Should I call you smart or stupid? You've left me speechless this time.
So Hu Jia was arrested on Dec. 27, 2007, as the world learned immediately via the media. Some called you smart, since that date coincided with Benazir Bhutto's assassination, when everybody looked to Pakistan, shocked. But that sounds to me like a real big exaggeration of your intelligence, and prescience, because the arrest actually took place hours before the assassination.
And Jinyan's MSN Space has stopped updating, making me really concerned about her and their newborn baby. Her other blog, supposedly a mirror image of her MSN Space, keeps updating, yet it's not her style anymore. Apparently some colleague has taken over.
Assuming one of your big aims of hosting this Olympics is to boost your, no, our image around the world, just don't do this anymore. Whatever has been achieved is offset by this matter. You are not just offering ammunition to those who crave to denigrate you, but also hurting the feelings of all the kind-hearted people who cares deeply about human dignity, and justice. And you know what, it will cost you many times more efforts to erase it from people's memories than to commit this violation, and it will be talked over and over and over again, with disgust, like what appears in today's New York Times.
So stop shooting yourself on the foot, because in my dictionary, that's called stupid, super.
On top of all that, I, for one, will hold you responsible should anything happen to my classmate and the baby.
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Reaction to Kristof
Target article: Nicholas Kristof's Thursday column on the New York Times, Jan 24, 2008.
My comment can also be found on his blog.
Mr. Kristof invites readers to offer suggestions on how to alleviate the Darfur situation; yet it now increasingly resembles a well-crafted field research of free-flowing public opinion. Subjects under discussion cover a vast ground of international affairs, and controversies seem endless.
It is overwhelming to read all the comments before offering my own. To sum up, some posts are governed by clear logic and relatively accurate knowledge, of which some are even brilliant (such as #115 by Damien); while many posts are simply reflections of deep-seated biases and misunderstandings. Most Chinese readers are shocked, sickened or saddened by this notion of "Genocide Olympics", even though it's not the brainchild of Mr. Kristof. Opinions from those whose names and writing styles are more suggestive of an American background seem more diverse and well-reasoned. But be cautious before you conclude that Americans are more sophisticated than the Chinese. Many Chinese, even those who have the guts to voice their opinions on this website are not particularly well-versed in English. This is not a level playing ground -- Americans are at enormous advantage here, which you may never realize until someday you have the luxury of debating in a foreign language with some native speaker on a complicated issue like this. A fair-minded debater should restrain her sense of superiority boosted by the rhetoric advantage.
Back to the issue itself. Regrettably, although this highly sensational notion of "Genocide Olympics" has been advanced for more than a year now, I still find very few hard facts that establish the link between China and Genocide on solid grounds. To say that buying oil is supporting genocide is ridiculous, particularly when China's whole economic security is hinged on oil supply. Domestic economy is indisputably the top priority of any government on earth. China's stop buying Sudanese oil will be catastrophic at best and suicidal at worst [unsubstantiated claim that needs further research], while killings in Sudan would very probably just keep going, perhaps carried out with more primitive tools. Killings are caused by hatred, not some reasons you wishfully assign to be. Most arguments, including those presented by Mr. Kristof here, are stretched, hollow and hearsay-based.
American are sometimes so paranoid with China's growth figures that they fail to appreciate the myriads of internal priorities of China per se. They seldom realize that China could be led into crisis if things were even slightly mishandled. Premier Wen Jiabao's repeated statement that "we are overwhelmingly preoccupied by our domestic affairs" is not an excuse or pretense; it is the real situation. People in the developed world may never fully realized how stringent the constraints are for developing countries.
Many solid counter-arguments have been made and I shall not repeat here.
For those who play on this notion that "Mr. Kristof has a Chinese wife", a caution is that Sheryl WuDunn is a third generation Chinese American, not the stereotypical "Chinese wife" like Mr. Rupert Murdoch's. In terms of emotional bond and vested interest, Ms. WuDunn herself is perhaps many times more American than Chinese, forgive me for this bold guess.
I do not intend to challenge Mr. Kristof's knowledge about China since he has been to every province of China, whereas I have only been to less than one third of all Chinese provinces. Yet I do believe that Mr. Kristof's motion here is unwise. This notion is deeply offensive, ill-conceived and misleading, and will undoubtedly hurt the Chinese people's goodwill and alienating them.
