When the Chinese authorities detained human rights lawyer Teng Biao last year, they had little patience with his legal objections.

‘Don’t talk so much about the law with me. Do you know where we are? We are on Communist Party territory!’ they told him. ‘You belong to the enemy! … In that case, we don’t have to talk about legal constraints at all!’

And just in case anyone wasn’t getting the message about the role of law in the system, last month a spokeswoman from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Jiang Yu, warned journalists not to imagine they could ‘use the law as a shield.’

As the authorities have made clear, political power in modern China is not and will not be constrained by law…..

Since late February, there has been a wave of detentions and disappearances of lawyers, activists and others in China. Especially alarming to many is the government’s apparent disdain for even the modest requirements of its own laws. While some have been detained or arrested in accordance with procedures required under Chinese law, others have simply been picked up by security officials and disappeared. These detentions reflect a deep truth about the system that observers are often tempted to overlook: that China’s legal system has never been about the rule of law. It has been and remains about making government function more effectively.

What is and has been clear to anyone who has paid even a little attention to China in the past decade is that Chinese laws in the PRC are not for the protection of the people. The point of all laws is to protect the power and secrecy of the CCP. All else is subordinate to that. (For those unaware, the Chinese government is not the CCP, though all members of the government are CCP members. The Party is the deep material shadow giving shape to the exoskeleton of what passes for a legitimate government. The multi-nationals need that allusion of legitimacy.)

Richard McGregor, in his fine book The Party: The Secret World of China’s Ruling Party, nails it:

Over time, the Party’s secrecy has gone beyond habit and become essential to its survival, by shielding it from the reach of the law and the wider citizenry. Ordinary citizens can sue the government in China these days, and many do, although they may stand little chance of success. But they cannot sue the Party, because there is nothing to sue. ‘It is dangerous and pointless to try to sue the Party,’ He Weifang, at the time a law professor at Peking University, one of China’s oldest and most prestigious educational institutions, told me. ‘As an organization, the Party sits outside, and above the law. It should have a legal identity, in other words, a person to sue, but it is not even registered as an organization. The Party exists outside the legal system altogether.’ The Party demands that social organizations all register with government bodies, and punishes those which don’t. The Party, however, has never bothered to meet this standard itself, happily relying on the single line in the preamble of the constitution, about its ‘leading role’, as the basis for its power.”, [Richard McGregor, The Party]

There is no point beating this horse, since it’s already thoroughly dead, though the charade of a society governed by law does provide opportunities for absurd guffaws, especially when Foreign Ministry sycophants evangelize about the rule of law. But there is a deeper purpose for mentioning this dysfunctional view of law and power; it explains the Party’s seeming total disconnect in their perceptions of and relations with the rest of the world, especially those parts of the world where totalitarianism is looked upon as a politically abhorrent (and aberrant) system: the party elites seem to sincerely believe their own propaganda that there is actually a rule of law that favors the Chinese people. It is a highly blinkered and politically aphasic front that continues to do them great harm beyond their borders. But don’t look for reform anytime soon. In fact, expect to see more of what we are already seeing: a reactionary return to those thrilling days of yesteryear when fear owned the day and Red was waved as a proto-cybernetic response to the firmest hand.

But how this plays outside of China is another thing altogether, despite most of the world ceding economic super status to the cloned men in suits. In the wake of the current International Monetary Fund (IMF) scandal, which has vacated the top seat at the Fund, China is making a lot of noise about wanting someone from a BRIC nation to fill the empty seat, even calling for democratic consultation. Of course, China would love to see that person come from Beijing, but the chances of that happening are slim-to-none. No, actually we can drop slim and peg it at none. As long as the Chinese legal system (with its trademark highly-dependent judiciary and its dedication to disappearing anyone who doesn’t clap for their performances) is subservient to the CCP, there is no possible way for anyone Chinese to be taken as a serious player in ascending to the IMF throne. Even the IMF is not sloppy enough to anoint a person perceived to be under the thumb of a financially-controlling higher power, especially one that prides itself on remaining outside the dictates of any human, natural or divine law.

But when the inevitable happens – a non-Chinese IMF head (if it’s not a French woman, I’d be stunned) and the Party hacks express their deep, deep, disappointment at the continuation of the status quo, they may actually sound sincere, though it will probably come off as buddies-squeezing shrill. No one will be surprised, except the Chinese, who will then beat this dead horse even deader. There may even be the collective reproach which includes the masses of Chinese “hurt feelings.” Just remember that they will be playing for the home team crowd, while not quite understanding that the rest of the world is watching too. And that outside world will be giving them another failing adolescent grade.

