China Foreign Ministry says Nobel Committee to award Liu Xiaobo Nobel Peace Prize is an insult to this award

| October 9th, 2010

20101008-liu-xiaobo-01

Imprisoned Chinese dissident Liu Xiaobo on Friday October 8, 2010, won the Nobel Peace Prize. Obviously China is not happy about this, no news about the Nobel Peace Prize is reported on Chinese media; the name “Liu Xiaobo” along with “Nobel Peace Prize” became sensitive keywords which will give you empty search result on Baidu. The following article is probably the only thing you will find on China’s news sites.

(From Xinhua News) Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Ma Chaoxu said on October 8, the Nobel Committee to award the Nobel Peace Prize to Liu Xiaobo is completely going against the purpose of the award, and also is an insult to the Peace Prize.

On October 8th, the Nobel committed awarded the Nobel Peace Prize to Chinese dissident Liu Xiaobo. During the Q&A sessions Ma Chaoxu said, the Nobel Peace Prize should be awarded “to someone who promotes national harmony, international friendship and disarmament; someone who works hard on holding and promoting peace meetings”, which is Nobel’s wish. Liu Xiaobo is a criminal who has been sentenced to imprisonment for violating the Chinese Law, his behavior was going in the opposite direction of the purpose of the Nobel Peace Prize. The Nobel Committee awarded such person is completely going against the purpose of the award, and also is an insult to the Peace Prize.

When Ma Chaoxu answered the question of whether Liu Xiaobo winning the Nobel Peace Prize will affect Sino-Norway relations, he said, in the recent years, Sino-Norway relations have maintained sound development, which is beneficial to the interests of both countries and both countries’ people. However the Nobel Committee to award the Nobel Peace Prize to Liu Xiaobo is completely contradicting the purpose of the Nobel Peace Prize, and also will damage the Sino-Norway relations.

509 Comments | Leave a comment | Comment feed

  1. dongshizhang says:

    maybe he deserved it maybe he didnt. the thing thats so twisted about this is that this guy has done nothing of violent nature, and seems to represent something righteous. if the nobel peace prize was given to mao ze dong, despite his extreme actions, would chinese object?

    The idea of winning a world renown prize honoring virtue might be a little complicated for someone like brother certificates to understand.

    • nitro says:

      As there are many noise below I post it here in front. It’s not directly related to the comment above.

      That’s really funny how inaccurate are most of the statements in this thread. If I had time to loose I would be quite interested to read them all and note the ratio between real facts and distorted ones. I wouldn’t be surprised there is less than 1% of truth in all the comments.

      For instance, you will see that the top 5 countries which have received Nobel prizes (per capita) are [1]:

      1) Faroe Islands
      2) Saint Lucia
      3) Switzerland
      4) Iceland
      5) Sweden

      So saying that the Nobel committee is biased toward Norway/Sweden/Finland is a little easy. It interesting to note that China is last in this matter. I checked and the only true Chinese in any Nobel prize is Liu Xiabo for the peace prize. All the other ones have immigrated to foreign countries and then received over there a Nobel prize for their researches [2].

      It’s amazing to see how human beings can convince themselves of any convenient truth. We are all deeply flawed with our crappy emotions and lack of vision. That’s true for reasoning at least. Emotions are very valuable in other activities such as artistic ones.

      Also I am / will be always surprised to hear people stating something without even considering if that could harm them one day. That’s the beauty of the system in place: people don’t care about what could happen if the system was misused against them until it’s obviously too late.

      Last but not least it’s a shame people are not used to indicate their sources when speaking about factual data.

      In a sense I agree partially with people that say the current system is a great evolution toward a more harmonious society as it can conveniently ignore any diverging elements. They will be put aside by the society and no individual should or will ever care for them – keeping the people reaction just below the threshold necessary to trigger any action. People are therefore quite comfortable in their normal lives. That’s truly powerful to achieve any set of goals. It’s a bit working like an ant colony which would sacrifice some individuals for the sake of the whole.

      I truly respect the decision of all the people in this situation in the world as I would never have the courage to accept it for myself or my family. You really need to have some guts to believe in that and put your life and the one of your beloved in the hands of others without any form of guarantee but nice talks.

      All that reasoning is fine IF and ONLY IF the ruling entity is impartial and working toward providing the best environment for all individuals. It’s easy to see that no human in this world is capable of performing this task well on the long term. A group of human would be even worse at it because we have no way to communicate between individuals without some form of reinterpretation.

      Let’s admit it: our specie has no organ capable of transferring information without altering it. That’s a crucial weakness when it comes to analyzing real-life situations and taking critical decisions involving the fate of humanity.

      I believe one day we’ll design very complex computers that will rule the world and that will be for the best. Seriously. I know many of you will refuse such a situation and simply dismiss it but that’s the key to a harmonious world. At some point we have to delegate the responsibility to govern the world to some trusted, stable, long-lived entities.

      To put things back on tracks:

      Because we value each individual in western countries we therefore put in place a system which is as transparent as possible so we can check what was done and how – on that matter some western countries enjoy far better situation than others. We also like to reassert frequently the selected ruling elite to make sure things flow in the right direction. That’s a stable system on the long run which adapt itself to new environment parameters quite quickly and respect the wishes of the people who express them. It’s not perfect but that’s the best we found so far. I must say it makes sense to me and I value many of the principles involved.

      Now if you don’t want to consider all individuals as the first priority there are many other choices you can do which will provide better yields in whatever you care about. You can’t blame it on them as long as they ALL are conscious of the implications of their choices. They don’t have to understand it but they have to “feel” what it means – to continue the analogy – as an ant in a colony doesn’t understand the whole but can grasp the essence of it (country) and even a bit of the existence of super-colonies (world).

      Until we give the power to computers I believe the best is to empower the people to reach some kind of consensus on what is to done to improve the environment for the whole or at least for a subset of the population. Using basic probabilistic and statistical theories [3] it’s not hard to see that all the voices analyzed together will tend to some distinguishable stable goals (ie. localized “truth”). It doesn’t have to be democracy per-say but it’s important that citizen are used as monitoring agents within a society. Ignoring them completely or pushing manipulation on them to far is illogical if the system pretend to care for the people.

      Note that I tried to avoid criticizing directly a country in particular as this might apply to more than one country in the world.

      I found interesting to read about how Hong Kong is currently managed (past 10 years) [4,5] as it gives insights on how a mix of different systems would look like, what would be the challenges, the pros and the cons. It will be even more interesting to see how things evolve from here in the next decade and how the question of Taiwan will be approched.

      [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nobel_laureates_by_country_per_capita
      [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ethnic_Chinese_Nobel_laureates
      [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_large_numbers
      [4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_Law_of_Hong_Kong
      [5] “The Dynamics of Beijing-Hong Kong Relations” (ISBN 978-962-209-909-8)

  2. Mike says:

    The more the government whines about it, the more important it makes it seem. They should have ignored it, but instead they act like their feelings are hurt. How can your feelings be hurt by a committee that doesn’t matter?

    • Type Two says:

      China Hush has been consistently coming out with fresh and interesting translations. As opposed to the trite fodder over on chinaSMACK. Keep up the good work!

    • TROGG says:

      Isn’t Liu the one who believes that China should be invaded and colonialized by the Western powers?

      He’d like to relive the bad old opium wars.

  3. The John says:

    To be honest,

    I think any country should be proud, if someone in their country earns a Nobel prize. It’s a shame that many people in China will not try to understand why he was nominated. Instead, they will immediately dismiss the prize and side with their government. At least try to understand charter 08 and what he stood for…. Then, make a judgement…

    If you are too lazy, go to wikipedia and read up on it. Dude, seems like an honest to heart good guy. He is not trying to start wars or cause fighting. He stood for PEACEFUL negotiations. In fact, his stances was to work to improve the government and NOT dismantle it. He sought petitions and never involved himself in any form of violence.

    Now, he is in prison for 11 years. He will not get out until he is 65.

    I think any Chinese out of respect for their country should at least hear what the man has to say. If you disgree with his methods, that’s ok. But, he is the first Chinese person from his province to earn the prize. He probably the only mainlander (dali lama excluded) to win the Nobel Peace prize.

    Chinese should feel honored…

    Maybe, im wrong. Maybe, he should be in prison. Maybe, we don’t care about the prize. We just care about showing off with a science prize. Because, peace prizes don’t matter…

  4. AlleyCat says:

    What’s next? Reindeers being an insult to Christmas perhaps? Dusk being an insult to dawn? Western hurricanes might also be quite insultive to windmills made in China I suppose. Or maybe potatoes should be regarded as an insult to dragons. Can I still turn on the light when it’s dark, without insulting anybody? Would it still be alright to hold my breath when I dive? Am I allowed to tremble when I’m scared? I’m confused. Could someone (besides rambling VoC) explain to me what’s going on?

  5. GuoBao says:

    The fact that the whole propaganda apperatus as well as the massive censoring system switched into highest gear tells me that that probably gave the prize to the right guy.

    It’s indeed ironic that the Chinese government is setting all these things in motion to assert that Liu is wrong while his work exactly is to raise awareness that the government is using them. Mr. Shotgun, meet Mr. Foot.

  6. Bob the builder says:

    Putting a guy in jail for writing his non-violent non-terrorist views on a piece of paper is certainly much more harmonious and peace promoting.

    Assigning his wife to residence on the sole basis of her being his wife is also a great example of an harmonious society.

    And Norway with one of the highest GDP per head in the world, its tiny 5 millions people and its truly harmonious society does not give a damn about its trade relations with China under the current government. There are plenty of buyers for its oil. Nothing from China it cannot buy somewhere else.

    • AlleyCat says:

      Although there is hardly any point in preaching to the choir, I posted one of these links on my facebook page anway. To quote the honorable laureate:

      We will maintain the spirit of the freedom of writing, in the field of literature, criticism and editing etc. We will not yield to the pressure, regardless if this pressure comes from the government or from other sources. Secondly, I want to make an appeal again to writers throughout the world, especially those from free countries, as well as to governments and NGO’s to continue paying attention to Chinese writers, and to their conditions of writing, and thus help them to obtain their freedom of writing.

  7. Dutchy says:

    Just my 3 questions:

    What is the credibility and value of a government that inprisons people who politely request openness and accountability to its own citizens?

    If a person has violated Chinese law just by asking for accountability, what does it say about the quality of that law in China (Mr. Ma Chaoxu should be able to answer this question)?

    Knowing that the Nobel committee is just based in Norway but completely unrelated and uninfluenced by the Norwegian government, how on earth does a Chinese government official get the blind arrogance to link the decision of a Nobel committee to the bilateral relations between China and Norway?

    • Mark says:

      Fundamentally an authoritarian society will never understand the concept of pluralism. The Chinese government will always believe deep down that at some level the Norwegian government controls any committee of any importance in their country just as the Chinese government controls every monk in Tibet and their version of the Catholic Church and will not even allow independent sports clubs.

    • Mikecheck says:

      Not that it matters, but the Norwegian Nobel Committee is chosen by Norway’s Parliament and is comprised of influential current and former members of government.

      • John says:

        no current members of government is appointed to the nobel committee

        • Basic economics says:

          What he is saying is that most of the committee is affiliated with teh government

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

          Thorbjørn Jagland (chair, born 1950), former Member of Parliament and President of the Storting and former Prime Minister for the Labour Party, current Secretary General of the Council of Europe. Member and chair of the Norwegian Nobel Committee since 2009.

          Kaci Kullmann Five (deputy chair, born 1951), former member of Parliament and cabinet minister for the Conservative Party. Member of the Norwegian Nobel Committee since 2003, deputy chair since 2009.

          Sissel Rønbeck (born 1950), deputy director, Norwegian Directorate for Cultural Heritage (Riksantikvaren), former member of parliament and cabinet minister for the Labour Party. Member of the Norwegian Nobel Committee since 1994.

          Inger-Marie Ytterhorn (born 1941), former member of Parliament for the Progress Party. Member of the Norwegian Nobel Committee since 2000.

          Ågot Valle (born 1945), former member of parliament for the Socialist Left Party. Member of the Norwegian Nobel Committee since 2009.

          • Voice of China says:

            Thanks BE!

            I’ll make sure I bookmark this page for future reference. It seems like you went to a lot of effort to make this information available.

      • voiceofhomer says:

        Old Nazi scumbags with SS boys in Nobel Committee room playing a game of who is gonna make the best shit of the world and fuck China in the process.

  8. Voice of China says:

    Wow, all the anti-china trolls on one page, comment after comment, mob mentality.

    Now now, no need to applaud my presence.. *blushes* no well, feel free to do so if you REALLY must 🙂

    • Tony Neville says:

      Who here is anti-China? The vast majority of us are pro-China. We’re just anti Repression Inc.

      Yesterday I told you the spotlight will be shining on China’s authoritarian government. It is playing out in the media like this: Liu Xiaobo the freedom fighter versus a monolithic and repressive government. The government can huff and puff all it wants about Liu Xiaobo receiving the Nobel peace prize. However, it is powerless to stop him from becoming a powerful symbol in the fight for Human Rights in China.

    • Mikecheck says:

      Supporting a famous Chinese human rights advocate sounds very Pro-China, just not Pro-government.

  9. Voice of China says:

    Most of the idiots here fail to correctly argue on the basis of economics or law. Instead, like Bob, they argue on the merit of general knowledge which is inaccurate and at best oversimplifies reality.

    So rather than going into the technical details of Chinese law, which most of you guys don’t understand and won’t try to understand, lets try going by your methods: General reasoning.

    I can think of two analogies on the top of my head, both of them tell me why China has possibly the best government in the world.

    1. A guy commits a crime, he admits it to you, and you record it.

    In some Western countries: Nope, evidence is inadmissible, it is in breach of the surveillance act, without permission and cannot be used in Court.

    China: Show me the evidence, ok mother f%#$er you’re going to jail

    2. Some political dumb$hit has too much time on his hands, is good at writing and accepts money from overseas sponsors/governments to write an article trying to incite hate towards the government, petitions, and revolution. He is told he will get a Noble Prize for it, that it’s fixed and they will get him out of the country soon afterwards. He is told that the purpose of this is to screw China over by talking shit about the government, to add salt to injury and award a prize, and then getting people internationally to frown. It is said it will damage the reputation of the Chinese government further than the media is already doing and aims to destabilize the economy.

    Western Countries: Well, its published, there is nothing we can do (eat shit)
    China: M@ther F$%er, let’s see what law he is breaching, and let’s show him who is boss

    If you ask me, the Chinese government did the right thing.

    • GuoBao says:

      As usual all I read in your posts is blah blah blah. Have a biscuit and a couple of mao.

      • Voice of China says:

        Hey National Treasure, you’re quite tenacious today. If you don’t want to read my posts, don’t reply.

        Otherwise, don’t forget to say ‘bravo’, do I make myself clear b^tch?

        • GuoBao says:

          Very clear. “Bitch”?? Man,, that hurts coming from a random guy on the internet.

        • Jerry says:

          On second thought, Midol would probably be more appropriate. Unless the biscuits are laced with drugs. Give it a rest VOC. Everybody has an opinion or not. So?

        • Jerry says:

          Bitch? And you say National Treasurer is tenacious. Wow! Perhaps incivility is the sole privilege of the CCP sycophants? Sorry for the big word. LMAO! Can’t take the heat, get out of the kitchen.

          If you are going to say bitch, why don’t you just say it rather than b^tch.

          Congrats to Liu Xiaobo! More power to you.

          And thank the stars that I was born in a country with a rule of law.

          • Voice of China says:

            You probably don’t understand the concept of the rule of law. But hey, there are more important things to worry about.

            Civility is merely a tool to disguise man’s true nature, its not needed when dealing online with rolls.

            • Jerry says:

              It is obvious that you and the ChiCommies don’t understand rule of law and the necessary institutions which accompany it.

              I am a (t)roll (sic) ( you really could use some spelling and grammar lessons) because I do not agree with you. And probably never will. I will lose no sleep over this one.

              And civility would do you wonders!

              • Voice of China says:

                It’s funny how you think calling me a Chicommie gives merit to your argument – it doesn’t.

                Yes you are a troll, and no you don’t understand the rule of law.

              • Jerry says:

                I did not call you a ChiCommie. And being an intelligent
                American who has personally observed rule of law, I seem to know it better than you. That also applies to the brutally tyrannical ChiCommies.

                Reality bites, doesn’t it.

                • Voice of China says:

                  Sure, just like the last ‘intelligent’ American who claimed to be from MIT.

                  And please, don’t use terms you don’t understand.

            • Mikecheck says:

              Rudeness is just a tool to poorly disguise a man’s true inadequacies in argumentation.

    • ektor says:

      if you ask me, NOBODY ASKED YOU

    • Current$y says:

      I never thought about it this way, this could very well be a conpiracy to overthrow the government of China. China is really one of the few countries not controlled by the NWO.

    • Bob the builder says:

      Quite convincing indeed!

      And his wife, what law she broke to be assigned to residence? Ha! You say the family is also responsible for his actions, like under Cao Cao. I see…

      For VoC the clown: BRAVO!

    • Tony Neville says:

      “1. A guy commits a crime, he admits it to you, and you record it.”

      Hahaha.

      2. It won’t affect the economy, but it will further damage the reputation of the China’s authoritarian government. There’s nothing it nor you can do about it.

      For someone who does not care how China’s government is portrayed in the international media you sure get emotional in writing about it.

    • Benga says:

      The turns of phrase are: “add insult to injury” and “salt (the) wound(s).” Since you brag about your English so much I figured you should know that they are fairly fixed and well known phrases and slurring them into “to add salt to injury” sounds awkward and grammatically incorrect.

      • Voice of China says:

        Hahaha, yes you are right it is adding salt to the wound. Thanks for the correction.

      • Mark says:

        Amazing but what do you expect from a guy who insists “snide” is a colloquial word, and then argued over the definition taken from Cambridge dictionary.

        • Voice of China says:

          Lol… you really are a dumbass aren’t you? Still don’t understand how sarcasm works?

          *sigh* 你没救了

    • xmq_jpm says:

      So. When I read you, I’m rather happy that there are no free elections in the PRC, because numbskulls like you would elect your own shanzhai Hitler in no time. Luckily numbskulls like you are still the minority in the PRC, so we can still hope that one day these people achieve the ability to make the first step towards the right to self-determination.

      • john digmeme says:

        Your comment has single handedly changed my entire viewpoint on this issue. The shanzhai Hitler is vivid imagery.

      • Basic Economics says:

        China is a meritocracy. Power should be earned not won though popularity contests.

        Democracy is inherently incompatible for the chinese. They are a society that judges everything on merit, you can see it in the society yourself the chinese try desperately to get into the best colleges in the country by getting the highest grades while in countries like the USA getting in the best college is more about who your father is and how much money he has since Private universities can let in whoever they want and rich people can donate as much money as they want.

        • john digmeme says:

          I remember people (your officials) used to say a market economy is incompatible with the Chinese – oh, really? That flew in the face of what can be observed around the world. No matter how shitty is the country, Chinese immigrants seem to thrive to the fullest extent that they are permitted.

          China is a meritocracy? Please. Your governing elite are appointed based on their adherence to the party line and connections – just as in any country. If you want to say that it is meritorious to adhere to the party line, go ahead! But, it doesn’t make you a meritocracy. The US is not a meritocracy either, because as you said, connections are needed to do most anything political. However, people of the poorest background are encouraged to attend US universities through a variety of programs (such as no fees for the poorest students, affirmative action, etc. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/29/education/29HARV.html ). There are extremely brainy people at the top universities, if they let in all idiots, they wouldn’t be top universities! The percentage of students entering the Ivy League based on economic background and not brains are few and far between, but they do seem to be notable (looking at you George Bush).

          The United States cultivated what is called ‘The American Dream’ that depicts a nation where upward mobility is boundless, whether you believe it or not, the country is set up to provide for this mobility and it functions pretty well (as you can see from American economic power and technological advancement).

          I thank you for bringing up the issue of meritocracy – because it is a concept that needs development in all of our countries. I just have to refute your perception of China as a meritocracy as it is completely baseless. In fact, all evidence points the other way – your politicians never displayed any sort of tangible evidence of personal success, no quantifiable measure of their ability other than statistics fabricated by your ministries. It is well known (in the west), that private enterprises run more efficiently than their public counterparts due to private enterprises hiring the best and brightest for the biggest salaries, while public sector employees are promoted based on their political connections. I suspect your government is run much the same way.

          • john digmeme says:

            I meant ‘public enterprise’ in the last paragraph. A notable exception is Petrobras, the Brazilian state oil exploration/development company. They are leaders in deep-water, offshore technology and should be praised for their expertise.

          • Basic Economics says:

            You are wrong, China is a meritocracy, in fact an IQ test is needed just to join the Communist Party.

            >your politicians never displayed any sort of tangible evidence of personal success, no quantifiable measure of their ability other than statistics fabricated by your ministries

            >while public sector employees are promoted based on their political connections

            http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/04/opinion/04brooks.html

            So according to you the chinese government controls the NYTIMES!

            Heres a good guide to joining the communist party.

            In fact even better look at the backgrounds of all the Politburo members, all them came from POOR families and half of them are orphans.

            Hu Jintao’s own son could not get a position in the communist party.

            Tsinghua is 5,000 Yuan a year

            http://www.worldsalaries.org/china.shtml

            The average Chinese has 5,563 in disposable income in 2004

            In comparison to Harvard its around 45,000 a year an

            http://www.worldsalaries.org/usa.shtml

            The average American has 19,776 in disposable income in 2005

            And the Ivy League is NOT a meritocracy the best way to get into the communist party so far is to get into Tsinghua or Peking which requires scoring high on the Gaokao. They don’t look at GPA, they don’t look at gender, race or anything else.

            Taken from “The Curse of Nepotism” in The Economist

            >Harvard University, a prestigious Ivy League knows for its merit, admits 40% legacy applicants

            http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2010/09/22/legacy

            >In 2009, Princeton admitted 41.7 percent of “legacy” applicants

            >Only when wealth is not controlled in the comparisons is there a statistically significant difference — and that’s the relevant factor, they write.

            >“These combined results suggest that higher alumni giving at top institutions that employ legacy preferences is not a result of the preference policy exerting influence on alumni behavior, but rather the policy allows elite schools to over-select from their own wealthy alumni,” they write. “In other words, the preference policy effectively allows elite schools essentially to discriminate based on socioeconomic status by accepting their own wealthy alumni rather than basing admissions on merit alone.”

            http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2006/09/05/admit

            >So perhaps it’s not surprising that when then-Hollywood übermogul Michael Ovitz’s son wanted to enroll in 1999, Ovitz (father, not son) sent word to Brown administrators. As described in a book about to be released, Brown admissions officers found the academic record of the younger Ovitz not close to what would be appropriate for an offer of admission. But they were pressured to admit him anyway, with top administrators far more concerned about the abilities of the elder Ovitz — to host receptions for Brown administrators to raise money, to bring movie stars to campus, and presumably to help build Brown’s endowment.

            >Harvard group called the Committee on University Resources, which is generally restricted to those who have given the university at least $1 million, and with many members who have given much more. Of the 340 committee members who have children who are college age or are past college age, 336 children are enrolled or studied at Harvard — even though the university admits fewer than 1 in 10 candidates and has typically turned away students with top academic records.

            • Basic Economics says:

              http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/Polk_Groton_Grads.htm

              GROTON, Mass. — Of the 79 members of the class of 1998 at the Groton School, 34 were admitted to Ivy League universities.

              Not Henry Park. He was ranked 14th in his class at Groton, one of the nation’s premier boarding schools, and scored a stellar 1560 out of 1600 on his SAT college-admission test. But he was spurned by four Ivies — Harvard, Yale, Brown and Columbia universities — as well as Stanford University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

              Most of the students in Mr. Park’s class who were accepted by those universities had less impressive academic credentials than his. What they had instead were certain characteristics such as money, connections, or minority status that helped them vault over him to the universities of their choice.

              “I was naive,” says Mr. Park’s mother, Suki Park. “I thought college admissions had something to do with academics.” She and her husband, middle-class Korean immigrants from New Jersey, scrimped to send their son to Groton because of its notable college-placement record.

              • john digmeme says:

                In order to get into a good school (not just Clemson), you have to do more than just focus on your SAT and GPA. You need extra curricular experiences, community service, something to show that you are a real person, not just a human calculator. The administrators of his High School tried to explain it in the article but I guess his parents didn’t realize, “oh crap, our son just sits in his room studying all day/night/weekend – he needs to get out and engage with the community.”

                I’ll respond to your previous post a little later – still digesting your links 😉

            • john digmeme says:

              Can I ask if you agree with this?
              “The exams don’t reward all mental skills. They reward the ability to work hard and memorize things.”

              Or this?
              “These unfortunates will find that, while their career prospects aren’t permanently foreclosed, the odds of great success are diminished.

              This?
              “Suicide rates at these schools are high, as students come to feel they have failed their parents.”

              “You know there is no political philosophy in China except prosperity. The Communist Party is basically a gigantic Skull and Bones. It is one of the social networks its members use to build wealth together.”

              “But you decide to enter government service, which is less risky and gives you chances to get rich (under the table) and serve the nation.”

              “The wonderfully named Organization Department selects people who have proven their administrative competence. You work hard. You help administer provinces. You serve as an executive at state-owned enterprises in steel and communications.” From exam scores to steel?

              I think that there is a lot in this opinion piece (guest writer talking out his ass) that you probably don’t feel accurately portrays real Chinese power brokers. He even said that your government is like the Ivy League, which destroys both our arguments in the same sentence. This is a work of fiction by some blowhard, and your media is too classy even to print this shit, let alone ‘ask for permission’.

              Income has nothing to do with anything if you deserve to be in the Ivy League (I already posted that link). There are plenty of scholarships available to top universities in the states, and you don’t have to go to one of the Ivy League schools to be a raging success. The admittance to your top universities, obviously difficult in itself exam-wise, doesn’t reflect on development at one of the schools once admitted. Critical thinking and problem solving and delving beyond what might be allowed by the party aren’t required for admittance. Look at your own country’s Jiao Tong ranking. Your students go to the states to collect fat research dollars and get a quality education:
              http://www.racialicious.com/2007/01/08/will-uc-berkeley-become-a-um-historically-asian-college/
              Why are all the best universities American? I’ll let you ponder that one. Maybe read a few more comments on this post. It’s too bad none of your leaders experience them until it’s too late.

              You exaggerated the percentages, 4/10 of legacy applicants were accepted. But how many non legacy applicants were accepted?

              “The Wall Street Journal recently put a statistical face on alumni clout in admissions. Children of graduates make up 10 to 15 percent of incoming classes at most Ivy League schools, according to the Journal. Harvard accepts 40 percent and Princeton accepts 35 percent of legacies but only 11 percent of all applicants. The University of Pennsylvania rakes 41 percent of legacy applicants yet only 21 percent overall. At Notre Dame, nearly a quarter of students are children of graduates.”
              http://ivysuccess.com/washingtonian_legacy.html

              Legacy is never a good thing and shouldn’t be promoted. But perhaps there is a fraction of that 4/10 fraction that actually deserve to be there. I used to work at Penn, a lot, a lot, a lot of legacy idiots – but that’s why they aren’t ranked as highly as the others. Warren Buffet, dude went to Penn before transferring to Nebraska – a legacy student!

              Brains, guts, instinct is what gets you ahead. Ain’t no party unless its at the former foster-care turned millionaire’s penthouse. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rags_to_riches)

              We don’t need one of these: (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704250104575238590027868792.html). We have Blackberries.

              • Basic Economics says:

                >“The exams don’t reward all mental skills. They reward the ability to work hard and memorize things.”

                Do you not understand the concept of meritocracy? The one who works the hardest gets it.

                The same thing applies to the government, somebody who is willing to work hard is less likely to become corrupt just like an athlete that trains a lot is less likely to use drugs.

                http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/25/nyregion/for-low-income-high-schoolers-a-harvard-education.html

                >At a time when only 3 percent of students at the most selective colleges and universities come from the bottom-income quartile, and only 10 percent from the bottom half

                Yes they have programs for some low income students, Keep in mind that this is SELECTIVE UNIVERSITIES in general at top schools like Harvard the number might be around 5% of the students are from bottom half.

                And if you think UPENN is bad you have obviously never been to HYP (Harvard, Yale, princeton)

                And so according to you the NYtimes is a mouthpiece of the chinese government.

                • john digmeme says:

                  I have to say, buddy, that apparently I seem to have a better idea of what a meritocracy is than you yourself do! A lot of dumb asses can work hard, that means absolutely nothing in determining the ability of a leader to lead and make decisions. Corruption and working hard are not correlated, unless you know some people who work hard at being corrupt, which I’m sure you do! My weed dealer is the hardest working guy I know, does it mean he should lead the country? Probably not.

                  There are a lot of reasons why people of poorer backgrounds find it harder to get into good universities – less opportunities, less supportive/constantly working parents, poorer high schools. But if there is a poor kid willing to work hard, kills any standardized test, displays outright superiority academically and personally, guess where they’ll be going to school? They’ll be in Cambridge just like the bright, hard working son of multimillionaire alumni. They’ll be there because they deserve it – and that’s what meritocracy is about, being where you are because you deserve it, not because you’re entitled to it or you know someone who can help you circumvent the process of weeding out the losers.

                  P.S. That WSJ quote I posted (scroll up) shows that legacy students make up 11% of admitted freshman at Harvard and Princeton while 21% at Penn. My cousin went to Harvard for undergrad, like her father and grandfather before her. She now has her own TED speech/video/profile. Though many do not, a lot of those legacy kids actually deserve to be there.

                  • john digmeme says:

                    Just have to repeat that I KNOW the US is not a meritocracy politically. You really have to know someone and have a lot of help to be elected leader, even though a lot of politicians are rich, the way they got rich would make your hair stand up! John Edwards chased ambulances provoking victims to sue, John Kerry married a rich lady as did John McCain. Our current president wrote a book to get rich, which seems the best way to me to tackle politics from the outside. Get rich selling a book describing your history/views/vision.

                    Either way, economically and technologically, the US is the greatest meritocracy you will ever bear witness to – even if politically it is packed with rich retards, they all have a rich genius in business on their BB’s speed dial to ask for advice.

                    • john digmeme says:

                      Also want to repeat that China is not a meritocracy unless you are assigning merit where nothing is meritorious. Unless there is merit in connections and rote memorization.

                      If Chinese politicians, in order to reach the highest levels, have to attend either Tsinghua or Peking, meanwhile other Chinese students are attending Harvard, Yale even Penn effing State, it should be pretty obvious to you after reading your own Jiao Tong rankings that you do not have the most meritorious people leading your country!

                      And lastly, just have to respond that you should wish the NY Times (“But in the back of your mind you wonder: Perhaps it’s simply impossible for a top-down memorization-based elite to organize a flexible, innovative information economy, no matter how brilliant its members are.”) was the mouthpiece of the Chinese govt.

                    • Basic Economics says:

                      Again learn your definitions

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

                      Meritocracy is a system of government or other organization wherein appointments are made and responsibilities assigned to individuals based upon demonstrated intelligence and ability (merit).

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

                      An oligarchy (from Greek ὀλιγαρχία, oligarkhía[1]) is a form of power structure in which power effectively rests with a small segment of society distinguished by royalty, wealth, family ties, or military control.

                      According to your definition, you admit that every president was born filthy rich and with family connections. Therefore the definition of the USA is is a OLIGARCHY.

                      In the chinese communist party, to enter one needs a powerful degree and the only way to get one is to outscore everybody else. Afterwards every member has to work their way up. Hu jintao started on the bottom of the CCP but he demonstrated his leadershipability and climbed the ranks. Family connections will NOT help you get into the CCP, Hu Jintao’s own son was rejected from the CCP. Half of the politboro members were poor kids who were orphaned by birth. In the USA people like Bush start on top of the republican party, Bush was allowed to run for Senator despite no administrative experience or experience governing at the lower level.

                      And sure you are right maybe one brilliant guy might get into Harvard. But 95% of Harvard is full of rich kids but the smart guy will not get the ability to improve and a lot of brilliant people are turned away simply because they have not money.. In tsinghua the entire school is brilliant so a genius can bounce ideas off another genius and engage another genius in conversation.

                      And if the USA is so great and the leaders are so wise then why did they allow the real estate crisis to happen? Why did they allow Bernie Madoff to happen? Why did they let Enron happen?

                    • john digmeme says:

                      I’m sorry, I disagree. Rote memorization does not a ‘brilliant’ person make. And I don’t know how many times I posted the statistics of legacy entrants (something like 10%), but you aren’t reading/comprehending. Lets use logic – something undoubtedly lacking at Tsinghua or Peking – if Harvard did not admit people worthy of being there, they would be ranked like Pepperdine and not like Harvard. Trying to compare Peking or Tsinghua to Harvard is effing laughable. The only ideas being bounced around the halls of Peking are those sanctioned by the state, and they’re inevitably outdated, just like your comparisons.

                      THE fundamental difference between China and USA is that the American Corporatocracy places cronies in the politics while the Chinese goverment places cronies in SOE business. Both lead to problems, don’t stick your head in the sand (or, up the ass of your nearest party cadre).

                    • Basic economics says:

                      >Rote memorization does not a ‘brilliant’ person make.

                      No but the Gaokao also has logical reasoning sections, rote memorization cannot simply get someone a high gaokao score it is the application of the ideas

                      http://www.pbs.org/wnet/wideangle/episodes/china-prep/the-gaokao-how-would-you-fare/2264/

                      As you can tell an intelligent person would be able to get most of these answers right without studying

                      I live in the United States I have never studied for the Gaokao and I was able to do the first 5 questions correctly (free answer is silk road)

                      Again look at the Methodology of the RANKING system

                      http://www.usnews.com/articles/education/best-colleges/2010/08/17/how-us-news-calculates-the-college-rankings.html

                      Selectivity of a school is only 15%, majority of the points are awarded based on opinions by high school counselors, graduation rates and school resources.

                      If you look at the Harved undergraduates the BULK of the kids transfer into Harvard thus their scores do not effect the average SAT and GPA. The ivy leagues get their ranks by gaming the system aggressively

                      As for the Shang Jiaotong rankings they simply got their rankings by looking at the achievements of faculty members. Obviously the Ivy leagues win in this because they aggressively poach top professors from other schools and have more professors than smaller colleges.

                      http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2006/7/14/star-nyu-history-professor-poached-new/

                      Star NYU History Professor Poached

                      In summary these rankings are more based on how wealthy the school (since most of these rankings are based on ability to fund research and attract talented professors) is rather than the quality of the incoming students.

                      And you are wrong, an intelligent person is more likely to become wealthy in China than in the USA.

                      How the USA works is, say you have a great idea like a new chemical process that will use half the electricity of the current one.

                      In the USA the inventor will now have to go around and solicit investors to invest in his project. This is LITERALLY 100% impossible if the inventor has poor connections. He needs to go around looking for millionaires and convincing them to look at his presentations. The Inventor will also need to find partners to supplement his abilities if the inventor is an expert on chemicals he will have to recruit experts on metals, finances, control systems etc..

                      In China its different the inventor simply has to give the idea to the government. The government official if he thinks its a good idea and eager to move up will approve it and provide all the funding and experts needed.

