in China has been improving, according to an article published in Qiushi, the Communist Party of China Central Committee's flagship magazine devoted to policy-making.

Pray thee, tell.

"The reason for the hesitation in helping strangers is that the Chinese traditional culture of 'social acquaintance' is transforming into a 'strangers' society' culture, while the system of social controls and curbs is weakening," it said.

The "strangers' society culture" bullshit is just bullshit that is meaningless, because it is bullshit. The phrase "system of social controls and curbs is weakening" is worth perhaps a second of your attention, because who the fuck needs a healthy blood pressure? Let it spike through my ears, I say.

In summary: Chinese are reluctant to help strangers in need because the system of social controls and curbs is weakening.

Not because of, say, lazy judges who are more concerned about clearing their dockets than actually weighing goddamn evidence, thus setting a legal precedent that has a real effect on the choices that citizens make -- because fuck if a judicial decision in NANJING affects people elsewhere. Not like the Internet does shit like transmit INFORMATION.

Anyway, "social controls" -- maybe I understand what that means: something like a Good Samaritan Law, the kind that took the Seinfeld gang off the air. I wouldn't have chosen the phrase "social controls," but hey, potato, potahto. Perhaps a law is necessary to get people to behave a certain way, a more "moral" way.

But "curbs"? Like...

...

Fuck it, you mean censorship. You mean Chinese people have too much fucking freedom to fuck around and make fucking money and fantasize about fucking Western women and fuck if they care about some old dude dying on the street.

This is what you mean, because you're fucking idiots. Witness:

"The heated discussion of a morality crisis and the condemnation of immorality just reflect the public's great desire for a better moral situation," said Cai [Xia, professor within the Party School of the CPC's Central Committee], adding that as the main part of society, the people's thought represents that of society, therefore it is reasonable to say the moral situation in the country has been improving.

"In the age of moral pluralism, officials' and Party members' positive exemplary roles are needed to guide the public," she said.

And now, Sir Walter Raleigh, to cleanse your brain:

A Description of Love

Now what is love? I pray thee, tell.
It is that fountain and that well
Where pleasure and repentance dwell.
It is perhaps the sauncing bell
That tolls all into heaven or hell:
And this is love, as I hear tell.

Yet what is love? I pray thee say.
It is a work on holy-day;
It is December matched with May;
When lusty bloods, in fresh array,
Hear ten months after of the play:
And this is love, as I hear say.

Yet what is love? I pray thee sain.
It is a sunshine mixed with rain;
It is a tooth-ache, or like pain;
It is a game where none hath gain;
The lass saith no, and would full fain:
And this is love, as I hear sain.

Yet what is love? I pray thee say.
It is a yea, it is a nay,
A pretty kind of sporting fray;
It is a thing will soon away;
Then take the vantage while you may:
And this is love, as I hear say.

Yet what is love, I pray thee show.
A thing that creeps, it cannot go;
A prize that passeth to and fro;
A thing for one, a thing for mo;
And he that proves must find it so:
And this is love, sweet friend, I trow.

Easier said than done, Mr. Hu

This latest from the New York Times is about President Hu Jintao's comments regarding soft culture. Apparently China is losing the battle to the U.S. (This is where you put on your best "Gee, really?" quizzical face. Do you raise an eyebrow? Do you pout your lips and slowly nod? Do you throw both hands in the air, scrunch up your neck and gape?)

According to the article (emphasis mine):

“We must clearly see that international hostile forces are intensifying the strategic plot of westernizing and dividing China, and ideological and cultural fields are the focal areas of their long-term infiltration,” Mr. Hu said, according to a translation by Reuters.

“We should deeply understand the seriousness and complexity of the ideological struggle, always sound the alarms and remain vigilant and take forceful measures to be on guard and respond,” he added.

Those measures, Mr. Hu said, should be centered on developing cultural products that can draw the interest of the Chinese and meet the “growing spiritual and cultural demands of the people.”

Spiritual demands.

Here is a country whose spirituality is that of commerce. It's a place where an injured lady can libelously sue the person who helped her, win the case, and see the legal fallout create a dystopia-like scenario in which people avoid helping strangers unless the incapacitated peeps, "It is not anybody's fault. I fell by myself."

This is the society we're dealing with, the one that Hu Jintao wants to rescue from the minor-key tunes and mild electro-synth grooves of Lady GaGa, lest China loses the rights to the zeitgeist of the 21st century.

Pop and entertainment, something the rest of the world sees as, well, pop and entertainment, i.e. mostly inconsequential, served best for leisure and diversion with a cocktail, is politicized by China's top leader as a thing to be "on guard" against and "respond" to. (Remember all those automaton responses to political questions during the Olympics? "Don't mix sports with politics..." Apparently pop and politics is not a problem though!)