Friedman, as he normally does when over-bubbling (bumbling) about China, let his pom-poms get in the way of seeing the game as he spewed from Tianjin during the recent Summer Davos. One has to wonder if his trips are subsidized by someone other than just the NYT. He seems to be cut out of the same bolt – though a bit bleachier – than John and Doris Naisbitt, co-authors of China’s Megatrends: The 8 Pillars of a New Society, a shoddy piece of propaganda that gained a modicum of press before being totally blown out of the credible waters. (See my post The Empire from the Official Tour Bus. My post was but one small whisper in the shouting crowd of critics and criticism.) Though Friedman is not as blind as the Naisbitts, he leans on his cane in their direction.

In Tianjin he seems to have become the ear for a woman named Peggy Liu.

“There is really no debate about climate change in China,” said Peggy Liu, chairwoman of the Joint U.S.-China Collaboration on Clean Energy, a nonprofit group working to accelerate the greening of China. “China’s leaders are mostly engineers and scientists, so they don’t waste time questioning scientific data.” The push for green in China, she added, “is a practical discussion on health and wealth. There is no need to emphasize future consequences when people already see, eat and breathe pollution every day.”

That Friedman was able to actually use this as a quote in an opinion piece in the NYT highlights his lack of vetting skills. To not question scientific data, especially data coming from China, is suicidal, not some efficient quick-step that leads to fast-tracked solutions. Science and the CCP are Gordeon-knotted bedfellows. To even insinuate that China has a leg-up because the leaders “don’t waste time questioning scientific data” is akin to believing in parthenogenesis because the Pope (any Pope) said it’s so. (For a very good read on the gutlessness of Chinese science, read Zhang Ming’s, How Chinese science lost its backbone, an article that first appeared in Chinese in the Southern Metropolis Weekly magazine and was translated into English at the China Media Project.)

Friedman and Liu need to spend a little more time in China, perhaps in Shanxi province, covering toxic air issues and the coal mining deaths, and the downwinder effect that has turned north China into a mess. Then let’s get together and talk about legislation that will bring China into the 21st C, rather than struggling along like some post-WWII Pittsburgh, full of enlightened politicos who ride roughshod over environmental disasters on a daily basis, trying their best to keep them from making news. It all looks great on paper, but the environmental hazard that is China continues to grow. Let’s not forget that Beijing alone is adding 2,000 1,900 new cars a day (Guo Jifu, head of the Beijing Transportation Research Center http://english.people.com.cn/90001/90776/90882/7116919.html) . (Yes, Tom, a day. You ought to be able to handle that math: double the number of days you want to figure for, then add three zeroes. One year = 730,000 693,500 more cars, and that’s only in Beijing.) So you can cheer lead about clean tech and green this, that and the other, but at some point your going to have to give your arms a rest, lower your pom-poms, face the traffic and coal, and take a deep breath. The U.S may very well be paralyzed by political rancor and terminal partisan dumb-ass, but China is blowing more smoke than you’ve ever been able to realize. Shame on you and the New York Times you rode in on.

Global Times particularly focuses on expressing Chinese people’s real feelings, sharing their opinions and standpoints on significant international issues and promoting their understanding of the global views on China.

When I see “Chinese people” and “real feelings” in the same sentence, there’s no question where this one is heading. When I see it on an About Us page I have no question where it’s coming from. Other than to say that I’ve heard the term “nationalistic rag” used on more than a few occasions when the GT is mentioned, I will leave it at that. Well …, almost. The English language edition has been Onion-ed in the past, my personal favorite being Alessandro is a man. He lives in Beijing now.*

Women who have enjoyed Alessandro are 24 percent more profoundly aware that light years are a measure of distance rather than time when compared to their less attractive counterparts, according to a recent study by the Space Probe Italy Center. Alessandro has loved many women, very much.

Alessandro goes on to answer the age-old question: “If unused for a long time, can vaginas really grow closed?” Suffice it to say that his answer was hilarious. I apologize for not being able to provide the link, but it was taken down after it made the Twitter/Facebook rounds, which, no doubt, boosted its page stats through the roof, though it probably earned the clueless editor some long weekend classes.