                      And yes stateowned enterprises are mostly run by CCP members. Since the government paid to start these companies and are the majority shareholders why should they not appoint CCP members as CEO’s? In fact thats how people move up in the CCP they start by managing rural districts, then cities, then state owned enterprises constantly climbing the ladder.

                      Legacy may only be 15%, but only 10% of the students in the Ivyleagues have incomes under the 50th percentile. That means that 90%+ are rich kids. While for Tsinghua 60% of the school is poor rural students. While there are 900 million rural and 400 million city meaning that 70% China is rural this shows that a poor kid has just a good chance as a rich one to get into Tsinghua.

                • Voice of China says:

                  John, you really are an idiot aren’t you?

                  Wait wait… that was obvious in the beginning.

                  • john digmeme says:

                    Thanks for the compliment (I know now to flip your statements 180 degrees to reveal truth).

    • lordofreimes says:

      You can’t seriously believe that China has a system where if there is evidence, you go to jail.
      With the number of articles on ChinaHush, ChinaSmack and ChinaGeek pointing out the flaws in the Chinese Legal System when it comes to rich/powerful people and their kids, I am shocked by how naive that view is.

      • Basic economics says:

        Because a handful of cases are representative of the criminal system as a whole.

        How can you claim that rich people get away with everything in China when these blogs do not have access to court records?

        http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704266504575141751153067806.html#articleTabs%3Dcomments

        Chinese defense lawyers, unlike their more famous American peers, generally shun the limelight. They also sometimes expose themselves to political risk in sensitive cases, and—because of China’s tightly controlled judicial process—lose nearly every case that goes to trial.

        From 1998 to 2006, fewer than 1% of criminal defendants were acquitted. Lawyers’ pretrial access to clients is generally limited, as is their ability to challenge the prosecution’s evidence by calling their ownwitnesses or cross-examining those brought by the prosecution.

        According to statistics 99% of people get charged. There is 1% of people that get off the hook, sometimes these 1% are rich and sometimes they are poor.

        Lets look at the USA a democratic legal system

        http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-CJSpoor.htm

        After reviewing the statistics, noted criminologist Jeffrey Reiman writes: “For the same criminal behavior, the poor are more likely to be arrested; if arrested, they are more likely to be charged; if charged, more likely to be convicted; if convicted, more likely to be sentenced to prison; and if sentenced, more likely to be given longer prison terms than members of the middle and upper classes.” (8) This winnowing process insures that few wealthy criminals ever see the inside of a prison.

        Numerous studies show that the middle class conducts just as much, if not more, crime as the lower class. Even so, police choose to arrest the poorer criminals at a higher rate. Most studies proving this bias have been on juvenile delinquency, but keep in mind that teen-agers and early twenty-year olds form the largest criminal age group.

        One study interviewed 847 males and females between the ages of 13 and 16, and found that 88 percent of them admitted to committing at least one delinquent offense. But 88 percent of these youth do not have police records; generally, only the poorest do. (9)

        A Philadelphia study of 3,475 juvenile delinquents found that police referred lower class boys to juvenile court much more often than upper class boys, even for equally serious offenses with similar prior arrest records. When it came to upper class boys, the police were more inclined to treat the matter informally with their parents. (10)

        There are two ways that sentencing is biased against the poor. First, the rich either write or lobby for the very laws that purport to oversee their behavior. Harsh sentences for the poor are softened whenever legislators write them for the rich, even though their crimes may be many times greater. Second, judges have shown themselves reluctant to make common criminals out of the community’s best and finest. Both of these biases have created wide disparities in sentencing. For example, millionaire Jack Clark received no fine and only one year in jail for cheating stockholders out of $200 million. Yet in the same courthouse, a minimum wage worker who had stolen $5,000 received four years in prison — that is, 160,000 times the punishment. (13)

        A study of federal and state courts found that the poor were not only found guilty more often, but that they were not recommended for probation 27 percent of the time, compared to 16 percent for the upper classes. The poor were also not given suspended sentences 23 percent of the time, compared to 15 percent for the upper classes.

        As you can see the USA criminal system is worse because rich people write the laws and rich people never serve time most of the priosns are full of poor people. The Chinese legal system just jails everybody indiscriminantely.

        • lordofreimes says:

          I’m talking about the ‘guanxi’ that plays a significant part in China, not just the legal system. This is what is highlighted in the cases highlighted on these sites.
          If you have family connections to the police, ‘crimes’ don’t even get recorded down if they are deemed accidents or at the fault of the victim.
          Same goes if you are related to or have ‘guanxi’ to influential people in the Communist Party. It has nothing to do with evidence if the evidence is simply ignored or thrown away. The prosecution has the say, if they do not want to prosecute, then there is no case.
          The Chinese system does not jail indiscriminately – if it did, corruption would not be as widespread as it is.

          Apart from this, the chinese legal system is not judicially independant and serves under the Party. This is against the rule of law established. I am pointing this out as Voice of China referred to this.

          By the way, in no shape or form does a legal system that jails 99% of people represent ‘justice’ and ‘fairness’.
          As far as I know, Japan also has a very high conviction rate (90%+) and is put down to a cultural reluctance of people and the extremely high costs involved with lawyers.
          The charge or conviction rate is not really a notion of how effective a system is.
          85% of criminal cases are minor crimes and are unrepresented which obtain summary judgments. This means most do not go to trial. It may be more helpful to look at statistics about the success rate of represented defendants.

          You are right in the notion that Western countries twist their ideals to serve the rich, but in no way is the Chinese system any less corrupt or destructive.

          Your link to the Rio Tinto case, would only highlight the opaqueness of trials in China and the power that the Party utilises (hence the word “tightly controlled”).

          By the way, I did not “claim that rich people get away with everything in China”.
          What I said was significantly different – I made no mention of the western legal system either. The most you could have read into my comment was that both systems were at least just as flawed and it was naive to think otherwise. =S

    • FOARP says:

      Let’s be clear on this, according to the court’s verdict:

      “This court believes that defendant Liu Xiaobo, with the intention of overthrowing the state power and socialist system of our country’s people’s democratic dictatorship, used the Internet’s features of rapid transmission of information, broad reach, great social influence, and high degree of public attention, as well as the method of writing and publishing articles on the Internet, to slander and incite others to overthrow our country’s state power and the socialist system. His actions constitute the crime of inciting subversion of state power.”

      That is, according to the court, Liu’s ‘crime’ was to publish articles critical of the government on the internet with the intent of changing the Chinese political system, something that millions of people do every day.

  10. Dutchy says:

    So Mr. Know-all Voice of China, you have quite an interesting logic along the line of:

    1. I declare myself the boss
    2. The boss makes a law that says ‘the boss is always right and if he is not right, he is still right’
    3. No one has been consulted in the creation of this law except for the boss’ cronies
    4. Everyone who breaks the ‘boss is right’ law gets punished

    Question: what is the legitimacy of such a law?

    I am not condemning anyone, but would highly appreciate a logical and legitimate answer.

    • Voice of China says:

      Not really, what you are saying is not the same logic at all.

      It’s more like

      1. Liu Xiao Bo: I’m going to fuck you over and you can’t do shit
      2. Chinese government: Oh yes I can and I will

      Dutchy, it’s good you want to learn but contrary to what I’ve shown in previous posts, I’m not here to be your teacher.

      The reason why your analogy fails is because in reality LXB is breaking a law. One that is not created arbitrarily for the sole purpose of attacking LXB but applies to everyone. If you are interested in what law he broke, don’t ask me. Go look it up, I’m your guardian angel.

      It’s just as well that China can skip the formalities and inconveniences of having to sit through that bullshit and do nothing. In many ways, for the sake of equality and human rights, the US has the most inefficient legal system when it comes to punishing people for crimes. How much better would the economy be if they had the death sentence in the US? It’d save tax payers money and be a great deterrent for future crime. Is there any wonder why the United States has the largest amount of people in prison?

      China is a realist country, and having law that prevents people from getting away with things they shouldn’t is a sign of progress. In no way does China condone living under the motto ‘in god we trust’. It’s more like, in ourselves we trust and whatever solves the greater good. Here, this hippy sob probably deserved it. Good riddance Liu Xiao Bao.

      – Voice of China

      • HH says:

        I AM UR FAN, =).

        SICK OF HOW WESTERN MEDIA MEDDLES WITH CHINESE GOVERNMENT. THEY ARE DEEP DOWN IN A SHITPIT OF RECESSION NOW, MIIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS INSTEAD OURS. IF YOU REALLY WANNA BE IN THE MIDDLE OF THIS, LEARN WELL OUR CULTURE AND THE WAY THAT LAW PERFORMS.

        • Al Jensen says:

          The United States is no longer in a recession.

        • Tony Neville says:

          People will continue to lash out at the Chinese government until the laws are changed to allow Chinese citizens to have the basic freedoms Westerners enjoy. The Chinese culture is not under attack. In any case, the Chinese culture survived Mao Zedong so it can survive anything. It is very resilient. What is being attacked are the remnants of Mao’s Marxist-Leninist legacy. Marxist-Leninism is a totalitarian ideology exported from the West into the East. One would think you’d be keen to see it eradicated.

          • Voice of China says:

            China isn’t Marxist dipshit, go take a class on it and try and understand the differences.

            Now, you know what I think is funny? Aside from your usual uneducated remarks that are always entertaining, is the fact how you throw around the words ‘basic freedoms westerners enjoy’.

            Would you be referring to freedom of speech? Not all Western Country’s have a bill of rights in the constitution.

            And honestly, how does the right of freedom of speech really help me? I am free to go and protest on the street holding a sign advocating democracy. Problem is, most by-standers would think I’m crazy and mutter denigrating remarks at such conduct.

            China is going the right path and does not need interference by foreign powers to undermine the credibility and legitimacy of government. So long as things remain the same for the next ten years, we’ll overthrow America as the next super power. Can’t wait.

            • Al Jensen says:

              If there is one thing you can be sure of, it’s that things won’t ever manage to remain the same over a period as long as ten years.

            • Benga says:

              “So long as things remain the same for the next ten years…”

              …..heh. Speaking of taking economics classes- you should probably realize that sustaining such economic growth for another decade is essentially mathematically impossible. Also, you assume that as you grow, the West will stand around and wait for you to catch up; we’re still running the same marathon, and we still have a big head start.

              :Would you be referring to freedom of speech? Not all Western Country’s have a bill of rights in the constitution.

              And honestly, how does the right of freedom of speech really help me…”

              I like how you ASSUME the commenter is referring to and only to the freedom of speech because it’s the only thing you could very well make a half-assed response for. Yet, what really takes the cake is that you take that assumption and run with it by starting another rant against the freedom of speech when the person who brought it up (erroneously) was yourself. You’re essentially ranting against yourself. You really need to brush up on your logic flow. Between your coarse-fed, ridiculously dense (and therefore inefficacious) English and your porous logic, you’ve failed to make a single point.

              Also, “basic freedoms” refers to much more than the freedom of speech. Which doesn’t matter because other Western countries don’t NEED it in the bill of rights to have it ensured. The freedom of speech as guaranteed in the Bill of Rights is merely a leftover passage of writing inspired from a different century when religious outcasts fled to a different country and decided to make it VERY clear that they wanted to speak and worship as they pleased. In modern Western times, it should make no difference in common practice were it stricken from the bill itself. But, of course, you will find some slurry to throw back at this in an attempt to inflate yourself with pseudo-knowledge.

              • Voice of China says:

                Oh wow Mr ‘Watch me spurt unnecessary words’ 😀 Like most trolls here, you suffer from the same problem of knowing nothing about what you are talking about.

                I for one value efficiency and simplicity in language as it makes for clear English.

                …..heh. Speaking of taking economics classes- you should probably realize that sustaining such economic growth for another decade is essentially mathematically impossible. Also, you assume that as you grow, the West will stand around and wait for you to catch up; we’re still running the same marathon, and we still have a big head start.

                1. Sustaining such economic growth is not ‘mathematically’ impossible. It’s economically infeasible in the long term.

                2. Following such reasoning, it is impossible for developed countries to sustain a higher growth rate than a developing country.

                3. This means China will have time to catch up

                4. It might be the same race but China has bigger economies of scale, domestic markets, growth rate and financial leverage.

                I like how you ASSUME the commenter is referring to and only to the freedom of speech because it’s the only thing you could very well make a half-assed response for.

                No, not really but it’s probably what this dumbass had in mind considering what this article is about.

                Yet, what really takes the cake is that you take that assumption and run with it by starting another rant against the freedom of speech when the person who brought it up (erroneously) was yourself.

                You see, behind the unnecessary words that you’ve used, you fail to project a working point. You need to work out what you want to say before attempting to wrap it up to make it look credible. Better yet, just think of a credible thing to say or nothing at all.

                So what you’re saying in essence is:

                1. I assumed that the writer was talking about the right of free speech
                2. I make an argument against free speech
                3. This supposedly is a rant against myself?
                3. I take the cake?

                – So are you saying that freedom of speech is not ‘a basic freedom’ that the original comment referred to in respect to addressing the question? Because if it is, then I’m right on point.

                You really need to brush up on your logic flow. Between your coarse-fed, ridiculously dense (and therefore inefficacious) English and your porous logic, you’ve failed to make a single point.

                You’ve just elaborately described your own comment.

                Also, “basic freedoms” refers to much more than the freedom of speech.

                And you have addressed what else again?

                The freedom of speech as guaranteed in the Bill of Rights is merely a leftover passage of writing inspired from a different century when religious outcasts fled to a different country and decided to make it VERY clear that they wanted to speak and worship as they pleased.

                No wrong, it plays an important part in advocating free speech. There are great statutory limitations to free speech in other countries. Some allowing only free political speech and some not even that.

                • Benga says:

                  Do you have bigger economies of scale? Between the protests in Guangdong and the factories moving back to the West because of ensuing wage hikes, I doubt that you’re maintaining such economies of scale. If I may play the role for a minute, I’m assuming you were referring to human capital (untrained, unskilled, unprofessional human capital).

                  You’re right, it IS impossible for developed countries to keep breaking through new percentages of growth. Economic growth works on a divisible factor and you can’t divide into a negative number or zero (granted you don’t start from zero again) so you can’t really sustains large amounts of GDP growth. So you’re right in saying that we don’t clip along at such a pace of China but also wrong in assuming that yours will continue at such a pace.

                  Also, a lot of problems with China’s growth involves societal factors such as behavior and the sociology of the internal workforce. Isn’t there that Chinese phrase that it takes X years to grow a tree but X+90 years to raise a person? This means that you can build a new tower in a year but you cant fix these internal problems, you’ll have to wait for generations for them to be bred out. So you and I will be long dead by the time China overtakes anyone.

                  Yes, that is EXACTLY what I am saying about your rants. You may think you’re the only highly educated person on this site but you’re not. So I can understand if you cant keep up with my airtight logic.

                  I didn’t elaborate on my own first comment you fucking idiot. It was a reference to a list of mistakes with your commentary that:
                  A. you refer to only one of many freedoms
                  B. you continue to drag on over the one rant you made

                  Maybe you should go back to English class if you can’t keep up.

                  Perhaps you can produce some specific examples of the limiting of free speech in other Western countries? I’ll give you some help, with the recent controversy over the religious protests being stages against fallen American soldiers at their own funerals. Such performance is tolerate in the US as “free speech” where it would be shot down in other countries like GB (although the Supreme Court is currently hearing the case) but I hardly think that adding the ability to bash someone at their own funeral is a leg up on any other Western countries freedom of speech, and I think you’d agree. Our idea of free speech just guarantees that it’s protected to a ridiculous degree, dumbass. I thought you were more intelligent than that.

                  Two other concerns:
                  1. I’m not a troll, this is actually my second comment on this site.
                  2. My words are not unnecessary, I just speak more eloquently than you. I do not take part in “thesaurizing,” I don’t not string together words with connotations ill-fitting of sentence structure, and I do not refrain from using simple English to rearrange sentence in a more refined, manner. I can’t help if this is how I naturally speak…perhaps it is possible that people are just naturally smarter and more well-educated than yourself. Heh, what am I saying, “perhaps?”

                  • Benga says:

                    Also, I’ll beat you to the finish line and mention that there are several instances in the above mentioned where I neglected to add proper suffixes after conjugating verbs. I can assure you they are a product of typing quickly and do not reflect any level of anything. End of story.

                  • Voice of China says:

                    Do you have bigger economies of scale? Between the protests in Guangdong and the factories moving back to the West because of ensuing wage hikes, I doubt that you’re maintaining such economies of scale. If I may play the role for a minute, I’m assuming you were referring to human capital (untrained, unskilled, unprofessional human capital).

                    So, in that whole paragraph you talked about factories closing down without referring to which one and then stating that leads to decreasing economies of scale.

                    This is all without regard to the magnitude of changes, the industry, the percentage change or the influence on real GDP. Finishing off by asking me whether human capital is also included in the assessment.

                    What a joke….

                    Economic growth works on a divisible factor

                    Can you tell me something I don’t know

                    and you can’t divide into a negative number or zero (granted you don’t start from zero again)

                    Yes, but this has what relevance to the topic?

                    so you can’t really sustains large amounts of GDP growth.

                    That statement had absolutely no causal link with the previous too comments.

                    So you’re right in saying that we don’t clip along at such a pace of China but also wrong in assuming that yours will continue at such a pace.

                    Continue until when? I said it was improbable in the long term so I am not wrong whatsoever. However growth should be expected to increase at a high rate for at least the next five years.

                    Also, a lot of problems with China’s growth involves societal factors such as behavior and the sociology of the internal workforce. Isn’t there that Chinese phrase that it takes X years to grow a tree but X+90 years to raise a person? This means that you can build a new tower in a year but you cant fix these internal problems, you’ll have to wait for generations for them to be bred out. So you and I will be long dead by the time China overtakes anyone.

                    No, I think there is already an assessment by economists when China will overtake, and it will be in the next decade or so, if I’m not mistaken.

                    Perhaps you can produce some specific examples of the limiting of free speech in other Western countries?

                    You don’t need my help with that, go do a search on wikipedia. Go, do it.

                    My words are not unnecessary, I just speak more eloquently than you. I do not take part in “thesaurizing,” I don’t not string together words with connotations ill-fitting of sentence structure, and I do not refrain from using simple English to rearrange sentence in a more refined, manner. I can’t help if this is how I naturally speak…perhaps it is possible that people are just naturally smarter and more well-educated than yourself. Heh, what am I saying, “perhaps?”

                    No your words are unnecessary and the skill of English is being able to concisely and accurately convey a message to the person you are conversing with.

                    The eloquence you refer to is merely arranging words in a sentence with the aim to hide the deficiencies in your logic and reasoning. You wouldn’t have to do it if you knew what you were talking about.

                    Hence, look at the posts that you have written and how many of them are of substance. None. Point taken?

                    • Benga says:

                      -yawn- I have far too much of a life to sit here and tear apart your logic yet again only to have you pile more manure on top of it. The force of Chinese BS is strong in this one. Seriously, I half-heartedly applaud your effort, but at the end of the day; I’m white(r), richer, smarter, and everything else(r) than you so I don’t really need to care do I.

                      Although I will point out that even thought “some economists” predict China overtaking within the next decade that there are an equal amount of more accredited ones saying that it won’t. Don’t pretend like there aren’t equal accounts of China’s doom out there, too. Also, why the FUCK would someone who claims to be so smart rely on that? When was the last time an economist accurately predicted anything?

                    • Voice of China says:

                      You are whiter than me? *in shock* WOW!

                      But sorry, you aren’t richer or smarter than me. You’ve failed to present a working point in any of your half-assed comments.

                      You rely on economic statements and then criticize them after being proven wrong on more than one account. You’re pathetic.

                      And you will be back because your little ‘white’ ego won’t let you let this go. You’ll nerdrage all day about how this ‘chink’ managed to fuck you over with nothing but words.

                • GuoBao says:

                  You can yada yada all you want. Simple fact: When China’s economy continues to grow workers will eventually get higher salaries (for a myriad of sound macro economic reasons that I can’t be arsed to state here) and foreign and Chinese companies will begin looking to other developing countries to place their factories where the wages thus are lower. Ding,, China’s economy slows down.

                  • Voice of China says:

                    OH MY GOD!!!

                    This is the FIRST, I repeat FIRST accurate statement from the mouth of “National Treasure” that I’ve heard. :O

                    You know what you would get another point for? Stating the economic model that suggests this. I’ll give you a tip:

                    It’s F***** G**** M**** – each asterisk represents a letter.

            • Tony Neville says:

              Hey, numb nuts! Try breathing through your nose first before reading.
              Nowhere did I say China was Marxist.

              And honestly, how does the right of freedom of speech really help me?

              You behave like a card carrying CCP poodle so there is really no path you’d walk that the regime could construe as politically unsafe.

              I am free to go and protest on the street holding a sign advocating democracy. Problem is, most by-standers would think I’m crazy and mutter denigrating remarks at such conduct.

              Where are the opposition political parties in China?

              Where are the media outlets in China that a free to expose the CCP’s notorious history?

              I believe China is heading in the right direction, too. I’m sure we are in agreement that, for example, this: http://tinyurl.com/29hsajc will NEVER happen again. People both within and outside China will keep on chipping away at China’s thug government. They will continue until the government has no legal avenue that it could use to intimidate and repress people who seek to spread ideas inimical to the ruling Party. Don’t like it? Tough shit.

              BTW, China would have caught up to the U.S. as an economic superpower decades ago had that work-shy, self serving, black hearted authoritarian sack of shit Mao Zedong not made China into his personal labor prison camp. China will overtake the U.S. as an economic superpower ~in spite~ of the CCP not because of it.

              • Voice of China says:

                Marxist-Leninism is a totalitarian ideology exported from the West into the East. One would think you’d be keen to see it eradicated.

                No, you just pretty much described they were a socialist systems with (remnants of) Marxist characteristics right?

                Where are the opposition political parties in China?

                Where are the media outlets in China that a free to expose the CCP’s notorious history?

                Try reading some other comments on this site explaining why this matters very little.

                BTW, China would have caught up to the U.S. as an economic superpower decades ago had that work-shy, self serving, black hearted authoritarian sack of shit Mao Zedong not made China into his personal labor prison camp.

                I’ll concede a little with you here, since it is something that is relevant to my alias as the Voice of China. Most Chinese acknowledge Mao to be a great military leader but a fairly poor economist and dictator. However, we also acknowledge him to be an iconic figure that led to the liberation and development of China which would not have occurred if not for him.

              • Voice of China's inflatable girlfriend says:

                The mouthbreather joke was obviously wasted on VoC and his imaginary mastery of the English language. Swooosh.

            • GuoBao says:

              Put your money where your big mouth is and strap on that sign in Chinese and walk around on Tiananmen Square for a while. Make sure to get a friend (if you have any) to film it. On second though, make sure to get a friend to film your friend from afar coz I’m fairly certain none of you will be home for dinner.

            • baggle says:

              Question,

              What will qualify China to become the next superpower in 10 years?

            • Mikecheck says:

              “We’ll overthrow”, really? What part of that we are you? If you were really any part of it and were truely one of the benefociaries of it, I doubt you’d have the time or care to comment on sites like this. My guess is you are one of the minions at the base of the pyramid that support the wealth and power of the few at the top who do arbitrarily make the laws that put thinkers like LXB in jail and keep the minds of people like you in a virtual prison. No matter how rich China is getting, that doesn’t mean it can or will surpass the rest of the world in anything other than accumulated wealth and if you divide that per capita well it isn’t actually that much. The USA is the model China follows and everyone knows it. China and people such as your self do everything to be the USA yet denigrate it. If the US is such a failure, then following it will only lead to China’s failure. Economic growth and the superficial trappings of progress and wealth are great, but do they make people happy? According to UN surveys, the countries with the happiest, healthiest people in the world don’t follow the US or Chinese model. It’s like some giant macro-Animal farm. China will usurp the USA-Pig and replace it with the China-Pig, but a pig is still a pig.

              • Basic Economics says:

                Once again pulling stuff out of your ass, spouting ridiculous claims that the chinese people are unhappy!

                I love arguing with you China bashers because winning is so easy!, I simply have to pull up a source since China bashers are still living on cold war propaganda.

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

                Free Republics
                #2 South korea
                #5 Japan
                #14 Finland
                #17 Switzerland
                #18 France
                #40 United States

                Authoritarian Regimes
                #23 Hong Kong
                #46 Singapore
                #65 People’s Republic of China

                Looks to me like the people in democratic countries are unhappier than the ones living in authoritarian regimes!

                • Mark says:

                  You are out of character here. B.E. does not deliver ad hominem attacks. VOC is supposed to be, as you once phrased it mocking, and dismissive. (wink)

                  Of course the numbered indents is another red flag.

                • Mikecheck says:

                  If everyone in a country is unhappy, of course they won’t kill themselves. They look around and only see people as miserable as they are and say to themselves “I’m not crazy or unhappy, this is normal.”

                  • Basic Economics says:

                    Actually being around depressed people has been scientifically proven to make other people also depressed

                    depression has a clear link to suicide

                    So you are scientifically full of shit

                    http://www.springerlink.com/content/u6457g46317l3114/

                    >people do not like or enjoy being around depressed people, and it can become an issue as to whether a person has the right to be depressed

        • xmq_jpm says:

          PLease explain to the poor Western retard I am what it means to “subvert the power of the State”. Because there is no such law in my backwards and dying shithole, I have trouble understanding this evolved concept.

        • Jerry says:

          “THE WAY THAT LAW PERFORMS.” Without the benefit of the rule of law. Or much reflection.

          So we meddle. Get over it!!

      • WiseOwl says:

        To Voice of China (a.k.a. Chinese government mouthpiece) – You need to shut up with your nationalistic rambling and get educated before you spew irrational thoughts on topics you know nothing about. You need to study history, philosophy, morality, political science… “The Law” is not always right. It’s always changing (otherwise blacks would still be slaves and women would never be able to vote).

        Ever heard of civil disobedience? Ever heard of whistleblowers? Ever heard of prisoners of conscience? Go read up on the anti-communist struggles of Eastern Europe. History is full of people who broke laws – Gandhi broke the law by resisting British authority. Rosa Parks broke the law by sitting in the front of the bus. Nelson Mandela broke the law by attacking apartheid. China NEEDS people to start breaking their stupid laws. The Chinese need to grow a pair of balls and grow up. They need to quit sucking on their retarded mom’s breasts and hiding behind her skirt, thinking that she’s always right and that foreigners are always wrong.

        Actually THINK about what Liu Xiaobo is trying to say, instead of automatically branding him a traitor for criticizing the glorious motherland (don’t mess with 5000 years of history!) You espouse doing “whatever solves the greater good”? Yeah, like keeping African slaves, since it benefits the majority of the population and improves the economy? Like silencing people who criticize the Islamic Republic in Iran, since they are “rocking the boat”? I bet you support the Iranian government as well, right?

        Always remember this – “a strong economy” is NOT an excuse to oppress people and take away their basic rights. I thought you were a communist, not a fascist.

        • Voice of China says:

          Oh Owl, I’m more educated than you will ever be. Trust me, there are more layers to this than your simple mind can comprehend. So go study your useless arts degree and uh, try and find a job afterward. Good luck!

          • Bob the builder says:

            Open source list of the braggings of our favorite clown, Voice of VoC:

            – NEW BRAGGING: I’m more educated than you will ever be

            – PAST BRAGGINGS: my IQ, my performance and precise ranking in school, my salary, you cannot afford to hire me, my performance with multiple girls, with your mother, my very important and promising job, my extensive knowledge of law and politics in China and abroad, my contempt for Korean people, Taiwanese people, Jewish people, Macedonians, my superiority to pretty much everyone i come across, my excellent english skills, my merit in general, my being an alpha dominant male

            BRAVO!

            • Benga says:

              Heh, it’s just like we learned when we were young- “Honey, don’t worry about that bully. People who are mean to other people are actually really sad themselves and those who are arrogant act because they are actually empty of self-confidence.” In my experience, the most obnoxiously arrogant guys had the smallest dicks and, well, he IS Chinese, so I guess we know what he’s trying to draw attention away from. “No guys! Don’t look at my lao’er, look at my hubris!” Although, scientists have proven that a man only needs a 2.5 inch tool to “technically” please a woman and even those with micro-penis are capable of providing conception so perhaps his claims about in-bed performance aren’t totally without merit…although he can’t change the fact that he’s Chinese and, I can tell you from experience, it’s NOT a stereotype…..

            • Voice of China says:

              Good doggie…

              Now where is version 2.0? You should have collected enough information by now. Chop chop!

              • Benga says:

                ? Wtf are you even talking about? The more I read your commentary the more I’m convinced that you are actually a 16-year old…the similarities are shocking.

                • Voice of China says:

                  This comment has literally nothing to do with you.

                  If you had been following the thread you’d know that there are bunch of morons content on writing a list of my accomplishments signing off with the words ‘bravo’.

                  I simply mock them for it… Is that enough for your simple mind to comprehend?

                  • GuoBao says:

                    It’s weird ain’t it? Everyone’s a moron EXCEPT for Voice of China. Have a cookie and a couple of mao.

                    • Voice of China says:

                      Hey National Treasure,

                      look at it this way, just as a “simple” analogy, how good is my English compared to your Chinese?

                      Get my point? Good, now shut up

                • Bob the builder says:

                  Not exactly. In my opinion, he is a bit older in years but not in maturity because he has not gotten over being the little emperor/prodigal son of mama and baba and he starts to face the fact that the brilliant future promised by his good grades may not be as big as initially thought.

                  All in all that makes him a great clown for this site.

                  • Voice of China says:

                    Well actually, the porsche came from the grades and the job.

                    Oh and you forgot to say bravo!

                    • Bob the builder says:

                      Haha i was waiting that one! Yes we heard before: a boxster, the girly porsche (in case you don’t know, generally Mr. buys a boxster to Mrs., so he does not get into trouble with Mrs. when he buys the 911 or the 599 GTO for himself).

                      BRAVO!

                      ————————————–
                      Open source list of the braggings of our favorite clown, Voice of VoC:

                      – NEW BRAGGING: i have a porsche (the lady’s kind)

                      – PAST BRAGGINGS: I’m more educated than you will ever be, my IQ, my performance and precise ranking in school, my salary, you cannot afford to hire me, my performance with multiple girls, with your mother, my very important and promising job, my extensive knowledge of law and politics in China and abroad, my contempt for Korean people, Taiwanese people, Jewish people, Macedonians, my superiority to pretty much everyone i come across, my excellent english skills, my merit in general, my being an alpha dominant male

                      ————————————–

                    • Voice of China says:

                      Good to see you are keeping up.

                      Don’t forget to put the version number, it’ll help me keep up with how many updates you’ve made. Also remember to refer to past comments, there is a lot you’ve missed out on. When you’re done, I want the whole thing reformatted. Make sure you have it saved on your computer for future reference. Put a food on it.

      • meh says:

        I don’t understand how he ever “fucked” over the Chinese government. Did he ever pick up a weapon? Did he ever try to do anything but work to change the system from the inside?

        From my perspective (but I’m sure it’s tainted from the brutal “Western media”, even though al Jazeera and a bunch of other international outlets say basically the same thing), it is still a blanket crime in China to criticize the CCP. There doesn’t seem to be any rule of law that governs criticism; if the government wants to find you guilty, you will be found guilty. Some how some way, this man seems to be a threat to the great Chinese nation?! Give me a break.

        And honestly, it shouldn’t matter that ‘most Chinese back the government’ on this. Let them fucking discuss it and come to that conclusion themselves, don’t delete entire forum threads just to hide the news. If you honestly think the CCP has responded the correct way to this, then you also honestly believe the Chinese people are no better than children who don’t know right from wrong.

        No matter how you spin it, the CCP doesn’t look like the best government to anyone outside at China at this point. They look like the most cowardly government in the world.

        • Voice of China says:

          I don’t understand how he ever “fucked” over the Chinese government. Did he ever pick up a weapon? Did he ever try to do anything but work to change the system from the inside?

          Well, perhaps you don’t understand that you don’t need to get stabbed to get ‘fucked over’. Ever heard of corporate crime? Ever heard of espionage? No he isn’t smart enough to get ‘inside’ the party. He was just given benefits for writing a paper trying to plant seeds of western propaganda to the masses of the Chinese public and receiving an award for it. He thought he could outsmart the system and get out of the country, he couldn’t and good riddance to that.

          it is still a blanket crime in China to criticize the CCP. There doesn’t seem to be any rule of law that governs criticism; if the government wants to find you guilty, you will be found guilty.

          Another idiot that wants to have a go at the rule of law? What do you want to do? Talk about the actual ‘rule of law’ or the statute that deals with this offense? It’d take a thousand or so words to argue either way. In fact, what I suggest instead, is that you do your research and stop coming up with such blatant bs. The guy broke a law and he is doing the time.

          don’t delete entire forum threads just to hide the news.

          This is what I absolutely love about my country. True state sovereignty untainted by Western propaganda. This ensures that our citizens aren’t brainwashed like people from the US and the UK. I love the fact my government has the courage and the power to enforce laws strictly and to remain unmoved by pressure by the Elitists controlling most of the Western economy. The United States has had it’s day and the only way it can survive is by taking others down with it. The Chinese media piece can prevent this by filtering what is real news and what is propaganda.

          • meh says:

            >Well, perhaps you don’t understand that you don’t need to get stabbed to get ‘fucked over’. Ever heard of corporate crime? Ever heard of espionage? No he isn’t smart enough to get ‘inside’ the party. He was just given benefits for writing a paper trying to plant seeds of western propaganda to the masses of the Chinese public and receiving an award for it. He thought he could outsmart the system and get out of the country, he couldn’t and good riddance to that.

            So to you, his greatest offense was spreading an idea?

            >Another idiot that wants to have a go at the rule of law? What do you want to do? Talk about the actual ‘rule of law’ or the statute that deals with this offense? It’d take a thousand or so words to argue either way. In fact, what I suggest instead, is that you do your research and stop coming up with such blatant bs. The guy broke a law and he is doing the time.

            Yes. I am sure he broke some law. MLK Jr. and Mandela have spent time in prison too.

            >This is what I absolutely love about my country. True state sovereignty untainted by Western propaganda. This ensures that our citizens aren’t brainwashed like people from the US and the UK. I love the fact my government has the courage and the power to enforce laws strictly and to remain unmoved by pressure by the Elitists controlling most of the Western economy. The United States has had it’s day and the only way it can survive is by taking others down with it. The Chinese media piece can prevent this by filtering what is real news and what is propaganda.

            ‘Courage’? Ok, China must be opposite-world where down is up and up is down. ‘Elitists’? Almost everything a typical college educated Chinese person learns, with the exception of Chinese language, Chinese literature, and up to high school level math, has been developed in the West. Think about it Calculus, the laws mechanics, electro-dynamics, quantum science, all sorts of branches of engineering, higher level mathematics. All Western. Maybe you should have some humility then when you criticize Western notions of free speech that enabled all this to happen.