If Hu wants to fight a culture war, his side will be massacred. The U.S. is -- I'll borrow a phrase the Chinese are fond of using -- a developed country, which means its people have the time and resources to be creative. In China, on the other hand, untold millions are just trying to scrape out a living, while millions more are caught in the rat race, and millions more are dealing with the day-to-day management of ambition vs. happiness, work vs. family, making the difficult choices those in Suburbia, USA can't imagine, not asking "Could I love him?" but, "Should I risk getting sued and help this dying man?"

But amid this backdrop, China is not a place that, despite its leaders' best efforts, only produces mindless drones and grubs in lockstep. I see this populace's resilience every day: normal working people who dare to call bullshit on the propaganda they're peddled. And it's not just me who sees it: you do too. China is a place that has produced intellectuals such as Gao Xingjian, who confronts his personal past to save his country's soul; courageous people like Chen Guangcheng, the blind lawyer whose story could be a Hollywood movie; people for whom the struggle is not between nations but much simpler, between individuals: a struggle for answers to confirm our humanity.

There are people, in short, able and willing to produce real culture, the kind you would write home about, to question spirituality or create it, to do something people actually care about. Pardon the cliche, but theirs is art as mirror for life.

And what, you ask, becomes of people like them? They are exiled. They are crippled and imprisoned. They are gagged. They are censored.

(Meanwhile, China's most well-known "pop" writer playfully acts the part of a self-aware troll.)

Chinese officials believe the way to the public's heart is through "socially responsible" TV shows. As it concerns the Chinese public, they're not completely wrong -- hey, I have older relatives who are socially conservative. But if that's what the authorities want, they should stop fooling themselves about the culture "battle," that there even can be one. They've lost. It's over. They can't even save face by banning Western culture, because it's one thing to censor a New York Times article, it's quite another to tell a 19-year-old in the club what kind of music should excite them.

So here's a proposition: that we not search for China's version of Lady GaGa -- indeed, Chinese people like America's GaGa in part because she is as American as they come, with all those implications -- but search for ways to create a society that will make the question Whose culture is better? irrelevant.

China's leaders have made a deal with its constituents: stay out of politics and we'll stay out of your lives. I think it's time for our counteroffer: you can stay in power if you stay out of art and culture. Otherwise, we have nothing.

Cartoon about American politics

I've been a bit harsh on China Daily as of late, but Luo Jie does something good here:


Monday's cartoon

If nothing else, because there sure is a lot of bickering in the U.S., for the sake of bickering, I guess. Can't wait for that election season, huh.

An environmental parable, revised

This post is otherwise known as your daily dose of cynicism.

An ancient Chinese fable from a compilation by K.L. Kiu, who also translated this (I've taken the liberty to correct the [sic]'s):

"The Art of Stealing"

The Guo family in the state of Qi was very rich while the Xiang family in the state of Song was very poor. Mr. Xiang went to Qi from Song to learn from Mr. Guo how to become wealthy.

"I am very good at stealing," said Mr. Guo. "After I became a thief, I managed to support myself after one year. In two years' time I was comfortably off. After three years I owned lots of land and my barns were all full. From then onwards I could afford to give to the needy and I helped many friends and neighbors."

Mr. Xiang was delighted. He took in Mr. Guo's remark about stealing without understanding how one should go about it. Therefore, he scaled walls and bore holes to get into houses. He took everything his eyes could see or his hands could reach. After a little while, he was convicted of theft and the inheritance left by his ancestors was confiscated.

Mr. Xiang was of the opinion that Mr. Guo had deceived him so he went to see Mr. Guo in order to put the blame on him.

"How did you steal?" asked Mr. Guo.

Mr. Xiang gave him an account of what he did.

"Oh dear!" said Mr. Guo. "You have totally missed the point of what I meant by stealing. I'll explain what I mean. I heard that Nature has seasonal changes and Earth produce fair crops. I steal from Nature's seasons and Earth's produce: clouds and rain give abundant moisture while hills and ponds supply other rich yields. With these I nurture my grain, plant my crops, put up my walls and build my houses. On land I steal birds and animals and at sea I steal fish and turtles. Everything is stolen, for grain, crops, earth, trees, birds, animals, fish and turtles are all products of Nature. Which of these belong to me? But when I steal from Nature, I do not get into trouble. Now precious stones, treasures, provisions, silks, money and goods are things that are amassed by men. They are not the gifts of Nature. If you steal such things and get convicted who can you blame?" --Liezi

Obviously this fable is out of date. Or somewhere along the line -- relatively recently, actually -- this innocuous act of "stealing" from nature turned into a widespread pillaging of it, and we now find ourselves in the unpalatable position of having to punish those who take from nature yet give nothing back.