Last week a woman named Sirkka Korpela, a Finn and “former United Nations Ambassador to Bolivia,” wrote a piece for the GT entitled “My visit to Tibet” (h/t to Charlie Custer @ China Geeks, via Twitter). It is hard to know where to start with this one, so it is probably a good idea not to get started at all. Here’s a sample:

I had a chance to talk to some educators in Tibet. I asked them about the language used in primary education, weary of the alleged loss of the Tibetan language in the formal education system. I was told the kids learn three languages: Tibetan, Chinese and English! I had thought my own children were something of a special case, as they have been learning French, Spanish and Finnish since they started schooling, but I realize these Tibetan kids will be as internationally literate as my children are, with all the same opportunities that will provide them in life.

Believe me, it gets better. I have no further comment on this other than to say that Ms. Korpela has worked for the United Nations Development Program (UNDP), as well as working in the private sector advising “large multinational companies, such as Royal Dutch/Shell and Newmont Mining, on political and socio-economic development and corporate social responsibility issues.” In 2005 she was an adjunct associate professor at Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs teaching Corporate Social Responsibility. A search of the current faculty and staff doesn’t include Ms. Korpela. I imagine over the last week they’ve been breathing a sigh of relief.

________

*Update
The GT column was known as Ask Alessandro. As mentioned below in a comment by Choudoufu, Richard at The Peking Duck posted the full piece under the post Ask Alessandro? Another good link to read concerning Alessandro is The impending death of Ask Alessandro at the Heart of Beijing blog. Both of the aforementioned blogs are blocked within the PRC.

Wenming is propaganda boilerplate, an adjective that can be used to recognize or distinguish an achievement by, say, a particular work unit – wenming danwei – which is all well and good in Chinese, though to mention in English that the work unit is now “civilized” plants the question, “What were they before?” The wenming construct can also be used as a civilizing reminder, sometimes found in signs over urinals in men’s room: xiangqian yi xiao bu, wenming yi da bu : “One small step forward, one big step for civilization,” as a way of saying “It’s better not to pee on the floor.”

But choosing to go English and round-eyed pixie-ish at the heart of the Central Business District invites photos like this.

Perhaps this one should be wenming zhongyang dianshi tai (Civilized China Central Television), as admonition.

(What follows is not a book review, but rather a response to a promotional book tour interview by the co-authors of China’s Megatrends: The 8 Pillars of a New Society (Harper Collins), John and Doris Naisbitt.)

Last week I received an email from a good friend in Texas who wrote to let me know that he was listening to the Diane Rehm Show, a popular Washington, DC-based radio interview program “distributed by National Public Radio, NPR Worldwide, and SIRIUS satellite radio.” The show claims to reach 2.2 million listeners a week. When I lived in the States I often listened to Ms. Rehm’s program. Later in the day I downloaded and listened to the segment with the “two China experts.” It took about three minutes for my blood pressure to start rising.

Mr. Naisbitt was introduced as having been a former Asst. Secretary of Education under JFK – a position he would have held nearly a half century ago – a specialist assistant to Lyndon Johnson, and a former visiting fellow at Harvard. His wife, Doris, is the current director of the Naisbitt China Institute and a professor at Yunnan University. What followed was 50+ minutes littered with painfully shameful pontifications on the current state of China with whole pages torn straight from the Central Propaganda Department’s playbook. Mr. Naisbitt claims that “We wrote the book inside out. Most of the books about China are outside in, and we tried to get inside China and I’ve been going to China for forty-two years. And Doris and I have been going there … ahh … the last ten years. And we tried to write this story from the Chinese point of view.” Unfortunately Mr. Naisbitt’s “inside out” point of view seems to be one from inside a CITS (China International Travel Service) tour bus.

Here are a few highlights:

John: “The social and personal freedoms in China are as open as they are in the western world.” [11:00]

Doris: “Here comes an advantage of the Chinese political system. There is a constancy in the government, so they’re thinking is not election driven, but long-term driven, and they are able to set long term goals in which … and with the long term goals create the frames in which then the people can act and the Chinese government gives the people all the freedom they need to grow.” [15:00]

On Liu Xiaobo [35:50] (John): “Let me say about Liu …. He was sentenced not for speaking his opinion, because that’s done all over China all the time.  He was sentenced because he was organizing an alternative government. He was getting petitions, he had 10,000 signatures to have another … although there are other parties in China, this was a party to install multiple elections and so forth. He crossed the line that all Chinese know. If you cross the line then you take the consequences. He’s well known, because he’s one of the few dissidents who remains in China.  He’s very courageous to do that. He remains in China, so he’s taking his medicine.”