            I mean, I don’t think the CCP is acting any different that many Dynasties in China’s past. But that’s not a good thing, certainly it has not been for intellectual development. China has a lot of smart people, and I don’t think you give a shit about them. I think in a few years, free speech will find its way into China and everyone, even the government, will think it is a great idea. You will have to back-pedal your arguments.

            I can see it now.

            It’s 2020. Voice of China says, “Free speech is great. I am so glad my government has allowed it. Now China is flourishing in debate and reconciliation as it never has before. Lui XiaoBo was misunderstood in his time, but China’s science, innovation and society today are so much stronger because of him.”

        • Jerry says:

          A Ren,

          Your analysis is most shallow. You ignore in the US the checks and balances and institutions which prevent abuse of the laws. That is rule of law. America has had some bad laws and we got rid of them. America is not perfect. Sometimes justice is slow in the US. But at least justice exists. Not so in China.

          China has no such checks and balances and no such institutions. It is a lawless anarchy which promotes itself over the good of its people. That is tyranny!

          So, tyrannical ChiCommie (if you are a CCP member), why is the CCP so special as to be able to trump the will of the Chinese people?

          If you find China so wonderful, why don’t you move there. Why suffer in what you consider the oppressive, hypocritical West.

          We don’t turn a blind eye in the West. You must be thinking of China!

          • Aodaliya Ren says:

            Jerry, checks and balances my arse.

            These laws still exist today in the USA.

          • Basic Economics says:

            >You ignore in the US the checks and balances and institutions which prevent abuse of the laws

            Apparently you know nothing about China other than what you read in your USA Coldwar history textbook.

            China has a President and a Premier that is ELECTED and has TERM LIMITS, The president creates his POLITBURO which is the equivalent of the CABINET for the USA president. The Congress has to APPROVE EVERYTHING that the President and his team do.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_People%27s_Congress

            The NPC has a collection of functions and powers, including electing the President of the People’s Republic of China and approving the appointment of the Premier of the State Council as well as approving the work reports of top officials. The constitution of the National People’s Congress provides for most of its power to be exercised on a day-to-day basis by its Standing Committee.

            NPC seats are awarded to PEOPLE WHO WIN THE ELECTIONS

            Membership

            The NPC consists of about 3,000 delegates. Delegates to the National People’s Congress are elected for five-year terms via a multi-tiered representative electoral system. Delegates are elected by the provincial people’s assemblies, who in turn are elected by lower level assemblies, and so on through a series of tiers to the local people’s assemblies which are directly elected by the electorate.

            There is a limit on the number of candidates in proportion to the number of seats available. At the national level, for example, a maximum of 110 candidates are allowed per 100 seats; at the provincial level, this ratio is 120 candidates per 100 seats. This ratio increases for each lower level of people’s assemblies, until the lowest level, the village level, has no limit on the number of candidates for each seat. However, the Congress website says “In an indirect election, the number of candidates should exceed the number to be elected by 20% to 50%.”

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

            THE ONLY PEOPLE WITH ALMOST UNCHECKED POWER ARE THE DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE, However they can only use their power to collect evidence on government officials. They can do anything to get evidence torture, bribery, backroom deals, illegal detainments etc… It is not sure how they work and most of the members are secret.

            The SUPREME COURT OFF CHINA CAN MODIFY ANY LAW, THE MEMBERS ARE SELECTED BY CONGRESS

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_People%27s_Court_of_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China

      • Aodaliya Ren says:

        Sedition – notion of inciting by words or writings disaffection towards the state or constituted authority.

        The western propaganda spewing forth on this page is hypocritical.

        Here is some current history and obvious facts that many of you choose not to mention or be aware of.

        United Kingdom -1977 the common law offence of sedition was considered redundant. Sedition and seditious libel were abolished until effect 12 January 2010.

        Australia – 6 December 2005 sedition laws ammended, updating definitions and increasing penalties. The new laws, inserted into the legislation December 2005, allow for the criminalization of basic expressions of political opposition, including supporting resistance to Australian military interventions. 2006 the Howard Goverment proposed introducing laws that mean artists and writers may be jailed for up to seven years if their work was considered seditious or inspired sedition either deliberately or accidentally.

        USA – 1940, the Alien Registration Act, or “Smith Act”, was passed, this act is has been used against Communist Party organizations. March 28, 2010, nine members of the militia Hutaree were arrested and charged with crimes including seditious conspiracy. Sedition is a punishable offense under the United States Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 94.

        I guess we’ll just turn a blind eye to what is going on in our own backyards and focus on the issues in China ?

        You all seem to have a George W Bush mentality. Lets introduce a new term for the you hypocrites – terrorcommies !

        • john digmeme says:

          We could easily compare how many ‘dissidents’ are locked up in China vs. USA under seditious conspiracy laws. Earlier this year, nine people plotted to kill a police officer, then plant explosive devices at his funeral to kill more police officers. The charge of Seditious Conspiracy was applied. These people are out on bail as the gov’t has no good evidence. Had this happened in China, those nine people would probably have been executed long ago – and maybe the world would be a ‘safer’ place?

          Can you find more recent examples of people being convicted in the States and other ‘free’ nations? Otherwise the million (whatever) people in your work camps under similar charges are a stain on human rights, end of story.

    • Mark says:

      Are you sure that’s what VOC meant? Really hard to decipher what he meant and the internal logic?

  11. Voice of China says:

    It sure is easy making mistakes at typing 100 words per minute. In order to help idiots like alley cat understand basic sentences, I’ll point out another typo, that is I’m not here to be your guardian angel or your lecturer.

    Second typo: Whatever *serves* not *solves* the greater good

    *See above*

  12. Dutchy says:

    I’m not here to judge LXB is right or not. Even if a/any law applies to everyone, the point i hoped you would pick up is: although a law applies to everyone does not automatically make that law legitimate and justified.

    Compare it to a law forbidding women to drive cars in Saudi Arabia. Although this law applies to all women in that county and is made by its government, is it a legimate law, from a human and moral point of view?

    Sometimes the government is simply not right in making certain laws. That in itself it not a problem, however denying the legitimacy to challenge unjust laws and even criminalize people who dare to oppose is at least questionable.

  13. HH says:

    THERE is no guarantee that every single piece of law in this world can justify everyone and everything. thats why the way laws established and performed varied in different countries of different political parties. Chinese-Law has served this country for decades of years. China itself knows the best way to deal with its own family business. and if it has rendered some efficiency, it surely has its own point of doing so

  14. Max Headroom says:

    It is better that governments fear its people, than people fear its government.

    /M

  15. Max Headroom says:

    Also, it is strange that it always seems to be the most peaceful persons that governmnts fear the most. Look at the case of 胡嘉, (Hu Jia). Provided he doesn’t die in prison, he will emerge more, not less dangerous in the eyes of the government.

    If he would die in prison, he would become a even bigger threat, as he now would have become a martyr.

    The government that imprisoned Nelson Mandela, imprisoned a slightly notorious troublemaker. What emerged after the sentence was a world known, respected leader.

    • Mark says:

      History is on the side of the dissidents. They will be celebrated when the gangster bullies in the CCP are long forgotten by the average Chinese except when they spit in contempt.

      Real authority comes from moral authority, which the CCP lost long ago when they acted like gangsters and murdered and starved millions of Chinese. No amount of growth or concrete palaces will ever erase the CCP’s illegitimacy in the eyes of man and the heavens.

      Moral authority is the only reason why the CCP is so afraid of one man who is weak and in prison. The CCP can hide their fears in all the legalisms they want about defaming the state, and social harmony but they are most afraid of the power of an idea, based on moral truths and common sense.

      Mao was a false prophet, and even the average Chinese knows how despicable he was. It is only a matter of time before a real prophet restores dignity and truth to China, and destroys the perverse system of lies, and social injustice based on a foundation of mass murder. The CCP trembles on every anniversary of their last mass murder of the people they claim to represent, afraid they too will be exposed for the liars, cheats, frauds, and murderers they really are and swept away as suddenly and quickly as the last emperor.

      • Voice of China says:

        And a new book about religion is made.

        As I say to many retards on this site, who have spent too long in China and forgot that their English is actually sub par. Try and have an idea of what you want to project before writing.

        What did Mark really say here?

        1. Real authority is derived from morals – Riiiiight?
        2. If Real authority = moral authority, then since China has real authority to influence domestic policy and influence international events, they have moral authority?
        3. So CCP is personified as a gangster? Despite reforms being generally for the benefit of the people rather than extortion of money. The element of mens rea is completely off.
        4. Mankind and heaven will not legitimize the CCP’s authority? But wait, there is no god and CCP already has legitimate authority over it’s own affairs.
        5. China is afraid of one guy in prison – no, they just decided to punish the mother f42er
        6. China is afraid of common sense? Uh.. no, or they wouldn’t be achieving economic growth rates as high as they are enjoying now
        7.They hide behind legalisms – uh no, they are interpreting and applying the law
        8.Mao was a false prophet – uh…. he was never compared to a religious prophet as it seems you are referring to here.
        9. A real prophet will restore dignity and truth – like the next successor to Hu or someone like jesus?
        10. the CCP trembles at the anniversary of mass murder of people? Uh.. no, they drown themselves in celebration.

        Jesus, what are you trying to say here? Are you writing the second chapter of your fictional book or something?

  16. Wilson says:

    Why stop here, key? Not only does CCP think awarding this to US-funded puppet is an insult to this award, even some overseas Chinese activists aren’t to happy about it.

    http://64tianwang.com/bencandy.php?fid=13&id=6545

    And by the way Charter 08 is a document that has no language to protect China’s sovereignty and extremely vulnerable to those who get foreign government money like Hu Jia and Dalai Lama and Liu Xiaobo himself. Unlike the Indian Constitution which protects their own sovereignty and an hardline dealing with traitors of their own, Charter 08 is nothing more than a “National Endowment for Democracy” blueprint of their own agenda to weaken China.

    To those who says that Charter 08 is peaceful. That is particular offensive of those living in China. China’s emerging urban middle class, after all, is merely a small proportion of the country’s overall population — far smaller than its counterparts in Taiwan or South Korea. There are an estimated 800 million to 900 million Chinese peasants — most of them living in rural areas, although 100 million or more are working or trying to find jobs as migrants on the margins of Chinese cities. If China were to have nationwide elections, and if peasants were to vote their own interests, then the urban middle class would lose. The margin would not be close. On an electoral map of China, the biggest cities — Shanghai, Beijing, Tianjin, Guangzhou, and the others — might look something like the small gold stars on the Chinese flag: They would be surrounded by a sea of red. Add together the populations of China’s 10 largest cities and you get a total of some 62 million people. That number is larger than the population of France or Britain or Italy. But it is still only about 5 percent of China’s overall population of 1.3 billion.

    China’s urban residents have an even greater reason to fear democracy: The Communist Party has not exactly been evenhanded in its treatment of urban residents vis-à-vis peasants. On the contrary: Its policies have strongly favored the cities over the countryside. This is why there has been a wave of protests in the countryside, arising out of land seizures, local taxes, disputes over village elections, and similar controversies.

    Democracy now is a hegemonic force and based on money, political points that has no relevance of important issues, and showboating tactics to discredit someone.

    • Bob the builder says:

      “If China were to have nationwide elections, and if peasants were to vote their own interests, then the urban middle class would lose. ”

      Ha, you mean that the middle class from the cities want to continue to get rich on the back of the farmers and mingongs of their own country?

      Harmonious society indeed 🙂

      • Mark says:

        Very true. The whole revolution was supposed to help peasants, now they are slaves once again. Almost bound to their towns and villages like serfs.

      • Basic Economics says:

        You don’t seem to understand Basic economics

        China cannot advance without a middle class since they are the ones generating most of the GDP.

        Think of it this way you have an income of $1 trillion dollars a year, now you can use that to buy everybody in the country a car, or you can use that money to train a handful of scientists who can advance technology and possibily raise income for the entire country.

        If China was a democracy and they gave the farmers what they want, China will be on the same level as India right now.

        Economic prosperity cannot coexist with democracy and free speech.

        It is a true shame that many Chinese do not understand this, the average chinese is stupid they would rather take the car than invest in raising their technology and thus income.

        • Bob the builder says:

          “China cannot advance without a middle class since they are the ones generating most of the GDP”

          In China today, the GDP is generated mostly by the industrial production whose workforce is not the middle class but the mingongs and the lower urban class. And the chinese research so far has produced very little new things: these factories mostly manufacture goods based on western blue prints.

          There is no shame in that so far, as China needed to catch up but the middle class takes way too much credit for the success of the country in general. It is the sweat of the lower classes which makes this success possible and it is therefore logical that they share some of the rewards.

          It does not mean giving each farmer a car but could start with:
          – decent free education for their children
          – affordable health care
          – some pension plan

          • Benga says:

            That’s CHINA’s GDP because China HAS NO middle class so of course it is derived from some other socio-economic class. Although, in the states it is said that the wealthiest one percent pretty much drive the economy but China’s upper-class can’t touch our middle class either. You can’t look at what IS driving their economy currently but what NEEDS to be built to drive their economy. Eventually they will need to swim to shore and that requires a strong middle class and a much more considerable upper class…unless they just want to tread water for a couple more years.

            • Voice of China says:

              It’s ironic that on your own logic you are now making an analogy with the states. This according to you is delusional. You fail to understand that making analogies is not the same as responding to someone else’s comment. You’re a funny guy.

              • Benga says:

                I never made any references to “delusions of the analogous.” I was talking about faulty reference wherein you ASSUME someone said something they never said and then ATTACK that assumption. I made my own statement about the economy and supported it. I never once “attacked” any such “assumption.” Further, I never said they were the same I merely used it as support. You really, really, need to brush up on your critical reading. I think your anger stems not from true offense but rather because you don’t have any level of English reading comprehension…everything is just a misunderstanding for you.

                My fucking God, now I understand. You really are stupid, you have nothing behind your facade of words. You’re like the country of China, you walk up to a building and think “Oh my god that building looks so beautif- wait, why the fuck is it moldy and full of nothing inside?” Oh, stupid me, just another coat d’mirage.

                • Voice of China says:

                  No, read above, the assumption was correct because it was inclusive of the original point. Ie Freedom of speech was one of the fundamental freedoms he was referring to.

                  All this of course is now irrelevant considering you had to lie about your degree. I don’t think anyone could take you credibly at this stage.

          • Basic economics says:

            >And the chinese research so far has produced very little new things: these factories mostly manufacture goods based on western blue prints.

            You don’t understand the concept of opportunity cost.

            Give everybody a healthcare plan, and you won’t be able to build that new experimental nuclear fusion reactor.

            Give everybody a pension and several thousand people will not get their PHD’s

            YOU CAN’T HAVE YOUR CAKE AND EAT IT TOO

            TIME HAS PROVEN AGAIN AND AGAIN that countries that lead in technology are the wealthiest. If China gives haleathcare and pension China stays third world country forever.

            Countries like Mexico, they have been around forever, never been involved in any wars and have tons of natural resources. So why are they third world? because they spent their money on social care instead of technology.

            http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/06/china-poised-to-lead-world-in-patent-filings/

            You have no idea what you are talking about

        • GuoBao says:

          “Economic prosperity cannot coexist with democracy and free speech.”

          I’m gonna take that out of context and state a solid “What?!?”

  17. {laughing} And the 50CP is out in the force… with all the same old spins. Funny that the spin sounds remarkably like the old British Colonial line about Gandhi, or the old apartheid line with Mandela.

    • Mark says:

      The main thing is that like the British Empire and Apartheid the CCP is now publicly and quasi officially on the wrong side of history with a Chinese jailed dissident getting the Nobel Peace Prize.

    • Basic Economics says:

      The idea that China is afraid of democracy is inherently wrong, and a argument usually trumped up by the less educated

      This guy has been advocating democracy for quite awhile why does Liu Xiabo deserve it over him?

      Liu Xiabo has been advocating violence to force democracy, yes encouraging crippling strikes to shut down an economy is considered violence. As can be seen by his actions at Tienaman

      Liu Xiabo would have been jailed himself if he went to Norway and told the doctors to go on strike.

      http://www.smh.com.au/world/china-must-reform-or-die-20100811-11zxd.html

      A Chinese two-star general has warned his conservative Communist Party masters and firebrand People’s Liberation Army colleagues that China must either embrace US-style democracy or accept Soviet-style collapse.

      ”If a system fails to let its citizens breathe freely and release their creativity to the maximum extent, and fails to place those who best represent the system and its people into leadership positions, it is certain to perish,” writes General Liu Yazhou in Hong Kong’s Phoenix magazine, which is widely available on news stands and on the internet throughout China.

      • GuoBao says:

        “Liu Xiabo has been advocating violence to force democracy, yes encouraging crippling strikes to shut down an economy is considered violence” No it isn’t, and thinking that way is very dangerous to people’s rights. In the West we fought long and hard for the right to strike and it was and still is a valuable tool for organized labor to fight scrupulous employers and/or just for basic rights and a decent pay.

        “Liu Xiabo would have been jailed himself if he went to Norway and told the doctors to go on strike.”

        You clearly don’t know anything about Norway.

        • Basic economics says:

          And what would keep doctors from going on strike for no reason?

          What if the doctors were simply greedy? and thousands die everyday because of their strike

          What if they wanted 2million salary a year for each doctor and wanted the government to foot the paycheck?

          And yes strikes in Norway can only last 21 days maximum in critical industries before the riot police start arresting people

          You are the one that clearly is uneducated about norway

        • Basic economics says:

          And what would keep doctors from going on strike for no reason?

          What if the doctors were simply greedy? and thousands die everyday because of their strike

          What if they wanted 2million salary a year for each doctor and wanted the government to foot the paycheck?

          And yes strikes in Norway can only last 21 days maximum in critical industries before the riot police start arresting people

          In other critical industries workers are not allowed to strike

          http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/26/business/worldbusiness/26oil.html

          You are the one that clearly is uneducated about norway

          • john digmeme says:

            Regardless of your source articles, no where does it state that LXB would have been jailed for suggesting anything to anyone in Norway – your article states that employees still striking after 21 days are fired, not jailed.

            • Basic economics says:

              Liu Xiabo is not advocating that people strike against the government by quitting their jobs.

              In a typical strike the workers are allowed to barricade the factory to prevent new hires from resuming work.

              Under Norwegian Law the government has the right to shutdown any strike that they want.

              >OSLO, June 25 (Reuters) – Norway’s government ordered an immediate end to an eight-day oil and gas strike Friday, averting a total shutdown of output in the world’s No. 3 exporter of crude.

              Under Norwegian Law any company has the right to fire employees at anytime if the government gives permission.

              But clearly if a strike ends up with EVERYBODY GETTING FIRED, the workers barricading the factory are going to fall under PROPERTY TRESPASS laws which allow the Police to use force.
              ———————————————-
              And yes Norway does Jail people with radical views

              This guy was thrown into jail because he was writing books that encouraged people to commit suicide

              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_J%C3%A6ger

              Hans Henrik Jæger (September 2, 1854 in Drammen, Norway – February 8, 1910 in Oslo) was a Norwegian writer, philosopher and anarchist political activist who was part of the Oslo (then Kristiania) based bohemian group Kristianiabohêmen. He was prosecuted for his book Fra Kristiania-bohemen and convicted to 60 days imprisonment in a supreme court ruling in 1886. He lived by the code “a passion to destroy is also a creative passion” and believed suicide as the ultimate way to freedom.

              • john digmeme says:

                “And yes strikes in Norway can only last 21 days maximum in critical industries before the riot police start arresting people” <– Inaccurate (not true).

                Though, I understand the hypothetical condition you propose – that if they strike longer than 21 days and they are fired, and barricade themselves in a building, and break trespassing laws, then the riot police will come evict them. But, err, we haven't seen this happen yet so it is still a hypothetical postulation.

                And using an example from the 1800's to demonstrate Norways 'oppressive' system is going a bit far. Why would 2010's China compare itself to 1880's Norway? Are you really lagging 130 years behind? Even then, dude was locked up for 60 days in the 1880's, how long are you going to lock up LXB? His wife?

                • Basic Economics says:

                  Did you read the whole wikipedia article?

                  The following year, he was forced to flee Norway. He had been sentenced to 150 more days in prison after the Norwegian government learned that he had sent 300 copies of Christiania Bohemians to Sweden under the auspices of a volume of Christmas stories.

                  He served 60 days, then got charged again and fled the country because he didn’t want to serve more time.

                  China has 1.3 billion people Norway has a population of 5 million obviously they are not going to have as many loonies Liu and Hans

                  • john digmeme says:

                    No, you’re right, I didn’t read up to the 150 days part. Regardless, we’re talking about 210 days in the 1880’s vs. 11 years in 2010.

  18. Huzhang says:

    I think things should be put in perspective. There are people who say Liu is a spy, traitor, agitator, collaborationist etc. All just paranoid conspiracy theories to me. Personally I think he believes that he’s advocating what’s best for China. However, his misguided vision of a democratic China is not suitable at this moment. Sure, the government isn’t perfect. But democracy right now would tear the nation apart, and we wouldn’t be able to make any of the advances we’ve made this quickly. It would be a lot like India, where there’s like 100 parties/groups vying for control and thus getting nothing done. Or worse, a corrupt and highly polarized democracy like Taiwan.

    That being said, jailing someone for expressing their opinion brings a ton of negative attention to China. He probably wouldn’t have gotten the prize if he was just a normal demagogue. Awarding him the prize just makes the CCP/nationalists hate him even more. Quite the drama we’re having here.

    • Mark says:

      If the West were really against China the West would encourage China to remain undemocratic, because an authoritarian culture in the long run can never compete against a free and dynamic culture. The reason many in the West are concerned is because the longer China remains authoritarian the more dangerous China is to its neighbors and global stability. History shows it is really rare for two fully democratic powers to go to war with each other, because the free exchange of information and ideas internally and externally resolves most disputes.

      • Bob says:

        Or, one might argue that if the west were really against the current China, a competitor to the west which ever way you look at it, the west would encourage the dissidents in China to overthrow throw the current government in China, and by providing them with support, they will usher in a democratic China that kowtows to the west’s interest without ever thinking of competing against it, and even if its nationalist sentiments exits, the developing nation will be to fragmented to be of any threat against it, like India.

        • Mark says:

          Not sure why you would assume a democratic China would kowtow to anyone unless you do not trust the wisdom of the Chinese people?

      • Voice of China says:

        And blah blah blah… and the USA is all about global peace and fucking prosperity right? That explains everything including all their ordeals in Iraq, Vietnam, and all they want to do is bring over some of that good ol democracy to share.

        Are you an idiot or just intentionally blind to reality?

        • Benga says:

          Nobody made that claim about the US, you just did…and then went on to make an insult based on your own claim. Again, you stick in a random assumption to a point nobody made, and continue to elaborate on it, eventually trying to stick it to the original advocate (yourself). You sure do seem to have a penchant for shooting yourself in the foot…but maybe you’re just delusional (which is slightly more forgivable).

          • Voice of China says:

            Should I substitute ‘the west’ with ‘the US’? I simply made the analogy about US ideology and this guys reasoning. Considering the greatest superpower influencing world events is the United States, i think its a fair call. Don’t you?

            • Benga says:

              No, because that’s saying that the East and China are the same thing. So I think it’s fair to say that all subsequent languages, cultures, histories, psychologies, and whatever show no difference whether you find yourself in China, Japan, Korea, or Malaysia. So, yeah, you should specify. Otherwise, according to your agglomeration of ideas, China shouldn’t be mad about the Diaoyu incident because it was just the East attacking itself, right? I mean, isn’t it just as easy to say you are all the same?

              Bam. Check the oven, I think you’re cooked.

              • Voice of China says:

                Well the United States is a super power, has one of the first ‘working’ models of democracy and presents itself s to be an ambassador of peace and change. So I think it is a fair call.

                Using China, Japan, Korea and Malaysia as a similar example isn’t a fair analogy because they are under very different political regimes.

                Stop being overconfident, you make yourself look stupid.

        • elenore says:

          USA has a different message every generation.WW2 generation was Might makes Right.Boomers is Greed is Good.Gen X will soon take over and it will be a different message,a different America.

      • Basic Economics says:

        Other way around, no democratic government in history has been able to pull itself up from poverty.

        Africa, South America, India these are all democratic countries. Yet they have been stuck in a cycle of democracy, constant corruption and choosing short term gains over long term prosperity. The politicians only plan up to the next election thus dooming the country to third world status.

        While on the other hand authoritarianism has shown itself to work in Singapore, China, USSR.

        The USA, Japan, and Europe became powerful due to imperialism. South korea became powerful due to the USA pouring funds. Taiwan became wealthy because of the wealthiest chinese depositing their assets in swiss banks and then fleeing to Taiwan during the civil war.

        For a country to rise peacefully on its own, it needs to be able to make sound economic decisions that yield long term benefits.

      • Al Jensen says:

        But the West does support the PRC government. As long as the PRC buys bonds issued by Western governments and produces cheap electronics nobody in the West really cares what goes on within China. Yes, there are some Western activists who criticize China, but they are, well, activists, and their viewpoints do not really coincide with the business or political interests of the status quo, nor do they reflect the genuine concerns of the average person. And for all their agitating, you also have people like Jim Rogers and Thomas Friedman who go on and on about what a fantastic country China is, all while conspicuously not actually living here.

        The only reason there has been any friction at all between China and the West is that during the recent economic downturn, which was nothing more than a natural part of the business cycle, China used its cash reserves while failing to appreciate their currency, which would have naturally appreciated due to market forces except that China is not really a market economy.

        The people who really lose in all this is the average Chinese person, particularly young Chinese men. There is this ambiguous power fantasy that when China becomes the dominant economy somehow everything will be great. In reality, things will continue to be the same for the average Chinese person – perhaps a little better, but maybe even worse. In some sense, economic and technological progress can exacerbate preexisting social problems. Look at what a disaster the introduction of ultrasound to the Chinese countryside was, for example.

  19. GuoBao says:

    You’re a disgrace to humanity. You probably never even heard of the guy until yesterday, you STILL haven’t got a clue as to what he got 11 years for and your arguments in favor of the government are some of the weakest you’ve ever presented. Not that it says a lot. I’ve told you before and I don’t mind telling you again: Pick your damn battles.

    • GuoBao says:

      hmm,, odd place this comment got put. If anyone were in doubt (no? didn’t think so) it was a reply to VoC

    • Voice of China says:

      National treasure,

      on various accounts, I have dissected your reasoning and made a mockery of your assertions. In a previous page, I’ve discussed the separation of powers, described the Chinese judiciary and even considered bringing up economic doctrines. But what that resulted in, was the loser reverting back to Childish insults, in other words, base one.

      It’d take me literally five minutes to do a search on this guy, half an hour to analyze legislation and another half an hour to do look further. Do I want to do it for the sake of arguing with some dimwitted people on Chinahush? No.

      Instead, I tried something different this time, in words even an idiot like you could understand. Your response this time? Weakest argument in favor of the government. My response? I can’t believe how stupid you really are not to understand something expressed in lay man’s terms. Nothing will save you.

      I might not know what he got 11 years for, I might not care, but what I do know is that only an idiot couldn’t fathom the potential consequences of an action that got him jailed, especially considering he won a Nobel prize. Thus the implication of political and financial motivations are very high.

      • ektor says:

        “It’d take me literally five minutes to do a search on this guy, half an hour to analyze legislation and another half an hour to do look further. Do I want to do it for the sake of arguing with some dimwitted people on Chinahush? No.

        You’re doing this every single day (always stating you can’t waste time doing so).

        “the loser reverting back to Childish insults”

        What about Your Majesty VoC calling everybody’s mother a whore, or worse.

        Although I’m glad you’re going to make quite a lot of money out of this post. You should thank Mr Liu, he’s provided you with food for at least a couple of months.

        • Voice of China says:

          Hahaha Ektor – I hope that’s not your real name by the way – I like the name Hector more.

          I don’t need to spend time analyzing legislation and searching online for answers. My brain is a good data base for most knowledge that I’ve learnt. What makes invalidating anything you write enjoyable is because it is relatively effortless and makes you a laughing stock.

          Oh and uh.. You forgot to listen to your master and add :bRavo – don’t forget to say it later on twice to make up for this one 😉

          • Benga says:

            Ektor sounds nicer than Hector. Hector sounds like the name of a fat prince from 1590. But, I can’t blame you because no matter how good you might think your English is you’ll never be able to associate with the feelings of certain words like a true native speaker so perhaps you should save your commentary for instances where you are more qualified (some other dimension, I’d imagine).

            I LOVE how you’re so quick to be the expert on everything on every topic, from the head of Chinese law, through the heart of international ethnics, down to the feet of debate but you don’t even know what he’s in jail for. What an expert of law and all things ever created, blows so much hot air with so much vigor and, despite such bravado, is retarded enough to admit he doesn’t even know why the guy was imprisoned. Then tries to mask it with “I might not care.” You might not, but it makes you look like an idiot, you can’t glance over this glaring hole in your logic by saying “I don’t care,” everyone knows it stands to replace “I have no idea.”

            So, to you, I say (as you have so often requested):
            “Brav(ad)o”

            • Voice of China says:

              Oh Benga,

              Now I’m curiously thinking whether this is just an online alias or of how your mom decided on giving you such a hideous name.

              I don’t understand what you mean about ‘associating with feelings of certain words.’ All I know is that a sentence that can effectively convey a message with the least amount of waffle generally shows your skill as a writer. It is clear to that extent, that you are definitely not a native English speaker.

              This is self evident when you look at how someone with as much confidence as yourself is denigrated to troll status after I I’ve sifted through the trash which you call logic. You are enviable of my knowledge of Law and Economics, but you try and blow it off by disregarding the merits of my argument.

              The name ‘Voice of China’ signifies what a unified demographic of young Chinese feel about certain issues. Here, the fact is that most think similarly to myself. That politics is grey area and this guy probably deserved it. Academic or legal discussions are not something which I seek to engage in on a forum filled with trolls. Nor do I find it necessary to research on such a boring area which common logic can fill in the gaps of what happened.

              • Benga says:

                Not a native speaker? I’m born and raised in the States, retard. It’s not that I convey things improperly it’s that you can’t understand them. A chink trying to correct my English, I scoff at thee. I envy nothing, dude, my bachelor degree is from MIT, I think that’s a statement even you can understand.

                “That politics is grey area and this guy probably deserved it.”
                This statement is mutually exclusive (look up that phrase, it’s useful without being dense so feel free to use it to make yourself seem smarter). If politics is indeed a grey area and that IS indeed how you feel then you SHOULD indeed refrain from comment. Because a grey area implies that conviction and commentary are both impossible and impossibly unnecessary. So, what are you getting at? Maybe you just don’t know what “grey area” means. This is what I was getting at when I was talking about the feelings behind words. You’ve got a long way to go before you’ve reached that level of English….

                • Voice of China says:

                  Oh Benga, you’re such a joke.

                  The fact you were born in the States means literally nothing. I am more articulate than the majority of native English speakers and that is not an exaggeration just merely fact.

                  The fact your bachelors is from MIT gives you very little bragging rights as considering its really just a technical college consisting mostly of Chinese and Indians. Having an engineering, science or maths degree doesn’t make you a good writer nor does being able to construe a venn diagram.

                  This statement is mutually exclusive (look up that phrase, it’s useful without being dense so feel free to use it to make yourself seem smarter).

                  Oh I am aware of the term alright. But I should correct your ‘English’ again in pointing out that although I address two points in one sentence, they are directed at two things.

                  If politics is indeed a grey area and that IS indeed how you feel then you SHOULD indeed refrain from comment. Because a grey area implies that conviction and commentary are both impossible and impossibly unnecessary.

                  That is another fallacy of reasoning and indeed another reason why I question whether English is your first language. Your inability to distinguish between logical fallacies is appalling, even my mother writes better than you and she hasn’t studied the language.

                  There is no line of reasoning that dictates that grey areas are incapable of commentary. In fact, given the nature of politics, it is even more necessary to give various interpretations of it.

                  In no way is the sentence ‘a grey area implies commentary is impossible and impossibly unnecessary’. I’d go a step further and say that the word impossible doesn’t qualify the word unnecessary in your second use of the word which means is mostly vestigial. And commentary on a grey area is more than possible as its what I’m doing now.

                  So perhaps you don’t know what ‘grey area’ means, but hey, if you need to improve your English, you only have to ask 🙂

                  • Benga says:

                    If you’re so articulate you should know that it should be “not an exaggeration, merely A fact.” You can’t just omit the “an.” If you’re going to use non-count words than all other following words in the list or rest of the single thought should be non-count words, and vice versa. It’s exactly the same rule that forbids saying “Voice of China likes to act like a fool, speaking wildly, and prying into things outside his concern” instead of “Voice of China like actinING like a fool…” I think I learned that rule when I was 8, so clearly you aren’t as you claim. But it’s not your fault that English is infinitely more deep than Mandarin, I understand that you can’t comprehend all of the rules and nonsensicalness.

                    To you, kind victim of autism, I bid adieu.

                    Don’t try to chalk that up to “typing quickly” or not caring, any speaker would have been incapable of such a mistake. That’s all I care to elaborate on because it illustrates your idiocy oh-so-nicely.

                    • Benga says:

                      Oh lied I should mention that MIT also flourishes in economics, business, and other studies of the liberal arts, fucktard. In fact the Stern School of Business of MIT is one of the top 5 (at last check) in the nation. So, clearly, you don’t know jack about shit. Yet, it is good that they flourish in both aspects since I majored in chem and int’l biz. You’re so dumb it’s ridiculous. Usually it’s harder to prove it because everything discussed here is on the topic of religion, politics, all those things that can’t be proven. However, here we have clear, concrete evidence of your mental deficiencies. A “technical college,” bwahahaha you don’t even know what a technical college means. Fucking idiot….and what the fuck, where does a Venn Diagram fit into any of this? Don’t answer that, I won’t respond.

                    • Voice of China says:

                      Hey dipshit, I thought you had a ‘life’ and wouldn’t come back. Do you care too much that this ‘chink’ has better English than you? Don’t be surprised that I picked out your shitty English, you almost passed off as a native speaker, almost…..

                      In fact I couldn’t believe my eyes and my luck, when I realized that you are nitpicking on the fact that I omitted the word ‘a’, giving me all the more reason to laugh at your stupidity.

                      Now unfortunately for you, I did purposely because colloquially the sentence sounds better without the ‘a’. It also changes the tone of the sentence to make it both verbose and condescending, the way it was intended.

                      For example:

                      – Do you care too much this chink has better English than you

                      can be rephrased

                      – Care too much this chink has better English than you?

                      With the latter being much more condescending

                      I know that this could be too high level for you considering you’re probably an Indian immigrant with English as a second language but hey, you gotta start somewhere right? If you need more tips, just be modest and ask politely, no need to rage –> oops forgot ‘there’ before the ‘no’ right? 😉

                    • Voice of China says:

                      Oh and uh, Benga… Please, behind all that rage, try and breathe. And before lecturing me on grammar, please remember to use paragraphs 🙂

                      This comment is full of stupidity that I was considering whether or not to even respond. But hey, I’m never one to decline the entertainment of utterly humiliating a troll, especially one who thinks he is smart.

                      First of all, for an MIT Business graduate, student, you seem fairly clueless of the name of your business school. Namely ‘SLOAN’ school of management, not ‘Stern’ school of business. Ouch… that hurts..

