Note to the founder of "Save That Fire Union"

Dear Ted:

Thanks for your initiative of establishing this group. It is a great idea, and the action is right in time.

I have invited each and every one of my facebook friends, altogether 185, to join this group. Many of them are not Chinese, but I want them to see how we Chinese see these protests and the broader picture, and our solidarity (and yes, our diversity too).

We want to make friends with as many people in the world as possible, regardless of nationality, race or age. We certainly don't want to create a "China vs. rest of the world" impression, which is untrue: most of the people, at least all my facebook friends, are very friendly. And we want them to see beyond the biased, filtered information provided by the "free" media, and have some reality check.

Your description of the purpose of STFU is wonderful. However, some language do not seem to serve our broader purpose ideally, like the sharp opposition of "You" and "We". Many of the foreigners who are going to see this group in the coming hours and days don't have the least intention to protest the Torch Relay or boycott the Olympic Games. They want the Games to be successful as much as we do.

I understand it would be hard to make this literal change. To back up one step, can you at least change the title of the group to "Save That Fire Union -- Chinese and all PEOPLE in the world backing the torch relay"?

Thank you very much for your consideration. And again, I applaud your initiative of setting up this group.

Best wishes,
Lawrence

Some follow-up exchange between Teddy and me -- I like what Teddy said.

Hi Lawrence,

I appreciate your suggestions and they are really well said. I can change the description but the change in group name has to go through written request made to facebook people, it's a technical issue. I thought about the "China v.s. rest of the world" thing when writing the description, and I did have concerns you have. But the thing is, it is unlikely that we can be too friendly in such condition. Confronted by such hostility, are we supposed to react like Gandhi? By choosing the wording of "You" and "We", I really meant to groups of people on rivalry. "We" are those who are going to protect it, "You" are not the rest of the world, but those who are disrupting the relay and damaging our dignities. I truly believe the kind of wording would not offend those who believes in goods. Please keep that passion ('save that fire') for the on-going event and write to me again when any idea pops up. You can also write to savethatfireunion@gmail.co

m. The email address is valid.

Thanks again,
Teddy Yang


Hi Teddy:

I appreciate your quick response and I do echo with your thoughts. The subtle changes you made, such as keeping only the acronym of S-T-F-U, do make our group look more civilized, in keeping with our nation's core value. I'm not familiar with Gandhi's deeds nor do I necessarily identify with his ideology as described in the textbook, but I think it's in our best interest not to offend people of good will. It's OK for a person to be outraged at violent behaviors, but as a group we need more rationality in order to maximize our long term appeal. The Torch still has a long way to go.

Just my two cents, kudos to you for doing this for all of us!

Take care,
Lawrence

Reining in the blogging impulse

(This was originally posted on my Chinese blog; and yes it was written in English)

I've been inhibiting my blogging impulse since the Spring Semester began. To make up for that loss, each time I am struck by some good idea but don't have the time to flesh it out, I briefly record the title in a notepad and hope to come back to it later. However six weeks into the semester and two weeks before the spring break, I finally realize that it is all but impossible, because the backlog (or inventory, depending on how you see it) just keeps growing, with more than a dozen items on it now. Having so many good stuff sedimenting in the brain is like having a lot of food in the stomach -- you know it's not such a great feeling -- and overnutrition can be as painful as malnutrition.

Many of the potential entries have even taken full shape in my brain and it really takes just a short while to download it from the brain to the computer. I think this is in part attributable to the difference of driving on my own and riding the bus. When driving, I listen to the radio and the flow of information or music keeps my mind busy. But when it comes to waiting for the bus, that's really a lot of free capacity in the brain, and sitting on the bus staring at all those strange faces...that's simply "thought-provoking"!...(yeah several of my potential entries are bus-related)

I also came to realize that the blogging behavior has an unmistakably impulsive nature. It is often most efficient to do it when you really feels like doing it. Revisiting the items on my backlog, I generally feel less compelled to write and it takes a while to recollect the thoughts. On the flipside, it is perhaps those things that still excite you after some time that's truly valuable.