The above is a Chinese fable, and certainly applies to China, but no Western country is exempt. The consumer society was set into motion half a century ago in the States and it's beginning to tear the country a new asshole. Jeffrey Sachs has a more eloquent description, in which he...

said America’s economic system had corrupted the soul of the country by engineering excess: over-eating, excessive television-watching and material consumption now dominated the lives of millions of Americans. “We designed a kind of society that is designed for addiction,” he said.

“We’re mean. Our politics is mean,” to the rest of the world and to America’s own poor, he said. “We’re an unhappy society amid wealth.”

Yes, when all you care about is the next consumer fix -- the video game, the double-bacon triple-cheeseburger, the candied cumshot of divertissement and dither -- it's tough to focus or think intelligently about the workings of government and media, and it's hard to work up a reasonable amount of anger for Bristol Palin on Dancing with the Stars. You just go with the flow and find yourself a little worse off the next day.

Sachs was talking specifically about happiness, but the relationship to the environment is all too obvious. A society hellbent on consuming because its identity is entwined with spending power and luxury is a country that will ride the environment like a two-bit mule till it collapses and farts on us all.

For more heady reading about the environment and US-China relations, see: US Department of Energy.

On state visits and wild boars

• It's always good to get updates from our friends in Taiyuan: From China Smack: Chinese Police With Sticks & Guns vs. Rampaging Wild Boar (the boar does not win)
  
  
• Andy Borowitz:
  
  

  Speaking to the press, Mr. Hu noted the historic nature of his meeting with President Obama: “It was the first time I’d met a Nobel Peace Prize winner who wasn’t in prison.”
  

  
  
• A roundup of late-night jokes about Hu's visit, from Political Irony.
  
  
• Greeting Card for the Year of the Rabbit. [WSJ]
  
  
• Neat and not at all scary: Spokeo. (For more on this, see my buzz in response to Michael Chaitkin and his friends.)
  

Two really good posts from James Fallows

I'm still in Kansas and making the most of this holiday season, but I recently came across two James Fallows posts that I can't help passing along. (I've also just started Postcards from Tomorrow Square -- checked out from the local library -- and have decided to buy this book. Among China watchers and all-around journalists, few, in my opinion, are better than Fallows.)

Post 1: Copenhagen follow-up

Reaction to the Guardian story yesterday, alleging that Chinese negotiators "intentionally" embarrassed Barack Obama and sabotaged the Copenhagen talks, turns out to be a Rorschach test for views on a variety of issues. Views of China (inherently untrustworthy); views of the US and the West (inherently biased against rising China); views of Obama (ludicrously out of his depth in dealing with the Chinese); views of man-made climate change and big international conclaves like this (big frauds in both cases).

Post 2: Liu Xiaobao

...The charges apparently arise mainly from his role last year in promoting "Charter 08," a manifesto for civil society in China. There is nothing about his life, work, or efforts that a truly confident government should fear. That the Chinese government cannot tolerate his views speaks volumes.

There is much to admire in modern China, and even more to sympathize with in the aspirations and efforts of its people. But this is a reminder of what is wrong with the way it is run, and is a moment that friends of China and of Chinese people should note, regret, and deplore.

This did not happen: President Hu Jintao's son linked to corruption

Good luck getting any search engines to return a search for "Hu Jintao son corruption." As far as I can tell, the article itself has been stripped from all non-censored websites, such as the Telegraph. That's why you'll get an extended excerpt this time, from Wall Street Journal:

Mr. Hu's connection to any public scandal, however remote, could prove embarrassing to the Communist Party and President Hu's administration, which has waged a high-profile campaign against corruption in China. During the Hu administration there has been a strenuous effort to keep leaders' family members out of the spotlight.

Namibian investigators say that after the Namibian government signed a $54 million deal with Nuctech to provide cargo scanners for Namibia's ports and airports and made a $12 million down payment, the Chinese firm paid $12 million to a local consultancy, Teko Trading.

"It goes to corruption if these people were given this money in order to influence the authorities to give a contract to this company," said Paulus Noa, director of the Anti-Corruption Commission.

Police have already arrested Teko's co-owners and the person identified as a Nuctech employee.

The three have each been charged with fraud, bribery and failing to report a corrupt transaction. They were expected to appear in court Wednesday. Their lawyers couldn't be reached to comment.