Any provocative notion has to be backed by serious research and comprehensive scholarship, which is acutely insufficient in this whole heated debate.
— Posted by Lawrence Zhang
My comment can also be found on his blog.
135.
Mr. Kristof invites readers to offer suggestions on how to alleviate the Darfur situation; yet it now increasingly resembles a well-crafted field research of free-flowing public opinion. Subjects under discussion cover a vast ground of international affairs, and controversies seem endless.
It is overwhelming to read all the comments before offering my own. To sum up, some posts are governed by clear logic and relatively accurate knowledge, of which some are even brilliant (such as #115 by Damien); while many posts are simply reflections of deep-seated biases and misunderstandings. Most Chinese readers are shocked, sickened or saddened by this notion of "Genocide Olympics", even though it's not the brainchild of Mr. Kristof. Opinions from those whose names and writing styles are more suggestive of an American background seem more diverse and well-reasoned. But be cautious before you conclude that Americans are more sophisticated than the Chinese. Many Chinese, even those who have the guts to voice their opinions on this website are not particularly well-versed in English. This is not a level playing ground -- Americans are at enormous advantage here, which you may never realize until someday you have the luxury of debating in a foreign language with some native speaker on a complicated issue like this. A fair-minded debater should restrain her sense of superiority boosted by the rhetoric advantage.
Back to the issue itself. Regrettably, although this highly sensational notion of "Genocide Olympics" has been advanced for more than a year now, I still find very few hard facts that establish the link between China and Genocide on solid grounds. To say that buying oil is supporting genocide is ridiculous, particularly when China's whole economic security is hinged on oil supply. Domestic economy is indisputably the top priority of any government on earth. China's stop buying Sudanese oil will be catastrophic at best and suicidal at worst [unsubstantiated claim that needs further research], while killings in Sudan would very probably just keep going, perhaps carried out with more primitive tools. Killings are caused by hatred, not some reasons you wishfully assign to be. Most arguments, including those presented by Mr. Kristof here, are stretched, hollow and hearsay-based.
American are sometimes so paranoid with China's growth figures that they fail to appreciate the myriads of internal priorities of China per se. They seldom realize that China could be led into crisis if things were even slightly mishandled. Premier Wen Jiabao's repeated statement that "we are overwhelmingly preoccupied by our domestic affairs" is not an excuse or pretense; it is the real situation. People in the developed world may never fully realized how stringent the constraints are for developing countries.
Many solid counter-arguments have been made and I shall not repeat here.
For those who play on this notion that "Mr. Kristof has a Chinese wife", a caution is that Sheryl WuDunn is a third generation Chinese American, not the stereotypical "Chinese wife" like Mr. Rupert Murdoch's. In terms of emotional bond and vested interest, Ms. WuDunn herself is perhaps many times more American than Chinese, forgive me for this bold guess.
I do not intend to challenge Mr. Kristof's knowledge about China since he has been to every province of China, whereas I have only been to less than one third of all Chinese provinces. Yet I do believe that Mr. Kristof's motion here is unwise. This notion is deeply offensive, ill-conceived and misleading, and will undoubtedly hurt the Chinese people's goodwill and alienating them.
Any provocative notion has to be backed by serious research and comprehensive scholarship, which is acutely insufficient in this whole heated debate.
— Posted by Lawrence Zhang
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Perfect Day
By Lou Reed, originally featured in the 1972 album Transformer.