I told my friend that recently I always wish I had 48 hours everyday, so that I can get everything I want to do done. It seems that this fresh feeling has come along with the new year of 2008. 2007 witnessed so many of my personal failures that it easily eclipses any of my previous years; or maybe I was just too lucky all along. Yet I came through the ordeals feeling more in love with life itself than ever before. I should really thank God for endowing me with such an unfaltering passion for life. I know that when I get older, I'll look back at this age and say: what a beautiful journey it was.

Dear G

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.

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.

135.

January 24th,
2008
8:25 pm

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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".

龙应台：民主的陷阱

近几年来华人世界对台湾的民主发展高度关注，但是关注的焦点总是激烈的政争和耸动的选举，静水流深的事情却很少人看见，譬如在二零零五年二月一日台湾所通过的「广电三法」。广播电视法，有线广播电视法，卫星广播电视法规定：政府、政党不得直接或间接投资民营广电事业。政府、政党、党务人员、甚至公职人员都不得担任广电媒体董监事等职务。政府、政党捐赠成立的财团法人和受托人同样不得投资广电事业。党务、政务和民意代表的二等血亲、直系亲属若是投资广播、电视事业，在同一家媒体的持股不得超过总股数的百分之一。更重要的是，广播电视的主管机关将脱离政府，不再由新闻局主管，而由地位独立超然的「国家通讯传播委员会」负责。委员会成员由各政党依比例派代表组成。
也就是说，党、政、军，彻底退出媒体。
这个法案的通过，非常尖锐地凸显了台湾和中国大陆在二十一世纪之初，核心价值的最重大的差异。
中国有两千三百多家报纸，八千七百种杂志，无数的广播电台，但是至今没有「新闻法」，只有头痛医头、脚痛治脚的种种「规定」和「通知」，譬如一九九零年的「报纸管理暂行规定」，界定了报纸的管理权力级别。一九九五年的「报纸品质管制标准」，不合所谓「品质管制」标准的，可以撤销登记。二零零一年，新闻出版署发出文件要求「审读」工作「制度化」。所谓「审读」，就是文字的检查。
林林总总的「规定」其实都属于一个性质：管控媒体。而维护媒体权利、保障人民知的权利、保障新闻工作者的职业尊严和人身安全的规定，一条也没有──当然，除了「宪法」三十五条，明订公民有言论和出版的自由。可是，中华人民共和国的「宪法」，是仅供参考的。
管理新闻法律位阶最高的是一个位阶很低的「条例」，一九九七年通过的「出版管理条例」，规定只有国家机关，以及同属于国家权力体系的机构，譬如工会、共青团、妇联、党报集团等等，才有办报的权利。也就是说，媒体，属于国家权力。《解放日报》的社论更一点儿也不遮掩地说：「我们的媒体，是『社会公器』么？不是的。我们的媒体，是党、政府和人民的喉舌。」
还有比这更突兀的当代对比吗？台湾在二零零五年正式立法，规定党、政、军退出媒体，而二零零五年的中国，媒体继续为党、政、军服务。不同的是，从前只是作为，现在经由「现代化」的驱使，作为写成法律条文，有了「法治」国家的外貌。
如果广电三法代表台湾民主又往前进了一步，那么台湾的媒体是不是令人「额手称庆」呢？很多人会苦笑。民主进程像乌龟爬树，上两步要倒退一步半。党、政、军退出媒体吗？「置入性行销」却从后门进入媒体。台湾的政府，根据不正式的估计，每年大约花五亿港币在媒体宣传上。「置入性」的意思是，政府想要「行销」的讯息，不只以广告的方式光明播出，还可以偷偷被写进戏里，让你不知不觉；还可以被当作「新闻」播出，而你以为是公正报导。政府用纳税人的钱，购买了新闻媒体。掌权执政者，更以这样的手段，为自己取得曝光率、知名度，把国家的公资源累积成私人或私党的政治成本。政府，已经成为媒体的最大「客户」。
台湾和中国大陆的民主进程，不在一个平台上。但是，站在台湾的高平台上，你也无法放松，更不觉自豪──民主的陷阱，何其多也。
2005年02月25日 苹果日报