                      I can’t quite figure out whats more sad? The fact that you just exposed you’ve probably never even been to MIT or the fact that you’ve left yourself no way out?

                      REASONS WHY YOU ARE FULL OF $HIT

                      1. You said you completed your undergraduate degree in MIT. Sloan is a postgraduate MBA Course.

                      2. The school is not even in the top 5 business schools

                      3. There is no degree in International Business in the Course

                      4. You can’t argue you got ‘Stern’ mixed with ‘Sloan’ either, considering you even got the ‘school of management’ wrong

                      Now, where were we? Technical college, Oh I lie, <– (are you going to point out I forgot the 'd'?) It's a polytechnic university ……. that's right 🙂 I remember the term 'technical college' from the jokes my friend and I make about it back in the day.

                      Regarding the Venn diagram, I thought you'd pick it up straight away as a science/maths/engineering student. Looks like you aren't what you make yourself out to be. Don't be sad, just sink into a little hole and never come back.

                    • Voice of China says:

                      I mean ‘there is’ *

                      Hahaha.. yes typing too fast can be a liability at times.

                  • Benga says:

                    just one thing…verbose equals 啰嗦, 唠唠叨叨, which is not a compliment in english. its a bad thing. so you wanted your sentence to be 唠唠叨叨? congrats, you’re an idiot.

                    • Voice of China says:

                      Hahaha.. I meant concise of course.

                      But hey Benga, you’ve got more humiliating things to deal with. Namely how to fix that ego that I crushed with the above post. I’m curious how you’ll try and get out of it.

                      Oh and uh, don’t forget paragraphs this time. It’s a common grammatical technique I learnt when I was six.

                    • Voice of China says:

                      My suggestions to you at this stage:

                      1. Disappear and ‘pretend’ you really do have a life, rather than digging a deeper hole for yourself with each post.

                      2. Pretend to be angry at whatever logic I presented to you, try and ignore the comment about discrediting your education, then say you’ll leave because you can’t handle any more bs that I have to spew whilst conveniently leaving out the real reason of your departure.

                      First is more low key, second will fool a few idiots on the site. What I wouldn’t recommend is lying further and making yourself look stupid.

                    • Benga says:

                      How could you confuse concise and verbose? idiot. youre totally looking too far into the school thing. i never claimed to go to both schools, just mit. the names of their business schools just sound the same. i never confused their rankings or anything. it was a typo. do you know this word? when your an MBA applicant sometimes you think about biz schools a lot and wrong names slip out. i don’t understand why you think it was anything more than a typo or some huge crush to my esteem. i cant believe how much time you put into this. you crushed no ego. you don’t change where i was educated or who i am so i see no reason to think i never went there just because you say so.

                      but the one thing you really need to stop doing is pretending youre a master of english. you’re not.

                      also paragraphs aren’t part of grammar, merely writing structure. you’re so stupid. not only does your english fall short or your expectations but I bet my Mandarin is infinitely more standard than yours, too.

                      have a good run with your tiny dick and pretend life; the one with the imaginary pink porsche you drive. in case you haven’t noticed, my lack of attention to grammatical and sentence detail showcase my lack of interest in carrying this on with you. honestly, i think the last time i’ve encountered an argument like this was high school. i will be the bigger person and stop, though. there’s clearly nothing to gain from talking to you, maybe even you can understand that 我简直对牛弹琴…

                    • Voice of China says:

                      Bengal,

                      Just when I wonder how you could possibly fuck yourself over even more, you surprise me.

                      Let’s reconcile your last two comments ok?

                      1. whatever, i got stern of nyu confused with sloan of mit. i never went to sloan, i was an undergrad.

                      then

                      2. i never claimed to go to both schools, just mit.

                      – Note: I never claimed you did either – I suggested it because it was the only reasonable excuse to dig yourself out of the trap you laid for yourself.

                      => So whats the deal? Where did you get your business degree from Sloan in NYU or MIT?

                      How could you confuse concise and verbose?

                      Easily, since I don’t use the word verbose very often

                      the names of their business schools just sound the same.

                      No, they don’t sound remotely the same except the fact they have the word ‘school’ in common.

                      i never confused their rankings or anything.

                      Yes, you clearly have – you defended MIT by stating it’s ranking of 5th which it never had and neither has Stern.

                      it was a typo. do you know this word?

                      So let me get this straight, when you fabricate lies about your education, the ranking of your university, fail to capitalize, then it’s a typo. When I change the structure of a sentence to make it sound better its a sign of my poor English. Don’t make me laugh.

                      i don’t understand why you think it was anything more than a typo or some huge crush to my esteem. i cant believe how much time you put into this. you crushed no ego.

                      The real crush to your ego wasn’t a typo. It was claiming you did an undergraduate degree at MIT, claiming you forgot the name of your school, then claiming you got it mixed up with Stern, that you then never went to Sloan, which then means you never really studied business at all.

                      you don’t change where i was educated or who i am so i see no reason to think i never went there just because you say so.

                      No it doesn’t and I hope you don’t go around looking for employment flashing fake credentials.

                      And failing to italicize really does make you look like a fool, considering it’s a basic grammatical skill that even a child would use as second nature. Having ungrammatical sentences while bragging about your education is hardly instructive.

                      but the one thing you really need to stop doing is pretending youre a master of english. you’re not.

                      What is good and what is not is relative. My English is good enough to beat most native speakers. I’ve proved that in more than one way, which I won’t care to brag about online. What is obvious is that your sentences now are sweating with desperation.

                      also paragraphs aren’t part of grammar, merely writing structure.

                      Grammar is the set of structural rules that govern the composition of words including syntax. Under a broad view, paragraphs are a grammatical tool. One which you’re not familiar with using, obviously. But you are learning, thanks to me.

                      but I bet my Mandarin is infinitely more standard than yours, too.

                      In your dreams

                      have a good run with your tiny dick and pretend life; the one with the imaginary pink porsche you drive.

                      I’d feel kind of awkward giving out the measurements of my dick online. But trust me, it ain’t small especially by Western standards.

                      The Porsche is Arctic Silver and is a great drive.

                      in case you haven’t noticed, my lack of attention to grammatical and sentence detail showcase my lack of interest in carrying this on with you.

                      1. Not really, it just show’s you’re trying to find an excuse to hide your embarrassment.

                      2. It also helps you find an excuse to leave without others thinking you’re a complete tool.

                      3. I know English might not be your first language but capitalization is really second nature to native speakers. Not doing so for me would actually be awkward.

                      Do you need to instruct your body to breathe?

                      honestly, i think the last time i’ve encountered an argument like this was high school. i will be the bigger person and stop, though.

                      1. Last time I checked, you said you had a life and weren’t going to continue this conversation. That was around ten posts ago (not that I’m counting).

                      2. It’s good to know you decided to take suggestion two of the below comment.

                      Pretend to be angry at whatever logic I presented to you, try and ignore the comment about discrediting your education, then say you’ll leave because you can’t handle any more bs that I have to spew whilst conveniently leaving out the real reason of your departure.

                      3. I thought you might just try suggestion 1, if you had been smart enough to anticipate it’d be obvious what you were doing.

                      4. Oh and please don’t come back – and if you do, make a habit of capitalizing. Even Guo Bao does it.

                      there’s clearly nothing to gain from talking to you, maybe even you can understand that 我简直对牛弹琴…

                      你已经够丢人了,还何必再未来受罪?

                • Benga says:

                  whatever, i got stern of nyu confused with sloan of mit. i never went to sloan, i was an undergrad. maybe you dont realize that just because i went there doesn’t mean i wouldn’t type it incorrectly. the fact is you know jack shit about american education (you only have your chinese diploma which isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on) and there is an intl business major, youre just an idiot. and your english does not sound colloquial and that is NOT how you rearrange sentences to sound more condescending. im italian, german, irish, and french by bloodline, that’s pretty white as far as im concerned and pretty much solidifies that i am american-born. try to hold back your jealousy.

                  it would seem that you have a boner for english. im flattered that you’ve taken such a shine to my mother tongue and its evident from your rage that your imperfect grasp really bothers you. this makes me content.

                  before you dump on the structure, capitalization, etc., let me just clarify that, as a native speaker, i can assure you that such writing is acceptable in casual communication.

                  hmmm, lets see what else i can close on. oh right, it wasnt the simple omission of the LETTER “a” but rather the lack grammar knowledge that it represents. and you can say “i lie” because verbs spoken in the present refer to what you are currently doing as you are typing. it has nothing to do with the grammar but rather whether the “lie” you are referring to is a remark from the past or what you are currently saying, dumbass.

                  • Voice of China says:

                    Oh, I was trying to work out how you’d get out of that one. Too bad it wasn’t as convincing as I would’ve liked it have been.

                    1. You were talking about MIT Business School – now you’re talking about NYU, a completely separate educational institution.

                    2. You claimed you were an undergraduate – but in both schools simultaneously? Really? So why did you pick MIT when insecurely defending your poor English skills? Stupidity or??

                    3. I know plenty about American education, enough to make a fool of you.

                    4. Good to know you’re white, AND??

                    5. Yes it is how you structure sentences when being unable to use vocal tone to complement certain words – it’s advanced English probably something you’re unfamiliar with, that’s all

                    6. No, I just find it amusing that you pretend to be a native English speaker when it’s obvious that either you are an American immigrant or are just simply have an extremely poor grasp of it.

                    7. It’s my second nature to capitalize and to know when to break a paragraph. It’s ironic how you try and nitpick the way one of my sentences was structured and yet leniently excuse yourself for actual grammatical mistakes – amusing.

                    8. No, I’m sure a non-native English speaker like yourself would have picked up that omission so I deliberately laid a trap. See the arrow I put there?

                    And don’t make yourself look more stupid. Say the sentence aloud without a ‘d’ after the ‘lie’ and then contrast it with the ‘d’, now tell me what sounds better. It works this case because if it was vocally pronounced, it is placed right after the assertion that it is a technical college, making the admission almost concurrent to the previous comment. But hey, remind me, why am I teaching you English again?

                    9. It’s good to see you’re picking up on how to use paragraphs

                    ******************Main Point Below**************************

                    I’m trying to work out what is more sad:

                    1. The fact you felt the need to express what University you attended.

                    2. The fact that you were stupid enough to choose the wrong University to lie about

                    3. The fact you had to lie again to cover up for a lie

                    4. The fact that you were caught lying the second time

                    5. The fact that you are continuing to try to lie and get out of it

                    6. The fact you don’t have a life

                    And don’t try and get out of it Benga, explain to me how you managed to confuse what you termed ‘MIT’s Stern Business School’ with the actual ‘Stern School of management’ while even conveniently getting the rankings mixed up. I’d be more convinced if you merely called it ‘MIT’s School of management’ or ‘NYU’s Business School’ but it seems you royally fucked it up this time.

                    What was going through your head? A school that you never went to? Or a school you never claimed to have gone to? Because you did say you got a bachelors degree from MIT right?

                    • Voice of China says:

                      Oh and I forgot to mention, you were trying to argue as well that MIT had one of the best Business Schools, trying to defend the solidity of the MIT Business major.

                      Face it Benga, the only way you could possibly get out of it is by claiming to you got a bachelor’s degree at both Universities. Even then it’d be a far shot since you defended your English and Economics by saying you went to MIT. That’s like a Harvard Lawyer, going to an interview and saying that he attended MIT while forgetting to say where his JD came from.

  20. Wilson says:

    @Matthew A. Sawtell

    Comparing British pressure to Gandhi and Chinese pressure to Liu is an insult. British pressure resulted nomination only when Gandhi was alive. It is just more evidence that there’s a double standard.

    Go check out NED’s website of their funding of Liu Xiaobo’s Independent Chinese Pen Center and Zhongguo Minzhu magazine.

    National Endowment for Democracy: Paying to Make Enemies of America: http://www.antiwar.com/paul/paul79.html

    The same old 50 cent discretion is getting old and it is the near top of my list of fallacies.

    • The John says:

      From NED:

      “The National Endowment for Democracy (NED) joins democrats and human rights defenders in China and around the world in congratulating Charter 08 co-organizer Liu Xiaobo on receiving the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize. Liu Xiaobo’s intellectual independence, moral courage, and thoughtful advocacy of democratic approaches to China’s challenges have won him deep respect in his own country and abroad.

      Among his many contributions to the advance of democratic ideas and values in China have been his work as editor of Democratic China magazine (English via GoogleTranslate) for several years until his arrest in 2008, and serving two terms as President of the Independent Chinese PEN Center, from 2003 to 2007. NED is pleased to have been able to provide grant support to both organizations for their activities supporting free inquiry and freedom of expression over the years.

      NED unites with supporters of fundamental human rights worldwide in calling for Liu Xiaobo’s release from prison and for respect for freedom of association, freedom of assembly, and freedom of the press in China.”

      Uhhh… Where does it say that they are funding LXB and Zhongguo Minzhu??? Can you specifically show me… thanks..

  21. The John says:

    Hey Voice of China,

    I love China and it’s people.

    I am 100% respectful to them.

    I do hate the China bashing as well.

    However, I feel that lowering yourself to their level, makes you look just as silly.

    You seem to be a really smart and put together individual. However, all of your words and arguments lose credibility when you call others, “bitch” and so on.

    I ignore most idiots and speak my peace.

    The fact that you feel the need to defend China from the great China bashers just shows immaturity. Just as much as those who choose to bash in first place.

    Again, I don’t feel that the Nobel committee was deliberately trying to cause problems. Also, I think that you can’t say that all of China’s government is perfect and doesn’t need change. If you do, then you are not a real supporter of your country. Seeking change and improvement is something all people should do, if it’s reasonable.

    Just like I think America has a looooot of things it needs to improve. I feel the same for the Chinese government and there is no shame in admitting that.

    I still think that Chinese should feel proud of winning the Nobel Peace prize. I don’t think Mr. LXB is an evil man. I believe that on paper, what he wants sounds reasonable. At the same time, I don’t agree with everything he said. Despite this, I have never seen him seek a revolution or violence. If you have any evidence of such, please show me.

    Yes, he broke the law. He knows what comes with breaking the law. However, questioning the existence of such laws is still important. I think Americans should question their laws as well. I don’t agree with blind acceptance. No one should…

    • Mark says:

      Did you eat shit for breakfast, lunch, and dinner?Your relativist crap is very transparent. I and others make no apology for demanding that the worlds second largest economy begin to respect individual human rights, and become open to voices from internal opposition. What China is doing to those brave enough to speak out for justice is obscene.

      With respect to the law there are higher laws, and one must look at who made the laws and why. In this case the law is wrong and immoral, and should be broken, as should any law that enslaves the natural rights of mankind.

      • The John says:

        By the way, ONE OF the best ways to discredit someone is to examine their work and to discredit it. To display the fallicies of it. This is not only a good method, but it also saves a lot of time and BS. I think if someone takes a piece of work and proves it to be non-sense, it doesn’t have much legs to stand on. Unfortunately, on both sides, no one is actually sitting down and reading the man’s work. So, we have a bunch of name calling and pointing fingers.

        I never said, I supported his being in jail. I did say… that he knows Chinese law and knew the possible punishment of what he was doing. At the same time, I said that…. ha ha ha, you know what… you’re not even worth the time…

        Im out peace…

        • Mark says:

          I read his work long time ago. Just want you to wake up and realize that there are things worth taking a stand over, and yea disrupting the social harmony over. Smile

          • Aodaliya Ren says:

            Want him to wake up?

            You’ll stand by idle while your own government sweeps under the carpet the greatest attack on democracy on your own soil. Where is your disruptive social spirit in relation to the truth that is left unaswered in relation to that.

            Perhaps it would be better to forget about it and fight a battle on another continent………….typical.

        • Voice of China says:

          Yes, but to discredit someone’s work by displaying the fallacies, you are giving unnecessary merit and attention to it. That would be counterproductive to China’s needs.

      • Voice of China says:

        Now please explain in 3000 words what law he broke, the causal elements, and why it should be repealed.

        Dumbass!

      • Aodaliya Ren says:

        Eat shit for breakfast, lunch and dinner?

        The U.S. Patriot Act I guess this could be one of those laws that is wrong?
        An act depriving basic rights for immigrants in America, including legal permanent residents, and for permitting authorities to indefinitely detain upon certain evidence.

        Okay I seem to be understanding you better now, we in the west have a moral obligation to demand that the world’s second largest economy begins to respect human right.

        What is wrong with this picture?

      • Jerry says:

        I agree with Mark, A Ren.

        The Patriot Acts I and II are crap. But Americans are working to change those laws. EFF, EPIC, ACLU and ADL, to name a few, are using America’s institutions and rule of law to change things. We are concerned.

        China’s governance is tyrannical, brutal, autocratic and dictatorial and has no such institutions and checks and balances. Who in China is opposing them?

        A. Ren, it sounds like you love what is going on in China.

        I have problems with the US on a number of privacy and constitutional issues. I have even more issues with the bastard ChiCommies running China. All at the same time.

        Perhaps, A. Ren, perhaps you do not have the intellectual chops to oppose tyranny wherever you find it, as long as it is not china.

        Too bad and so sad. Tyranny must be opposed where it appears.

        Some American you are! In fact, I doubt that you are American or Western. Are you wumao?

        • Aodaliya Ren says:

          V.I. Lenin coined fools like yourself “Useful idiots”.

          A democracy needs informed citizens if it is to thrive, or ultimately even survive.
          American democracy is being dismantled, piece by piece, before your very eyes by the current administration in Washington, and few of you seem to be concerned about it.

          BP – Just where in the Constitution of the United States does it say that a president has the authority to extract vast sums of money from a private enterprise and distribute it as he sees fit to whomever he deems worthy of compensation? Nowhere.

          But your government is supposed to be “a government of laws and not of men.”

          If your laws and your institutions determine that BP ought to pay $20 billion — or $50 billion or $100 billion — then so be it.

          But the Constitution says that private property is not to be confiscated by the government without “due process of law.”

          Technically, it has not been confiscated by Barack Obama, but that is a distinction without a difference.

          With vastly expanded powers of government available at the discretion of politicians and bureaucrats, private individuals and organizations can be forced into accepting the imposition of powers that were never granted to the government by the Constitution.

          If you believe that the end justifies the means, then you don’t believe in constitutional government.

          I am proud to say I am not meiguo ren, I am what my names states aodaliya ren.

          • Mark says:

            Obama is lawyer and was a professor of constitutional law for many years. There is no expressed power that allows Obama to demand money from corporations. There is also no specific prohibition to the president using what is called the “bully pulpit” of the presidency to get corporations and individual to do the right thing. Obama was able to make demands because as president he knew that with the people on his side BP was in a weak position in terms of public relations and that it would be more expedient for BP to do what he wanted than get in a public fight.

            The president, as does any private citizen, has the right to ask for anything or even demand it, but if the demands are not orders to the executive branch, or the military or are not legal there is no reason for anyone else to do what he wants except out of respect for his office and the influence he has to draw attention to an issue. Of course in an emergency the president can take other actions but such powers are almost never used as they would discredit the president if that power were abused.

            BP always had the right to say no, or even to take it to the courts. No doubt, the British government raised those issues and were told by the administration that if they wanted to defy the president then they would have to deal with a very angry congress ready to pass laws to punish BP and the rest of the oil industry.

  22. georgeson says:

    I don’t think it is an insult to this award. China doesn’t have to show any anger to this event. As we know, most Nobel Prizes are for people who make great achievement in scientific areas which are actually beyond politics, nationality, gender, and race. These are just beautiful things. However, the existence of Nobel Peace Prize is just a joke. Why? Peace is a good thing, right? Why do I say this Prize is a joke? OK, let’s first explain the definition of peace.

    Peace is a word versus war. If there is no war, then there is no peace. So before defining what is peace, let’s define what is war. In human’s devil history, you can hardly find a year in which there is not any war on this planet. The goals of wars are often interests of a small part of group of humans who control and administrate other people in their group. So wars often happen between two or more groups of humans. Humans in each group usually think they represent the justice (although this is not always true because many people do not want to die in the war). So each group wants to defeat the others and they use “peace” to name the situation after the war. Therefore, anyone that is firmly on their side (for any reason) would be considered a representative of peace by this group of people. So the problem comes. There are always multiple groups of people that potentially compete (or even fight) with each other. A peace representative in one group will be never considered a peace representative in his/her opponent group.

    Nobel Prizes are developed in the western countries. The ridiculous thing that I introduced above seldom occurs in other Prizes because those are for scientists. But it definitely leads to a joke on the Nobel Peace Prize.

    • The John says:

      What about people that promote peace with using war to justify it?

      Yes, we have knowledge of peace, because of the existence of war.

      However, can you honestly tell me that peace needs war in order to exist in the future?

      I think the peace prize is not just about shouting, “peace.” That word in itself is not very important.

      I think the NPP is about the promotion of goodwill and values that (hopefully) can prevent war from occuring more frequently in the future.

      • The John says:

        ^without

      • georgeson says:

        Well, Mr. John,

        You are encouraged to have your own explanation of peace. But your “peace” may be not my “peace”. I hate to play word games. I guess what you mean by “peace” might be realized one day when there is only one political conception on this planet, that is, Communism. I never say communism is unreal. I just think it’s a really good dream that is the only way to realize what you mean by peace. Karl Marx ignored something very important when he proposed the beautiful communist idea:

        1) people are selfish in nature though they can be educated (or in some people’s words sometimes called brainwash).

        2) people are different in both IQ and EQ which unfortunately determines the communist education may not be very successful on some people within a certain period of time, although with appropriate methods and enough time they may be converted. There still seems to be hope.

        3) However, the most embarrassed thing is people’s life are limited. Nobody can live forever. This is one of the most important nature that Karl Marx overlooked. This causes communist education fail among some people because they cannot live for more than a thousand years.

        4) people’s mind might change. For discussion, let’s just throw out any prejudice or attitude on which kind of politics or conception is correct. Democratic politics will be knocked out first here. Because people are not in uniform mind, therefore frequent election will cause someone against communism to be the leader sooner or later. Will dictatorial politics survive longer? Unfortunately, nope! This is because any leader who firmly advocates communism will die one day. And his successor will be not necessarily supporting his idea. So the only hope is to wait for those smart biologists patiently. Maybe one day they can make humans live forever. At that time, it is possible to realize communism.

        Once communism is realized, you will see peace that you mean. However, we don’t see any hope of making humans immortal. So we don’t see any hope of having a communist world for now. So your peace…I hate to call your peace my peace any more. Let’s just call your peace “absolute peace” and my peace “relative peace”, do you think it OK? I hope so. So the absolute peace will come true when there is only a communist world on this planet and humans become immortal. If we want to face the reality at this moment, we can only talk about the relative peace that I already introduced in my previous post.

        Hope all these helpful. Thanks!

        • The John says:

          I appreciate your post without insults…

          Anyway, I don’t think there has been a perfect case of communism in human history. Surely, China is NOT communist right now. I think the ideals of communism are really appealing. It looks amazing, however we have never seen a perfect implentation of it AND peace. In fact, it has been perverted and misused as well. Then again, we can argue that this wasn’t true communism???

          I think that peace can exist in the world.

          At the same time, I respect your opinion on our different ideas of peace.

          I think I cannot really continue to debate with you. Not, because you are unreasonable. Simply, because our understandings are on opposite ends.

          You believe that the human nature is selfish. I disagree. I believe that humans need to live in groups to survive and the more selfless we learn to be, the more we benefit the group. Unfortunately, this is going to turn into a huge debate.

          I would rather agree to disagree and thank you for your intellect.

        • georgeson says:

          I just found a good song for you. The guy’s name is also John.
          🙂


          John Lennon – Imagine

          Imagine there’s no heaven
          It’s easy if you try
          No hell below us
          Above us only sky
          Imagine all the people
          Living for today…

          Imagine there’s no countries
          It isn’t hard to do
          Nothing to kill or die for
          And no religion too
          Imagine all the people
          Living life in peace…

          You may say I’m a dreamer
          But I’m not the only one
          I hope someday you’ll join us
          And the world will be as one

          Imagine no possessions
          I wonder if you can
          No need for greed or hunger
          A brotherhood of man
          Imagine all the people
          Sharing all the world…

          You may say I’m a dreamer
          But I’m not the only one
          I hope someday you’ll join us
          And the world will live as one

          Look at the lyrics. And then look at the title. Think hard why the title is “Imagine”…

          • The John says:

            Ha ha ha, nice one!

            I am a big beatles fan.

            For this one, it’s better if John and Ono tell you themselves:

            In a 1980 interview with David Sheff for Playboy magazine, Lennon remarks on the message of “Imagine”:

            Sheff: On a new album, you close with “Hard Times Are Over (For a While)”. Why?

            Lennon: It’s not a new message: “Give Peace a Chance” — we’re not being unreasonable. Just saying “give it a chance.” With “Imagine” we’re asking, “can you imagine a world without countries or religions?” It’s the same message over and over. And it’s positive.

            Ono indicated that the lyrical content of “Imagine” was “just what John believed — that we are all one country, one world, one people. He wanted to get that idea out.”

            It’s not hard to imagine… At least for me… But, im not the only one…

            Damn, that song is stuck in my head

        • Mark says:

          The genius of many Western democratic traditions was not to worry about the nature of the individual but rather to proscribe expected rules of conduct for all individuals and groups based on a common law, which include the right to free speech, religion, and the right to assemble.

  23. Andy says:

    congratualations China! 中國太厲害

  24. Wilson says:

    @ The John:

    http://www.ned.org/where-we-work/asia/china

    LXB is the head of the magazine and the PEN centre.

    More NED deception: http://www.cato.org/pubs/fpbriefs/fpb-027.html

    • The John says:

      Thanks a lot. Upon further reading the NED is extremely shady.

      I now know that they have donated to the Chinese PEN centre. However, they did not start the PEN centre. It was started by a group of Chinese writers. You cannot blame the west for their efforts. NED did not come to China and ask them to set up this group. At the same time it doesn’t state that LXB himself was funded from PEN.

      He was an editor for Democratic China, not a leader for the magazine. Also, the magazine was not created by PEN.

      While, I don’t agree with PEN’s methods. I don’t think the examples you provide allows me to paint a bad picture of LXB.

      On the other hand, as I said before: I don’t agree with everything he said. However, I do think that examining his work, before dismissing it is useful. I don’t think everything he has stated can work in modern day China. However, his desire for human rights is something to be respected…

      • The John says:

        Correction:

        Thanks a lot. Upon further reading the NED is extremely shady.

        I now know that they have donated to the Chinese PEN centre. However, they did not start the PEN centre. It was started by a group of Chinese writers. You cannot blame the west for their efforts. NED did not come to China and ask them to set up this group. At the same time it doesn’t state that LXB himself was funded from PEN.

        He was an editor for Democratic China, not a leader for the magazine. Also, the magazine was not created by NED.

        While, I don’t agree with NED’s methods. I don’t think the examples you provide allows me to paint a bad picture of LXB.

        On the other hand, as I said before: I don’t agree with everything he said. However, I do think that examining his work, before dismissing it is useful. I don’t think everything he has stated can work in modern day China. However, his desire for human rights is something to be respected…

  25. Wilson says:

    @The John

    I have no problem with Chinese activists starting their own organization but when they starts accepting foreign quasi-governmental organization like NED, it is like giving your own self-determination on the issues the activists are doing out of the window.

    • georgeson says:

      Something like you submit your paper to your father’s journal. Your father is the editor, your mom is the reviewer, and the paper is accepted for publication in a second…

  26. hehe says:

    On Liu:

    In a 1988 interview with Hong Kong’s Liberation Monthly (now known as Open Magazine), Liu was asked what it would take for China to realize a true historical transformation. He replied in this way: “(It would take) 300 years of colonialism. In 100 years of colonialism, Hong Kong has changed to what we see today. With China being so big, of course it would take 300 years of colonialism for it to be able to transform into how Hong Kong is today. I have my doubts as to whether 300 years would be enough.”

    On the Nobel ‘Peace’ prize:
    “…one part to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.”

    Paris, 27 November, 1895
    Alfred Bernhard Nobel (extract from the will)

    On the ‘Independent’ Nobel Peace Committee Members:

    Thorbjørn Jagland: Chair of the Nobel Committee. Secretary-general Council of Europe.
    President of the Storting. 2005-2009. Prime Minister 1996-1997. Foreign Minister
    2000-2001. Member of the Storting 1993-2009. Member of the Committee since 2009, appointed for the period 2009-2014.

    Kaci Kullmann Five : Deputy chair of the Nobel Committee.
    Self employed Advisor Public Affairs. Chairman of the Young Conservatives, 1977-79. Member of the Storting, 1981-97. Cabinet Minister for Trade, Shipping and European Affairs, 1989-90. Chairman of the Conservative Party, 1991-94.
    Member of the Committee since 2003, reappointed for the period 2009-2014.

    Sissel Marie Rønbeck :Chairman Social Democratic Youth (AUF) 1975-1977. Member of the Storting 1977-1993. Cabinet Minister 1979-81, 1986-89 and 1996-97.
    Member of the Committee since 1994, reappointed for the period 2006-2011.

    Inger-Marie Ytterhorn: Senior political adviser to the Progress Party’s parliamentary group. Member of the Storting, 1989-93. Member of the Election Law Ad hoc committee 1998-2001.
    Member of the Committee since 2000, reappointed for the period 2006-2011.

    Ågot Valle:Member of the Storting 1997-2009. President of the Odelsting 2001-2005.
    Member of the Committee since 2009, appointed for the period 2009-2014.

    On how have the retired ‘viking’ politicians become the members?

    In late 1948, the committee was made proportional with parliamentary representation of Norwegian political parties. Member seats are allocated accordingly. The practice was cemented by The Norwegian Labour Party, which controlled a simple majority of seats in the Norwegian Parliament.

  27. Bob says:

    Liu Xiaobo, Hu Jia, and other dissidents etc deserve freedom of speech/democracy/human rights prize, but not the peace prize. By awarding him the peace prize, the Norwegians promoted their political views, not fraternity between nations.

    • Mark says:

      I challenge you to work harder to understand why Liu richly deserves the peace prize. The Norwegians understand that when all people have the freedom to disagree publicly with their governments without arrest or punishment we are all closer to real fraternity between nations. When millions of people are treated like children and deprived of their basic human rights, and lied to, and manipulated it is a threat to all nations.

      • Bob says:

        Yes, western style democracies are peaceful and treat other nations with respect as equals. China hasn’t been at war in 40 years. When was the last time a western nation has been at war? When was the last time another Nobel Laureate has been at war?

        • Al Jensen says:

          When was the last time Norway went to war?

        • Mark says:

          The peaceful rise myth is getting as tiresome as the adjunct social harmony claim. What is so harmonious about throwing a guy in jail for writing the truth?

          What is so peaceful about pointing guns at your neighbors when they try to enforce their fishing laws in their own waters?

          What is so peaceful about turning Tibet into an armed camp and beating and killing anyone who dares to speak out against it?

          • Bob says:

            The difference between China and the west is China doesn’t go to other nations and arrest their citizens; China doesn’t point guns at countries half way across the world; China doesn’t turn regions outside of its administration into armed camps; And former Chinese politicians don’t form a committee and award prizes to agitators to promote their own world view =p

            I am not being paid 50c to promote authoritarianism in China, nor do I think Liu Xiaobo is a bad dude who deserves 11 years in prison. I just think members of Norwegian Nobel Committee are high horsed hypocrites counterproductive to actual progress in China.

            • Huzhang says:

              Probably the most level minded comment here

            • Mark says:

              “regions outside of its administration”….well if you claim entire seas and other ethnic groups, and their territory as being Chinese, and rob them of their right to self determination, their own language, religion and culture then at best China remains internally consistent with its own lies.

              We have gone to China’s peaceful rise to its ok to be a bully as long as you are only killing, beating, and exploiting who you claim are your own people even if they view it otherwise.

              • Bob says:

                If you want to talk about history: it wasn’t until the second decade of the twentieth century did the intermittent Indian Wars come to a close (only 22 years prior to Chicom’s invasion of Tibet). We’re talking about dozens of indigenous cultures with first claims on their territory being annexed. And it wasn’t as if the US’s claim to half of North America is as legitimate as 200 years of administration under the Qing dynasty. Tibet and Xinjiang were under Chinese control before the United States was even proclaimed. Keep in mind these wars were conducted by a nation founded on democratic principles. Democracy != peace.

                If you want to talk about policy: The Chinese are treating their ethnic minorities not too shabbily if they cause no trouble. Schools in ethnic areas are still teaching minority languages, where as most Native American languages are now extinct; University admissions quotas are highly skewed in favour of minorities; and the one child policy doesn’t even apply to them. Just because Han immigrants are achieving economic success in Tibet and Xinjiang doesn’t mean there is some sort of conspiracy, Han Chinese are doing equally well economically in South Asia and Africa, and Aboriginals are doing just as badly in North America and Australia. There are 55 minority groups in China, but we only hear about oppression against the two with separatist (or self-determinist, free Tibet, or whatever) movements supported from abroad, clearly, it is not simply “cultural genocide”.

                The reality now is that every single nation, western democracy or not, recognizes China’s sovereignty over Xinjiang and Tibet, and the west does not even have a unified plan by supporting these different anti-CCP forces whose goals are not compatible with each other and are contradictory to stated western policies. Even if China becomes a democracy, it doesn’t mean it will relinquish Tibet, Xinjiang, or Taiwan. Even if Tibetan/Xinjiang independence is achieved, what are they going to do? Reverse the Han migration by deporting the 40% of the regions’ population back to the Central Plains in order to preserve indigenous culture lol? Just like the US’s sovereignty over any given piece of its own territory, China’s sovereignty over Tibet and Xinjiang should be accepted as historic reality that cannot be reversed.

                As for Paracel, Spratly, and Senkaku disputes, Chinese claims are outrageously far away from its coasts, but pales in comparison with The US’s set of insular areas scattered areas across the world or the UK’s similar collection of overseas territories. These islands are not even populated, just a geopolitical version of dick fencing.

                • Mark says:

                  Empires come and go Bob. The U.S. defended China when it was being raped by the Japs, and defended its sovereignty before that when the Japs, Russians, and Europeans were carving it up into zones and concessions.

                  Once upon a time Poland was a part of Russia, and the Ukraine and Georgia were part of the Soviet Union.

                  The CCP taking over China after WWII just extended the life of the Chinese Empire as did the Soviet Union for the Russian Empire of the czars.

                  China’s so called ancient claim to Tibet was just as pro forma as England’s claim to parts of France in the middle ages. In fact the Chinese Emperor claimed dominion over every group of people the Chinese ever came into contact with, before they turned their backs on the rest of the world. When Chinese admirals visited Africa and the Middle East in 14- something they asked every sovereign to declare themselves vassals and servants of the Emperor of China. Spain did the same thing when it discovered America…. The fact that hundreds of years ago for a few years the Tibetans paid tribute to China means nothing just as it means nothing that a few kings of France argued with the King of England over Normandy and some other regions in France.

                  As far as population settlement goes that’s another story. A lot of Russians now live in the Ukraine nation, and lots of Germans died when the borders of places like Poland were redrawn and they were forced out after WWII.