In a sign of the sensitivity of the case, Chinese-language versions of recent foreign news reports about Nuctech were removed from at least two Chinese Web sites. Efforts to search for "Hu Haifeng" or "Nuctech" on Baidu.com, China's most popular Internet search engine, returned a message saying: "The results of your search may not comply with relevant laws, regulations and policies."

U.S. Secretary of Commerce Gary Locke at the Peninsula Hotel in downtown Beijing

Locke and Bob Poole (see anecdote below)


Gary Locke was in Beijing along with Secretary of Energy Steven Chu for a three-day whirlwind tour earlier this week, their first visit as part of the Obama administration. Neither men are newcomers to China, as both are ethnically Chinese, though Locke made a point of saying in his speech at the Peninsula Hotel in an event jointly hosted by the American Chamber of Commerce (AmCham) and U.S.-China Business Council (USCBC) that though he's proud of his heritage, his loyalties lie fully with America.

I really have nothing more to add to what has already been reported (full text of Locke's speech here) except to say the Peninsula's food was delicious (chicken, rice, fancy dessert) and the secretary was, how shall we say, political, perhaps a bit overly so. Between adding a word to fundraise for the Shanghai Expo and lobbying for the president's energy and trade policies and using that classic tale about how it took his family 100 years to move one mile (from the servant's house in Olympia, Washington to the governor's mansion), he was quite... political. Which means charming and smart, of course, but in that nearly fake, certainly put-on sort of way.

There was one funny exchange towards the end that you won't find in any news reports though. As USCBC Vice President of China Operations Bob Poole was trying to wrap up the Q-and-A session so everyone could go home (or back to work, in some cases), Locke, ever the charismatic politician, said, "We've got time for a few more."

Poole, without missing a beat, replied, "You're driving the bus today?"

The audience laughed.

Meathead

I don't know anything about Jon Canzano. Until today, I had never read anything written by the man.

I have never been to Portland, Oregon, nor, to think of it, met more than three or four people from Portland, Oregon (if any, actually).

I am not, really, biased against people or cultures.

And I usually try to avoid idiocy, not confront it. How does that quote go? Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

But today, I feel a little less respect for Portland, Oregon. I feel downright aghast at white men with bald, shiny heads who work in sports, and even those who don't.

In fact, I can say, quite honestly, I am now a little more ashamed at sports reporters around the world.

And don't get me started on America, America... ah, about America I can only say the inside of my head tinges with the embers of anger. And Causians from there to here and everywhere in between, well, they're just stupid, like John Canzano.

John Canzano, bald-headed dumbass.

[Read this if you want to be angered.]

Yu Hua on June 4

I know I'm late with this, but I was in Qingdao over Dragon Boat Festival and only now saw this NY Times editorial by one of China's modern literary giants, Yu Hua. I excerpt liberally because it's worth it:

THIS is the first time I am writing about Tiananmen Square. I am telling my story now because 20 years later — the anniversary is June 4 — two facts have become more apparent. The first is that the Tiananmen pro-democracy protests amounted to a one-time release of the Chinese people’s political passions, later replaced by a zeal for making money. The second is that after the summer of 1989 the incident vanished from the Chinese news media. As a result, few young Chinese know anything about it.

But most important of all, I realize now that the spring of 1989 was the only time I fully understood the words “the people.” Those words have little meaning in China today.

“The people,” or renmin, is one of the first phrases I learned to read and write. I knew our country was called “the People’s Republic of China.” Chairman Mao told us to “serve the people.” The most important paper was People’s Daily. “Since 1949, the people are the masters,” we learned to say.

In China today, it seems only officials have “the people” on their lips. New vocabulary has sprouted up — netizens, stock traders, fund holders, celebrity fans, migrant laborers and so on — slicing into smaller pieces the already faded concept of “the people.”

Now I'm going to go buy Brothers.

Barack, my black friend

China Daily's front page today:


(The title of the post alludes, of course, to The Colbert Report.)

More from our favorite newspaper:

• Unreadably long report on Tibet (check it out for its unreadabilility)
• U.S. praises China's efforts on climate
  

James Fallows on Chas Freeman

Here.

But very recently I met with a friend who had worked years ago with Freeman -- on China, not the Middle East -- and was upset about what he called the "self-lobotimization" of US foreign policy that the campaign to discredit Freeman represented.

Two Fallows follow-ups: here and here.

A reason for optimism?

CNN on the China National People's Congress:

The delegates will represent China's central leadership, the military, every province, including minority groups such as Tibetans, and overseas Chinese.

Landmark social security legislation will be considered that would make health care, unemployment and retirement benefits universal. If implemented, it would mark a major change in the nation's social welfare system.