Just a perfect day
Drink sangria in the park
And then later, when it gets dark, we'll go home
Just a perfect day
Feed animals in the zoo
Then later a movie too, and then home
Oh it's such a perfect day
I'm glad I spent it with you
Oh such a perfect day
You just keep me hanging on
You just keep me hanging on
Just a perfect day
Problems all left alone
Weekenders on our own
It's such fun
Just a perfect day
You make me forget myself
I thought I was someone else
Someone good
Oh it's such a perfect day
I'm glad I spent it with you
Oh such a perfect day
You just keep me hanging on
You just keep me hanging on
You're going to reap just what you sow
You're going to reap just what you sow
You're going to reap just what you sow
You're going to reap just what you sow
Just a perfect day
Drink sangria in the park
And then later, when it gets dark, we'll go home
Just a perfect day
Feed animals in the zoo
Then later a movie too, and then home
Oh it's such a perfect day
I'm glad I spent it with you
Oh such a perfect day
You just keep me hanging on
You just keep me hanging on
Just a perfect day
Problems all left alone
Weekenders on our own
It's such fun
Just a perfect day
You make me forget myself
I thought I was someone else
Someone good
Oh it's such a perfect day
I'm glad I spent it with you
Oh such a perfect day
You just keep me hanging on
You just keep me hanging on
You're going to reap just what you sow
You're going to reap just what you sow
You're going to reap just what you sow
You're going to reap just what you sow
Friday, January 18, 2008
Gordon Brown and Wen Jiabao made joint appearance at Renmin University
Friday, January 18, 2008. During his State Visit to China, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown came to Renmin University of China with Premier Wen Jiabao to talk with Chinese and British citizens.
Thursday, January 17, 2008
George Loewenstein is fantastic
I'm taking George Loewenstein's Behavioral Economics seminar this semester. George is really fantastic, not just an outstanding researcher, but a great teacher -- although he seems quite modest about his teaching abilities. Talking about the tenure system of American universities that put overwhelming emphasis on publishing research papers, he said something like "If you are good at teaching, that could be a curse, because when you are best at doing something, even just marginally better than doing anything else, you tend to do it more and more, and getting rewards intrinsically." This is not nearly well-versed as his original sentence. I like these casual and witty remarks.
It's been a long time since I learned so much from a single lecture -- and this is just the beginning of an exciting adventure!
At the end of this seminar I wish I would become so familiar with George that I can finally ask: Are you really the grandson of Sigmund Freud? Although several credible sources confirmed that, I'm still a skeptic. Although it's not unusual to meet great thinkers in leading American institutions, they are all living people, and Freud sounds...really distant and awesome. Not sure how that sort of awe got imprinted in my head.
Will post a paragraph from Adam Smith's "The Theory of Moral Sentiments" (1759), which George dug out to show how behavioral economics actually started from Smith.
It's been a long time since I learned so much from a single lecture -- and this is just the beginning of an exciting adventure!
At the end of this seminar I wish I would become so familiar with George that I can finally ask: Are you really the grandson of Sigmund Freud? Although several credible sources confirmed that, I'm still a skeptic. Although it's not unusual to meet great thinkers in leading American institutions, they are all living people, and Freud sounds...really distant and awesome. Not sure how that sort of awe got imprinted in my head.
Will post a paragraph from Adam Smith's "The Theory of Moral Sentiments" (1759), which George dug out to show how behavioral economics actually started from Smith.
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
James Fallows: The $1.4 Trillion Question
Another stunningly insightful and well-written article by James Fallows:
The $1.4 Trillion Question, The Atlantic Monthly, Jan/Feb 2008.
The excitement I had when first read his article "China makes, the world takes" (The Atlantic Monthly, Jul/Aug 2007) last October is still vivid. The "Trillion Question" article tackles an entirely different question, yet as significant if not more. I recommend it for several reasons:
First, Fallows has an outstanding ability of explaining economic problems in plain, easy-to-access language. In response to my (unusually) harsh criticism of "Currency Wars" (货币战争), a demagogic, charlatan work that ascended to the best-seller throne in China, some readers on Douban rebuked me by saying that "If you think this is rubbish, then provide us with a better story of your own; otherwise shut up". Well I am certainly not taken back by such bitter and unreasonable (just think about the good film critics who do not make films themselves) rebuttal, but I do realize the necessity of at least introducing some authors whose works I resonate with. Though not an economist himself, Fallows did study economics in Oxford as a Rhodes Scholar. I know this is a repetition of his background, just to help the readers come up with some reasonable guess of his credibility.
Second, beyond the scope of his specific articles, I see a person with an admirable attitude toward international affairs, an attitude that I believe represents the essence of the American spirit. An attitude that is at the same time fair, open and objective, as well as empathetic, passionate and patriotic. Fallows' writings are free of the ideological biases typical of many American reporters in China, yet I can still sense his strong conviction in the best part of American values: liberty, equality, democracy and so on; as well as his readiness to defend and preserve these values.