                  Furthermore, it turns out Tibetans have a gene that allows them to survive at high altitudes, giving them fewer blood cells, that most Han Chinese do not have. Lack of the gene increases infant mortality, and other diseases starting from birth. What politics can not do perhaps nature will do. The Han are only there to make money anyways, so when they discover that their precious little emperors are at a huge disadvantage health wise, maybe they will start to go other places.

                  I mean does Japan still have a claim on Taiwan and Manchuria because the Chinese gov was forced to sign them over to Japan?

                  • Bob says:

                    The fact is China controls Tibet now, just as Poland is now not a part of Russia, and Ukraine and Georgia is now not a part of the Soviet Union where as Japan does control Taiwan or Manchuria now.

                    The fact is, the present situation in Tibet is not going to change no matter how much people cry about it. Just like the United States isn’t just going to relinquish control of Aboriginal lands, pack up, and move back to the 13 colonies (or England).

                    China’s historic control or non control over Tibet is comparable as the United State’s historic control or non control over native lands, both of which are non-issues today. China’s current control over Tibet is just as firm as the United State’s current control over native lands, and that is all that matters. In the future, maybe the geopolitical situation might change, maybe India becomes next super power and causes Tibet to declare independence Mongolia style, who the fuck knows, but now, Tibet is part of China, and no matter how many heads of state his holiness meets, no matter how many celebrities donate to Dharamsala, it is not going to change anything fundamental.

                    So, there is no point bashing, as nothing will change. And there is no point arguing that a democracy will not “claim entire seas and other ethnic groups, and their territory as being [American], and rob them of their right to self determination, their own language, religion and culture”, because the United States did exactly that as an emerging power in the 19th century.

                    Even if China were to become democratic today, territorial disputes in the South and East China Sea will not magically be resolved, Han Chinese will still go to Tibet and dilute their culture.

                    • Bob says:

                      doesn’t*

                    • Mark says:

                      Since China’s claim is so legit and historic, and has always been a part of China that’s why China invaded Tibet in the 50’s and killed millions of Tibetans.

                    • Voice of China says:

                      You mean the abolishment of the feudal system after the uprising of the dalai lama funded by the CIA resulting in his exile?

                    • Aodaliya Ren says:

                      It was obvious that 1959 Tibet rebellion was all planned by American government

                      Form there on, America has been continuously backing the independent movement of Tibet all along. A movie “Seven Years in Tibet” produced by U.S. fooled the American with distorted historical facts. Funding was poured into foundations in U.S. to continue the anti-Chinese activities.

                      Millions of files in both Chinese and Tibetan recording historical facts over more than seven centuries are being kept in the archives of Beijing, Nanjing and Lhasa. No government of any country in the world has ever recognized Tibet as an independent state. Atleast not until 1949 when America announced in a US newspaper: ” The United States is ready to recognize Tibet as an independent and free country.”

                    • Mark says:

                      You make many assumptions. With respect to what we call the American Indians or native Americans our relations with them are governed by treaties. The fact that there are treaties is a legal recognition of native American autonomy and sovereignty. American Indian tribes are free to have their own schools, religions, and languages, and are self governing. Many tribes issue their own passports, and most American Indians have refused American citizenship. What this means for the future is not known. However, the potential for large separate nations with the United States does exist depending on the economic success, and fertility of Native Americans.

                      Americans took native American lands in much the same way as it took land from Mexico which was by war and then treaties. Where are China’s treaties with Tibet? What happened when the Dali Lama asked for autonomy?

          • Wilson says:

            @Ignorant Mark

            “A 1997 fisheries agreement allows both sides’ fishermen to operate free of regulation around the islands. So it’s not clear why the Japanese coast guard needed to stop the Chinese boat.

            http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704644404575481172425189824.html

            Too bad on sucking Japanese propaganda.

            • Mark says:

              Referring to all the other incidents where Chinese fishery boats and Chinese Navy used force against the Vietnamese and Philippines who were enforcing their laws within their territorial waters.

        • GuoBao says:

          Not really a valid argument. Even high level Chinese leaders have expressed concern that China is already too big to run efficiently, to give everyone the same chances and to keep fringe groups acting for the common good. I’ll take your 40 years as an example,, in the entire world how many wars between truly democratic nations has there been?

          • Bob says:

            You are talking about the democratic peace theory

            Form of government does not mean a change in geopolitics, nor does it stop nationalism.

            Most famous examples would be
            South Ossetia war
            Thailand Cambodia conflicts
            Constant India Pakistan wars
            Israel and Lebanon
            Nor did being a democracy stopped the US from inciting coups all over the world, nor did it stop France from fighting to retain its colonial holdings in Indochina.

            You can argue that some of these belligerents are not true or mature democracies, but then there can only be about a dozen true democracies in the world, most of which have majority populations of European descent and are in a military alliance called NATO lol.

            I don’t think if a country suddenly becomes a democracy, it would give up all of its disputes with its neighbours.

  28. Wilson says:

    @Bob

    Norwegian didn’t vote the Nobel Peace Prize. Dalai Lama and his pal Desmond Tutu was the two of the five members that voted for Liu based on their own agenda.

    • Huzhang says:

      What? No one gets to vote, it’s just the 5 Norwegian guys that come to a decision.

      • Mark says:

        They wanted to draw attention to a certain issue and it worked. Now its only a matter of time before every Chinese person will know about what happened to Liu and what he wrote, that is the real reason behind the CCP’s rage.

        • Bob says:

          Of course, highlighting Tibetan issues by disrupting the 2008 Olympic torch relay did wonders to unite the average Chinese with Reporters with Borders against the oppression of the CCP.

          • Mark says:

            I know some Tibetan women who smacked Chinese women in the face at the torch relay in San Francisco. If the Nobel prize was a smack in the face to some Chinese maybe they needed it.

            None of this is new Bob. Roosevelt told the Japanese to get out of China, and cut off their oil when they refused to do it. That was a smack in the face to the Japanese Empire. People stood up and let the Nazis know they did not like what they were doing to the Jews in Germany before the war. That was a smack in the face to the Third Reich.

            • Bob says:

              All the progress made by western democracy advancing their goals in China peaked during 1989 protests; any further western attempts pushing for human rights and other gaffes completely reversed in direction and ended up alienating the Chinese more winning them over (Dalai Lama’s Nobel Prize, Belgrade embassy bombing, Falun Gong, Hainan spy plane, Lhasa riots coverage, Olympics). This attempt is no different.

              Western policy makers needs to understand that there is no unified voice in all Chinese calling for freedom at any cost. The Chinese are not going to take democracy if it means losing territorial integrity or being subjugated politically by the west. China is a great power, it won’t be content being under the control of the US like Japan or Korea, nor does it want to break up like the Soviet Union.

              By supporting groups solely because they are anti-CCP, regardless of whether they are anti-China in general (Tibet, Xinjiang, Taiwan, and Falun Gong), Western governments projects the image to the Chinese that they are either more interested in the undermining China than to help it, or that they are merely using Chinese issues to take a stance in front of a domestic audience.

              • Mark says:

                Interesting. The west was taken by surprise by the student demonstrations that coalesced at Tienanmen Square. The protests followed earlier student protests in Chinese history that were significant in changing China’s course. What started as a student protest in the end became a general uprising of the people of Beijing against the central government, when it became clear that the government was going to use force against the flower of the Chinese people. When the population was able to neutralize the local army which had local ties the uprising was showing classic signs of turning into a revolution. We know all this because the western media was there reporting events as they unfolded.

                Just because current CCP has repressed the true history of a peoples revolt against its corruption, and yes the people turned to symbols they associated with democracy that are western does not mean that a popular revolt was western interference and manipulation.

                Your logic is if CCP says its bad it must be Western.

                • Bob says:

                  The student demonstrations were a excellent display of western soft power, which failed to capture similar support afterwards. Not everything the west does is bad. When it took a largely hands off approach to domestic issues in China and supported China against the Soviets, it made significant gains, but after it took a more proactive approach, supporting any and all groups that wishes the overthrow against the CCP, including separatist groups that work against Chinese national interests, it didn’t work as well. Perhaps as Chinese cities became richer, the difference in lives between Chinese and Americans grew narrower (or just blame it on censorship, but I am sure the same type of people who would protest in 1989 can circumvent the Great Wall with ease)

                  As for calling it a revolution, if it was a successful revolution with enough support, it would have succeeded =p, but the protests were largely a splintered collection of idealists with different gripes against the CCP of the day, some were pro-west, calling for more democracy, some were pro-socialism, calling for an end to capitalism. It was also largely confined to major cities, which is not where most of the population of China lives.

                  • Mark says:

                    You are trying to fit the facts into some grand theory about soft power. NGO’s etc were never a factor in the Beijing uprising.

                    I never called it a revolution. I wrote the uprising was taking on the classic signs of becoming a revolution. When we in the west saw the people of Beijing organize and gather to stop an armored column with their bodies and bicycles, and later angry citizens assaulting armored personnel carriers with fire bombs that can usually be considered the first stage of revolutionary change.

                    My understanding was that many of the students were not from the cities or even China’s best schools. Furthermore, at that point there were not the sharp divisions between urban dwellers and rural folk as are true today. Also, the students were speaking for all of China just as earlier student groups anti Japanese rallies etc, demanded reform at other points in modern Chinese history. Your elitist point of view while interesting does not fit the situation at that time.

                    In spite of CCP and Bolshevik myths most if not all revolutions have been urban in nature. Revolution and revolt are a natural dynamic to the urban landscape. One only need study the history of Paris to understand that.

                    I suppose you think Hollywood set up the burning armor and crushed bodies?

                    • Bob says:

                      Are you arguing against my post? Did I say NGOs were a factor in 1989? Did I say it was not a “revolution”? Did I say the students were from the best school? Did I say there was division between urban and rural dwellers of the day? Did I say revolution has to be urban in nature? I believe you sir, have been blinded by a desire to win “the argument”, that you started picking at non-existing holes in things I didn’t say.

                      All I said was 1989 was unsuccessful because the movement was fragmented and confined to only the urban middle class segment of the Chinese population, it did not address the concerns of the rural population or lower classes

                      I also said that Western strategy of formenting reform in China needs change if it were to succeed. It needs a more directed and less fragmented approach at winning over Chinese people as oppose to undermining China’s national ambitions. It needs to distance itself from fringe groups and separatist movements not popular in China, and focus on advancing China’s interests in both ways that the CCP can do, and ways it cannot.

                    • Mark says:

                      It’s late here. I shall give it a fresh look later.

                    • Mark says:

                      Your analysis has potential with respect to the uprising and western engagement with China. Only time will tell in terms of what was the most effective course in terms of China engagement. I feel the only thing the CCP understands is the same iron rod they use on others.

                      In terms of revolutions, the few real revolutions were broad popular coalitions that narrowed over time which were full of fringe elements.

  29. xino says:

    wow! i really feel sorry for Chinese people and I’m glad I’m not living there!

    Being controlled by their governments, governments not caring for them while they are in poverty and running Black jails.

  30. Voice of China says:

    Hi Bob, good to see someone can still be bothered talking history in a troll forum. I hope you get the responses you want. Unlikely, but still…………..

  31. Basic Economics says:

    A democratic government can never compete with a authoritarian government. Thats why the USA dedicates itself on spreading democracy to each and every country. Under democracy economic growth stagnates so no country will ever be able to catch up to the USA giving them the greatest living standards in the world forever and forever.

    A democratic society is often regarded as a prerequisite for economic growth and development. Yet, most empirical studies are not capable of identifying a positive link between GDP growth and democracy indexes. In addition, it is a stylized empirical fact that: (i) most developing countries are dictatorships; and (ii) many poor dictatorships have experienced high growth performances and emerged from poverty such as South Korea, China and Egypt. Against this background, it is of interest to analyse in which ways the growth performance between autocratic and democratic economies may differ, in particular among low-income countries…

    We demonstrate that poor but large and stable dictatorships exhibit a higher equilibrium growth rate than comparable (equally poor) democracies. Moreover, there exists a particular threshold value in income such that the growth-reducing impact of dictatorial consumption (corruption) outweighs the higher (initial) public investments. Above this, the growth rate under democracy dominates the one in dictatorship.

    • Mark says:

      Yeah they go great until they crash and burn. The trains ran on time under Mussolini.

      • Al Jensen says:

        There was a recent study that showed that the trains didn’t actually run on time under Mussolini, or at least the train service wasn’t any more punctual than it had been before.

        • Mark says:

          To some degree I’m willing to believe you can get the trains to run on time for a while, if the government is willing to send the offending persons to a gulag or shot them.

          In the end after you have shot or exiled every capable person who made a mistake then the cover ups and lies begin. Once all the capable people have been driven out you are left with the liars and cheats, and they protect each other and create their own reality.

          Most recent example I cite article from NY times about how fraud and plagiarism could threaten China’s development

          http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/07/world/asia/07fraud.html

          http://www.scidev.net/en/health/editorials/china-must-address-the-roots-of-scientific-fraud.html

          My mentioning the trains was more about the myth of the trains than the reality. Once again people are being seduced by certain myths about growth.

          • Basic economics says:

            Academic fraud happens in every country, China has more reasearchers therefore they will have more fraud.

            There is pelnty of academic fraud in the USA

            Academic fraud has nothing to do with democracy or authoritarianism

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

            The first scholarly studies in the 1960s of academic dishonesty in higher education found that nationally in the U.S., somewhere between 50%-70% of college students had cheated at least once.[8] While nationally, these rates of cheating in the U.S. remain stable today, there are large disparities between different schools, depending on the size, selectivity, and anti-cheating policies of the school. Generally, the smaller and more selective the college, the less cheating occurs there. For instance, the number of students who have engaged in academic dishonesty at small elite liberal arts colleges can be as low as 15%-20%, while cheating at large public universities can be as high as 75%.[9] Moreover, researchers have found that students who attend a school with an honor code are less likely to cheat than students at schools with other ways of enforcing academic integrity.[10] As for graduate education, a recent study found that 56% of MBA students admitted cheating, along with 54% of graduate students in engineering, 48% in education, and 45% in law.[11]

            With the advancement of the internet, there are now several tools available to aid in the detection of plagiarism and multiple publication within biomedical literature. One tool developed in 2006 by researchers in Dr. Harold Garner’s laboratory at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas is Déjà Vu, an open-access database containing several thousand instances of duplicate publication.

            There are limitations to relying on the faculty to police academic dishonesty. One study found that up to 21% of professors have ignored at least one clear cut case of cheating.[79] Another study revealed that 40% of professors “never” report cheating, 54% “seldom” report cheating, and that a mere 6% act on all cases of academic misconduct that confront them.[80] A third survey of professors found that while 79% had observed cheating, only 9% had penalized the student.[81] According to a manual for professors on cheating,

            • Mark says:

              You missed my point. Let me expand on it.

              A government that is based on murder, deception, and authoritarianism, and that is morally bankrupt with a weak, flexible legal system, will produce citizens who are also dishonest, and corrupt.

              To the degree that every Chinese individual comes in contact with the state and becomes complicit with the lies and corruption they are tainted, and have compromised their own integrity. Today except for the ignorant and blind, there are very few honest men in China, that is the dynamic of a totalitarian regime.

              As I wrote in above post, the liars and cheats protect each other just as the central government protects itself from the rule of law, and virtue, to preserve its own power. The oppression of Liu is a corrupt system protecting its turf. The bad driving out the good.

              • Basic economics says:

                You claim that because the chinese government lies because its authoritarian and it makes the citizens liars?

                What about the USA government? Doesn’t the USA government lie?

                Didn’t the USA government break most of the treaties with the Native Americans and the USSR? Didn’t the USA government lie about human weapons testing, wmd in Iraq, broke its agreements with north korea to provide them with 2 light water reactors in exchange for shutting down Yongbyon? Didn’t Obama welch on his campaign promises? Didn’t Nixon and Bill Clinton both were caught lying in court?

                What evidence do you have that China will become more honest if they become a democracy instead of becoming more like the USA?

                • Mark says:

                  Mao himself had no scruples about the taking of human life, and went so far as to suggest that the sign of a true revolutionary was his desire to kill: “This man Hitler was even more ferocious. The more ferocious the better, don’t you think? The more people you kill, the more revolutionary you are.”

                • Mark says:

                  A government that is based on murder, deception, and authoritarianism, and that is morally bankrupt with a weak, flexible legal system, will produce citizens who are also dishonest, and corrupt.

                  • Basic Economics says:

                    So by your definition the USA along with most of Europe are not democracies because according to you only authoritarian systems can produce dishonest, corrupt liars.

                    Lying is human nature, it has nothing to do with governmental systems. The USA and Europe have both been found lying to their peoples.

                    If China switches to a democracy there will be just as much lying.

                    • Mark says:

                      I did never wrote that only authoritarian systems can produce dishonest, corrupt liars.

                    • Mark says:

                      omit the “did”

                    • Basic Economics says:

                      The entire argument was over democracy in China.

                      I claimed that authoritarian systems have better economies. Posting IMF information and papers by several economists who write about the connection between authoritarianism and economic growth.

                      You bring up academic dishonesty in china making the claim that it is a byproduct of authoritarianism

                      I bring up that the USA has just as many cheaters

                      You say that the Chinese government lies

                      I bring up that the USA government has lied more

                      So clearly China should not switch to democracy as it has little to no effect on the honesty of the populace or government.

                      You lost this debate get over it

                    • Mark says:

                      I never claimed the USA and Europe do not lie to their peoples. By the way you are not fooling anyone pretending to be Basic Economics rather than VOC. Another example of a Chinese scammer/cheat more concerned about face than the truth.

                    • Basic economics says:

                      Amazing right at the point of defeat you start hurling contrived conspiracy theories.

                      I am not Voice of China, in fact the first time that I have ever posted on this board was in this article.

                      In fact just by doing a simple analysis, you can tell from my English that English was my first language. In fact I don’t even speak a word of chinese! While for the posts made by Voice of China you can clearly see that he is not a native speaker nor writer.

    • GuoBao says:

      I’m laughing my ass of over your posts “Basic Economics” since you clearly haven’t got a clue what you’re babbling about. You begin every half wit rant with a statement that even 5 year olds can tell is pure crap, and then you continue down that line completely ignorant of the fact that your base assumption doesn’t hold any water what so ever.

      “A democratic government can never compete with a authoritarian government.”

      I ALMOST can’t be arsed to confront this one but let’s take the two largest conflicts of the last century, one of warfare and one of basic socio-political economics. The democratic allies soundly defeated the authoritarian regime of Nazi Germany and totalitarian/fundamentalist Japan. After that the US and it’s Western allies ran the Soviet Union and it’s many not-so-voluntary allies into the ground.

      • Voice of China says:

        Guo Bao,

        Don’t get too carried away, you finally got one comment right about the most simple economic concept. But you’ve written a hundred half-assed ones too. So I’d re-read what you are responding before being so quick to commit to pressing the submit button.

        • GuoBao says:

          That’s like,, your opinion dude!

          Anyway I’d rather write 100 half-assed ones than 100 full-retard ones as you.

          • Voice of China says:

            More like fact actually… but anyway, I’ll leave you to your usual flaming.

            • GuoBao says:

              Oh thanks. That’s lovely. Does it mean you’ll no longer reply to my posts? Perfect since I was beginning to long for an Ignore-button but with you out of the way I no longer need it. Have a nice life, a biscuit and a couple of mao.

              • Voice of China says:

                I can understand the reference to Mao but what’s with the biscuit?

                If you want to ignore my comments, then just don’t read them.

      • Basic economics says:

        Look at the populations of Japan and Germany compared to the populations of the United States, USSR, France, Britain, India, China, Africa, Canda, Australia etc…

        http://img841.imageshack.us/i/economic20growth.jpg/

        There has been many clear studies by many economists that have shown that economies grow quicker under authoritarian regimes.

        Why do companies decide to move to China instead of India?

        Because the government can make it happen, the government can clear the real estate by relocating people, the government can muster up the resources to provide water and electricity to the factory.

        Companies don’t move to India, particularly manufacturing because the government is unable to provide these things because of red tape, they can’t relocate people

  32. Basic Economics says:

    Heres more evidence on linking Economic prosperity and authoritarian regimes

    This is compiled from IMF figures

    http://i54.tinypic.com/98u008.jpg

    Also Harvard Economist Robert Barro confirms the link between authoritarian regimes and economic prosperity and growth

    http://www.springerlink.com/content/r4823288251720r3/fulltext.pdf

    The USA wants to destroy authoritarian regimes because they want to keep the third world poor.

    • Mark says:

      Most fascists admire authoritarian governments because they appear to be more efficient. Many third world countries are already authoritarian and they are very poor, and show no signs of improving despite continuing to be authoritarian so, your analogy is faulty.

      Culture determines wealth more than politics. As your fellow traveler mentioned the Han do well in every country which is because culture trumps politics. Which is not to say that some cultures are better suited than other cultures to have authoritarian government, although with Russian I’m starting to give up any hope.

      • Basic Economics says:

        Malaysia, Singapore, Burma, Saudia Arabia all have high economic growth rates and they are all considered authoritarian and Malaysia is mostly muslim while there are few chinese in Burma. (Malaysia is supposedly democratic except that they don’t have any freedom of speech or movement etc…)

        And you are wrong most of the third world, most of Africa + South America are democracies

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Forms_of_government.svg

        As you can see from the map most of Africa does some form of Democracy the only dictatorship parts are the green ones

        Russia was much wealthier under the USSR authoritarian regime

        http://www.mrc.org/biasalert/2009/20091008022052.aspx

        : “Since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, Russia has seen an increase in oligarchs and Louis Vuitton outlets. But by many other measures, Russians are worse off.”

        Yes, despite the fact that 20 million people were murdered in Soviet Russia, this unsigned feature in Newsweek contrasted the crime rate under communism, the number of hospitals and the total number of cinemas (among other factors) to those in the country today. Sadly, there are only 1,510 movie theaters today. Under the brutal repression of communism, however, there were 2,337.

        Russian economy only started making a comeback after Vladimir Putin took over and started making Russia less democratic

        The link between Authoritarian governments and economic prosperity, a lot of papers have been written by top economists and they all agree that an authoritarian government is the best for sustainable economic growth

        • Al Jensen says:

          This ignores the fact that the Soviet Union couldn’t pay its own bills or feed its own people, it had to sell oil to Western Europe and import wheat from the USA, its supposedly mortal enemy.

          Chile, Argentina and Brazil are all actually better off economically than China.

          • Mark says:

            In China they are erecting structures no one wants and then tearing them down as quickly as they are built to build newer ones, and all the activity is called growth. Spreads a lot of corrupt money around and makes everyone look good, and who cares its all money that was gotten off the backs of Chinese slave labor making crap for the west.

            • Voice of China says:

              That statement clearly shows your lack of knowledge in the field of economics. Hell, you probably don’t have much knowledge anywhere.

            • Jerry says:

              Good points Mark! Economic structures are very complicated. The ChiCommies are making money on the backs of their poor people, treating them as slaves. Furthermore, they have devastated their natural capital, their ecosystems for money. Congrats, China. Some miracle.

              VOC, I wish I was as smart as you think you are. Thanks for being the troll police. NOT! We don’t need ChiCommie thought policing here! LMAO! 😀

              • Mark says:

                Agree Jerry

                Real growth should factor in damage to workers, and the general population in the form of pollution, and the environment. For example China has a water crises due to the amount of toxic pollution in the rivers and water table. Never the less toxic water is being diverted to the Beijing area to meet demand. More pseudo growth more pseudo progress.

                • Basic Economics says:

                  Let me guess you saw a couple of pictures of China’s pollution and applied it to the entire country.

                  If China is truly as polluted as you say it is, then why is the cancer rate the same as the USA?

                  http://www.wrongdiagnosis.com/c/cancer/stats-country.htm

                  China’s cancer rate

                  5,963,715/1,298,847,624 = 0.00459154322

                  USA’s cancer rate

                  1 348 331 / 293 655 405 = 0.00459154157

                  For comparison purposes Nigeria’s cancer rate

                  81 501 / 125 750 356 = 0.000648117449

                  China is a big country and there are spots that are polluted, but AGAIN there is pollution in every country

                  • baggle says:

                    No argument intended here but I think there are things diagnosed as cancer in the US but are not cancer in order to protect the doctor from lawsuit after he already cut the person open, so less cancer than the records show in the US. In China the records tend to lie to look good so maybe more cancer than reported. Also in China I think many people die from some form of cancer and it is not diagnosed as such so that the doctor can prescribe traditional medicine and waste the patients time.

                    Yes, there is pollution in every country. But Beijing last week was hell!

                    • Basic Economics says:

                      Again I ask you, where are your facts?

                      Lets see you claimed that China had bad air pollution

                      I brought up that China had same cancer rates as most countries (evidence)

                      Now you claim that cancer is defined differently?

                      I am really angry because you are wasting my time, you make crazy claims without any evidence (Anecdotes are not evidence neither are stereotypes)

                      Will this finally shut you up? The world banks has measured average air levels of major cities.

                      http://econ.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/EXTDEC/EXTRESEARCH/0,,contentMDK:20785646~pagePK:64214825~piPK:64214943~theSitePK:469382,00.html

                      Air Pollution in World Cities (PM10 Concentrations)

                      ALL developing countries have air pollution around China’s level, Of note China’s cities have a much higher population density on average so China is actually doing a better job on air pollution than every other developing countries.

                      China is a great country, run by great leaders. Its a shame that you are too full of blind hate to do actual research and all your information from china comes from stories you heard from other people.

                  • Mark says:

                    You assume that cancer rates are the only marker for environmental pollution. Pathologies are manifested in other ways besides cancers, especially with airborne particulates.

                    • Basic Economics says:

                      No but majority of the time the diseases that one gets from pollution are cancer related.

                      There are other things that manifest from pollution, lower life expectancy, increased infant mortality, the prevalence of asthma

                      You can look up the statistics yourself, but China beats most developing countries in all of these fields.

                      But of course you are a China hater and despite my world bank statistics on China’s air quality compared to other countries along or statistics about disease rates from different countries you are going to stick by your downright religious view of China that is a polluted hellhole, with fake GDP growth, fake military, fake scientific research and no future. And somehow managing to fool the entire world into thinking that they are real.

                      And this is why nobody takes China haters like you seriously

                    • Mark says:

                      Since China only began to meet international standards for reporting the amount of pollution in the last two years, which could actually still be suspect, given that Chinese officials have so many incentives to gloss over China’s problems, remember SARS….., I doubt official cancer rates are accurate. Of course suspect data comes from scholars who lie and cheat, within a system that promotes liars and cheaters.

                    • Mark says:

                      Oh and by the way I do not need to look anything up. I stay well informed and read reputable journals and news papers.

                    • Basic economics says:

                      You do realize that every post you make you begin to sound more and more like a Christian Fundamentalist?

                      First you made a crazy claim, sources were brought up disproving you wrong, claim source is invalid, bring up indisputable evidence, makes an argument that is easily shot down. Finally at the end claims that everything is a conspiracy the world bank is working with china to spread disinformation! The person you are talking to is a disinformation agent paid by the chinese government!

                      Just curious what are these reputable journals and newspapers? Because I can bet you 100% that newspapers like the WSJ, ny times etc… will have articles about pollution in the USA and other countries.

                    • Basic economics says:

                      http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2010-08/china-surpasses-us-worlds-fastest-growing-wind-energy-market

                      Furthermore to shatter your crazy claims that China doesn’t care about the enviroment or human lives.

                      China’s annual capacity of wind energy has surpassed the USA despite China having 1/3rd the GDP.

                      In fact China spends more moeny than any other country in the world on green energy.

                      http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/energy/24972/

                      The total investment of $34.6 billion in China last year displaced the United States from the top spot.

                      Last year, the U.S. invested $18.6 billion, the second highest amount in the world.

            • Basic economics says:

              You clearly have no understanding of economics if you think that building a structure just to tear it down will cause real GDP growth.

              Real GDP growth is determined from how much your country imports and how much it exports.

              Somebody stacking up bricks, and knocking them down won’t have any effect since growth is all about trade with other countries.

              • Al says:

                The four factors that determine GDP growth are 1.) consumer spending 2.) investments in new capital goods 3.) government expenditure and 4.) exports minus imports.

                GDP is an econometric, and like any form of evaluation, it’s meaningless if certain standards aren’t held. Part of the problem with evaluating China’s growth is the assumption that it is behaving like a market economy, which is not the case.

                For example, I bought a DVD player in China. The price in dollars was about the same as it would be in the US – around 30 bucks. The only problem was that the DVD player purchased in China broke after six months. So, I had to go out and buy another one. Thus, according to the official numbers, the Chinese economy grew by 60 dollars, or twice what it would have had I bought the DVD player in the USA, where I only would have had to buy it once.

                The horrible irony in all this is that the DVD players in this story are all manufactured in China, it’s just the ones that you can buy in the US actually work longer than six months. Why is this? Well, in the US or in other countries you have quality control, independent consumer advocacy groups, and an open media.

                • Voice of China says:

                  I actually posted the same thing, but it said ‘too many comments, please wait a while’.

                  C+I+G+(X-M) however you could argue that while you stimulate Investment in building. You also lose the opportunity cost of spending the money elsewhere.

                  More relevant theories you could propose are the the flying goose paradigm, a modified version of the prisoner’s dilemma.

                • Mark says:

                  Thanks Al. No claim to mastery of economics but the fundamentals are obvious.

    • FOARP says:

      Yeah, because North Korea, Sudan, Eritrea et al are such paragons of economic development.

  33. Voice from Shanghai says:

    In all honesty I feel Noble Peace prize is becoming dumb. They gave it to Barrack Obama and yet I as much as I feel he’s way better than that other monkey. Obama has yet to show any real “meat” in what he’s contributed just before the award was announced.

    So I feel this award itself is biased, I sure other people have tried writing papers to “peacefully” change the way a country runs and pushed for years on certain things to change. What makes this guys work so outstanding? Oh wait, it’s cos it’s China and it’s run by a Communist government that is still meant to be really suppressing right? *eyes roll*

    Seriously I know China still has lots of areas to work in but that’s why it’s called a Developing Country, everyone seems to be expecting China to turn a new leaf over night from what I’ve read. It took 150 years to abolish slavery in the US.

    I can’t believe a monkey was voted in power for 8 years by the way, to me that’s craaaaaaaaazy.

    • Voice from Shanghai says:

      also if anyone can spread some light on how the Nobel Peace Prize committee votes for the person who deserves the prize and also what the committee consists of that would be interesting to see in terms of how “fair” the award is. i.e. are the committee members all from one country? A mass of people vote online?

      • Basic Economics says:

        The peace prize is decided by a committee of 5 people, all of them are Norwegian

        They make the decision on who gets it

        Furthermore only around 100 people are allowed to submit up to 3 candidates.

        The prizes for science are handed out in the same way except the committee is all Swedish.

        Its no surprise that the Scandinavian countries (Finland, Sweden, Norway) win the most nobel prizes per capita and countries that are allied to them like USA and Europe get most of them.

        Even if a chinese scientist in China finds the cure for HIV he will not get the nobel prize because thats just the way it works.

        Furthermore that the nobel prize is a joke

        Yassar Arafat a dictator winning the nobel peace prize? Obama won it despite the deadline for nomination being 12 days after he won the election when he had done absolutely nothing. Roosevelt won it despite starting a war with Spain. Hitler was also nominated for the nobel peace prize.

        • Mark says:

          If its no big deal why are the Chinese pushing so hard to get Nobel prize winners in every area?

        • Bob the builder says:

          Okay. So don’t worry about who gets it and no need to pressure that committee.

        • Huzhang says:

          Conspiracy theories.

          The peace prize, maybe. But I have no doubt the SCIENCE prize goes to whoever deserves it the most. The reason Scandinavian countries have more per capita is because the prize started out as a de facto “local” thing.

          • Basic economics says:

            You say the science prize goes to whoever deserves it the most

            So can you justify to me why the guys who invented Graphene won the nobel prize but the guys who invented graphdiyne do not deserve it?

            http://www.nature.com/nchina/2010/100602/full/nchina.2010.67.html

            Researchers in Beijing have prepared large films of graphdiyne, a two-dimensional carbon allotrope with unique electronic properties

            Can you justify why Norman Borlaug won the Nobel Prize for inventing Hybrid Wheat but Yuan Longping who invented hybrid rice was not even a nominee?

            There have been clear bias against non European/American countries.

        • Voice from Shanghai says:

          So isn’t that like taking a drop of water out of the lake and then determine if the rest of the lake is clean or not.

          It sounds pretty biased to me.

      • georgeson says:

        Yes, there are more than 1000 reasons to abandon the Nobel “Peace” Prize for people on the other side of those who are making use of such a fake prize.

    • GuoBao says:

      I suspect you are a racist, nationalistic, fascistic bigot by now. The first reference to “monkey” could be forgiven on grounds of Bushiness but the second time you use it clears it up. If still in doubt that you are a racist then I’ll remind everyone of your rant against foreigners finding sub par farmer girlfriends who are “short and dark”. I don’t even know why we keep feeding you.

      • Voice of Shanghai says:

        So if I said WMD twice does that mean you’re convinced I have some and someone will come and invade me?

        Love how you use your gut feelings to get to a conclusion.

        • GuoBao says:

          Can you settle on a user name please? May I suggest NarcissisticMegalomaniacDiD. I’m pretty sure it’s avilable -and may I say very fitting.

          • Voice in Shanghai says:

            Does it displease you that I keep changing names GuoBao? Is this name more harmonious?

            It seems you cannot please everyone.

  34. Jesus H. Christ says:

    This site was good when it started out, and you had some relatively intelligent discussion.
    Every thread I read is this Voice of China character walking around like he’s a genius in all matters, and counters arguments with ad hominem attacks while at the same time saying others are losers for writing so much on a Chinese forum. I must say I am impressed by your sexual prowess and great knowledge of the Chinese nation, however.

    Anyone here who disagrees with the choice of the Nobel committee has the right to do so, and I have the right to disagree with you. The only problem with arresting LXB in China was that he was prosecuted under an incredibly weak legal system that’s still developing. Although he didn’t break any constitutional laws, the Chinese government can always arrest someone for “subversion of state power,” and that’s what they did. It’s a catch-all term for anything the party wants to use it for, since the party controls the courts just as they do every other aspect of the country.

    What’s most telling is their reaction and how bad my net connection is now. Bandwidth has been cut down severely and there’s no mention of it anywhere here in the local papers or on television. Obviously the guy is onto something, or they wouldn’t react in such a way. Too bad for them, the cracks are opening and it’s only a matter of time before something else happens. These people in China who are in prison or are currently pressing the government for more accountability now have recognition and have been emboldened by this award. Good for them – accountable government is beneficial no matter how you try to argue the point.

    The conspiracy theorists here are funny characters, thanks for the entertainment guys. I’m quite sure that western nations like the United States are involved, right? I mean, we don’t adore the benefits we get from an authoritarian China where workers have no rights and receive unlivable wages. We don’t love our cheap goods and products, not at all…in fact, I’m sure we’d love for China to fall to pieces once a democratic government is in power, when Xinjiang and Tibet split off, followed by Inner Mongolia who knows where else…

    Then again paranoia has always been a characteristic of these so-called “communist” countries, or rather authoritarian/totalitarian nations. Simply surprised that some people here who aren’t Chinese and have a much more global point-of-view two the party line as if they’re card carrying CPC members themselves.