This is a fundamental misrepresentation of Charter 08, the petition that Mr. Naisbitt refers to. Liu was arrested and sentenced to 11 years in prison on “suspicion of inciting the subversion of state power” for calling for democratic reforms, not as Mr. Naisbitt claims for “organizing an alternative government.” (For Vaclav Havel’s letter to the Hu Jintao concerning the Liu Xiaobo case see here. The letter was delivered by Mr. Havel to the Chinese Embassy in Prague, but “officials would not open the door.”)

On Tibet [44:50](John): “We’ve been there [Tibet] and it is not an oppressed area. In fact it … Lhasa, the capital of Tibet, is a very modern city, a very thriving city, and the Tibetans, the monks and so on are subsidized actually by the Chinese government.” (Doris) “You know, what is not very much known in the west is how the Tibetan society was before 1949, before the Chinese came. It was a feudal society. Ninety-five percent of the population were serfs, and the rest were the aristocrats … aristocratic class and the monks, and they were in power. So life was not a paradise in Tibet, only for 5% of the population.”

This is the same fire-eyed harangue that one can read or hear from any of the official government-controlled media mouthpieces. And this means what? That prior to 1949 China was much different? During both the Ming and Qing dynasties the percentage of imperial officials/bureaucrats numbered about 5% of the population. In the interim between the collapse of the Qing dynasty and 1949, it is hard to imagine a society in any more chaos than China was. If one were to look closely at the number of current CCP members as a percentage of the current population, the golden rule of 5% shows up once again. The finger pointing at feudalism and 5% aristocracy argument is used time and time again to thwart any substantive dialogue on the Tibetan issue. An analogous argument would be that there is no reason to include China at any global negotiating tables, given that sixty/seventy years ago they were involved in civil war, and chaos was the order of the day. The Naisbitts either purposely ignore or just flat-out miss the fact that this red herring has nothing to do with any present possibility of resolution of the ethnic issues at hand. This is CCP boilerplate used ad infinitum as they vigorously displace the nomadic population from the Tibetan Qinghai Plateau grasslands. (See the People’s Daily here, here, and here for a quantification of the numbers being “settled” (read relocated or, better yet, displaced) into permanent housing far from their native lands.)

Regarding Mr. Naisbitt’s take on Tibet as “not an oppressed area,” have a look here (h/t to Danwei) to see an excerpt from the documentary Leaving Fear Behind, which earned the young Tibetan filmmaker, Dhongdup Wangchen, a six-year prison sentence earlier this week. If you are trying to reach this site from inside China, you will need a VPN, since you can’t get there from here without one.

On the ‘Falungong as cult’ question John claims that he and his wife have no idea why the government sees it as a cult. This bespeaks a fundamental lack of knowledge of Chinese history. The mid-19^th C. Taiping rebellion – where a man claiming to be the brother of Jesus led an uprising that over the course of 14 years led to the slaughter and starvation of at least 25 million Chinese – is a lesson in why cult classification is part of a much wider strategy in maintaining the mandate. The arrival of 10,000 peaceful Falungong protesters at the main gate of Zhongnanhai on the sunny Sunday afternoon of April 25, 1999 trumpeted a failure of domestic intelligence in a country that prides itself on knowing what the people are doing. Chinese history is littered with ‘cults’ that have led to localized failures of government. It is something all Chinese know. In a word, the CCP got spooked, and so a cult was launched. The ensuing, relentless barrage from all state media outlets (and in China, there are no others) classifying the group as a cult is not something many who were here at the time can forget. The tirades were deafening. If the Naisbitts are unaware of this rigid Chinese ruling mindset, then they have no business talking about China at all.

I cannot even bring myself to address Mr. Naisbitt’s response to China’s internet blocking. When asked why China is blocking social sites such as YouTube, Twitter and Facebook, Mr. Naisbitt launched into the standard party line about stopping the spread of pornography. Leaving Fear Behind is not pornography, nor are any of the social networking sites mentioned above. This week the Chinese blocked the IMDB (Internet Movie Database), a great resource for all things film, though not pornographic films/videos.

To repeat, this is not a book review since I wouldn’t buy this book if someone held a Taser to my head. The Diane Rehm Show should be ashamed to have given ‘air’ to such blatant obfuscation without doing a far better job of vetting the Naisbitts, then holding their toes to the fire. There is much truth to Mr. Naisbitt’s claims at the beginning of the interview when he says, “We tried to write this book from the Chinese point of view.” And one can hardly disagree, though that point of view is one straight from Party Central.

For more on the Naisbitts from the China Digital Times have a look at It’s Time To Stop the Absurd Promotion of John Naisbitt’s ‘China’s Megatrends.’ The Naisbitts are shameless self-promoters, which they are free to be in the west, though if they’d taken a more substantive stand that looked at China with a more critical and responsible eye, they would not now have access to the lucrative Chinese marketplace, which they are so shabbily kowtowing to. It is quite apparent that the view from inside the official bus is much more profitable than getting off and having a real look around. This is clearly a book that will get a lot of exposure in the state-controlled book market. Even the subtitle, The 8 Pillars of a New Society, panders to that market.

As I have mentioned in here at least several times before we live across the street from Tianjin’s Olympic stadium, which has remained staggeringly empty over the last 14 months. Though the stadium is barely used, the same cannot be said for the large square on the north side of the stadium, which is used as a venue for light and blaring sound shows, cadre bus tours and any other event that requires audio-visual people to run invasive sound checks for days ahead of any and all events. It has been unpleasant here recently, especially last night when we could barely hear each other speak sitting in our living room as we were again under painful assault so loud as to set off car alarms all around the neighborhood. They finally stopped at 10:15. Sixty years and we all get to suffer.

There has been much written about the message and the audience of today’s spectacle (here, with links to other sites) in Beijing, and I, too, am of the opinion that it will be an external PR disaster: hard to pass yourself off as a peace loving world power when you roll tanks, artillery and warheads along with thousands and thousands of goose-stepping troops through a space the world has come to know for a past display of live ammo and repression.

Though the main audience will be the Chinese, you can bet that snippets of the mighty show will end up playing on television news programs throughout the world, which will give all of those who are not Chinese a good reason to pause. With that said, I am re-posting a section of a piece I wrote a year-and-a-half ago.
________

Seems odd to dig into the very distant past to flesh out the present, but this is a country with a cultural continuity that can neither be denied nor avoided. This particular road to understanding is rife with potholes, since suggesting uniformity in thought and action can be, and has been, used wrongly and naively to describe present-day China. But sometimes it is not, and the question becomes, as always, “Who do you trust?”

One of the people I trust is David Nivison, a professor emeritus at Stanford, who began his work at that university in 1948 as a Chinese professor, though he eventually held joint appointments in three different departments: Philosophy, Religious Studies, and Chinese and Japanese. Though he didn’t publish all that much, he was known as a philosophers’ philosopher. One of his books which I have is entitled The Way of Confucianism: Investigations in Chinese Philosophy. The first four chapters are lectures he delivered at Stanford, and the first one is titled “Virtue” in Bronze and Bone, where he comments on the character and concept of de, what is often translated as “virtue.” Nivison on de: “… [de]appears to be a quality or psychic energy in the king that the spirits can perceive and are pleased to see in him; and it appears to be something he gets, or something that becomes more evident in him when he denies or risks himself, does something for another…human being.”

There are two passages I’d like to pass on, and I can only hope they stand somewhat on their own. Again, Nivison is speaking in terms of ancient China, though he brings some of it forward to the present.

[So] military dé is not really military. It is the combined impact of awe, perceived prestige, fear and gratitude for the leader’s restraint; and this impact as a felt force actually makes using military measures unnecessary. I would offer this as a paradigm of a “de-campaign”: part of the Shang king’s function, revealed in these inscriptions, seems to have been to lead his forces forth each fighting season, to overawe the borders, showing the flag, and doubly impressing the border peoples by his restraint in showing his weapon’s edge.” [25]
…
“The feeling of a debt of gratitude for a kindness or a gift or service is something we all know. It is part of being human. But in some societies it is greatly magnified, in countless ways, by socialization and social pressure, until it comes to seem to be an ambient psychological force. Chinese society is like this. I think it is now, and I think it has been, for as far back as I have been able to study. In this kind of society the compulsion I feel to respond appropriately, now or sometime, when you do something for me or give me something, is a compulsion I feel so strongly that I come to think of it not as a psychic configuration in myself, but as a psychic power emanating from you, causing me to orient myself toward you. That power is your dé – you ‘virtue’ or ‘moral force.’” (25-26)

Riding around. Showing the flag. Awing the border people.

My initial thought was, “What about the schools?” The reason I immediately hit on the schools was because I’d spent a good deal of time over the preceding three years living in a first-floor concrete box in a school on the Plateau in Qinghai. I immediately called a friend at the school and was relieved when he picked up and told me that all was fine there, that they hadn’t felt a thing.

For the better part of a quarter century I’d worked construction in the U.S., and I’d learned a thing or two about how things are built. The building where I stayed in Qinghai was a four-story concrete box that I had no doubt would be a one-story tomb in a temblor. Being on the first floor insured a quick death, and of this I had no question. I was informed by experience. Though none of the others – there were approximately 250 people in 40 rooms – had the building experience I had,  I assumed that, at some level, they knew about the pancake effect. They also knew they were in a minority school in the Qinghai countryside, which meant that they could be assured that the building was built with as many cut-corners as possible. The top floor was nearly all students, and though it gave them a better chance than those of us on the first floor, if the whole thing were to come down there was not much question that most who were inside or anywhere near the building would never again be thinking about ‘tomorrow.’

Since the Sichuan earthquake people have been trying to get the government to come clean on the shoddy school construction that saw so many schools collapse and take so many children’s lives. They want truth and accountability for those who skimmed and stole and produced inferior buildings that collapsed while neighboring buildings did not catastrophically destruct. Officials in Sichuan continue to stonewall, protecting those who were responsible for both the oversight and construction of the schools. The list/number of dead children has been referred to as a ‘state secret,’ and many have been incarcerated for trying to get to the truth. The latest in a long number of detainees has been Ai Weiwei, the eclectic Beijing artist who has been pursuing a list of names of the dead children, in lieu of waiting for one to come from the government. A translation of one of his blog posts describing his detention and beating is here.

What is disturbing in all of this is the behavior of Premier Wen Jiabao, a native of Tianjin – a geologist and engineer, which qualifies him to some degree to understand the magnitude of the material destruction – was all over the earthquake scene, the face of the government in-charge: offering advice, showing compassion, promising to make everything right. But that was before the Olympics, when the press was everywhere (except , of course, Tibet). For nearly a year the people of Sichuan have battled their government for answers, for accountability, for something that might actually help them still their rage. But so far the answers have been more boilerplate sloganeering and propaganda campaigns than anything substantive and honest. And in many cases the people who lost children are battling against the ones who have profited from the corruption that brought the schools down on their children. It is difficult to imagine a worse situation, though the response of the Bush Administration to Hurricane Katrina victims vies with the Chinese government’s response to the Sichuan earthquake for the lowest level of shame. When I watched Wen making his way through the destruction I had a glimmer of hope that somehow they might actually handle this with honor and legitimacy. There I go again, letting false hope get a leg up on me. You’d think that after all these years I’d learn. Oh well, I guess I’m just easy, thinking that leaders should actually try to help the People.

I have no answer for my title “Where’s Wen?” though I can tell you where he was this past Saturday: Listening to Jackie Chan tell the world that Chinese people couldn’t really handle freedom. In what can only be seen as too many blows to the head, Mr. Chan, the movie star (who does his own stunts! Really!) revealed in front of a real audience, which included the Good Uncle, “I’m gradually beginning to feel that we Chinese need to be controlled. If we are not being controlled, we’ll just do what we want.”

And that would be what, Jackie? Well for starters let me suggest that they might want an official list of the children killed in last year’s earthquake. Nothing wrong with that, unless, of course, there is much to hide. I am sure Uncle Wen was pleased to hear the great Mr. Kickass tell him to ‘stay the course.’ That ought to take a load off his mind. Now, perhaps, he can get back to working on that list. I doubt any official thugs will beat him up. But, then again, you never know, since it’s not always clear whose really in charge once you get out into the hinterlands and start asking the hard questions like, “Why did so many of the schools collapse killing so many defenseless children? And by the way, how many died and what were their names? And lets have a look at the construction accounting books. There may be something there of great interest. To the People.”

How are we supposed to take China as a serious state when the officials have such total disregard for their own country’s children and the overwhelming grief felt by the parents who are seeking justice. Is the only barometer economic and financial? Is it only about the money?

And don’t even get me started on the myth of “how much we care about our elderly.”  That’s for another day when my BP’s back down in the safe range again.

Because his positions often parrot Beijing’s critiques of foreign journalists, Mr. Rui is asked whether he engages in propaganda handed down by the government. He compares it with Fox News coverage of the White House during a Republican administration. “I hate the word propaganda,” he says.

Hard not to love this portrayal of both Fox News and CCTV, where Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity and Chris Wallace may someday find a second life once they are finally tossed for younger, meaner and more blinkered political goofballs, perhaps replaced by party-approved Chinese ‘news’ people. I can see a trade in the works. Chairman Murdoch may yet get his shot at China by working out a cross-pond deal. How do you think Mr. Rui would play on Sunday mornings in America? Or Bill O’Reilly in the the new CCTV Building. Underpants, indeed. With skidmarks!

There’s an old joke I heard nearly three decades ago concerning a Fish and Game warden named Joe, whose jurisdiction included a large, well-stocked lake. (I was living  in Wyoming at the time, and the ‘lake of the joke’ was ID’d as the Buffalo Bill Reservoir, west of Cody, but you can make it any lake you’d like.) Warden Joe knew that one of the locals, Floyd, fished with dynamite – no need for hooks, lines and sinkers when you can toss a stick into the drink, let dynamite do what dynamite does, wait for the dead to float to the top, and then scoop ‘em up with a net. (It used to be a lot easier to get your hands on TNT, especially in mining areas. Not altogether different than it used to be in China. Who can forget Shijiazhuang, 2001. But I’m drifting.) So Joe subtly followed Floyd (don’t ask me how, it’s a joke) and laid in wait. When finally he heard the telltale explosion he sped his government craft up alongside Floyd’s boat, which by then was surrounded by floating fish, and fisherman Floyd was busily gathering in the day’s catch. Warden Joe, in full-blown victory gloat, said, “Ha! I finally got you, Floyd. I’ve knowed you been doing this all along, and now I caught you red-handed.” Floyd, very cool about it, reached for another stick, lit the fuse, and tossed it to Joe, who frantically grabbed it as Floyd dead-panned, “So, what are you gonna do? Fish or bullshit?”

So why did this one float up from the depths today? Not really sure why, though I can tell you it surfaced as I read the following AP report.

A group of more than 20 Chinese lawyers, writers and intellectuals called for a boycott Tuesday of China Central Television, saying it was feeding viewers propaganda — charges that were rejected by the state-owned national broadcaster.

This wasn’t what caused me to remember the old joke. But the response by Wang Jianhong, deputy director of the CCTV general editing department, who was obviously quite ruffled by the “charges” and who had fired off a fax to the Associated Press (nothing like meeting charges head on), did.

“China has more than 1.2 billion TV viewers. Even if 22 people boycott, I personally don’t think it’ll have any effect or harm the reputation of CCTV.”

And from who knows where, clear as today’s Beijing skies, Warden Joe and fisherman Floyd and all the dead fish scooped up in the net rose to the surface. And, oh yeah, the dynamite too. The brain, isn’t it great: an old joke unexpectedly floats up, and, out of nowhere, you just start laughing.

China has launched a crackdown against major websites that officials accused of threatening morals by spreading pornography and vulgarity, including the dominant search engines Google and Baidu.

China’s Ministry of Public Security and six other government agencies announced the campaign at a meeting on Monday, state television reported, showing officials hauling digital equipment away from one unidentified office.

Now wander over to the People’s Daily Online and drift a little down the page and find a photo of three women in a cage, which links to three photos entitled Mexico nude activists potest [sic] for animal rights . The women are, in fact, not “nude” as the People’s Daily claims. They are showing quite a bit of uncovered territory, though it is obvious that they are wearing their skivs. The two major Chinese official news websites – People’s Daily and Xinhua – always have a tabloid thumbnail photo section somewhere on their main pages linking to scantily clad women from around the world, though they are never nude.

In the words of Cai Mingzhao, a deputy chief of the State Council Information Office, “Some websites have exploited loopholes in laws and regulations. They have used all kinds of ways to distribute content that is low-class, crude and even vulgar, gravely damaging mores on the Internet.”

And this on a day when the People’s Daily shows a trio of Mexican women in a cage and redefines the term “nude” as females in bras and panties. Don’t know if there is anything one can really make from this one. Just another day in the lives of the “brain police.”