Third, the role played by the likes of Fallows. I think he certainly goes beyond the conventional limitations of a journalist. How to precisely define his occupation? An appropriate counterpart in the Chinese vocabulary might be "writer", but that word is too prosaic for someone like him. After all, there is not too much utility in defining him precisely. What's the use of defining Walter Lippmann, or Bob Woodward? The most innovative persons always defy any ready-to-fit frames. There is no doubt that Fallows himself is part of the elite core of the U.S. That status grants him the opportunities (though probably not as abundant as those of John Thornton) of directly talking to many key decision makers in the government and corporations, a privilege that even a Pulitzer-winning New York Times reporter (such as Joseph Kahn) may not enjoy; yet his official occupation as a reporter allows him to live and travel freely in China, as just another normal foreigner, without invoking too much attention. That combination of freedom and celebrity is simply marvelous.
Back to the issue -- China's gigantic and ever-growing foreign exchange reserve -- Fallows dug into that question in depth, from an American perspective, and I'll leave it to you to judge. The article alerts me to the seriousness of this question -- that is, a precarious balance, or "the balance of financial terror" between the US and China, in Lawrence Summer's words as cited. I was astonished that elite Americans see this balance as worrisome as the "nuclear balance" during the Cold War, and the logic behind such concerns seems sound to me. I want to highlight the closing remarks of Fallows and put my own question and uncertainty on the table:
"Years ago, the Chinese might have averted today’s pressures by choosing a slower and more balanced approach to growth. If they had it to do over again, I suspect they would in fact choose just the same path—they have gained so much, including the assets they can use to do what they have left undone, whenever the government chooses to spend them. The same is not true, I suspect, for the United States, which might have chosen a very different path: less reliance on China’s subsidies, more reliance on paying as we go. But it’s a little late for those thoughts now. What’s left is to prepare for what we find at the end of the path we have taken."
My question is: Could the United States really have chosen differently? What could the alternatives be?
P.S. I updated one link on my homepage: China in the American Eyes (美眼看中国). As you'll find, I've been very selective. Interestingly, all three articles I chose came from bi-monthly journals.
The $1.4 Trillion Question, The Atlantic Monthly, Jan/Feb 2008.
The excitement I had when first read his article "China makes, the world takes" (The Atlantic Monthly, Jul/Aug 2007) last October is still vivid. The "Trillion Question" article tackles an entirely different question, yet as significant if not more. I recommend it for several reasons:
First, Fallows has an outstanding ability of explaining economic problems in plain, easy-to-access language. In response to my (unusually) harsh criticism of "Currency Wars" (货币战争), a demagogic, charlatan work that ascended to the best-seller throne in China, some readers on Douban rebuked me by saying that "If you think this is rubbish, then provide us with a better story of your own; otherwise shut up". Well I am certainly not taken back by such bitter and unreasonable (just think about the good film critics who do not make films themselves) rebuttal, but I do realize the necessity of at least introducing some authors whose works I resonate with. Though not an economist himself, Fallows did study economics in Oxford as a Rhodes Scholar. I know this is a repetition of his background, just to help the readers come up with some reasonable guess of his credibility.
Second, beyond the scope of his specific articles, I see a person with an admirable attitude toward international affairs, an attitude that I believe represents the essence of the American spirit. An attitude that is at the same time fair, open and objective, as well as empathetic, passionate and patriotic. Fallows' writings are free of the ideological biases typical of many American reporters in China, yet I can still sense his strong conviction in the best part of American values: liberty, equality, democracy and so on; as well as his readiness to defend and preserve these values.
Third, the role played by the likes of Fallows. I think he certainly goes beyond the conventional limitations of a journalist. How to precisely define his occupation? An appropriate counterpart in the Chinese vocabulary might be "writer", but that word is too prosaic for someone like him. After all, there is not too much utility in defining him precisely. What's the use of defining Walter Lippmann, or Bob Woodward? The most innovative persons always defy any ready-to-fit frames. There is no doubt that Fallows himself is part of the elite core of the U.S. That status grants him the opportunities (though probably not as abundant as those of John Thornton) of directly talking to many key decision makers in the government and corporations, a privilege that even a Pulitzer-winning New York Times reporter (such as Joseph Kahn) may not enjoy; yet his official occupation as a reporter allows him to live and travel freely in China, as just another normal foreigner, without invoking too much attention. That combination of freedom and celebrity is simply marvelous.