    • Mark says:

      When one party controls everything down to forbidding people to organize non professional sports teams independent of the communist party because they fear it might threaten their hold on power, it is easy for people under that system to assume that the rest of the world is the same way and to see a grand conspiracy for everything. I mean the CCP even controls China’s Catholic Church, and all religious activity in Tibet.

      Also, most of the guys with occidental names who are pro China are in fact mainland Chinese, maybe students at foreign university but hardcore Chinese.

      • Basic Economics says:

        You want me to show you my USA passport?

        • Mark says:

          I read your posts…”most” is not absolute.

          I find your point of view very informative. Not sure I would give economists as much weight as you do, and economists are really clueless when they began to deal with social history. The old saying is numbers do not lie, but liars figure.

          In any given point of time,authoritarian regimes will tend to look better than democratic systems if you are selective about the matrices that you compare them by, which is why economists are generally regarded as rather clueless by other academic disciplines. If you look at production for the sake of production the Soviet Union was great at making things nobody wanted for example.

      • Aodaliya Ren says:

        Non professional sports teams are alllowed in China you dick.

        Go take a look at Australian Rules Football in China, and yes they are independent of the party.

        • Mark says:

          I took a look fucktard. I would hardly call a bunch of Aussie and Kiwis who happen to live in China and play ball an example of pluralism.

    • Voice of China says:

      This site was good when it started out, and you had some relatively intelligent discussion.
      Every thread I read is this Voice of China character walking around like he’s a genius in all matters, and counters arguments with ad hominem attacks while at the same time saying others are losers for writing so much on a Chinese forum.

      Yes, I’m sure that things were much brighter for you racist trolls when there wasn’t anyone to destroy your the credibility of the jokes which you call like to call arguments.

      The only problem with arresting LXB in China was that he was prosecuted under an incredibly weak legal system

      No, China actually has an incredibly strong and efficient legal system

      I’m sure we’d love for China to fall to pieces once a democratic government is in power, when Xinjiang and Tibet split off, followed by Inner Mongolia who knows where else…

      I’m sure the United Sates would. It’d certainly help economic growth and it would also give even more wealth to the dominating elite.

    • Basic Economics says:

      No clearly Liu was attempting to promote Subversion and hate for the government.

      >The government of the People’s Republic of China prosecutes subversives under Articles 102 through 112 of the state criminal law.[3] These articles specify the types of behavior that constitute a threat to national security and China has prosecuted many dissidents using these laws. Of these, Articles 105 and 111 are the ones most commonly employed to silence political dissent.[3] Article 105 criminalizes organizing, plotting, or carrying out subversion of the national order, or using rumor mongering or defamation or other means to incite subversion of the national order or the overthrow of the socialist system.

      Liu Organized all of it, did it without permission from the CCP

      And if you read the actual text of Charter 08 it is clearly chock full of unproven rumors and definitely an article of defamation.

      http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Charter_08

      And the USA does things like this all the time

      http://articles.sfgate.com/2003-03-22/bay-area/17482730_1_protester-charges-police-officer

      War protesters not too thrilled about their night in S.F. jail / They say police were rude, food and bedding inadequate

    • Huzhang says:

      Do not feed the troll.

  35. Voice of China says:

    All governments have laws with basically limitless power when dealing with issues of national security or/and state emergency. The legislature in China simply makes it more efficient to exercise this discretions.

    • GuoBao says:

      “Efficient” hm,, interesting choice of words describing the system. I guess the Germans referred to the gassing of Jews as “efficient” as well. Still that wasn’t how the rest of the world described it,, and it didn’t make it right either.

  36. Voice of China says:

    ‘these’ not ‘this’

  37. Basic Economics says:

    Liu Xiabo has done nothing special, people like him are a dime a dozen in the USA

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7M9fhZP14ZI

    A federal grand jury in Tacoma, Washington has indicted five anti-war protesters –most of them senior citizens– on charges of conspiracy, trespass and destruction of government property for entering a secure area at the Kitsap-Bangor Naval Base complex last November. The charges carry penalties of up to 10 years in federal prison. The five are accused of using bolt cutters last November to breach three chain-link fences surrounding the base, which is home to part of the Pacific nuclear submarine fleet.

    • Mark says:

      Yeah civil disobedience is common in the U.S., and their have been times when paranoids in the government saw it as a threat, and illegal things were done to counter it like illegal wiretaps, extrajudicial killings, illegal deportations etc. Cointerpol was an operation by the U.S. government to illegally counter people deemed subversives and a threat to the state. All Americans understand that if they engage in civil disobedience they risk going to jail.

      Of course petitioning the government and suggesting change is just an everyday thing in the U.S., just part of the process here, of course you would know that since you have a U.S. passport.

  38. Voice of China says:

    The most laughable part of all this is in the fact that if the majority of Chinese are happy with the current government and the way it handles it’s affairs. So tell me, why are you guys crying for a democratic revolution? If it isn’t meddling in internal affairs, what is it?

    • Al Jensen says:

      Most Westerners are only barely aware that China exists, and mostly just as “that place where my iPhone was made”. Seriously, I go back to the USA and pick up a newspaper or watch the news and China is hardly ever mentioned, and when China is talked about it is usually in terms of business or trade. In fact, when I talk with Americans back home, their received impression of China is actually quite positive.

      Most Chinese people I talk to, particularly young people, are at some level or another completely terrified of the future. They have no idea how they will ever get the money together to live a normal life.

      • AlleyCat says:

        The ruling elite of any authoritarian country will always tell you that the majority of people is perfectly happy. They might even believe in their own misconceptions, hence the absence of shame. They are likely to ignore any obvious sign that proves them wrong. They will do anything to obstruct a process that would threaten their priviliged position. In their twisted minds, they are convinced they belong to a superior class; therefore their destiny is to lead and control the ignorant (yet assumingly content) masses.

        • Voice of China says:

          So replacing ‘authoritarian’ with ‘democractic’ and what do you get?

          The ruling elite of any ‘democratic’ country will always tell you that the majority of people is perfectly happy. They might even believe in their own misconceptions, hence the absence of shame. They are likely to ignore any obvious sign that proves them wrong. They will do anything to obstruct a process that would threaten their priviliged position. In their twisted minds, they are convinced they belong to a superior class; therefore their destiny is to lead and control the ignorant (yet assumingly content) masses.

          You don’t think do you?

    • Dutchy says:

      Yes, it’s all one big happy family under the glorious leadership of the CCP. Here’s is a summary of own findings based on >10 years in China and discussions with local people of highly various backgrounds and levels (from factory manual labour to CEO):

      1. Majority of the people in China probably hardly have an opinion on the government in general (e.g. the rural population), as long as living standards improve
      2. A big part of the urban population is not interested in anything but house, family, job or shopping and couldn’t care less about politics (partly thanks to Confucius, but also partly due to rising financial pressure)
      3. A minority of the urban folks (in general the better educated, well informed higher middle class that has moved beyond the daily necessities) is increasingly disgruntled by the blatant CCP corruption at every level and is voting with its feet, e.g. setting up an escape route, like setting up companies in Canada, Australia and ensuring a long-term visa for those countries.
      4. If you have never known different realities exist outside the one that has been told you and your hardly allowed to explore, how would you know there is something different out there? However, as soon as people get better informed, they start comparing alternatives and start asking questions. And the more questions they start asking, the more pressure there will be on accountability.

      • Voice of China says:

        So then you take the same moral high ground as the United States government in saying that it your job to show the rest of the world how to live a civilized life.

        Despite not being asked to do so?

        • Voice of the World a.k.a Max Headroom says:

          So what authority do you have?

        • Dutchy says:

          Nobody forbids to answer questions when asked. Nobody forbids to ask questions to get answers in order to gather new insights or raises one’s level of understanding. It’s one of the basic underlying principles of personal, societal and moral development. No need to wait for someone to ask.

          • Voice of China says:

            Those statements are all fundamentally incorrect.

            If you asked me questions, I could forbid myself from responding and tell you to get F%$#ed. This is what China is doing to an extent.

            In fact, with regard to China no-one is asking questions but the US is content to keep giving answers regardless.

            Now I don’t know whether you just pulled those two sentences out of your @ss but I think it’s clear that China isn’t asking questions or looking for answers.

            • Dutchy says:

              VOC: I gave you 3 polite opportunities to come up with solid answers and you all screwed them up Royally. Point taken, you ain’t worth spending my precious time on. From now on i will leave this forum and spend my time again with intelligent people. It was worth the try (given the fact that i have been CEO ad interim of quite a number of formerly distressed companies and turned 100% into successes and now fail to see any progress in your thinking either shows my inability or the level or retardedness. Let the other readers judge). Wish you a happy life

              • Dutchy says:

                Apologies for the typo, of course it should be ‘your level of retardedness’

              • Voice of China says:

                Dutchy, lets stick to one point shall we?

                You brought up two random statements without authority and without logical reasoning. I told you why the sentences didn’t make sense. Then you some how conclude that I am not intelligent because you have been a CEO for a number of formerly distressed companies.

                Yeah, it would be good if you stopped posting here, you won’t be missed.

                • Dutchy says:

                  Pity you did not not tell me why my sentences didn’t make sense, i asked many questions but never got answers. You say ‘get F%$#ed’, which can be regarded as a highly uncivilised answer. Actually not answering a question in any debate can be considered rude and uncultured.

                  You entitled yourself to be the ‘ voice of China’ while I (being in China and not exactly since yesterday) see, hear and smell quite a lot of opinions that are diametrically opposed to yours. The opinions of smart Chinese people who ask questions and have opinions. So who ensures that China isn’t asking questions or looking for answers. A number of its intelligent citizens is asking questions or looking for answers and the fact is (their words, not mine), the government is not providing sufficient answers to any of those questions!

                  As said, i’m outta here, back to the civilised world!

                  • Voice of China says:

                    Pity you did not not tell me why my sentences didn’t make sense

                    Yes I did, but you didn’t understand them.

                    I asked many questions but never got answers.

                    You were referring to the previous posts which weren’t directed at me? Because the last comment you directed at me was just two random statements.

                    You say ‘get F%$#ed’, which can be regarded as a highly uncivilised answer.

                    It’s not about the civility of the answer but the message it ‘should’ have brought across but it didn’t due to no fault of mine.

                    not answering a question in any debate can be considered rude and uncultured.

                    Not really for two reasons:

                    1.) There is no debate when it’s one person asking three arbitrary questions on a forum expecting an answer
                    2.) Even if there was a debate, not answering a question wouldn’t be rude or uncultured, it would simply show the other participant was unable or unwilling to compose a reply. In most cases, it would be hard to distinguish between the two and therefore hard to conceive it as rude not to mention uncultured.
                    3.) In real life, I’m more gentle on people’s emotions. It’s called 做人道理 but it doesn’t apply to trolls online.
                    4.) Well, considering you said you would leave this forum indefinitely and you’re saying it again, please don’t come back.

    • Basic economics says:

      Who’s crying for a democratic revolution?

      China is a big country, a handful of students with affiliations with the CIA gathering in Tieneman square does not represent the will of 1.3 billion people

      • john digmeme says:

        Let me know when Taiwan starts crying for a communist revolution.

      • HH says:

        True, western countries enjoy taking a bit of what was going on in China, then exposes it with hyperbole when China becomes a threat.

  39. Max Headroom says:

    I find it very healthy that I believe I can recognize the 50CP writers and the ones Lenin called: “The useful idiots”.

    Again; it is better that the government fear the people, than the people fear the government.

    And during elections they do.

    In Burma the government have looked up a 60-year old woman for almost two decades, because they fear her so. Aung San Suu Kiy has grown, not shrunk as the government tries to make her irrelevant. And I believe they fear what would happen if she would become a martyr.

    As for conspiracy-afficionados who see a connection of developed nations ganging together to spread the scourge of democracy to Africa and Asia; you are right. However, you fail to mention the black helicopters of the UN that ferry UN terrorist around the US…..

    And if LXB is nothing special, I am sure the writers that demean him are as well known as him in their everyday lives?

  40. Voice of China says:

    I find it very healthy that I believe I can recognize the 50CP writers and the ones Lenin called: “The useful idiots”.

    I find it funny that you can’t construct a basic working sentence.

    So let me get this straight, you find it ‘VERY HEALTHY’ <– Nice use of the word there, that you 'BELIEVE' <– so you're not exactly that sure right?, that you can recognize 50cp writers.

    So if you didn't believe you recognized 50cp writers you would be ill or at least not VERY healthy? Is that what you are saying? Are you suffering from a stress related disease at all?

    In Burma the government have looked up a 60-year old woman for almost two decades, because they fear her so. Aung San Suu Kiy has grown, not shrunk as the government tries to make her irrelevant. And I believe they fear what would happen if she would become a martyr.

    no-one cares about burma or ‘Aunty’ San Suu Kiy but maybe you’re from there so you do. I don’t think it’d get much attention if the old lady martyred herself as far as international relations are concerned, if there are any at all.

    And if LXB is nothing special, I am sure the writers that demean him are as well known as him in their everyday lives?

    This sentence doesn’t make sense. Please learn English before posting here or get out of Burma. You guys are a bit too poor to be joking about 5 mao, it could buy you a meal there 😉

  41. Voice of the Galaxy a.k.a Max Headroom says:

    It would, I am sure give you more credibility. Even show your humble personality.

  42. Voice of China says:

    Now you’ve lost me….. good luck in learning English Max, you have my support.

    • Voice of the Universe a.k.a Max Headroom says:

      I thank you most humbly. Is 50 cents enough to pay for your kindness?

      • Voice of China says:

        No, please keep it. You need it more than I do.

        Sincerely,

        Voice of China

        • Voice of all Universes, current, previous, future and parallell a.k.a Max Headroom says:

          Your humbleness gives face to your parents.

          Forever yours most sincere follower:

          Voice of all Universes, current, previous, future and parallell a.k.a Max Headroom

  43. Voice of China's inflatable girlfriend says:

    Message 1. “Voc? You mom wants you to come home for dinner”
    Message 2. Your sister wants you to pick her up tomorrow morning after the gang bang at her black boyfriend’s apartment.
    Message 3. “Voc? This is the milkman. I’m really your father. Call me”

  44. George says:

    china government is like the typical chinese parents
    if they don’t like it than you are wrong
    if you are able to prove them wrong, you are still wrong
    even if their rule does not take logic in consideration
    since he did not harm anyone
    if china doesn’t like what Liu Xiaobo has wrote
    then let the public judge his action

  45. George says:

    Basic Economics is you are a fucking dumbass
    you must be those type of people study all your life
    and people still thinks your brain is only good for sit cushion

    • Basic economics says:

      Hey spend a while in the united States, even with democracy the people will not get power.

      Every poll in the USA has shown that nobody supports the war in Afghanistan or Iraq yet the government is still fighting these wars.

      You put a vote in a box. And the government declares a new leader.

      There is no evidence that the votes were even counted in the first place and the people running are nominated by the political parties. So basically in China it would be the communist party choosing two people and telling the entire country to vote for one or the other.

  46. AlleyCat says:

    Press Release: Wife of Liu Xiaobo Detained

    The Chinese government is detaining Liu Xia, the wife of the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize recipient, at her Beijing apartment. She has not been charged with a crime, however, is she is no longer allowed to leave her apartment. Friends and media are not allowed to enter her apartment. She is also no longer allowed to use her mobile phone…

    http://www.freedom-now.org/news/press-release-wife-of-liu-xiaobo-detained/

    • Voice of China says:

      The same thing is allowed under the reserve powers of the constitution in America or even Australia in regard to matters undermining national security.

      Alley Cat, as always, you’re always the one making the stupidest comments.

      • Max Headroom says:

        According to western press, she is now free and have been in communication with her husband who was very moved and allegedly said that the price is not for him but for the ones who perished on Tianamen Sq.

        And as for your concern for, and care of the individual VoC, she is alright after being released.

      • AlleyCat says:

        Unlike some weary faeces of china, I do know the difference between reporting simple facts and excreting shallow opinions or denigrating remarks. I would rather concentrate on constructive contributions, in stead of being infinitly preoccupied and repetitive.
        Also, I don’t take pride in annoying or debasing other commenters, nor do I have any hidden agenda. I’m off again, still having some other obligations and responsabilities to attend. You just go ahead and do your thing, I’ll do mine. Normally I’ll stop reading beyond the first sentence of your comments, if I can help it that is – I suggest you do the same. Or whatever. Have a nice day.

  47. To everyone that responded to my comparsion of Liu and the CCP to Gandhi to Colonal Powers/Mandela and South Africans…

    It seems that I have touched a very sensitive nerve, haven’t I?

    I wonder how many speeches from folks like de Klerk that can be brought up, speaking of Mandela being a ‘commie spy’? Or maybe speeches from Churchill complaining that Gandhi was ‘disrupting Colonal Harmony’?

    Sad simple truth – the CCP has reached a point where they have become the very thing they originally sought to replace… “the powers to be in Beijing”.

    {smile} It is going to be interesting to see if their attempts to block another Gandhi or Mandela will simply spawn another Mao or Stalin. Kicking a pacifist in the face is easy – trying to sucker punch a Bruiser is another.

  48. baggle says:

    VOC is actually pretty funny and interesting to read. But he/she swears too much.

    I don’t really care about how China acts or how the people there feel about not being able to express themselves or whether they should or whether they want to.

    People and cultures bring onto themselves what they deserve. East and West.

  49. Mark N. says:

    Voice of China:
    Please answer me these simple questions, I would love to hear what you make of this.

    1. The constitution of China states that the people of China enjoys freedom of speech, freedom to demonstrate, etc. See article 35. How can the government arrest someone who excersise his constitutional rights? Is there no need to follow these rights when the government makes the rules for holding peopel in check? Is your constitution not worth more than the toilet paper I buy in the small shop outside?
    2. How do you really justify that the party has now taken his wife under control? Do not give me this “national security” bullshit.
    3. How can you defend that China can should a place in the UN when they keep totally ignoring human rights, which they have commited themselves to keep? These are not set by “western” or “chinese” standards, these are the same for all, but are totally ignored here.

    It is remarkable how much of an ass the party is making of China now. They statement they sent to the Nobel Commitee after locking themselves inside the Chinese Embassy in Oslo could have been written by a bitter 8 year old.

    • Basic economics says:

      Again free speech is allowed in China, threats/demands/rumors about the government fall under subversion laws.

      Free speech is criticizing the government and public officials based on facts.

      Free speech does not mean that you can go around telling people have to make bombs and encouraging people to rise up and resist the government

      • Mark N. says:

        how is it relevant that you mix in making bombs into this?
        either way, thanks for your input and contributing nothing of worth.

        • Voice of China says:

          No,

          thank you for defying logic again Mark and disagreeing with everyone who opposes your views.

          • Mark N. says:

            thank you VoC, with that statement you made yourself look like an bigger ass then anyone else could have done for you. your English skills are above the average Chinese, but you might want to look up the word “ironic”.

            now, again, how about stop trolling around and shit-talking and answer to my post about your brilliant spokesman for the Foreign Ministry?

            • Voice of China says:

              What you are saying here is that you find nothing wrong with an minister of foreign affairs flat out lying and denying facts to avoid answering a question directly related to the matter on which the meeting was held by the party? He is the minister of foreign affairs, and was the one who addressed the topic, so this is clearly within his jurisdiction.

              No, I’m saying the minister of foreign affairs is entitled to avoid answering a question relating to domestic affairs.

  50. Voice of China says:

    Mark N,

    you get one chance at asking me questions, anymore and I’ll charge.

    1. I’ll answer your question at face value, to save myself time from actually seeing whether you interpreted the statute correctly. Considering you probably can’t read Chinese, I shouldn’t give you the benefit of the doubt but I will anyway.

    Answer: Freedom of speech and freedom to demonstrate is subject to restrictions. Similarly, in a western economy there are similar restrictions for instance limiting merely political speech, others don’t even go so far. In any case, the Federal power to ensure state security is absolute and overriding; not only in China.

    2. National security is not bullshit

    3. There is no evidence of China ignoring human rights. Most of the local incidents such as that in Tibet are instigated by the Dalai Lama. The Chinese government does the best it can to contain the problem.

    Time over, no more free questions.

    • Mark N. says:

      Ok, this was worse than I expected.

      1. I can read chinese. also, i am sure you are aware that translated versions exist. subject to restrictions? have you read the document Liu Xiabo is sentenced for? how can this fall under any restrictions if this country has any free speech? come on, i am giving you benefit of doubt now and assume that you just answer this to save face and not admit how vague of an excuse you are coming up with here.
      also i take it as you mean the constitution is not worth crap then.

      2. I do not mean national security is bullshit, but rather using that as excuse for not letting her talk to the press, or even friends for that matter has nothing to do with national security. I am sure you understood that this perspective was what i mean, but easily ignored trying to answer it. great job.

      3. No evidence? if you are that narrowminded then i see no point in this. i was hoping to get somewhat valid answers from another point of view, but you proved me wrong.
      good job on avoiding the UN question by just ignoring the existing precondition by the way.

      seriously, how you can expect anyone who has access to media which has not been filtered by the mighy Propaganda Department to believe the stuff you are coming up with is amazing. as long as the party keep doing this too they will continue to be the laughing stock of the world, you do know that they currently are that dont you?

      oh, and totally hilarious with this whole “free questions” and “time over” gig, great stuff.

      • Voice of China says:

        Mark,

        The last comment was made a matter of minutes, since I to prepare earlier for an appointment for dinner. Since I’m back and in the mood to relax, I’ll give you the grace of another response.

        The way you try to sound smart fails to hard. Especially since the play on words to misrepresent your true knowledge is so transparent to the trained eye.

        1. You can read Chinese -you deliberately did not qualify that statement because you can’t afford to. If you were really confident in your Chinese abilities you would say that you are:

        a.) Articulate in Chinese
        b.) Are capable of reading the statute without translation

        You deliberately omitted to mention your skill level because it’s obvious you can’t read Chinese legislation in its native form. I would be surprised if anyone on this site could as it takes at least a basic foundation in basic Chinese and then a semester of studying legal theory and basic legalese. For a kid who shows so little understanding of basic law, I doubt you have either qualification. Instead I submit that you simply looked up article 105 on wikipedia.

        Anyone who uses rumor, slander or other means to encourage subversion of the political power of the State or to overthrow the socialist system, shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not more than five years. However, the ringleaders and anyone whose crime is monstrous shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not less than five years. “[1]

        Under Article 105, even communication of thoughts and ideas or, for that matter, opinions, without intent to commit any violent or criminal act, may be regarded as subversion.

        2. Now, you’re assuming that is the only section he is breaching, which is incorrect. However given the broadness of this section, we don’t necessarily need to go any further because Liu Xiao Bo did encourage subversion of political power from the communist party by producing a document which directly antagonizes the political system’.

        It is obvious through the reaction of the government and its adversity to the Nobel committee that they believe the prize was part of an instigated ploy to undermine social stability in the country by supporting an paper that endorsed misleading facts regarding the current state of Chinese policy and the proposed move to democracy, which would in fact be ultimately detrimental to the Chinese economy and aim at overthrowing if not undermining the current socialist system.

        Given the legislature that exists, they are more than entitled to interpret and apply the law as it was intended. If you want to talk about the inadequacy of that section in particular, then it is a debate you would have to have with legal academics in China which I doubt with your credentials. It would also be a matter of efficiency and practicability. Given my lack of specialty with this section, its not an argument that I would like to have, especially with someone I don’t know and who I do not view as an intellectual equal.

        3. Freedom of speech is restricted in most democratic countries. Some examples are:

        a.) Hate speech
        b.) Criticism to Supreme Court Justices
        c.) Speech that is prohibited by sedition law
        d.) Misleading or deceptive speech in how to vote
        e.) Internet censorship
        f.) Malicious gossip
        g.) Insults to human dignity
        h.) Dissemination of Means of Propaganda of Unconstitutional Organizations
        i.) Use of Symbols of Unconstitutional Organizations.
        j.) Disparagement of the Federal President, the State and its Symbols
        k.) Casting false suspicion

        There are plenty more and as I’ve said in the past, do your research before writing bs. Sometimes all it takes is a quick search on google or baidu.

        4. You don’t understand what the constitution is let alone to make an accusation that it is ‘not worth crap’. What you are dissatisfied of is the legislation that was broad enough to capture situations, like what we are talking about here.

        rather using that as excuse for not letting her talk to the press, or even friends for that matter has nothing to do with national security.

        If they had reason to believe that she would liaise with others or act independently to conspire or commit a crime then they are entitled to place her under arrest for further questioning. Many of these assertions you are making are not a clear recount of the exact concise facts as they stand. However if they thought there was an effect on national security, it is well within the Federal reserve powers to detain her until it the problem is solved. Neither procedure would have been different in any other country.

        I am sure you understood that this perspective was what i mean, but easily ignored trying to answer it. great job.

        Yes I did, and I applaud you for being smarter than the average troll. But you got your answer now (see above).

        No evidence? if you are that narrowminded then i see no point in this. i was hoping to get somewhat valid answers from another point of view, but you proved me wrong.

        These fundamental breaches of human rights, had they been serious enough would have led to a sanction on the PRC by the United Nations. They have not, and this speaks for itself.

        It has been a long while since I’ve looked at Public International Law and I’m sure I have material somewhere talking about jus cogens but I’m not interested in having this argument at this stage.

        Although if you had any knowledge of the United Nations, you’d know that the key behind international law is enforceability and recognition. Unlike the Common Law or Civil Law, there are no fast and hard rules. There is no room for precedent to apply and often country’s breach the charter rules without punishment.

        Look at the Kosovo/Serbia situation where the U.S breached the NATO agreement and interfered with the State Sovereignty of Serbia. Or how an attack on the state sovereignty of Iraq was based on pre-emptive measures not endorsed by the UN. This goes way beyond the point of this argument but it makes a point towards why I don’t like having meaningless arguments with people with uneven knowledge of law, finance and economics.

        seriously, how you can expect anyone who has access to media which has not been filtered by the mighy Propaganda Department to believe the stuff you are coming up with is amazing.

        Media in most countries are not free and statistics online clearly show that. I could say the same about the United States, Singapore and the United Kingdom for example.

        they will continue to be the laughing stock of the world, you do know that they currently are that dont you?

        I do know that the United States places continuous pressure through their government mouthpiece, the defacto media industry, in an aim to destablize China. And do you wonder why China censors western propaganda?

        The inherent bias in western media is undeniable and investigated in many online journals, which you can read if you are interested.

        *********************************Conclusion*******************************************

        I rarely delve into academic conversations on this site because I find it unnecessary. Instead, it’s easy enough to respond to bs sentences wrapped up with a ribbon of linguistic waffle, which when unwrapped exposes a weak message which is often inaccurate if not completely incorrect.

        I attribute this to the fact many lao wai spend too long in China and develop a sense of superiority thinking that they are in the top 10% of English speakers in a country that uses a different native tongue.

        They forget that back where they come from, they failed to excel in the top universities and that they get a lot of their literary techniques from High School poetry classes or where they are taught techniques of personification, alliteration, binary contrast, and the use of metaphors. This explains why so many of the trolls on this site end up taking a paragraph to convey a message that can be conveyed in one sentence. It’s also why they screw up in making a single sentence that is able to conveying a correct and precise meaningful message.

        It’s also my observation that people tend to resort to personal attacks once they realize they have nothing more to contribute to the topic. Just looking at my screen now, there is Jerry who has done nothing in his entire time here but follow me around and flame. There’s Bob the Builder, Ektor, Wolves and Sheep, and some other random guys who have nothing better to do than follow me around and say ‘bravo’. Then there’s Guo Bao and some others that keep calling me part of the 5mao clan for some strange reason.

        The fact is that most people come on this site to flame. It’s the case with most sites translating Chinese gossip. If any of you want to come up with an educated comment, then make sure you have enough background knowledge to do so. Don’t use words like the ‘Rule of Law’ if you don’t know what it means. Don’t talk about ‘internal control’ if you don’t know what it means. Don’t ask questions which can only be covered through a thesis and references that can be back checked – I won’t answer them. Rather than ask something like:

        What is the credibility and value of a government that inprisons people who politely request openness and accountability to its own citizens?

        Make a statement like ‘xxx of the xxx contradicts xxx and xxx, it is a pre-requisite of xxx for xxx to require xxx to xxx. This is clearly a misapplication of fact to the law and requires further investigation.’ <– this is an example but does not apply here obviously.

        The point is that most of the commentators here make vague and generalized comments which really add no merit to the topic. Instead, they use literary techniques and insults to the 'oppressive' government that is China while ignoring the accuracy of what is said. Considering every second comment is like this, I wonder why anyone is surprised that I think I am superior to most on the site.

        In fact, I'm expecting the next comment to be from a troll with another personal attack. But hey, keep it coming. I'll make sure I continue to report the Voice of China for more of you loyal viewers 😉

        • Mark N. says:

          VoC:
          While I do appreciate that you took the time to answer in more detail I am still done discussing with you. The raging propanganda you showed in the first answers repeats itself here, although more in detail.

          One thing I will comment though, stop making assumptions out of nowhere like it is facts when you try to “prove” your points. You have no idea what I, or other contributors for that matter, know or not know. It’s a cheap trick to put yourself on the high horse, but it does not work when your points are so transparent that the red propaganda shines through a mile away. You are right that Chinese is not my native language, that I will give you. In fact English is not my native language either, just saying since you are criticizing my choice of words.

          If you can not see how much the regime here limits it’s own people (yourself included, I assume) then it’s your loss, not mine. This whole thing about that this is a plot from the West to keep China down, that your leaders has managed to trick into your minds now, are right up there with the best of conspiracy-theories ever.

          Oh, and by the way a quick search on Baidu won’t help you find unfiltered facts. Just a small tip from me to you.

          • Voice of China says:

            Mark N,

            there was any real purpose for you to ask me those questions because they were not as ‘loaded’ as you would’ve liked them to be. You’re free to stop reading or responding to my comments at any time.

            I conjure that the purpose of your comment is to propose that points that I mentioned about domestic law, international public law are propaganda. I fail to see how this is the case considering these are objective universal legal principles that I have brought up.

            I make assumptions through reasonable inferences responding to what I perceive through your writing. I explained this in detail in the last two paragraphs of my conclusion. I think that they are more than accurate most of the time.

            Your choice of words reflect in your inability to understand basic legal principles. Yet, you choose to use them as the basis of of your argument used to arbitrarily bash Chinese law. If you don’t understand what you are talking about, I’d advise not to comment at all.

            I have a problem with people making harsh generalizations on a country they don’t understand on the basis of media bias and an incomplete understanding of facts. This is exactly what you are doing. The so called ‘conspiracy’ word that you use does not fit with what we are dealing with here. You have me mixed up with someone else. Common sense aided with economics dictates this transparent move by the US and the UK to suppress the Chinese economy.

            • Mark N. says:

              Look VoC, I think that it is fairly obvious to everyone, except yourself, that you are the one not understanding what you are talking about. You have an impressive vocabulary, other than that it is nothing of real substance coming from you. You are a textbook example of how a regime can shape the human mind when they constantly censor the outside world, so I guess it’s not your own fault.
              I’d advise you not to mix the words “common sense” into your arguements, as this is clearly something you do not have.

              I also advise you to not mix in theories about US and UK suppressing Chinese economy with this prize, if you don’t want the “conspiracy” word slapped on your arguments. It is awarded by an independent commitee in Norway, as I am sure you are aware of. And seeing as the party is totally incapable how seeing how a commitee can work independent from the ruling government, Norway is now risking alot of lost money in trading. Just from yesterday the party has cancelled to meetings that where supposed to be held for discussing import and export of fish between China and Norway.

              By the way, your comrade Ma Zhaoxu sure showed the rest of the world what level the party is on today. When questioned about Liu Xia’s housearrest he replied that he had never heard that name and don’t know who she is. Really? Is that the best they can do?
              The world is laughing again, unfortunately if I may say so.

              • Voice of China says:

                Mark N,

                here you are speaking to me about conspiracy theories, Chinese brainwashing regimes and censorship issues. This completely avoids the original three questions which you which you had asked me to which I politely offered an answer. Instead, now you come across accusing me of lacking understanding and substance. I find this ironic and a contradiction to reality.

                As for the independence of the Nobel committee, I’d find you quite naive if you felt the committee was objective and uninfluenced by political motivations. Especially, when you consider the composition of the judges. This has been covered by other commentators on this site and is extensively reviewed online. I won’t to the search for you. As for the loss in terms of trade, are we forgetting China’s clashes with other country’s such as France and Japan over similar matters?

                Ma Zhao Xu is the Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman who works in a separate division in the government. It would be quite reasonable for her to come up with such a response. My friend’s father who is a senior official in Beijing had no idea of the incident.

                While you could ‘conspire’ that she did know but deliberately pretended she didn’t, that’s would be your guess and your guess is as good as mine. I haven’t yet seen clear facts that pointed to those facts except those by some American newspapers and who knows who their source is.

                Oh and I missed the part that forbade a foreign ministry spokeswoman finding an excuse to avoid commenting in a representative capacity about matters outside his/her jurisdiction.

                Overall Mark N, this is a poor attempt again to pose three more unsubstantiated accusations at me. Tell me Mark, what is the point of this? Are you trying to achieve anything by making these remarks? Do they make you a better man? Are you going to continue to find more issues to criticize and make me point out the flaws in your argument? Or are you “done discussing with me” as you last said?

                • Mark N. says:

                  I am done discussing with you since the first answer you gave. A discussion is supposed to be constructive, but you killed that right away. Now this is pure entertainment. I know there might be a different understanding of “politeness” in China and the West, but if you “politely offered an answer” earlier then you have a severe misunderstanding of the meaning of politeness.

                  I did write a rather long post yesterday, twice actually, but my shitty internet-connection messed it up and now I wont bother, except for one thing which I have to comment on:

                  “Ma Zhao Xu is the Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman who works in a separate division in the government. It would be quite reasonable for her to come up with such a response. My friend’s father who is a senior official in Beijing had no idea of the incident.

                  While you could ‘conspire’ that she did know but deliberately pretended she didn’t, that’s would be your guess and your guess is as good as mine. I haven’t yet seen clear facts that pointed to those facts except those by some American newspapers and who knows who their source is.

                  Oh and I missed the part that forbade a foreign ministry spokeswoman finding an excuse to avoid commenting in a representative capacity about matters outside his/her jurisdiction.”

                  What you are saying here is that you find nothing wrong with an minister of foreign affairs flat out lying and denying facts to avoid answering a question directly related to the matter on which the meeting was held by the party? He is the minister of foreign affairs, and was the one who addressed the topic, so this is clearly within his jurisdiction.
                  Or, let’s say I am “conspiring” and he did not know who she was, how is it possible to not know what the party, which he holds a high position, is ordering and executing? The party can not be that malfunctioning. The propaganda department is busier then ever censoring media about these news these days, it can not be possible that the minister of foreign affairs is ignorant enough to not know what his party is up to these days.
                  And you better tell your friends dad to catch up a bit, this isn’t secrets to anyone outside China.
                  One more thing, you obviously know who this spokeswoman is, judging from what you write. But it seems like you missed the fact that this is a man. Check wikipedia and learn:
                  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ma_Zhaoxu

                  Go ahead and point out the flaws in this, I can not wait to get more gold comedy from you.

            • Jerry says:

              Hi Mark N.,

              You are far more patient than I, but then again I have lived in Taipei for a while and have encountered VoC-like characters on various Chinese blogs. I am also not PC

              Chinese educated people can be brilliant spewers of information, some of which are facts. They are very good at facts. In fact, their education system, cram schools (buxiban), face, fear of diou lian, language, family and culture are built on rote-learning and memorization. As you have discovered, they fall down in self-reflection, scientific reasoning, and critical thinking. Seriously fall down. I even found that to be true at msft where I worked for years. Chinese-born engineers were far less creative than American-born Chinese, especially 2nd to 5th generation Chinese-Americans.

              I challenged VoC on Taiwan and he lost it. He quoted “facts” that are mere opinions, at best, and some simply fantasies and pipe dreams. He got so angry, he lost. He was pwned. Anybody who gets that angry is unbalanced and owned by his opponent. We Jews know how to fight hard and maintain balance. Lot of cultural training which works in our favor. ROFL! 😀

              BTW, Nat Bellocchi, former director of AIT (and long time State Dept officer) here in Taiwan (the unofficial embassy), said:

              However, in a July survey, Global Views asked whether the respondents were in favor of independence or not, 49.1 percent said they were supportive of ultimate independence, while 34.4 percent were not. The same question on unification prompted 15.6 percent to support unification, while 69.9 percent voiced opposition.

              The conclusion is that, if given a free choice, Taiwanese would opt for their country to be recognized as a full member of the international community. …

              We could also have a more meaningful discussion on possible solutions if we move away from proxy debates on whether Taiwan is a state or not. By the most basic definition under international law, the 1933 Montevideo Convention, Taiwan is a nation state (it has territory, a stable population, a government and the capacity to enter into relations with the other states).

              http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2010/09/24/2003483603

              This, in and of itself, causes ChiCommie supporters to go into conniptions!

              VoC talked about China lighting up the sky over Taiwan if Taiwan goes independent. Not a good move. There are 4+ Ohio Class submarines, armed with Tomahawk cruise missiles and high-end electronics, which, with the USN, the Japanese Navy and the USAF from Okinawa and Guam, would lay a horrible, devastating beating on the PLA Navy, Air Force and Army. This is not the way to go. It would cause global economic issues and the virtual end of the Chinese economy as we know it. The CCP would collapse and China would be in utter chaos. If they tried to fire nukes on the US, it would be the end of China. They have too much population accumulated in too few cities.

              As I said, not a good idea.

              VoC’s ideas about rule of law are comical and he is a caricature of himself. And he is a vicious, though laughable ad hominem attacker. LOL! 😛

              I would prefer working on making this planet more habitable for us all and improve the life of all people, whether in China, Vietnam, the US, India Taiwan, Zimbabwe, Israel, Gaza, the West Bank or wherever.

              Mark, I really appreciated your remarks and comments.

              • Voice of China says:

                Oh Jerry 😀 a Jew that lives in Taiwan and worships Germans, that’s new.

                Where were we? Oh I remember, refreshing your memory:

                FACTS ABOUT TAIWAN:

                1. Taiwan province doesn’t satisfy 2/4 criteria of the Montevideo treaty and most notably the capacity to enter into relations with other states.

                Did I mention that Taiwan has no de facto and de jure sovereignty?

                2. Taiwan is recognized internationally as a province of China by almost all 192 member states of the UN and all developed nations of significance.

                3. Taiwan has no place in the UN and most international organizations whether sporting (Olympics), IMF, and all large economic NGOs.

                4. Secession law allows China to exercise its domestic powers to attack Taiwan when and “IF” it declares independence.

                5. The Montevideo convention is merely customary law and is therefore non-enforceable

                6. You fail again and again and again!

                Now here’s where you really come short:

                1. The survey that global views did was based on a sample size of 100 people based purely in Taipei and could have been from Pro Taiwan demonstrators for what we know, which made it inaccurate and unrepresentative.

                2. Are you seriously citing a company called ‘Global views’? Really?

                3. Oh and you keep forgetting that the Montevideo convention is hardly authority for the proposition of State Sovereignty. It’s merely customary law and has no impact on the way members states view Taiwan.

                4.Did you also happen to implicitly mention that Taiwan is not independent of China, making it part of China and therefore wants to separate? What a way to shoot yourself in the foot.

                5. Are you telling me that 4 submarines can hold out ballistic missiles pointed right at Taipei? Good luck, even an idiot knows how stupid that sounds.

                And don’t give me that shit about anti missile technology. Whatever the latest technology the United States has, China has copied and improved on it. Why do you think we have spies in the Pentagon.

                6. Plus, since English isn’t your native language, I’m not surprised you didn’t understand what I meant when I said that if there was a war, it would be internal as China already has men in Taipei who would simply shut down everything in the tiny island in a matter of minutes.

                Nice try troll, but it’s time to stop playing with toys and face reality. You can go write your novel on World War 3 while I sit here and laugh at your stupidity.

                LOL and uh, I didn’t think Mark was talking to you. Hell, I’m the only one who is but only considering the joke that you continue to make of yourself.

                You should go make the planet more hospitable, go plant some trees or something. Do some aid work in Africa, join UNESC. Play some more command and conquer – you’ve almost completed the US campaign against the evil China 😛

              • Mark N. says:

                Jerry,

                Actually this is not about being patient, if this was a real discussion it might be different. But I find it impossible to take VoC serious, so this has turned into a joke where it is great fun see how he can answer everything directly in line with the official views of the ruling party. He seems incapable of forming a single meaning or thought by himself.
                I read your discussion regarding Taiwan too, and the pattern repeats itself there. Even if he did have any valid points inh there he easily drowns it all in party-correct “information”, it’s sad and funny at once.
                I will keep out of that arguement, but I have to say I especially liked that he just “tested” if you read his posts word by word when you pointed out his mistake. I also used that tactic when I was around 4 or 5 years old.

                • Voice of China says:

                  Hahaha good to see you were a nice little infant making long sentences and paragraphs with one mistake to ‘test’ whether someone was reading word by word. Your parents must have been proud to have a kindergarten baby, I’m sure you outclassed all your peers.

                  But hey, the alternative is that you’re full of shit and I submit that is the more rational explanation. But Mark, I thought you were gonna stop contributing or (not contributing) to this topic ten comments ago? Oops, I guess you care too much about what I have to say. Either that or you love to suck Jerry’s dick 😀

                  It’s good that you failed to really compose anything of substance; that you have no idea of the separation of powers; politics or economics but merely propose without reason that everything in China must be fake because you say so.You are a joke of a person 😀

                  • Mark N. says:

                    You are right, I do care too much what you have to say. You are probably the most pathetic blabbermouth I have ever seen in any forums, and it’s gold, pure gold.
                    How come you still haven’t “pointed out my flaws” in my reply to you, from three days back? Surely that is long enough to make up an answer instead of your constant shit-talking here. Chop chop big boy, I am waiting!
                    By the way, in your first paragraph here you basically shit on yourself. You might be able to see that if you sit down and look at it long enough.

                    • Voice of China says:

                      You are right, I do care too much what you have to say.

                      I know you do.. that’s why you kept saying you aren’t going to come back and yet you still do.

                      You are probably the most pathetic blabbermouth I have ever seen in any forums, and it’s gold, pure gold.

                      Oh really? So what exactly does that make you?

                      How come you still haven’t “pointed out my flaws” in my reply to you, from three days back?

                      And what reply might that be?

                      Chop chop

                      Are you imitating me? Laughable 😀

                      By the way, in your first paragraph here you basically shit on yourself. You might be able to see that if you sit down and look at it long enough.

                      I saw it the moment after I pressed submit because it was a clear typo. It comes with the fast typing you know 😉

                    • Bob the builder says:

                      @Mark N.

                      Sounds like that unfortunately, you were not yet familiar with our clown VoC.

                      Check out the list below to get acquainted with the character. The last one tells it all if you see what i mean 🙂

                      ————————————–
                      Open source list of the braggings of our favorite clown VoC:

                      – VoC LATEST BRAGGING: i type very fast

                      – VoC PREVIOUS BRAGGINGS: i have a porsche (the lady’s kind), I’m more educated than you will ever be, my IQ is very high, my performance and precise ranking in school, my salary, you cannot afford to hire me, my performance with multiple girls, with your mother, with your sister, my very important and promising job, my extensive knowledge of law and politics in China and abroad, my contempt for Korean people, Taiwanese people, Jewish people, Macedonians, my superiority to pretty much everyone i come across, my excellent english skills, my merit in general, my being an alpha dominant male

                      ————————————–

                    • Mark N. says:

                      VoC:
                      Couldn’t find an reply button on your post, so I am forced to answer on my own, I’m sure you’ll still see it.
                      The reply I am talking about is to the comment regarding the Minister of Foreign Affairs “answer” regarding Liu Xia, it was posted on the 12th.
                      And by the way, I wasn’t imitating you in any way, “chop chop” is a fairly well know slang for “get on it/get going/etc”. I can see how it might be misunderstood if you’re feeling very defensive, that wasn’t the case though.

                    • Voice of China says:

                      The reply I am talking about is to the comment regarding the Minister of Foreign Affairs “answer” regarding Liu Xia, it was posted on the 12th.

                      Please check for response

                      And by the way, I wasn’t imitating you in any way, “chop chop” is a fairly well know slang for “get on it/get going/etc”.

                      I know because I used it on Bob the Builder a few posts back. Nice try.

                      But really, why are you still here asking stupid questions?

            • Jerry says:

              I own you sooooo bad, VoC and you just can’t see it. Apparently, you don’t get sarcasm and irony or somebody just plain messing with you. It is so easy to mess with you.

              You are entitled to your opinions and that is all they are. Especially about Taiwan. 😀

              Taiwan is de facto independent. We just need to blare that to the world at some time.

              Some edification (sorry for the big words) here for you regarding “Sieg Heil”, which means “Hail Victory” and was an oft-used greeting between Nazis in the Third Reich. Why did I say Sieg Heil to you? I certainly don’t worship Germans, although I have Germans who are good friends. So, goy, what was I insinuating. I was insinuating that your comments are very similar to Nazi-talk, White-power talk and anti-Semitic talk. You are such a dyed-in-the-wool ideologue, you can’t see outside the box. You don’t get irony. You certainly don’t get Jewish humor, kitsch and schtick, which are so diametrically opposed to the Chinese culture, Chung Hwa! So maybe I am being a tad unfair here.

              BTW, my family is Russian Jewish. I am a second-generation American and English is my native language, and then some, goy. My grandfather was so appreciative of being able to leave Russia and come to the US, with very little money left and no knowledge of the language or culture of the USA. He always told me how much he loved the USA. And how depressing and miserable Russia was for a Jew. Jews could own nothing in Russia, not even the land under our feet. Enough said.

              BTW, you do a satisfactory “Tarzan” imitation. Still, it needs some work! So do your pretty weak boasts. So are you really a lonely Chinese college kid studying in the US, feeling intimidated by all things US? Mommy and daddy are not here to pat you on the head?

              Man, you take yourself seriously. BTW, it is not UNESC, it is UNESCO.

              Life is short, have fun and be happy, baby! Thanks for the cheap amusement.

              Good night and good luck!

              😀 😛 ::chuckle chuckle sob::

              BTW, you obviously know little of Ohio Class submarines outfitted with Tomahawk cruise missiles!

              • Voice of China says:

                I own you sooooo bad, VoC and you just can’t see it.

                You sound like a 13 year old who just had his first boner

                You are entitled to your opinions and that is all they are. Especially about Taiwan. 😀

                No, it’s all fact. It’s just incomprehensible to your peanut brain 😀

                ou certainly don’t get Jewish humor, kitsch and schtick

                No I don’t, I’m neither Jewish or German nor do I care remotely enough to learn about such insignificant minority religions or countries.

                BTW, my family is Russian Jewish. I am a second-generation American and English is my native language, and then some, goy.

                Good for you, but unfortunately I’m not going to write you an autobiography. However you do need to polish up on English if it is your native language, or maybe you are just retarded.

                Jews could own nothing in Russia, not even the land under our feet. Enough said.

                Are you having a bit of a cry? Hahaha, why do you think I’m remotely interested about you or your grandpa?

                So are you really a lonely Chinese college kid studying in the US, feeling intimidated by all things US? Mommy and daddy are not here to pat you on the head?

                I love it when people assume they know anything about my background. *chuckles*

                BTW, it is not UNESC, it is UNESCO.

                I wanted to see if you actually read my comment word for word. Looks like I know now 😛

                BTW, you obviously know little of Ohio Class submarines outfitted with Tomahawk cruise missiles!

                No, I can’t say I’ve followed those things since I was 14. But hey, considering that’s probably how old you are, I wont diss you. Let me know how the Campaign goes, do you have mammoth tanks yet? 😀

            • Jerry says:

              Why do we keep posting, Voiceless?

              Because you are
              a distorter,
              an ad hominem attacker
              a pseudo intellectual
              a shrill dunce and sucker
              the epitome of ChiCommie irrelevance and immaturity.

              Above all, Mark and I own you. Your defenses are so ineffective, immature and inept.

              You are a great source of amusement for me.

              • Voice of China says:

                You see Mark, the vocabulary that you use really shows your stupidity. That is the only source of amusement between our exchanges.

                Just look at yourself:

                1.) Calling me a distorter (because i refer to facts not opinions)
                2.) Calling me an ad hominem attacker (because I disagree with you)
                3.) Calling me a pseudo intellectual (because I’m smarter than you)
                4.) Calling me a shrill dunce and sucker (because you’re a kid who has run out of vocabulary to use) – where do you come up with these words I wonder?
                5.) the epitome of ChicCommie irrelevance and immaturity (because you wouldn’t understand politics if it hit you in the face).

                I’m convinced you’re around 15 years old. Old enough to start forming an opinion and not mature enough to reason.

                You even result to grouping with Mark, who you barely know over the internet to take sides – a perfect example of insecurity a child would feel and would resort to.

                Next you talk like a retard calling my ‘defenses ineffective, immature and inept’ – are you sure you don’t want to add some more words there or have you run out of words that you learnt in junior high?

                Maybe you should return to playing computer games because your logical reasoning ability sucks. Go learn how to read first. English is clearly not your native language 😀

        • Bob the builder says:

          For VoC the clown BRAVO!

          Hey since your very important job leaves you so much free time to waste in vacuous rethorical posting, why don’t you analyze the open letter of these guys which seems to talk about a lot of laws of China:

          http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oct/13/china-party-veterans-free-speech

          Let me see: they are senile? they are all paid by the west? haha

          • Voice of China says:

            Well, it only takes me five minutes to write considering I type 100 words per minute and I don’t need to resort to any texts. I type in between breaks for fun. And uh, yeah the Guardian pretty much a anti-china paper. LOL

            And where is version 2.0? Hey ayi, you should be up to version 3.0 now. Get it to me tomorrow or I’m deporting you back to the Philipines. HAHAHAHAH!

            • Bob the builder says:

              BRAVO! (sounds like you have a lot of break in your very important job and very fulfilling personal life)

              Hey here it is from HK since you snob the Guardian.

              http://cmp.hku.hk/2010/10/13/8035/

              Sounds like old CPP cadres are asking for freedom of press or something like that.

              So are they senile? Or are they paid by the west?

      • Jerry says:

        You are amazing, VoC. You attack others, limit your “free answers” and accuse me of flaming you.

        You distort everything. You have the style, as Mark notes, of white-power people. Or as my people would say, virulent anti-Semites. Tom Metzger and Glenn Beck would be proud of you.

        Don’t like that truth. Get the hell out of the kitchen.

        VoC, you cherry-pick American problems while ignoring the legal abomination in China. There are problems in the US. The problems in China are many times greater, by a factor of 10 or more. Let’s work on problems in both countries. It seems to me that you choose to ignore China.

        Let’s point out one of your myriad distortions: restrictions on freedom of speech. This I will grant you: there is not unlimited free speech. You can’t yell fire in a theater when there is no fire. But you can burn the flag! What you purposely fail to mention are the checks and balances in place along with the attendant institutions. In that light, the spin is completely different. It is called rule of law, which does not exist in your brutal, tyrannical ChiCommie-run China. Poor Chinese!

        You prefer your deceptive relativism to the actual picture of how horrible is China. Essentially, law is ruthlessly exercised by tyrannical dictators “for the benefit of the people”. Isn’t that just special, boy!

        Keep up with your deceptions and distortions. Be my guest!

        • Voice of China says:

          VoC, you cherry-pick American problems while ignoring the legal abomination in China.

          No, I make analogies generally to defend what is said about China.

          Let’s point out one of your myriad distortions: restrictions on freedom of speech. This I will grant you: there is not unlimited free speech.

          No, there isn’t as I expressly pointed out in the previous posts. In fact there are a number of coinciding powers in most developed countries allowing for the same authority to be exercised.

          What you purposely fail to mention are the checks and balances in place along with the attendant institutions.

          What checks and balances and what attendant institutions are you talking about?

          It is called rule of law, which does not exist in your brutal, tyrannical ChiCommie-run China. Poor Chinese!

          You don’t understand the rule of law: Re previous post

          Essentially, law is ruthlessly exercised by tyrannical dictators “for the benefit of the people”. Isn’t that just special, boy!

          No it’s not

          You’re just the person I expected when I mentioned that the next comment would be from a ‘troll’. A perfect example of all the deficiencies mentioned in the previous post. Both in the eighth great English techniques, the lack of substance and the not understanding the terms used.

          I pity you Jerry, I really do. I question your reading and analytical skills and the soundness of your mind. With such a cynical view of China, I hope you don’t have to live there.

        • Jerry says:

          Because you don’t seem to have much intellectual and analytical chops, here is a definition from U Iowa’s Int’l Finance/Dev School. I hope that you have some reading comprehension.

          http://www.uiowa.edu/ifdebook/faq/Rule_of_Law.shtml

          What is the Rule of Law?

          The rule of law does not have a precise definition, and its meaning can vary between different nations and legal traditions. Generally, however, it can be understood as a legal-political regime under which the law restrains the government by promoting certain liberties and creating order and predictability regarding how a country functions. In the most basic sense, the rule of law is a system that attempts to protect the rights of citizens from arbitrary and abusive use of government power.

          Again, China has no such protections.

          I live in Taipei. Why would I ever want to go to China, land of the oppressive tyrant and the environmental disaster? I like my lungs and sanity.

          LMFAO, you putz, VoC! 😀 Sieg heil, VoC!! ROFL! 😛

          • Voice of China says:

            1. Taipei is part of China
            2. That’s a poor definition – try journal articles from CCH, Lexis Nexis, Thompsons Law.
            3. The Chinese judiciary applies the law it does not make them => There is no arbitrary use of government power as each arm functions in order and limited to its power.
            4. You’re truly an idiot

          • Jerry says:

            If you considered me smart, VoC, I would be insulted. I certainly don’t depend on you for my self-esteem!

            There is one China. There is one Taiwan and it is already independent. Check out the Montevideo Convention. Independent Taiwan forever, nebbischer!

            It is a great definition.

            Here is to the people of China!

            • Voice of China says:

              1. I don’t know why you’re speaking German but I suppose it’s because you are mentally unstable.

              2. Taiwan province doesn’t satisfy 2/4 criteria of the treaty – most notably the capacity to enter into relations with other states as well as problems with exercising de facto and de jure sovereignty.

              3. Taiwan is recognized internationally as a province of China by almost all 192 member states of the UN and all developed nations of significance.

              4. Taiwan has no place in the UN and most international organizations whether sporting (Olympics), IMF, and all large economic NGOs.

              5. Secession law allows China to exercise its domestic powers to attack Taiwan when and “IF” it declares independence.

              6. You fail again and again and again!

              7. Have fun troll, I hope you still have ANY self esteem left

              8. My guess is that you don’t get taken seriously in real life or online and that’s why you are seeking my attention. Too bad you’ve used up all of your quota this week. Come back next week for more.

              • HH says:

                your speech made my day. its my birthday today. glad to enjoy such a splendour

              • john digmeme says:

                When is South Carolina going to field an Olympic Team, do you think? Or is it only provinces that get to compete? Alberta? Manitoba?

          • Jerry says:

            I love pulling your chain. You’re such an easy mark. A pleasant, passing diversion.

            Taiwan passes and has passed 4 out of 4. As usual, you don’t know what you are talking about.

            I think some of your comments have been made looking into your own mirror. What a joke and then some.

            Hubris, thy name is VoC.

            Come and get us here in Taiwan. About the 4 + Ohio class submarines loaded with Tomahawks and the superior Japanese and US military. Would not be a wise move on the ChiCommies and PLA’s part.

            Troll? Looking in the mirror again? LMAO 😛 😀

            Truth is that I succeed a lot! A shaynem dank in der pupik, schmuck!

            Oh, I get taken seriously in a lot of places. Just remember, assume makes an ass out of you …

            The German was in honor of your white-power like stances. My people have seen that a lot and you do not fail to come through! But you are still an amateur!

            Good night and good luck!

            • Voice of China says:

              1. Taiwan hasn’t passed 2/4
              2. The convention is merely customary law and is therefore non-enforceable
              3. I’ll look forward to the day Taiwan ‘try’ to declare independence. There’s nothing quite like watching fireworks glistening across a clear sky.
              4. But I assume we’ll get disappointed as these days, as PRC has too many people inside the party who could overturn the government as soon as they are prompted.

              Hey, I wasn’t planning on responding to your garbage but this time it wasn’t a liability it was entertainment! 😀

              Jerry, you are a prime definition of a troll. Someone who adds no substance to the argument but makes personal attacks and unsubstantiated claims either unrelated to the original topic or personal attacks.

              Truth is you fail again and again. You talk like a child using a language no one understands but yourself to give yourself a sense of satisfaction. Of course no-one takes you seriously. And uh, Hitler was taken down by outside white-powers.

              You made this account to follow and respond to my every comment. I recognize that and how much of a waste of time for me to bother. But hey, the significance of this post is that it probably completely destroys every argument you made and that you ACTUALLY believed that Taiwan was a country LOL.

              You truly are a loner and a basement dwelling pleb. I won’t spoil you with another response. You’re not even worth it. HAHA.

          • Jerry says:

            You and your quotas, VoC. Along with the free answers and charging for additional answers, papa wumao mao!

            You are great source of amusement!

    • Jerry says:

      Mark N, I applaud your sincere passion and rational, logical arguments. Unfortunately, VOC, “mr. no free questions”, does not want discussion. He wants to win, at all costs. For all I know, he is or was an wumao. His motto seems to be, “China is great; the West is the devil”! I have encountered this die-hard attitude on several of the Chinese blogs on which I participate. It seems to be part of life on the Chinese and Taiwanese blogs. How representative of Chinese thought is this attitude? I don’t know.

      Keep up the good work.

      I think that VoC’s attitude is beyond saving face or diou lian! It seems to be part of a concerted ChiCommie effort to push their agenda.

      National security is a legitimate concern when properly applied. Unfortunately, the ChiCommies use it as a weapon to stomp out dissent or advocacy, whether Liu, Tan Zuoren in Sichuan, Wei Wei or some parents protesting tainted vaccines in Beijing.

      Mazel tov, Mark!

      I wonder how VoC plans on charging for answering questions? Wumao?

      • Mark N. says:

        thanks Jerry.
        I did read VoC’s other answers in this discussion, so I wasn’t expecting much, but still thought it might be worth a shot to see if he would be able to answer with some logic when given some questions that I would want to see a valid arguments from his side for. boy, did he prove me wrong.
        i’ve seen similar denial and pointless counter-answers in interviews with white-power people, this guy is clearly just as broad-minded and on the same level of intelligence as that bunch.

        • Voice of China says:

          Mark,

          This is how I would have commented if you wanted a sincere followup

          ‘I believe that the there should be a reduction in the power of the government under Article 105 of the legal code so as to promote free political speech.’

          Since you qualified it was your belief, there is nothing wrong with the sentence. No need to talk about the constitution or human rights. It gets the message across.

      • Mark says:

        Good Point. Mindset is similar no doubt to the ultra right Japanese who drive around Tokyo in trucks waving jap flags, and screaming through bull horns whenever anything foreign dares to upset their reality. The Asian ultra nationalist resisting anything “barbarian” or “gaijin” . Of course technology is never foreign, just something to steal.

        It is a very dangerous form of fascism, and in China is starting to look like the Jap form more every day. I suppose just as in Japan the government will use these willing fools as their internet stooges, and street fighters to intimidate any opposition.

    • GuoBao says:

      “There is no evidence of China ignoring human rights. Most of the local incidents such as that in Tibet are instigated by the Dalai Lama. The Chinese government does the best it can to contain the problem.”

      This would be a case of you losing all remaining credibility if it wasn’t for the fact that you didn’t have any left to lose. Even publicly inside of China there are plenty of officially recognized examples of h-r abuses but still probably 90 percent of the remaining ones are buried or kept out of the media. You ARE aware that China censors anything it wants to right? How do you feel about a government thinking you are too stupid to make up your own mind about things? (I bet you’ll sidestep this question as you do with any question that you can’t answer according to your sheepish and biased views).

      You are just plain pathetic, your use your reasonable command of English to talk a lot but you really aren’t SAYING much. Your logic and your reasoning are archaic bordering to “A rock can’t fly, you can’t fly ergo you are a rock” arguments and in combination with a complete lack of self criticism and raging nationalism separates you only marginally from the neti-morons who spend their days writing “NUKE JAPAN!” in every thread they come across. Get a fucking life.

      • Voice of China says:

        National treasure, if you hate my posts so much then why bother reading them?

        Are there human rights abuses because CNN reports them? Or the New York Times? Or because of Falun Gong daily? You are aware that media bias exists everywhere right?

        I think in reference to the English, you seem to be using a relatively large number of words to say very little. I’ve mentioned this in my above post.

        Let’s face it Guo Bao, you’re raging in your boots of how I am able to run circles around your peanut brain. You wonder why you’ve failed to make a single argument that has had merit. You wish I would go away, so that you could go back to your mindless flaming. But lets face it, even if there was an ignore button on Chinahush, you wouldn’t use it. Because you are too concerned with what I believe and what I have to say. So let’s salute to my victory and conquest over your fragile ego.

        • Voice of China says:

          In fact, look at how myopic you are to the big picture. This was a response to a question asked about why China is offered a seat in the UN despite human rights violations. You’ve used selective reasoning and taken the quote out of context, given its qualification as a five minute rush job answer. This exact question is readdressed in a future post. Which you deliberately did not post.

          If you want to know what is recognized as human rights violations and in breach of jus cogens, then give an example from the United Nations website. It’s simple but I’m sure you’re too afraid that none exist and instead turn to your biased media.

          Again you are a plain example of someone who talks too much based on generalizations without substantive backing. The only difference between you and some other trolls are:

          a.) You don’t rant bravo at the end of the sentence
          b.) You don’t use unnecessary metaphors too often

  51. Basic economics says:

    A lot of people don’t seem to understand the incredible job the PRC has done.

    1945 = world war 2 ends
    1949 = chinese civil war ends
    1950 = Korean war begins

    In the 1950’s China was on its deathbed due to having nothing but war since 1937

    The GDP per capita of China after the korean war was probably around 1/3rd of the gdp per capita of Africa.

    Now in 2010 the gdp per capita of china is around 4 times larger than the gdp per capita of Africa.

    2010
    China population = 1.3 billion
    China GDP = 5 trillion

    Africa population = 1 billion
    Africa GDP = 1 trillion

    This level of growth is unprecedented to say that the CCP government had nothing to do with it is irrational.

    • mike says:

      nice figures mr economics, your noble peace prize application will wow the judges.

      • Basic economics says:

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_regions_by_past_GDP_%28PPP%29

        China in 1950 = 244,985
        Africa in 1950 = 203,131

        Population of Africa in 1950

        http://www.geohive.com/earth/his_proj_continent.aspx

        227,939,046

        Population of China in 1950

        http://geography.about.com/od/populationgeography/a/chinapopulation.htm

        As recently as 1950, China’s population was a mere 563 million.

        China was without a doubt poorer than Africa in 1950

        So why has the democratic African governments did not develop as much as China? If according to you democracy comes hand in hand with economic growth?

      • georgeson says:

        Again, there is no reason for “Nobel Peace Prize” to exist. It should be abandoned because it is impossible to determine what should be called peace to people from different countries that potentially compete with or even be unfriendly to each other. It’s reasonable to have Nobel Prizes for different branches of science and technology. But it’s wrong to have Nobel “Peace” Prize internationally.

        • Mark says:

          Authoritarianism is good when it produces growth, but B.E. thinks its not possible that his enlightened rulers will not also lie, cheat, and steal, and even kill, since no one in the system has the power to watch and report on them.

          “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men.” – Lord Acton

          “Unlimited power is apt to corrupt the minds of those who possess it” – William Pitt, the Elder

          • Basic Economics says:

            I can pull up quotes too!

            ” A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations has been 200 years.

            Great nations rise and fall. The people go from bondage to spiritual truth, to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependence, from dependence back again to bondage. ”

            -Alexander Fraser Tytler

            “A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.”

            – Thomas Jefferson

            • Mark says:

              VOC you’re getting all excited. You are out of character once again. B.E. is supposed to be the calm empiricist (wink)

    • GuoBao says:

      You seriously want to compare yourselves to Africa? I guess there are some similarities ie the massive corruption, the many oppressive governments and the fact that you start out from what basically is a pile of rubble but still, Africa, really?!

      • Basic economics says:

        China was a rubble of shit in the 1950’s

        I have brought up plenty of information showing that China was poorer than both India and Africa when the CCP took over.

        Majority of the States in Africa are democratic, India is democratic.

        Who else should China compare too?

        The average japanese was 4 times richer than the average chinese even after WW2, the average German was 8 times richer,and american 24 times richer.

        Africa had around 500 million people, India had around 500 million people, China had 500 million people in 1950 after WW2. All of the people in these 3 countries had around the same amount of wealth except that the average chinese was slightly poorer.

        Africa and India both chose democracy, China chose authoritarianism

        60 years later, Africa is as poor as India. China’s economy is roughly 4 times India and Africa’s GDP. Even though China was hit by an embargo by every western country all the way to 1971 and to this day is still facing economic sanctions from the USA and EU.

  52. Basic Economics says:

    The Old Man and the bag of stinking fish

    Once upon a time there was an Old Man. Around his neck he carried a bag of fish. He was very proud of the fish, but the truth is that they were rather rotten and had an unpleasant smell. The old man had been carrying them around his neck for such a long time that he no longer noticed the smell; he thought they were very fine fish indeed.

    Now the old man had an unfortunate habit – he would travel around the world inviting himself into other people’s homes, and then try to force his fish on them whether they wanted them or not. I am sorry to say that sometimes, when he found himself in the home of people who were smaller and weaker than him, he would even beat them with his stick until they agreed to take his fish.

    One day the Old Man arrived at the home of a Chinese man. Walking in the door, he put on his friendliest voice.

    “Ho, young Chinaman! You are a lucky fellow today! For I have brought you a bag of very fine fish…”

    And he thrust the bag of rotten fish under the nose of the Chinese man.

    “Why, thank you,” replied the Chinese man politely, his nose wrinkling a little at the smell. “But the truth is that I already have some fish of my own.” And he directed the Old Man’s attention to his own fish.

    “Yes, yes,” said the Old Man after a cursory glance. “But your fish are no good. Look how small and weak they are. Get rid of them now. My fish are much better – you should take them straight away!”

    “It is true that my fish are not big and strong,” answered the Chinese man. “But I try to take care of them and feed them well. They are already bigger and stronger than they were last week, and next week they will be bigger and stronger still. I hope that one day they will be very fine fish indeed -”

    “I don’t care what your fish looked like last week!” interrupted the Old Man angrily. “I’m not in the least bit interested! And I don’t care what they will look like next week either. I am telling you that they are no good now! Throw them away immediately, and take my fish instead!”

    By now the Chinese man was becoming a little irritated. “I don’t want your fish,” he said. “They have an unpleasant smell. I am happy with my own fish, and I intend to keep them.”

    “How dare you!” yelled the Old Man in a rage. “Who do you think you are to refuse my fish? There are no finer fish than mine. I order you to take my fish! Do as you are told – take them now!”

    The Chinese man was too polite to throw the old man out of his house, so he decided simply to ignore him, and went off to take care of his fish.

    And so the Old Man was left on his own in the middle of the room, shouting and screaming, with a bag of rotten stinking fish hanging round his neck.

    • Mikecheck says:

      In fact the Chinese man was wearing a bag of stinky tofu around his neck the whole time. The next time a different Old Man offered that same Chinese man a bag of sweet peaches, no matter how sweet they tasted, and no matter how many of his Chinese friends told him they were in fact the sweetest peaches ever, he knew that since that also came from an old man, they must be stinky fish. The poor Chinese man’s nose was so corrupted by the bag of stinky tofu and his fear of old men that he missed on on the sweetest peaches ever.

  53. GuoBao says:

    Be careful referring to the Chinese system as “small and weak” mate. It could land you in trouble some day.

  54. The John says:

    AN INTERESTING UPDATE!

    Chinese Communist elders issue free speech appeal

    BEIJING – A group of Communist Party elders in China has issued a bold call to end the country’s wide-ranging restrictions on free speech, just days after the government reacted angrily to the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to imprisoned dissident Liu Xiaobo.

    In an open letter posted online, the retired officials state that although China’s 1982 constitution guarantees freedom of speech, the right is constrained by a host of laws and regulations that should be scrapped.

    “This kind of false democracy of affirming in principle and denying in actuality is a scandal in the history of democracy,” said the letter, which was dated Monday and widely distributed by e-mail.

    Wang Yongcheng, a retired professor at Shanghai’s Jiaotong University who signed the letter, said it had been inspired by the recent arrest of a journalist who wrote about corruption in the resettlement of farmers for a dam project.

    “We want to spur action toward governing the country according to law,” Wang said in a telephone interview.

    “If the constitution is violated, the government will lack legitimacy. The people must assert and exercise their legitimate rights,” he said.

    Coming on top of Liu’s Nobel Prize, the letter further spotlights China’s tight restrictions on freedom of speech and other civil rights, although Wang said the two events were not directly related. Work on the letter began several days before the prize was awarded, and drafters decided against including a reference to Liu out of concern the government would block its circulation.

    Liu, a 54-year-old literary critic, is now in the second year of an 11-year prison term after being convicted of inciting subversion over his role in writing an influential 2008 manifesto for political reform.

    China’s government has denounced Liu’s prize as an attempt to interfere in its political and legal systems and said it would harm relations with Norway, where an independent committee presents the Nobel Peace Prize each year.

    The letter called on the National People’s Congress, China’s legislature, to scrap restrictions on publications and implement a system of post-facto review as many other nations did long ago.