Back to the issue -- China's gigantic and ever-growing foreign exchange reserve -- Fallows dug into that question in depth, from an American perspective, and I'll leave it to you to judge. The article alerts me to the seriousness of this question -- that is, a precarious balance, or "the balance of financial terror" between the US and China, in Lawrence Summer's words as cited. I was astonished that elite Americans see this balance as worrisome as the "nuclear balance" during the Cold War, and the logic behind such concerns seems sound to me. I want to highlight the closing remarks of Fallows and put my own question and uncertainty on the table:
"Years ago, the Chinese might have averted today’s pressures by choosing a slower and more balanced approach to growth. If they had it to do over again, I suspect they would in fact choose just the same path—they have gained so much, including the assets they can use to do what they have left undone, whenever the government chooses to spend them. The same is not true, I suspect, for the United States, which might have chosen a very different path: less reliance on China’s subsidies, more reliance on paying as we go. But it’s a little late for those thoughts now. What’s left is to prepare for what we find at the end of the path we have taken."
My question is: Could the United States really have chosen differently? What could the alternatives be?
P.S. I updated one link on my homepage: China in the American Eyes (美眼看中国). As you'll find, I've been very selective. Interestingly, all three articles I chose came from bi-monthly journals.
Sunday, January 06, 2008
To My English-speaking Readers
* This article was written as a prelude as I re-opened this blog after a dormancy of one and half years.
Welcome to Prometheus. You might have been directed here from my homepage "Odyssey", and you might be disappointed that there are not too many entries on this blog. Well, thank you so much for your interest. If you happen to have browsed my MSN space, which runs mostly in Chinese, you probably know that I've blogged much more actively there since two and half years ago.
Then why still link to Prometheus? And why is it called Prometheus? I set up this place in June 2006, after my PhD qualifiers in economics at Washington University. It was named "Prometheus" because I used this blog to post articles composed by some sharp Chinese thinkers yet often blocked by China's "Great Firewall" (GFW) at that time. I wanted these very insightful articles, mostly on democracy and political reform, to be read by my friends in China, yet I didn't want my MSN space blocked. MSN space was such a popular blogging tool among Chinese students that we use it to share life experiences and carefully foster close-knit communities, often against the curse of distance. I didn't want it politicized. I believe that democracy is just a matter of time for China, and I hope everybody in my generation to be mentally prepared and do the smart thing, ahead of time, as soon as possible. Therefore I set up this place, posted "sensitive" articles, and provided a link on my MSN space.
Many more young Chinese, home and abroad, did similar things to get around the GFW. But it wasn't long before I realized that I didn't have to do this anymore. From January 2007, foreign journalists were allowed to travel, interview and report freely in China. There used to be a lot of restrictions on foreigners' movement in China, despite the fact that they are always treated exceptionally well. These journalists often have learned Chinese for many years, and are extremely capable and enthusiastic. To someone who reads the New York Times and Wall Street Journal everyday like myself, the change is palpable. Reports are much deeper, more detailed and cover a much wider range of topics. The marriage between Western journalism and China's intriguing social changes has borne fruits.
Meanwhile, almost all of a sudden, I found that the Chinese themselves are talking about "democracy" more and more frequently. The first noticeable change happened when President Hu Jintao visited the United States in the spring of 2006 -- he got out of his way to talk about democracy at each stop. But the talk was really just that, and I was under the impression that "democracy" was still a "key word" in the unfathomable, random working of the GFW. And then Yu Keping, a higher-profile adviser of President Hu published "Democracy is a Good Thing" in one of the key journals of the Communist Party. The outspoken newspapers in South China's Guangdong Province, Hong Kong's neighbor, didn't wait a second in grasping this golden opportunity to discuss democracy -- to face up to our own oddity in this globalized world. And then again, all of a sudden, I found so many people talking democracy openly, in China, not just about the ideology, but down-to-earth practical issues. None of these changes escaped the eyes of John Thornton, the Goldman-Sachs-Chairman-turned-Tsinghua-professor, who published the article "Long Time Coming -- the prospect for democracy in China" in the Jan/Feb 2008 issue of Foreign Affairs.
Somehow I feel that the relaxation of restrictions on foreign journalists and the open talk of democracy are really two sides of one coin. I'm not suggesting that democracy will come anytime soon in China -- it's just not such an easy thing as you might think -- but with so many people talking and thinking, I feel both hopeful and a little lost -- how can I still call my little blog "Prometheus"?
Luckily we've got so many more meaningful things to do in today's world. I bet there are at least as many people in the world who are interested in China as the Chinese interested in the world. Then why not use this blog to communicate with English-speaking folks? After all, I already have a blog mainly in Chinese, and I can write in English reasonably well. More importantly, I can write BETTER.
So, here I am again -- still "Prometheus", just for history's sake.
Oh, was I talking about democracy just now? Final words on this issue: if you are American, the word is "patience", if you are Chinese, the word is "change".
Welcome to Prometheus. You might have been directed here from my homepage "Odyssey", and you might be disappointed that there are not too many entries on this blog. Well, thank you so much for your interest. If you happen to have browsed my MSN space, which runs mostly in Chinese, you probably know that I've blogged much more actively there since two and half years ago.
Then why still link to Prometheus? And why is it called Prometheus? I set up this place in June 2006, after my PhD qualifiers in economics at Washington University. It was named "Prometheus" because I used this blog to post articles composed by some sharp Chinese thinkers yet often blocked by China's "Great Firewall" (GFW) at that time. I wanted these very insightful articles, mostly on democracy and political reform, to be read by my friends in China, yet I didn't want my MSN space blocked. MSN space was such a popular blogging tool among Chinese students that we use it to share life experiences and carefully foster close-knit communities, often against the curse of distance. I didn't want it politicized. I believe that democracy is just a matter of time for China, and I hope everybody in my generation to be mentally prepared and do the smart thing, ahead of time, as soon as possible. Therefore I set up this place, posted "sensitive" articles, and provided a link on my MSN space.
Many more young Chinese, home and abroad, did similar things to get around the GFW. But it wasn't long before I realized that I didn't have to do this anymore. From January 2007, foreign journalists were allowed to travel, interview and report freely in China. There used to be a lot of restrictions on foreigners' movement in China, despite the fact that they are always treated exceptionally well. These journalists often have learned Chinese for many years, and are extremely capable and enthusiastic. To someone who reads the New York Times and Wall Street Journal everyday like myself, the change is palpable. Reports are much deeper, more detailed and cover a much wider range of topics. The marriage between Western journalism and China's intriguing social changes has borne fruits.
Meanwhile, almost all of a sudden, I found that the Chinese themselves are talking about "democracy" more and more frequently. The first noticeable change happened when President Hu Jintao visited the United States in the spring of 2006 -- he got out of his way to talk about democracy at each stop. But the talk was really just that, and I was under the impression that "democracy" was still a "key word" in the unfathomable, random working of the GFW. And then Yu Keping, a higher-profile adviser of President Hu published "Democracy is a Good Thing" in one of the key journals of the Communist Party. The outspoken newspapers in South China's Guangdong Province, Hong Kong's neighbor, didn't wait a second in grasping this golden opportunity to discuss democracy -- to face up to our own oddity in this globalized world. And then again, all of a sudden, I found so many people talking democracy openly, in China, not just about the ideology, but down-to-earth practical issues. None of these changes escaped the eyes of John Thornton, the Goldman-Sachs-Chairman-turned-Tsinghua-professor, who published the article "Long Time Coming -- the prospect for democracy in China" in the Jan/Feb 2008 issue of Foreign Affairs.
Somehow I feel that the relaxation of restrictions on foreign journalists and the open talk of democracy are really two sides of one coin. I'm not suggesting that democracy will come anytime soon in China -- it's just not such an easy thing as you might think -- but with so many people talking and thinking, I feel both hopeful and a little lost -- how can I still call my little blog "Prometheus"?
Luckily we've got so many more meaningful things to do in today's world. I bet there are at least as many people in the world who are interested in China as the Chinese interested in the world. Then why not use this blog to communicate with English-speaking folks? After all, I already have a blog mainly in Chinese, and I can write in English reasonably well. More importantly, I can write BETTER.
So, here I am again -- still "Prometheus", just for history's sake.
Oh, was I talking about democracy just now? Final words on this issue: if you are American, the word is "patience", if you are Chinese, the word is "change".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