    “Our current system of censoring news and publications is 315 years behind Britain and 129 years behind France,” the letter said.

    Censorship has become so reflexive and restrictive that even passages urging political reform were expunged from official media reports on speeches by Premier Wen Jiabao, the letter said. Wen has drawn attention in recent weeks with a series of unusually direct calls for the communist system to evolve.

    “Not even the nation’s premier has freedom of publication,” the letter said.

    China implements overlapping and usually unwritten rules and regulations on what can or cannot be published, but the final call is made by the Communist Party’s shadowy Central Propaganda Department. Members of the department regularly notify editors about what topics are taboo, usually by telephone to avoid leaving a paper trail, with the list changing constantly depending on events.

    The letter described the department as an “invisible black hand” and questioned what right it had to override both the government and the premier.

    Signatories to the letter include Li Rui, the former secretary to revolutionary leader Mao Zedong, and other retired high officials in state media and the propaganda apparatus who were once themselves responsible for enforcing strict censorship.

    The government insists it guarantees freedoms and points to vast improvements in incomes and quality of life among its citizens as evidence that the one-party authoritarian system is best suited to the country’s realities.

    Calls to the National People’s Congress’ news office rang unanswered Wednesday.

    Li, who is in his 90s, is hospitalized and could not immediately be reached for comment, nor could most other signatories to the letter.

    • The John says:

      8 demands:

      Dismantle system where media organisations are all tied to higher authorities

      Respect journalists, accept their social status

      Revoke ban on cross-province supervision by public opinion

      Abolish cyber-police; control Web administrators’ ability to delete/post items at will

      Confirm citizens’ right to know crimes and mistakes committed by ruling party

      Launch pilot projects to support citizen-owned media organisations

      Allow media and publications from Hong Kong and Macau to be openly distributed

      Change the mission of propaganda authorities, from preventing the leak of information
      to facilitating its accurate and timely spread

      • Basic Economics says:

        Media systems have to be controlled by the authorities because it is a form of power.

        Because media is never reported fairly people will use it to benefit themselves.

        Media distortion has led to multiple wars in the past.

        If I had control over a large newspaper I will use it to spread my own beliefs, For example I would stockpile gold, then write articles about gold running out causing a surge in gold buying which I can just dump for a profit.

        This happens commonly in the USA making the economy very unstable for example false news of Stave Jobs getting injured caused a mass panic of dumping apple shares.

        If Media is controlled by the people it is full of lies, if it is controlled by the state it is full of lies.

        However the State has a greater reputation to uphold so they will not lie as much.

        In the end it is a choice of CCTV or Foxnews. CCTV is the better choice

        • GuoBao says:

          They taught you well my young padawan sheep. Your arguments are complete crap but I sense a certain force in you. I’d take Fox News over CCTV any day since I prefer a good laugh to not knowing anything. If I had been watching CCTV for 3 days straight I still wouldn’t know that Liu Xiaobo got the peace price.

          “If I had control over a large newspaper I will use it to spread my own beliefs, For example I would stockpile gold, then write articles about gold running out causing a surge in gold buying which I can just dump for a profit.”

          Do you seriously think that if you based a newspaper on lies it would be big and important enough, not to mention actually being read by normal people? How many people read Worker’s Daily? The whole idea is that you educate people in order for them to make up their own decisions.

          “Media systems have to be controlled by the authorities because it is a form of power.”

          Yes and it’s a power we in the West value very highly -hell, not only in the West, in every non-totalitarian country in the world. You’ve probably heard this before “A government should be afraid of the people, not the other way around” and that is again very fitting to remind you of in the context of the media.

          • Basic economics says:

            Do you seriously think that if you based a newspaper on lies it would be big and important enough, not to mention actually being read by normal people?

            http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/32039.html

            >Fox is the most trusted television news network in the country, according to a new poll out Tuesday.

            >A Public Policy Polling nationwide survey of 1,151 registered voters Jan. 18-19 found that 49 percent of Americans trusted Fox News, 10 percentage points more than any other network.

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

            >67% of Fox viewers believed that the “U.S. has found clear evidence in Iraq that Saddam Hussein was working closely with the al Qaeda terrorist organization” (Compared with 56% for CBS, 49% for NBC, 48% for CNN, 45% for ABC, 16% for NPR/PBS).

            >The belief that “The U.S. has found Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq” was held by 33% of Fox viewers and only 23% of CBS viewers, 19% for ABC, 20% for NBC, 20% for CNN and 11% for NPR/PBS

            >35% of Fox viewers believed that “the majority of people [in the world] favor the U.S. having gone to war” with Iraq. (Compared with 28% for CBS, 27% for ABC, 24% for CNN, 20% for NBC, 5% for NPR/PBS)

            And as far as I can tell CCTV does not distort the faces of people they don’t agree with

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:FNC_Controversy_Steinberg.png

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:FNC_Controversy_Reddicliffe.png

            Fox News has been lying to the people for years and they are still #1 in the USA

            • john digmeme says:

              Can we compare the listeners of our NPR to your NPR? That would make this pretty clear cut.

          • Basic economics says:

            And for your information I am a USA citizen that is why I can easily show how bad the USA really is, I have never set foot before in China and I don’t speak a word of Chinese.

            So I can assure you that I am not a CCP member.

          • Voice of China says:

            They taught you well my young padawan

            I think its actually hilarious when people use star wars quotes as if everyone is a fan. You know it sounds funny right? But it also makes you look like a child 😀

            If I had been watching CCTV for 3 days straight I still wouldn’t know that Liu Xiaobo got the peace price.

            Then that would be good, cause look what happened after you found out -> Your mind fills with trash and you’re spewing out rhetoric fed directly from the Western propaganda machine,

            Do you seriously think that if you based a newspaper on lies it would be big and important enough, not to mention actually being read by normal people? How many people read Worker’s Daily? The whole idea is that you educate people in order for them to make up their own decisions.

            No, I think BE was talking about controlling the entire media. This is quite a good analogy as it pretty much represents the US situation at the moment. The trick is to selectively choose what gets reported, what doesn’t and what words are used more frequently used, like ‘red, communist, China says the Dalai Lama wants independence but he says he wants just meaningful autonomy, etc.’ Hey, if all the newspapers say the same thing, then its mainstream, it can’t be wrong right? Everything that say’s something else must be propaganda. LOL

            Again you fail National Treasure, but have you ever succeeded in presenting a single working point? Not really. So I shouldn’t be surprised. There’s a reason why Chinese get all your jobs and ‘you don’t like it’ LOL

        • Jerry says:

          You are such a China flack, Basic Economics. Before a newspaper in China could do what American newspapers and websites do, the ChiCommies would have to allow the newspapers and websites to report accurately on what is going on in China.

          The ChiCommies and the State lie like cheap pigs. CCTV, the ChiCommies, Fox News and Rupert Murdoch are all greedy liars, lying for their own benefit.

          So much for the Chinese meritocracy. If you lie more, you merit a better place in China.

          Let me take a guess here, BE. If China is so great, why don’t you live there? If you do live there, well, I missed my guess.

          • Basic economics says:

            What has China actually lied about? SARS (justified because of mass panic), Tieneman square, lied about the CCTV fire.

            What has the USA lied about? Vietnam, Korean war, broke every treaty made with indians, Broke most of the treaties made with the USSR and other communist countries, lied about human weaposn testing, Lied about the Kent State massacre, lied about the Waco massacre, The presidents Nixon and Clinton both lied in court. Obama went back on his campaign promises, the USA lied about the WMD , lied about the Iran contra scandal, Lied about using Chemical weapons, Lied about the dangers of depleted Uranium, Bush lied about his military record, Lied about torturing prisoners, Lied about wiretapping, lied about expanding the war to cambodia and laos, lied about the gulf of tonkin resolution, Lied about the gravina Bridge,

            Almost all of the military interventions on this list never get reported in the news

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

            At the end of the day China’s lies were to hide the deaths of a thousand people in Tieneman while the lies of the USA were to hide the deaths of millions and caused wars that killed millions

            • john digmeme says:

              The only reason you know any of this stuff is due to a free flow of information. Somebody reported something and it got out. Who know’s what’s really going on in your country? It might be enough to make your hair stand on end.

          • Jerry says:

            BE, are you JUSTIFYING LIES!!

            You are truly a low-life using tu quoque to justify lies.

            China and the ChiCommies lie, restrict media access, censor and distort the news and information, for their own benefit. Their motto – “SCREW the Chinese Public!”

            The US has rule of law and many media outlets which can expose lies.

            China has the ChiCommies rule of tyranny and oppression.

            I’ll take the US any day, warts and all!

            • Basic economics says:

              The USA does the same thing

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

              You will NEVER hear about the CIA performing a Coup in another country

              Most of the “bad things” about the USA get exposed by news sources operating OUTSIDE THE USA

              A top USA executive has even stated publically that most of the news they report are lies, all of this is caught on camera!

              http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIzx14AsK2s

              People videotape things inside the USA and then they send the tapes to places like Russia today.

              • john digmeme says:

                So according to this: “A top USA executive has even stated publically that most of the news they report are lies, all of this is caught on camera!” It threatens the value of the “lies” you mentioned in your previous comment. Just saying.

                Russia Today is based in Washington, D.C. Go figure..

                • Basic Economics says:

                  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT_%28TV_network%29

                  RT, previously known as Russia Today, is a global multilingual television news network based in Russia. RT was the first all-digital Russian TV network.[1] The service is aimed at the overseas market, similar to DW-TV, France 24 and NHK World, and broadcast through satellite and cable operators throughout the world.

                  • john digmeme says:

                    Thanks for the link:

                    “RT broadcasts from its headquarters in Moscow and its studio in Washington, DC.”

                    Here’s another:
                    http://kimelli.nfshost.com/index.php?id=8216
                    “…studio facility in Washington, D.C. for its English-language TV news channel. The network’s second largest TV studio and production facility will contribute 6 hours of its original news content a day into RT’s TV newsfeed that is being distributed worldwide via satellites from its headquarters in Moscow, Russia. …”

                    You said, “People videotape things inside the USA and then they send the tapes to places like Russia today.” RT’s ‘bread and butter’ come from reports critical of US decisions – yet it broadcasts blocks away from where those decisions are being made.

                    Do you have an example of such a situation in China? I do:
                    http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/03/technology/03iht-media.html

                    Freedom of speech is a wonderful thing if fostered and protected by law. All the links you post tell me that you are obviously an avid reader and consumer of free information. It’s ironic you downplay the usefulness of freedom of speech, and yet you consume it continuously.

            • Voice of China says:

              Basic Economics is so right.

              Time to face the truth and that includes the oppressive and vindictive government of the U.S.A. The new century will mark the downfall of America and their military stronghold on the rest of the World.

              God Fuck America! 😀

            • Voice of China says:

              Calm down Jerry,

              sheesh don’t get all angry for no reason. Did CPP arrest your mom for extorting cocaine or did they take away Starcraft II because you d/l it 😀

            • Jerry says:

              HH, thanks for the applause. You, mr. tuchus-lecker sycophant and VoC are the jokes here. LMAO at you, tuchus-lecker! 😛

              HH, do you have an original thought in your yutz!

              Bye Bye, Khazer long!

              • Voice of China says:

                Yiddish again? LOL

                tuchus-lecker sycophantm LMAO at you Bye Bye, Khazer long!

                So Yiddish is either Jewish or some random gay sounding arrangement of words.

                Is this Yiddish too “Shmack Clap Clap Glock, Klazen Gluten grap shlop nop slap clock Schnizen Lech’ 😀

          • Jerry says:

            Brilliant comments, Voiceless.

            When you write English, you think Chinese. Ain’t going to work here. You have no or a distorted Western/English/USA cultural picture in your mind when you write. Your comments thus sound absurd. I face it here in Taiwan all the time, but they are far more humble and eager to learn than you. Ah, yes, the beautiful, independent, sovereign nation of Taiwan, whose Chinese culture and people are far superior to anything or any people found in China!!! LOL! 😛

            Mark N. is right – you play the games of a 4 to 5 year old. Really, Voiceless! Resorting to crude language only demonstrates your lack of ability to effectively communicate on a mature level! Time to go see Mommy and Daddy for some lessons!

            Uncle Hu loves sycophantic patriots like you, Voiceless, and BE. Again, sorry for the big words. LMAO 😛 😀

            • Voice of China says:

              Oh Jerry,

              You’re funny, I’ll give you that 😀

              My view of the Western world is very accurate and my comments sound darn good haha.

              You keep telling yourself Taiwan is independent, cause like many other things, it exists only in your twelve year old head.

              Jerry, you sounded better when you were speaking German, at least then you could pretend you had something to say. And sorry I hurt your feelings.

              Just a little tip though, just so others don’t perceive you to be less than ten years old (which is what I perceive your mental age to be at least), you could go easy on the emoticons. What really gives it away though was the abundance of exclamation marks, and the amount of ‘LOL’ and ‘LMAO’ ‘s which are words unique to adolescents on aim.

              Oh and how does the Command Conquer campaign go? Finished killing off the Iraqis yet? Do they still have the Ion Cannon thing? Oops, I shouldn’t have revealed their secret weapon against the Chinese 😛

  55. Basic economics says:

    And for all of you people here living in China who thinks that life would be better if they could vote or that their votes have any meaning.

    Canda is still fighting in the Iraq war

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

    In March 2003 a poll conducted by EKOS Research Associates for the Toronto Star and the Montreal newspaper La Presse found 71% of those questioned did not support the United States-led invasion, with 27% expressing disapproval.[3] As well, the Prime Minister’s advice to the viceroy was based on feasibility problems for Canada: on 31 March 2003, Maclean’s magazine reported that “Canada has committed about 2,000 troops to Afghanistan this summer, a significant contribution given the stretched state of the Canadian military.”

    98% of Canada does not support the Iraq war yet Candian citizens are still fighting in the Iraq war.

    Every poll in the United States after the USA confessed that they lied about WMD shows that most of the USA is against the war

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

    Yet Americans are still fighting and dying in Iraq.

    • Mikecheck says:

      Much can be said about the US, it’s easy to find fault with, and of course Canada has it’s own issues and hypocrisy, but our you really suggesting Canada’s democracy doesn’t work because of these few examples? Seriously?

      • Basic Economics says:

        98% of the people don’t support something so why is the government doing this?

        Is democracy not about having the a government controlled by the people.

        If Canada is a TRUE democracy then why are there still Canadian soldiers killing people in Iraq?

        Lets Say China lets everybody vote.

        China spends billions to set up voting booths everywhere, spends billions letting politicians campaign for support

        Obama spent 5.3 BILLION campaigning

        http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article5002832.ece

        Campaign cost tops $5.3bn in most expensive White House race in history

        And this is just Obama, add in other candidates like Sarah Palin, Hillary Clinton, Mccain, Biden etc….

        Add in the total cost of running all these voting booths and paying people to count votes.

        How much election money is wasted every 4 years? just on the president alone? what would be a good guess 50 billion?

        How much is the tallest building in the world?

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

        Cost $1.5 billion

        Thats around 33 Burj Khalifa’s! and thats not even including senators, representatives, mayors,governors etc…

        So what is the point of wasting all this money if the government is not better at decision making or less corrupt than what China has now? Clearly democracy does not work no democratic government listens to the people. So why waste money? Why not leave China alone so that they can spend their money investing in science and infrastructure while the West plays voting games.

      • Mark says:

        What is worst is that at best they propose that China is no worst than the U.S. If the U.S. is not China’s model and if Authoritarianism is so good why is China only on par with the U.S. ? The fact being that most Americans are highly critical of their government and society, and feel they can do much better.

        • Basic Economics says:

          http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/asia_pac/02/china_party_congress/china_ruling_party/key_people_events/html/zhou_enlai.stm

          “It is too early to say”
          Zhou Enlai, asked for his assessment of the 1789 French Revolution

          The Roman Empire has lasted for 500 years, It will take at least 500 years of China’s current government to know if it is successful. Will the USA even be around in 500 years?

          The USA may be slightly more powerful than China right now after you factor in things like debt and forex, but it may not be so in the future. If you look at some of my earlier arguments just 50 years ago China was poorer than Africa.

          I don’t feel that it is important for the public to be critical about the government. The average person in the public knows little about politics. The average person should know enough to know when the government is doing serious wrong (like Iraq war) but know when to stay out of issues like economics, healthcare, development of a country, building of infrastructure, foreign policy etc…

          There have been ancient democracies in the past like Rome. Rome collapsed due to overspending and getting a high national debt, laziness and poor governmental decision making caused the military to overthrow the government in a coup causing a collapse. The USA right now is mirroring the roman empire

          • Voice of China says:

            I agree with you completely BE,

            the majority of voters include a huge demographic of uneducated voters who are subject to media influence and have very little if not no knowledge regarding politics, economics, law or finance. This makes it really difficult for them to make an informed vote. Allowing the public to vote for those in power make political decisions based on private interest which is often contrary to public interest.

            Furthermore, when it comes to important decisions affecting state security or those affecting the economy, most voters have very little choice in electing the best way to resolve conflicts. Having a democracy only gives very superficial and limited powers for the population which almost amounts to no power at all. Thank god China has a paternalistic government.

            • Max Headroom says:

              “Thank god China has a paternalistic government.”

              No comment, but God, its hard not to…

              • Voice of China says:

                Think about feeding your family. You can speak English unlike many others from Burma. Maybe you have hope.

        • Mikecheck says:

          It’s no surprise that those who love authoritarinism so much think they can say democracy is bad and that just makes it so.

          • Voice of China says:

            It’s no surprise that those who love democracy so much think they can say socialism is bad and that just makes it so.

            • Mikecheck says:

              Was it you or BE that already admitted the PRC is not socialist? The US is more socialist than China. In the US, you can drive almost anywhere for free on highways that are a product of socialism. While in China there are more toll roads per killometer of highway than there are flaws in you and BE’s arguments.

              • Mikecheck says:

                And to clarify… hey it’s Friday… I think there are on average10 flaws in each of VOC and BE’s arguments. According to crazystatistics.com there are in fact 11 toll booths for every one kilometer of highway in China.

  56. Mikecheck says:

    How many times has China risen and fallen throughout it’s long history? It’s on the up after a very long low down. China has been where the US is now many times; the most advanced nation in the world swollen with pride in its greatness and wallowing in the fruits of its excesses, rotting in its excrement, confident and content that it will be the best forever. Hopefully enough Americans will study Chinese history and not make the same mistakes China has made, so many times, over the last 5 millenia. It would be even better if China learned from its own history. But as the great Laozi once said ” An elephant can no more walk through the eye of a needle than B.E. and V.O.C. can pull their heads out of their asses”.

    • Basic Economics says:

      What do you mean fallen? China is not repeating history.

      China lost against the mongols because nobody could really fight the mongols due to their steppe horses being superior and they could shoot so well on horseback.

      China lost to the manchu because of traitors.

      China lost to Europe because it fell behind in technology. China fell behind in technology because its economic system never advanced and the government system was never advanced. Feudalism is probably the worst form of government for allocating resources to the right places and China’s economy never developed the advanced banking techniques and stock markets that Europe had.

      China’s government right now is a meritocracy/technocracy/single party and its economic system is state capitalism. China’s government has never been tried anywhere else other than Singapore, so why are you so convinced that it will fail?

      • Mikecheck says:

        I don’t know what to say about your “excuses” for China falling in the past. It doesn’t say much for your knowledge of history if you can truly believe those huge events happened for those simplistic reasons. It says alot that you didn’t argue about the Laozi truism though. Thanks and enjoy it where the sun doesn’t shine.

        • Voice of China says:

          Mike, you are so uneducated -> Moving onto next troll.

          • Mark N. says:

            how about moving out to “pointing out the flaws” of my post from three days back as you said you would. it’s only one issue there, seriously, keep it coming boy.

            • Voice of China says:

              I already have, and it took only a sentence.

              Seriously, the last three loaded questions you asked turned out to be flops. Why are you still trying? 😀

  57. Al says:

    What’s hilarious is that this has by now been completely forgotten in the “West” but people will still be talking about it for weeks in China.

  58. Voice of China says:

    Where do you live? Do you think half of China gives a shit about politics and Liu Xiao Bo? What a troll 😀

  59. Jerry says:

    Leaving behind, for a while, the fun that I have with the marvelously humorous yet spectacularly vulgar pseudo-intellectual, VoC = Vulgar of ChiCommies, it is time, once more, to return to the topic at hand. Hopefully, our VoC can follow along and hopefully demonstrate some comprehension in English. (He speaks and writes in English but possesses little or no conceptual understanding of English. But I digress).

    I was reading the Taipei Times on Friday and saw an article on the front page appropriately entitled: “Nobel prize tantamount to ‘encouraging crime’: PRC”. It seems that our favorite Foreign Ministry spokesman, Ma Zhaoxu, was having a tantrum, after finally discovering this chap named Liu Xiaobo. According to AFP’s report on our choleric, fuming friend:

    China yesterday denounced the Nobel Peace Prize awarded to dissident Liu Xiaobo (劉曉波) as tantamount to “encouraging crime,” as state media said the award was part of a Western “ideological war” against Beijing.

    The comments came as China came under fresh pressure, with Norway criticizing Chinese retaliatory steps over the award and the Japanese prime minister saying the jailed laureate should be freed.

    “Liu Xiaobo is a convicted criminal. Awarding the Nobel Prize to him is equivalent to encouraging crime,” foreign ministry spokesman Ma Zhaoxu (馬朝旭) told reporters. …

    “They even hope that China will one day collapse under the West’s ideological crusade,” said the editorial, intended for foreign audiences.

    The Chinese-language state press, however, has remained muted on the subject amid an information blackout on the news in China.

    In a similar vein, Ma asked about the “real motives” behind leaders and governments supporting Liu Xiaobo’s prize.

    “Is it that they deep down in their hearts don’t like China’s development path? They don’t like China’s political system?” he said.

    My, my, my. Ma (perhaps ma pigu would be more appropriate) is having trouble distinguishing between real crime and crimes for rattling the ChiCommies’ cage. Liu did not threaten or harm the Chinese people. Many Chinese still have no idea who he is and even more who don’t know what a Nobel Prize is. But his ideas threaten the rotting foundation of tyranny, autocracy and repression which is the CCP realm of the ChiCommies.

    Damnable Norwegian criminals along with their Japanese and Western co-conspirators. Shame on their lack of respect for tyranny and repression. The ChiCommies spent years honing their autocratic talents and now the West is dissing them. Mo’ Betta Blues! Oh the effrontery.

    Mr. Ma Pigu is right about one thing. I look forward to the collapse of the ChiCommies’ CCP. The Chinese have lived behind too many walls and gates for too long. It is time for China to have a “coming out party”.

    The whole article is below.

    ####

    Nobel prize tanamount to ‘encouraging crime’: PRC

    http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2010/10/15/2003485417

    AFP, BEIJING

    China yesterday denounced the Nobel Peace Prize awarded to dissident Liu Xiaobo (劉曉波) as tantamount to “encouraging crime,” as state media said the award was part of a Western “ideological war” against Beijing.

    The comments came as China came under fresh pressure, with Norway criticizing Chinese retaliatory steps over the award and the Japanese prime minister saying the jailed laureate should be freed.

    “Liu Xiaobo is a convicted criminal. Awarding the Nobel Prize to him is equivalent to encouraging crime,” foreign ministry spokesman Ma Zhaoxu (馬朝旭) told reporters.

    Liu, 54, was sentenced in December last year to 11 years in jail for subversion. He was awarded the prize last Friday by Oslo’s Nobel Committee for his advocacy of political reform and human rights in one-party China.

    The US and the EU have called for his release and Japanese Prime Minister Naoto Kan weighed in yesterday, risking Beijing’s ire just as Japan and China seek to put a damaging diplomatic spat behind them.

    “From the viewpoint that universal human rights should be protected across national borders, it is desirable” that Liu be released, Kan told the Japanese parliament.

    China broke off contacts with Tokyo last month after Japan detained a Chinese fishing boat captain whose vessel collided with Japanese coast guard ships in waters claimed by both sides in the East China Sea.

    However, the two close trading partners later moved to patch up the row.

    Kan said he would be “watching whether he [Liu] will be able to attend the Nobel Prize award ceremony or whether his wife or family members will attend.”

    Liu’s wife, Liu Xia (劉霞), has been largely confined to her Beijing home since last Friday in what she has denounced as “illegal house arrest.”

    Washington and Brussels have both appealed to China to let her move freely again.

    Beijing has directed most of its fury at Oslo by canceling ministerial meetings and a Norwegian musical scheduled to be staged in the country.

    Oslo on Wednesday criticized the cancelations and said Norway hoped to maintain good relations with China.

    If this decision is the consequence of the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize, we consider this an inappropriate reaction,” Norwegian foreign ministry spokeswoman Ragnhild Imerslund said.
    The state-run English-language Global Times newspaper said yesterday Liu Xiaobo’s award was part of a Western “ideological war” against China.

    “They even hope that China will one day collapse under the West’s ideological crusade,” said the editorial, intended for foreign audiences.

    The Chinese-language state press, however, has remained muted on the subject amid an information blackout on the news in China.

    In a similar vein, Ma asked about the “real motives” behind leaders and governments supporting Liu Xiaobo’s prize.

    “Is it that they deep down in their hearts don’t like China’s development path? They don’t like China’s political system?” he said.

    Liu Xiaobo’s sentence was widely seen as retaliation for authoring “Charter 08,” an appeal for political reform and human rights made in 2008.

    Dissidents and activist lawyers have been under close surveillance since the award was announced, and ahead of an annual Chinese Communist Party meeting opening today.

    Liu Xia, meanwhile, has had her telephones cut off by authorities, but has issued periodic statements on Twitter, which is blocked in China by the nation’s censors, but accessible via proxy servers.

    “I strongly protest against the government for my illegal house arrest,” Liu Xia said in a tweet on Wednesday, calling her situation “very hard to take.”

    Her lawyers said yesterday that she remained unreachable by telephone.

    • Voice of China says:

      “Once upon a time, there was a marvelously humerous yet spectuacularly vulgar…. blah blah blah.”

      You sound like you’re writing a novel Jerry…. Hahahahahah..

      But hey, I guess that’s what you have to do when you’ve got nothing of importance to say right? 🙂

      Or you could always recourse to German, what were you saying again?

      ‘Schmuck cluck gluck smoochen?’ ::chuckle chuckle sob Sieg heil, nebbischer?

      Hilarious.

      Thanks for the articles though. I agree with Ma Zhao Xu and think he did the right thing. Thank god China has the power to stick up to the West.

      This is what I love the most “Liu Xiaobo is a convicted criminal. Awarding the Nobel Prize to him is equivalent to encouraging crime,” foreign ministry spokesman Ma Zhaoxu ”

      – So what part don’t you understand? That China has sedition law that prevents political speech aimed at undermining and overthrowing the government?

      Wait… I forgot, you learn everything you know from Command Conquer. How are those Tomahawk missiles going? Just remember Jerry, if you ever need help in your English comprehension skills, there’s no shame in asking me. Don’t nerdrage too much ok? 😛

  60. Jerry says:

    VoC, brilliant intellectual reply. Not surprised. You are entitled to your opinions. They are not facts. Just opinions.

    Since you are such an intellectual, I am surprised that you do not recognize Yiddish. A shaynem dank in der pupik, mamzer, a ponem! Der a ritch in kop, khazer long (khazer long is Chiddish or Yiddish-Chinese).

    “Once upon a time, there was a marvelously humerous yet spectuacularly vulgar…. blah blah blah.”

    Per usual, you misquote. I said, “Leaving behind, for a while, the fun that I have with the marvelously humorous yet spectacularly vulgar pseudo-intellectual, VoC = Vulgar of ChiCommies, it is time, once more, to return to the topic at hand.” At least you could learn to spell and quote correctly, rather than intentionally distort. Or is this just your convenient, lackluster literary device?

    “- So what part don’t you understand? That China has sedition law that prevents political speech aimed at undermining and overthrowing the government? ”

    So what part do you not understand of what I wrote:

    My, my, my. Ma (perhaps ma pigu would be more appropriate) is having trouble distinguishing between real crime and crimes for rattling the ChiCommies’ cage. Liu did not threaten or harm the Chinese people. Many Chinese still have no idea who he is and even more who don’t know what a Nobel Prize is. But his ideas threaten the rotting foundation of tyranny, autocracy and repression which is the CCP realm of the ChiCommies.

    The truth is that you have opinions, Ma pigu has opinions and I have opinions. Understanding is optional. With you, understanding is impossible and that is just fine with me. Maybe some day! 😀

    IMHO, the ChiCommies will do anything to justify their tyrannical behavior. I got to give it to Ma pigu for his “encouraging crime” fantasy. Creative and unrealistic!

    Bye for now! Keep up with the cheap shots, VoC. They epitomize you! And then some. LMAO! 😛 ::chuckle chuckle::

    • Voice of China says:

      VoC, brilliant intellectual reply.

      You’re welcome, as always 🙂

      Not surprised. You are entitled to your opinions. They are not facts. Just opinions.

      Funny, hahahaha… You seem to have a comprehension disorder. Opinion like in Taiwan is not a sovereign state? Or that no developed country or NGO recognizes it?

      Or that the Montevideo convention is merely customary law that is not directly enforceable and is surpassed by other legislation?

      These are facts son, better get used to it hahahaha.

      Yiddish. A shaynem dank in der pupik, mamzer, a ponem! Der a ritch in kop, khazer long (khazer long is Chiddish or Yiddish-Chinese).

      Yeah and blah blah blah right? What the hell is Yiddish? Jewish manuscripts from before christ? LOL

      At least you could learn to spell and quote correctly, rather than intentionally distort. Or is this just your convenient, lackluster literary device?

      Oh, so now you don’t understand satire either? Well, as I said Jerry, you could always ask me politely for English lessons. If you beg me ‘pretty please’ I’d do it but I can’t promise I won’t laugh 😀

      The truth is that you have opinions, Ma pigu has opinions and I have opinions. Understanding is optional.

      You’re entitled your opinions but you need sucker up to reality. Facts are indisputable areas of knowledge that are objective and indefeasible. Such as the fact that Liu broke the law.

      Here’s another ounce of satire for you. I don’t know whether to laugh or frown. But I’m sure if I find it ridiculously funny, others will too. Behold the 13 year old vocabulary as reprinted below:

      LMAO! 😛 ::chuckle chuckle:: you got owned *sob* Phonix tank * Sieg heil, nebbischer *LOL*

      You really make my day 😀

      • Tsubasa says:

        you really make our day.

        Your posts are all I can think about when I’m sitting at my desk doing my job. I can’t wait to get home just to jerk off studying your teachings on this website

        AMEN

  61. Voice of the Universe except China a.k.a. Max Headroom says:

    Dear VoC!
    As you can see in my choice of handle I have now increased my ego to match yours.
    But out of respect of your writings, I have left a small place for you.

    Love ya’/M

  62. Jerry says:

    VoC, I would be remiss if I did not mention that Liu Xiaobo was nominated for the Nobel by Vaclav Havel and Archbishop Desmond Tutu. As for jailed criminals, I would add that Nelson Mandela, Martin Luther King and Mahatma Gandhi were all jailed for offenses similar to those of Liu.

    While the 5 aforementioned leaders do not have your stature and standing, please treat these lesser with kindness. They also do not possess your massive ego, VoC, which you so richly deserve. I just wish I could be as smart as you think you are!

    LMAO! 😛 😀 ::chuckle chuckle::

    • AlleyCat says:

      Let’s just add Aung San Suu Kyi into the mix. I think she deserves it.
      With any luck, it may provide some sparkles.

    • Voice of Chi says:

      Your contrast of writing is hilarious.

      ‘I would remiss’ at the start followed by ‘LMAO! :D:P ::chuckle chuckle::’ in the end. The true voice of a 13 year old.

      I’m glad you finally got the gist of satire son. Self learning is good and it saves me the time of having to educate you. Liu Xiao Bo is no Martin Luthor ok? But nice try anyway.

      Max Headroom is a single parent in Burma who has to feed his three starving kids. I can excuse him for sounding as pathetic. But you are just a kid who needs to find something better to do. If you’ve finished C&C already, try Starcraft II. Next you can then tell me how Taiwan has these massive battlecruisers that can intercept missiles. 😛

    • Voice of China says:

      Oh wait, I thought of something else you could use in your sentences.

      Try LMAO! 😛 😀 ::chuckle chuckle::

      THEN:

      LOLZ <—– try a z after LOL cause it sounds even cooler

      THEN:

      LOLX <—– because it's something different again

      THEN:

      LMFAO <—– cause all 13 year old nerds know that having the F there makes it more
      effective

      Then finish it off with :: SOB:: SOB:: Sieg Heil, Schmuck cluck gluck smoochen?’ ::chuckle chuckle sob Phonix missiles, nebbischer.

      That can be your ultimate weapon and taunt… What do you think?

  63. Alleycat says:

    I welcome the release of Nobel laureate Aung San Suu Kyi and extend my appreciation to the military regime in Burma. After their succesful electoral fraud, I assume they felt confident to have covered their corrupt asses. I extend my full support and solidarity to the movement for democracy in Burma and take this opportunity to appeal to freedom-loving people all over the world to support such non-violent movements. I hope that the government of the People’s Republic of China will follow the example of their Burmese counterparts and release fellow Nobel laureate Liu Xiaobo and other prisoners of conscience who have been imprisoned for exercising their freedom of expression.

  64. Alleycat says:

    Human Rights Watch researcher Phelim Kine says the announcement of a Nobel peace prize for Chinese writer Liu Xiaobo has driven official tolerance for peaceful dissent in China to a new low:

    http://www.hrw.org/en/audio/2010/12/06/china-lashes-out-over-noble-prize
    .

  65. John says:

    This comment format sucks, the replies keep geting squish together. Fix it

  66. samuel says:

    keep fighting for human rights mate
    china’s 3rd world it needs to grow up.

  67. daily tarot says:

    Wow, this article is nice, my
    Hello there! This blog post couldn’t be written any better!

    Reading through this post reminds me of my previous tarot!
    He continually kept preaching about this. Thanks
    for sharing!will go along with your views on this site.

Leave a Comment

Prove you are human! *
Time limit is exhausted. Please reload CAPTCHA.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Chinese Insecurity
  2. Nobelova cena míru v roce 2010: Symbol bratrství národů, nebo politický nástroj v rukou Západu? | Eastbound.cz
  3. Who invented Confucius Peace Prize? | ChinaHush
  4. CHINA HUSH – CHINA CITY LINKS
Kepard - Premium VPN Service

Latest Posts

Send or Receive Money in China

David Goldman | August 16th, 2016
bankwire

5 luxury hotels in Asia

Oliver Verot | June 2nd, 2016
ritz-bund-view-suite

Recent Comments

Is it normal to get an erection while reading such an eerie story? I feel extremely uncomfortable... And also Matthew…» more

Is it normal to get an erection while reading such an eerie story? I feel extremely uncomfortable... And also Matthew…» more

Hi! I am a 11 year old and I do not understand what the word prostitute means... Can somebody explain…» more

right everybody wants money» more

see if you have a line i will send a screenshot of that taiwanese girl to you» more

Subscribe by email

Enter your email address: