it is looking my village lol i remember my village. Faydali Hayat

Really? What are the numbers backing up this statement? I'm skeptical.

The Arizona law at its worst I think would be far softer than many immigration laws from China to even Mexico itself.

These actions by Beijing and the Arizona law strongly suggest racist motives and racism itself.

We know the Chinese love walls so here's another one - in fact going on two dozen of them. There's also a wall at the US-Mexican border (no wall at the US-Canadian border) and a wall separating Israel from the murderous Palestinians in a conflict among semites that is irresolvable. Walls reliably are an indication of worse things to come.

Having to produce your "papers" on demand of the police is fascist, probably fascism itself.

The Arizona law was introduced by a Republican Party state senator who is directly connected to the white supremacist gangs in the US, principally the National Socialist Movement, a neo-Nazi group that would love a Fourth Reich and other like minded racist groups such as the SS Guardians. Fortunately the FBI is on these groups the way J Edgar used to be on the Communist Party of the US (for bettter and for worse in that instance), recently having to return fire to critically wound one skinhead in Arizona. The same Arizona legislature just officially joined the Birthers by passing another unconstitutional and meaningless law, one that would require Pres Obama to produce his "real birth certificate" should he run for reelection in 2012 or risk not having his name placed on the state ballot, a specious threat.

PM Wen Jai Bao recently was trying to calm factory workers in the South - and yes, the factory laborers are the real headache to the 'harmoneous' society Beijing so fastidiously promotes always and everywhere. The migrants Beijing is enclosing don't push back while the Chinese in the factories throughout the PRC do push back (sooner or later). I think "Grandpa Wen" is one of the few people at the top who might have some heart, but also lots of savvy as he survived his sympathetic visits to students in Tianaman during that wrenching time, so perhaps he's trying to mollify factory workers until he can retire to leave the ugly surpression of their coming protests and demonstrations to his successors.

I do believe I made the case the Arizona law is motivated by a terrible racism.

And, yes, Bob Chen, you don't deny racism. Do you accept the one mother of all humanity line of bullshyt? I doubt you do. But what do we do when we are expected - if not required - to accept the absurdly obvious?

What is the "mother of all humanity"? What the bloody hell does that even mean?

Given the slaughters that occurred during two great wars of the 20th century, especially the Nazi genocide of WW II, not to mention the thousands years of history of racist tribal warfare throughout the world, otherwise respectable circles of contemporary anthropology some years recently devised from the "Out of Africa" thesis of human migration the crackpot theory that thousands of years ago all of humanity originated from one single mother, in Africa.

Yeah, I know.......

The politically correct distortion of anthropology/sociology is understandable given the racist and genocidal history of human nature and conflict through past ages to the present, witness the Balkans and tribal slaughters in Africa and elsewhere.

The present thesis from politically correct anthropology, that all of humanity originates from one single mother in Africa thousands of years ago, thus would make all of humanity brothers and sisters. The thesis is a noble but absurd effort to stop or significantly reduce tribal slaughter and nationalist wars of mass murder and genocide.The Holocaust of WW II was abysmal and horrendous, but it's not the only holocaust, witness the Crusades, the conquistadors of Spain in South and Central America and so much else in so many other places.

Check it out on the web, the one mother in Africa origin thesis of human life presently being promoted by politically correct, contemporary anthropology/sociology. The half-baked idea was pulled out of the oven to be timed as we entered the third millennia.

I'm no fan of political correctness, but there is scientific evidence that humans originated in Tanzania over 100,000 years ago, then migrated outwards. There is also evidence based on genetic testing that, at one point, there was a historica bottleneck where only 10,000 humans lived (though its not quite one mother). Knowledge of this doesn't make humans less tribal.
-
You see, there is this thing called Dunbar's number, which states that human empathy is limited to about 150 people. That's people you genuinely care about, your friends, family, neighbors. 150. The core of a human tribe, the Dunbar's circle. We give these people personalities, unique characteristics, as see them, well, as human beings. People outside of the tribe? That's where our prejudices and bigotry comes from: our brains simply cannot process the thousands, or millions, or billions of people that make up our societies.
-
That's why we divide them up to into managable chunks: Religious/atheist, black/white, Chinese/American, rich/poor, etc. Groups of people who share our politics, culture, race, religion, etc. can be characterized into a single individual inside our tribe, but everyone else? Forget it. In our minds, they're not human, they're flat one-dimensional characitures. But it's not our fault, it's just that our biological evolution haven't caught up with our social one. It's why we see the world as 'Us' vs 'Them', and 'Them' always happens to outnumber 'Us'.
-
Look at it this way, you are in China, right? From your posts you obviously don't like what you see. Again and again, in your arguments, you have characterized the Chinese as mindless drones devoid of personality, subservient to authority. But you've more than likely met a few that convinced you they were different. You know them well enough to understand their dreams and insecurities, their virtues and flaws, their personal complexities. They're not like the other mindless drones. They got personality, they're self-aware, the exception to the rule.
Except they are not.
You've let them into your Dunbar's circle. To you, there's a handful of Chinese PEOPLE (that you personally know), and then there's 1.3 billion Chinese drones. But that is not to say that the 1.3 billion drones don't have their own dreams, insecurities, virtues and flaws, their own internal complexities. You don't see it because your human brain don't have the capabilities to process 1.3 billion distinct personalities. And the Chinese are the same way, they got their own biases and generalizations, their own Dunbar's circle. So no matter how much contempt you may have for these drones, you and I and them are connected by this common human thread.
-
Here's an humorous article that explains the phenomena much better than I can. Read it, it'll blow your mind:
http://www.cracked.com/article_14990_what-monkeysphere.html

In two and a half years in the PRC I've met one (1) person who, as you note in accordance to Dunbar's law, I'm more than confident is different from the mass of sheeple in each respect you mention and indeed in other respects (a secessionist).. Based on other Chinese I know, I think that perhaps in perhaps a year I might perhaps know perhaps two more - perhaps.

This is called Publicus' (foreign) devil number and law. Publicus' law pertains to a expat rather than to one who hasn't ventured abroad. The other 99.9% of Chinese I've come to know well are either quiet and passive sheeple or voluntarily attack dogs of Beijing. There's less hope here than you could imagine.

Seriously.

I find I respect your posts and intellect (the Midwest not withstanding haha) but when I say seriously, I do mean seriously. Seriously: 0.10% versus 99.9%. It's just not 150 of Dunbar's people I know. It's one (1).

Dunbar's number is the TOTAL number of people you empathize with, including family and friends. I did not expect you to empathize with a pool of 150 Chinese. Certainly not in 2 and a half years.
-
I'm sorry that you feel that way. But you have to understand that a lot more is at stake to speak out in China. In the West, where free speech is guaranteed, it doesn't take any effort to speak out because there are no consequences. It doesn't take courage or character to speak against the government or establishment when you don't fear for your life or your loved ones'.
-
Given the circumstances, the fact that you have 100,000 march on Tiananmen under tanks and bullets, or a growing number civil rights lawyers, or the number of political dissidents in jail, or the growing internet users blogging about corruption or the 80,000 or so protests in the countryside IS remarkable. It shows that there are many, MANY Chinese that are willing to literally endanger themselves for their principles. Hope is proportional to the circumstances, and the more repressive an environment is the more remarkable the exceptions become. Even the smallest candle burns brighter in the dark. And given the examples above, there are lots and lots of candles.
-
And for those who don't speak up, can you blame them? Speaking up means risking jail time, or re-education camp, or maybe even death. Not only for them, but for their loved ones as well. You and I, we come from a place where we take our liberties for granted, we say and do what we want, with no repercussions. There's a bit of disassociation involved when we do. So the next time you ask a Chinese their opinions on a controversial subject, ask yourself if you have the right to expect them to gamble with their livelihood, lives, and love ones. Ask yourself if it was any other circumstance, would you expect any normal person to be so easily willing to risk their entire world.
-
I'm not asking you to change your mind, just think about what I said here. Really think.
Courage is meaningless without the fear of consequences.

A sheeple is someone who voluntarily subscribes to a belief or world-view without research nor critical thinking. A sheeple is someone who does these things without the fear of consequences. Voluntary ignorance borne from laziness or apathy.
-
The Chinese may be ignorant of many things (as we are all), but they are well aware of their own lives and surroundings. They understand the consequences of saying the wrong things, so they have to be more cautious. You admit this is the case, that they lack the luxuries to speak their minds freely that we take for granted. You also admit that the Chinese are capable of dissent and the act of dissent, quite the opposite of sheeple.
-
The governing authority would not have to use harsh tactics and increasingly sophisticated methods of control, if the people were naturally compliant. Given that all dissenting opinions have been effectively criminalized, the only ones that you will hear are those from the young prof you mentioned. But that should be a condemnation of the government, not its people. Just because Chinese people are not so easily willing to jump in front of tanks and bullets, doesn't mean they can't smell the bullsh*t.

I've been to Napanee. Lot's of Amish there. I remember the feeling that there was more Churches than people.

Let me end this debate by disassembling your two main claims:
-
First you claim Chinese all follow the Communist Party doctrine and worldview. But then you admit to the possibility that many Chinese share opinions that run counter, albeit privately. You follow up admitting that you aren't close to enough Chinese to intimately share their true opinions with you. So that claim is shot down.
-
Second you claim Chinese are sheeple. But sheeple is specifically defined as voluntary compliance, based on choice with minimal consequences. Choosing between jail/torture/death and not speaking out does not constitute a choice with minimal consequence. You rightfully condemn the government, but wrongfully condemn the people. Given the choice between jail/torture/death and watching what they say in public, it is reasonable to assume your average person with average circumstances (regardless of race/culture/nationality), is statistically far more likely to choose the latter.
-
There is no such thing as monkeysphere democracy. The monkeysphere is a theory of human social behavior as a product of hundreds of thousands of years of evolution. Democracy is a tangible political system. You might be referring to representative democracy, and yes, that would be preferable to what China has now.
-
The historical cycle of violence is nothing unique to Chinese history. Violence is a universal human trait. Western history (my main area of interest) is 100x more violent (and interesting). Revolutions tend to be violent in general, neither the American nor French Revolution occurred amicably.

You misrepresent my comments to FP but as you're not malicious, just off center, I'll go ahead to make some statements for the record. (You of course can take 'em or leave 'em.)

*Not "all" PRChinese believe in or adhere to Communist Party doctrine. For one thing, only a minority of Chinese are members of the CPC. Many Chinese who are not Party members accept the rule of the party and the PRC as it is.

*I have a decent read of when someone is speaking straightforwardly to me or is being duplicitous or secretive. For instance, one question I asked a job interviewee today was about her impressions of China over the past five years - her observations of things that have changed and those that remain essentially unchanged. The interviewee misunderstood my intent, saying to me, "I don't know, that's up to Hu Jin Tao and Wen Jai Bao." I'm certain the non-sequitur response reflected her true belief and feeling. (Others I interviewed spoke of the high cost of housing, improved standard of living for them, inflation, a terrible educative system etc.) Another interviewee expressed concern for the half of the PRC population that is dirt poor and, as the interviewee sees it, will remain so indefinitely with only token (my word) improvements foreseeable.

* I've made clear I don't publicly discuss matters of political or cultural sensitivity or discomfort, or of possible discomfort - and that censorship/judgment covers many topics. I do discuss such matters with certain Chinese friends or colleagues, but not publicly, nor do I expect people to join me as I stand on the corner shouting "China Sucks" (haha, which of course I do not do.

* As Mao said, "A revolution is not a tea party." That's 100% consistent with my view for as long as I can remember. I have said regular elections in a viable democracy are the result of the desire by society to have peaceful transfers or political power and authority, which is better than having a history of regularly having to be a violently rebellious civilization, as is the case with China, to include violent revolts and violent revolutions.

* The greatest frustration among even the sheeple of the PRC - 80% of the population - is that there isn't any established, regular system or route of safe and viable recourse to the government, or to any authority public or private, to voice grievances or to obtain a redress of grievances. Grievances range from lousy canteen food to having a democracy modeled after Taiwan.

Arizona governor considers changing immigration law

Arizona Republicans Gov. Jan Brewer and Sen. John McCain abruptly ended a news conference in Glendale, Ariz., Friday, July 30, 2010.

Brewer and McCain held the news conference in the Phoenix suburb of Glendale to applaud a U.S. Air Force decision to base new F-35 combat jets at Luke Air Force Base in Glendale, but the event abruptly ended when the barrage of questions were regarding the Arizona immigration law and the next steps the governor was taking in the court battle.

The fight over Arizona's immigration law showed no signs of letting up Friday as the federal judge who blunted its force faced threats and the Republican governor who signed it considered changes to address any faults.

In the days since U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton put the most controversial parts of the law on hold, hundreds of e-mails and phone calls — including some threats — have poured into the courthouse.

Seventy people have been arrested in demonstrations.

Gov. Jan Brewer, who signed the law and appealed the ruling, has vowed not to back down, saying she'll challenge Bolton's decision all the way to the Supreme Court.

The Federal 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said in an order late Friday that it will hold a hearing in the first week of November on Arizona's challenge. Briefs from the state are due Aug. 26.

Brewer had asked for an expedited appeals process, with a hearing scheduled for the week of Sept. 13. State lawyers had argued in their appeal that it involves an issue of "significant importance" — the state's right to implement a law to address "the irreparable harm Arizona is suffering as a result of unchecked unlawful immigration."

The federal government countered that there was no need to expedite the matter because "the only effect of the district court's injunction in this case is to preserve a status quo that has existed for a long period of time."

Calls Friday night to Brewer spokesman Paul Senseman and Phoenix attorney John Bouma, who is defending the immigration law on the governor's behalf, were not immediately returned.

Brewer said earlier Friday that she'd consider changes to "tweak" the law to respond to the parts Bolton faulted.

"Basically we believe (the law) is constitutional but she obviously pointed out faults that can possibly be fixed, and that's what we would do," Brewer told The Associated Press. She said she's talking to legislative leaders about the possibility of a special session, but said no specific changes had been identified.

In her temporary injunction, Bolton delayed the most contentious provisions of the law, including a section that required officers to check a person's immigration status while enforcing other laws. Bolton indicated the federal government's case has a good chance at succeeding in its argument that federal immigration law trumps state law.

The injunction is in fact a Temporary Restraining Order by the United States District Court to restrain the State of Arizona from implementing the provisions of the law Judge Bolton found to be potentially inconsistent to the Constitution.

But she allowed police to enforce the law's bans on blocking vehicle traffic when seeking or offering day-labor services and a revision to the smuggling ban that lets officers stop drivers if they suspect motorists have broken traffic laws.

Bolton also let officers enforce a new prohibition on driving or harboring illegal immigrants in furtherance of their illegal presence.

Arizona Democrats scoffed at Brewer's desire to change the law, with a key House minority leader calling it laughable. "Why would we help her?" asked Rep. Kyrsten Sinema of Phoenix. "This bill is so flawed and clearly a federal judge agrees," Sinema said.

House Speaker Republican Kirk Adams said there would be little support among fellow Republicans to weaken the law. Attorneys have begun reviewing the law to identify possible changes, he said: "It's embryonic."

Sen. Russell Pearce, the law's chief sponsor, said he would only back changes to make it stronger.

Even though the law's critics scored a huge victory with the decision, passions among hundreds of immigrant rights supporters still flared at demonstrations near the federal courthouse in downtown Phoenix after the parts of the law that weren't blocked took effect Thursday.

Federal officials in charge of court security wouldn't say whether anyone made a death threat against Bolton and wouldn't provide specifics of the threats they were examining, but said a majority of the e-mails and phone calls to the judge's chambers and the court clerk's office are from people who want to grouse about her ruling, officials said.

"We understand that people will vent and have a First Amendment right to express their dissatisfaction. We expect this," said David Gonzales, the United States Marshal for Arizona. "But we want to look at the people who go over the line."

___

U.S. District Court Judge Susan R. Bolton was successfully nominated to the federal bench in 2000 by Pres Bill Clinton on the recommendation of . conservative U.S. Republican Senator John Kyl of Arizona.

Judge Bolton was confirmed to the bench of the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona by a Unanimous Consent approval of the whole of the U.S. Senate. Under the Unanimous Consent Rule of the US Senate, a matter is approved without debate unless one (or more) Senator objects from the Floor of the Senate. None of the 100 U.S. Senators objected so Judge Bolton coasted through the process of nomination and confirmation.

The Iowan Judge Bolton is a respected lawyer and jurist. We can reliably expect the US Court of Appeals to sustain her judgement in this case. The core issue is the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, which mandates that, when a state law is in direct conflict with a law of the United States, the federal law prevails. The new Arizona immigration law directly conflicts with existing U.S. immigration laws. Further, the Supremacy Clause mandates the United States Government to establish nationally uniform immigration policy, not a state or any number of states.

From the definitive West's Law Dictionary, the Supremacy Clause is:

"The clause of Article VI of the U.S. Constitution that declares that all laws and treaties made by the federal government shall be the 'supreme law of the land.'

"Article VI, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution is known as the Supremacy Clause because it provides that the "Constitution, and the Laws of the United States … shall be the supreme Law of the Land." This means that the federal government, in exercising any of the powers enumerated in the Constitution, must prevail over any conflicting or inconsistent state exercise of power.

" The text of Article VI, Clause 2, establishes federal law as the highest form of law in the American legal system, both in the Federal courts and in all of the State courts, mandating that all state judges shall uphold them, even if there are state laws or state constitutions that conflict with the powers of the Federal government. (Note that the word "shall" is used here and in the language of the law, which makes it a necessity, a compulsion.)"

In other words, the Supremacy Clause was written into the Constitution by the Founders to prevent or to stop a renegade state trampling on its own population as in this case.

"Many Chinese who are not Party members accept the rule of the party and the PRC as it is."

Acceptance is not by choice though, certainly without harsh consequences. If there was free elections tomorrow, without repercussions, the CPC would be voted out of office. And by your own admission, many Chinese understand the problems of their society, contrary to the Communist Party line of "everything's fine, society is harmonious."
-
Your last statement contradicts the statement before. You say that democratic societies are based on desire by members of the society for a free and peaceful state, which implies that the Chinese are lacking. You then contradict that by stating that 80% of the population (you originally said Chinese is 99.9% sheeple, now it's 80%) desire a freer, more democratically open society. Any time more freedoms are introduced the Chinese people that full advantage of. In fact, the popular democratic movement of the 80's was co-opted by reformist elements in the CPC (Zhao Ziyang and Hu Yaobang), whom are very popular with the common Chinese. Any foreigners who've lived in China since the 80's (i.e. John Promfet) would argue that the present situation is due to CPC back-sliding on their promise of continued political reform, contrary to the desires and will of the people.
-
I didn't misrepresent your comments. I specifically called out the fact that your 'sheeple' title is not well-defined and unjustifiably attributed. I gave my own definition, that you've yet to challenge.

B.C, you stated above, "Let me end this debate by disassembling [sic] your two main claims." However, here you are back again as you either cannot control yourself (obsessive compulsive), or you are disingenuous in your statement. Either way.............

.........here we continue..........

.......And as long as we're counting, I said 80% of the PRChinese population are sheeple, that is, those who receive and accept the CPC/PRC rulers and the country as it is. The 99.9% sheeple (my estimate) constitute those who do nothing to change the state of the state, to include the 80% of sheeple plus those who have reform ideas of one character or another but who, of course, dare not take much or any action post Deng Xiao Peng's brutal 1989. Stop misrepresenting my statements. As I'd said, I think (so far) that in consistently doing so you are simply in error rather than malicious.

And do stop erroneously taking the CPC obsessive, awkward and clumsy sillyness to impose a harmony to PRC society that does not exist for any presumed or supposed false reality that the PRC is in fact a harmoneous society. It is not. The CPC Empire knows it is not, most notably for example, in the rebellious conquered nation state of Tibet; same for the nation state of the Muslim Turkic speaking far western 'province' of XinJiang, each of which recently have had riotious rebellions, revolts, and each of which is thoroughly cessionist.

Another example of an obvious and gross weakness of harmony is the rich and prosperous (well behind Western standards of living or quality of life however) provinces of Shanghai and Guangdong which are required to send huge amounts of taxes to Beijing. The huge transfer of wealth from booming Shanghai and the rapidly progressing GD province does not get to the dirt poor of the western inland areas, but goes into the pockets of CPC bosses in Beijing and to their compatriots in provincial capitals to maintain the loyalty of the Party cadres in those and other places.

It's easy for me to find the Chinese to be subservient enuff over thousands of years to conclude that they are seriously flawed, but my thinking originates from a civilization - Western especially and in its most modern extension, the United States - that long ago left the Chinese behind due to their absence of initiative, inquisitiveness, creativity, self-motivation or intellectual curiosity and by their limited ability to be culturally transformational. Where's PRChina's Barak Hussein Obama? He ain't anywhere in sight in this century. Indeed, political transformation in China means exchanging a dynasty of emperors in robes for those in business suits. The CPC and Pu Yi in his later years finding much common ground is a profoundly negative statement about the nature of the elites of China over thousands of years to the present ruling CPC.

The PRChinese know their day to day lives, situations an circumstances. They discuss these important matters with (foreign) devils - they certainly do with me. However, the policy directions of the country domestically or foreign are not in the hands of the PRChinese sheeple. Being a PRChinese sheeple means knowing and accepting that. Sometimes in the West we fall back to say the people we elect to government and their appointees know more about a specific situation than we do. But we pay attention and hold our leaders of government accountable at the polls for their decisions, actions and outcomes. In the PRC the sheeple know they know nothing about policy and policy making, and defer to their leaders of the Party and their government on all things, as they are 'taught' to do as a child at home, in school and in the workplace. Typically, by the time a PRChinese is aged 20, s/he no longer has the brains s/he was born with, as the CPC has slowly sucked it out and inserted instead substitute gray programmed software.

Global cable satellite TV is PROHIBITED to Chinese in the PRC, which derisively calls it "foreign television," but recently was approved at high fees for (foreign) devils who wish to have it and its measly 40 channels here (relayed to the mainland from the Philippines). Last year my Chinese visitors to my residence continually saw reports and the presence of Pres Obama on CNN, BBC, CNBC and other news outlets to include ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation, which is state owned and operated). "Oh, no, not Obama again," so many of my Chinese vgisitors exclaimed as almost every time they visited me I had the news on and Obama was everywhere in news reports and being shown everywhere around and about speaking to the people of the U.S..

To the PRChinese seeing Obama almost all the time on the Western news outlets I receive was, as I would state it, excessive and on our part obsessive, if not sickening to their stomach. The PRChinese seldom see Hu Jin Tao or other of their leaders on TV, except when "Grandpa Wen" is visiting earthquake stricken Sichuan and other similarly stricken provinces to sweetly try comfort the afflicted with a gentle and manner well recorded and broadcast by state controlled media. More directly stated, leaders here are to be neither seen nor heard. Their affairs and actions are taken behind closed doors and absent public knowledge or scrutiny.

All of the above, and much more I cannot cite in a single post, is a hell of a way to run a railroad.

The following article from the Arizona Daily Star newspaper is presented here as it was written previous to the globally known judgement by Judge Bolton to restrain Arizona enforcing numerous provisions of its new anti-immigration law.

The piece is presented because it discusses Judge Bolton's judicial record of inter alia professionalism, judicial temperment, evenhandedness, as testified by legal professionals and prominent law school professors in the jurisdiction of the U.S. District Court, of which Judge Bolton has been a sitting judge since 2000.

Here goes:

Judge is known as fair, thorough

U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton

The federal judge who will be ruling on whether to block Arizona's new immigration law from taking effect is known as a thorough, efficient, intelligent and fair jurist.

U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton has earned that reputation during nearly a decade on the federal bench in Arizona and 11 years before that as a Superior Court judge in Maricopa County.

"I don't think that either party could ask for a better judge," said Dave Cole a law professor at the Phoenix School of Law and former Maricopa County Superior Court judge. "She is very deliberative, very reflective, runs a very tight ship in the courtroom. Very detached, objective, good at applying the law."

On Thursday afternoon Bolton will hear arguments on the U.S. Department of Justice's lawsuit asking her to block Arizona's new immigration law from taking effect July 29. She'll also preside over a hearing Thursday morning dealing with other attempts to block the law.

Bolton, 58, is handling all seven lawsuits against the state law, which requires police to question those they have stopped for some other reason about their immigration status if there is "reasonable suspicion" they are in this country illegally.

The consensus among members of the legal community interviewed for this story is that she's the right person to have making such an important decision.

"She's very smart, very well prepared, very quick to cut to the core of things," said Robert Bartels, an Arizona State University law professor. "She's a terrific administrator. She just really gets things done quickly, but still well."

Lawyers are happy when they draw Bolton as the judge for their cases because they know they'll get a fair shake, said Mary Jo O'Neill, regional attorney for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's Phoenix office, who brings about five cases a year before Bolton.

"You never worry that there is going to be any bias. You won't hear that about every judge," O'Neill said.

Bolton has been in Arizona since 1975 when she took a job with the Arizona Court of Appeals after completing law school.

Bartels, one of her law school professors in Iowa, wrote her a letter of recommendation for the law clerk position with the Arizona Court of Appeals. Bolton worked there until 1977 before going into private practice.

In 1989, she became a Superior Court judge in Maricopa County, a post she held until becoming a federal judge in 2000.

Bartels moved to Arizona in 1982 and took a case in front of Bolton in Maricopa County Superior Court.

"She had a very good reputation as a trial judge on the Superior Court and my experience with her was good," Bartels said.

That good reputation has followed her to the federal level, where she is known for how she conducts herself in court and her quality of work, he said.

"She doesn't put up with nonsense from lawyers or parties," Bartels said.

Bolton has shown an ability to control the courtroom from her days as a Superior Court judge, said John Randolph, a Phoenix lawyer who worked with Bolton at the Shimmel Hill Bishop and Gruender law firm in Phoenix and tried a few cases before her in court.

Randolph remembers being in Bolton's chambers in Superior Court when two attorneys began arguing in front of her. She didn't have a gavel, but found something to bang on her desk and told them she wasn't going to hear arguments until she said so, he recalls.

"I was impressed by that," said Randolph, now a lawyer at the Sherman & Howard law firm in Phoenix.

"That is the type of control you need as a judge."

Randolph and Cole said that despite knowing Bolton professionally and personally, they don't know her political leaning.

"I couldn't even guess who she would vote for," said Randolph.

Her decision on the SB 1070 case will be monumental and is being watched closely, but at the same time everybody knows the case won't end with her decision, Cole and Bartels said. The case is likely to go to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals regardless of what she rules, he said.

Who is U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton?

• Age: 58, born in Philadelphia.

Professional career:

• 1975-1977: Law clerk, Arizona Court of Appeals.

• 1977-1989: Private practice in Phoenix.

• 1989-2000: Maricopa County Superior Court judge.

• 2000-current: Judge, U.S. District Court of the District of Arizona.

Education:

• B.A. from University of Iowa in 1973.

• Law degree from University of Iowa College of Law in 1975.

Source: Federal Judicial Center

Politics:

Judge Susan Bolton is a registered independent in Maricopa County. She was appointed to the federal court on Oct. 20, 2000, as an independent. She was nominated by Democratic President Bill Clinton on the recommendation of Republican Sen. Jon Kyl.

Rulings made by Bolton:

• January 2010: Rules that Arizona cannot legally bar residents of other states from helping a political party get on the ballot here, rejecting arguments by Secretary of State Ken Bennett that allowing only Arizona residents to circulate these political petitions is necessary to prevent fraud. The decision was considered a victory for the Green Party.

• February 2008: Upheld a designation of critical habitat in Arizona, Utah, Colorado and New Mexico for the Mexican spotted owl despite an effort by the Arizona Cattle Growers' Association to overturn it.

• February 2002: Sentenced a smuggler to 16 years in prison for leading 14 illegal immigrants to their deaths in the desert between Yuma and Ajo.

• 2002: Ruled that Border Patrol officials had legal immunity and couldn't be sued for their part in a 1997 immigrant roundup that led to 430 arrests and drew complaints that Hispanics who were U.S. citizens were harassed because of their appearance.

• 2000: Struck from the ballot a land-preservation proposal advanced by the Arizona Legislature that was a bid to counter a similar proposal by environmentalists that remained on the ballot. Bolton said the Legislature's proposal violated a state constitutional requirement that ballot measures cannot cover more than one subject. Critics called Bolton an activist judge, and accused her of working with the environmentalists to torpedo the Legislature's option.

Sources: Arizona Daily Star archives, The Associated Press.

Contact reporter Brady McCombs at 573-4213 or bmccombs@azstarnet.com

Posted in Border, Brady-mccombs on Wednesday, July 21, 2010 12:00 am Updated: 12:08 am.

.

Lets separate the political atmosphere with the nature of the people, shall we? Given a political environment with a
(1) lack of freedoms,
(2) lack of political transparency by the ruling Party,
(3) information is controlled and not readily available to the people and
(3) consequences of jail/torture/death for positive action,
it is reasonable to assume your average person under average circumstances (regardless of race/culture/nationality), is statistically less likely to affect change. That behavior driven is by the political environment, not culture or genetics. After all, herculean efforts of control and propaganda is unnecessary for a naturally compliant population. The Chinese acceptance of the circumstances they are in, is not equivalent to a lack of POTENTIAL to affect change, nor an endorsement of CPC party rule. If there was free elections tomorrow, without repercussions, the CPC would be voted out of office.
-
When placed in a freer environment, people that is the product of 5000 years of Chinese genes and culture, do prosper. Inquisitiveness, creativity, self-motivation, intellectual curiosity and the ability for cultural transformation exists in abundance for Chinese outside of China, including those immigrated from the Mainland. The only difference between the overseas Chinese communities and mainland Chinese society, is the political environment. It's very easy for the PRC immigrant, to remove their 'programming', given the choice, free access to information, and the lack of the fear of consequences. That is the point I've been making all along.
-
Your arguments hold no ground given the arguments I made above. Your anecdotal evidence only makes sense in the context of the political environment I described. I did read your comments carefully and made counter-arguments based on what I saw. But as someone told me once: if you don't want to be misrepresented, think clearer and write better.

I'm afraid this board is going to get buried in the back of the FP archives.
My email is:
robbie.dynamite@gmail.com
We can continue our discussion over email or googlechat or something. That way it's easier to talk than having to log on to FP and spamming our conversation on an old board.

Well, B.C, except for the concluding sentence, your last substantive post to this topic - and I'm sure it's your last, the very last and final post you'll make in this discourse, the absolute final one - is 'finally' a pretty good one. As to your concluding sentence, I can't be held responsible for your mangling of what I say or the recent game playing you've tried, especially since my point of view here is more than clear.

It's fact that Emigre' Chinese can and do function well in any free society. I know this, for instance, from a lifetime of being born, growing up and living in the United States. Emigre' Chinese do very well in Western Europe, South America, Australia etc. Free Chinese societies per se away from the mainland PRC do well, as we see every day over decades in Taiwan, Singapore, and for more than a century in Hong Kong.

The problem is 5000 years of Chinese authoritarian culture and society in China and it present incarnation as the CPC/PRC in China. There are 1400 000 000 sheeple encased on mainland China that the CPC/PRC controls and must control. The mainland sheeple can't be free, never will be allowed to be free, after 1989 (can't blame them) won't make any effort to be free. The inertia of the political culture of the mainland PRChinese is to continue with empty headed business as usual, political and economic. The mainland Chinese are conditioned, controlled, directed. They submissively will follow their CPC/PRC leaders to the Gates of Hell which knowingly or unknowingly is surely where they are going.

Thanks for your gmail address. August is shaping up as a busy month and September will be busier but I'd like to pursue these issues with you personally.

Can we agree, then, that the source of the control, and the culture of suppression, come from the ruling Party and the political environment it imposed, and not from the people? That if the political environment was changed or removed, the mainland Chinese would exhibit the initiative and self-awareness qualities that have been physically suppressed by the current environment?
-
I, however, take exception to your statement that the current CPC government is a result of Chinese culture and society. I believe we had discussions on this before and the conclusion was that the PRC is a transitional state founded upon Marxist-Leninist-Maoism. The only similarity between PRC and ancient China is authoritarianism in the most superficial sense. There are varying types of authoritarian systems that are fundamentally different (imperialism, feudalism, facism, communism, theocracy, etc.) in terms of ideology, culture, and social-political structure. It's not scholarly nor objective to lump them all in the same pile.
-
But that is a discussion I'd like to have over email/googlechat. Email me when you have the chance so we can discuss these things personally, I'm looking forward to it!

If there were an election in the PRC, the CPC would not be voted out of office as you obliviously claim. We're talking about the mainland PRC population, not those of Taiwan or Singapore, or of Chinese Americans.

1) Would the mainland media be free and available to opponents of the CPC, which anyway are actively few in number?

2) As in the upcoming "election" in Burma/Myanmar, would the list of candidates be limited by the CPC?

3) It's absolutely a given that international election monitors would be PROHIBITED in the PRC.

4) Such an election would not be free or fair, proper or absent intimidation or the heavy weight of the authoritarianist history of the distant past or of recent centuries.

5) An electorate conditioned from childhood by the institutions of CPC/PRC society, to include the family unit, that the CPC is the ONLY party that can 'govern' (rule) China wouldn't rush to eject it from power.

6) At one point students in Tianaman took a vote concerning their course of action, the vote coming out as something like 64% in favor and 36% against so the student leaders dejectedly declared the motion failed, believing the vote had to be "harmoneously" unanimous. Talk about political cultural conditioning!

7) It's encouraging that Tianamen students wanted democracy but, when asked what democracy is, they said "I don't know, but we want it." Conversely, this is of course discouraging in the extreme concerning any kind of election and democratic electoral processes that might be established in the PRC. What's an 'educated' Chinese going to do with an election ballot, much less the 50% of the CPC/PRC peasant population of the countryside?

I could easily get to 100 questions or 1,000 questions, never mind 20 questions, but I'll stop at this point as I believe I've made my point concerning your wild claim that if elections were held in the PRC the PRChinese would vote the CPC out.

In our discussions of the subservient nature of mainland China culture, society and government, which you reference in your above post, it is YOUR conclusion that the PRC "is a transitional state" that is founded on Marxism, Leninism, Maoism. As I've said several times to FP in my comments, the CPC is a continuation of the emperors and the dynasties of emperors as evidenced by the common buddy-buddy relationship the CPC, Jo En Lai in particular, developed with the last (official, formal) emperor Pu Yi during Pu Yi's final years. The CPC and Pu YI became fast and famous friends and comrades. This is not an encouraging historical fact.

A former mainland undergrad student of mine, now on his way to HKG to begin Master Degree studies at the HK University of Science and Technology, ranked 26th globally, does nothing but complain that in signing up for courses he has to make choices. He's 100% accustomed from mainland primary school to having his curriculum and courses presented to him, never having to make any choice or choices. The absence of choice and self decision making in EVERY aspect of life on the mainland leaves the sheeple robbed of the brains they were born with, instead expecting that they don't have to compare and contrast alternatives because they've never had any alternatives of any substance, significance, consequence. It's all been decided for them, they're used to that, and find a situation in which they are presented with making choices radically new, i.e., confusing, befuddling, confounding. They rather like and are accustomed to having everything presented to them as their programmed fait accompli.

PM Wen Jao Bio, who I believe to have real democratic tendencies (at great risk to himself, he spent a lot of time in sympathetic discussions with the students in Tianamen), visibly winced during a recent interview on the BBC when asked about the future of democracy in the PRC. Wen responded to the question by saying blah blah blah, but he visibly said his blah blah blah painfully. Wen knows that, as much as he might like to see it, democracy on the mainland is (at a minimum) generations away if it were to be possible ever.

If it were to be possible ever.

Really B.C. how many revolutions have occurred in East Asia to establish democratic government?

Japan had to be smashed to establish democracy there as a consequence of WW II. Under the patient and to the US its painful tutelage, dictatorships in S Korea and Taiwan were succeeded by democracy. Lee Kwan Yew didn't have a revolution in Singapore, nor was there a revolution in Malaysia. 'People Power' in the Philippines established democracy by the weight of peaceful mass protest and demands after the 'Phils' were under US tutelage for a hundred years. In Indonesia the dictatorship collapsed of its own dead weight much to everyone's relief. The list goes on........

The PRChinese are going to rid themselves of the CPC? By elections or otherwise? Not a chance.

The CPC/PRC can only and will collapse of its internal contradictions which are many and varied. If the West wants to help accelerate the process, it can cooperate with the "stan" countries of Muslims that border the West of the PRC regarding the far West border Muslim and Turkic speaking people of the conquered and incorporated XinJiang province, and also with another remote conquered people at the PRC's southwestern border, Tibet which is adjacent to India.

All you've described is a political environment, forced from the top-down, on a population that was not given a choice in the matter, ever. It is an artificial structure, that requires vast amounts of force, resources, and sophistication in order to keep sustaining. If the mechanisms of state control were to lessen, or break down, it results in an increasingly restless (read: non-compliant) population that demands reform and positive action (as seen at Tiananmen). Your description of Tiananmen protesters as ignorant or conditioned is utterly trivial, considering that they put themselves in front of tanks and bullets, and many died, for a chance to politically transform their nation peacefully. Concepts of democratic governance is not so complex as it cannot be quickly learned and instituted once a revolution is successful.
-
Populist pressure for reform always come when the government control is weakest. You were unfortunate to arrive in the PRC when state control is at its peak, so you don't see it. It's a constant tug-of-war between the state and its people. Because it cannot sustain itself solely on Chinese affinity for a "tough master", the state utilizes a constant application of force, propaganda and cultural subversion that is common in the 20th century authoritarian model (facist and communist). George Orwell wrote his most famous novel 1984 based on that model. A model that relies on a continual cycle of fear and indoctrination, not nostalgia for the good ol' days of Confucianism and emperors.
-
It may take generations for the CPC to loosen its grips, but it does not take the Chinese generations to undo its 'political programming', so to speak, when removed from an Orwellian environment. Even less than one generation, given the successful assimilation of mainland Chinese immigrants into modern democratic societies. The very existence of free Chinese societies, that are characteristically Chinese in culture and genetics, outside of China runs contrary to your claims. Because it presents a functional, prosperous Chinese society that rejects authoritarianism. Thus rendering claims that being Chinese somehow fundamentally excludes an understanding or application of democratic principles moot.

When the Communists took power, they systematically dismantled all existing cultural institutions. Mao saw the 'old way' as a tool of proletariat exploitation. That's why, following the formation of the PRC in 1949, you had two (maybe three) generations of indoctrination in Marxist-Leninist and Maoist philosophy. Those generations, including the CPC elite crafting the policies today, grew up on a diet of Marx, Lenin, Mao, and Engels. Go find yourself an old textbook, it reads like a Soviet-era education manual. It was only after Mao died that Deng Xiaoping introduced his pragmatic socialism, market economic model with a socialist political system. However, the CPC is still based their legitimacy on their leftist roots. The "C' still stood for Communist, and Mao's face is still on Chinese money.
-
The evidence for the Pu Yi link is weak at best. He was forced to renounce his royaltly, then sent to a re-education camp until he was 'reformed', and lived the rest of his life as a commoner. In letters he wrote to Stalin, Pu Yi himself declared his life changed by the works of Marx and Lenin. He may have been born the Beneficient Lord-Emperor, but he died a comrade, a proletariat.
-
The continuation of the 5000-year Chinese culture exists... outside of mainland China. This is the real living, breathing, Chinese culture that successfully incorporated classical Western liberalism into its underlying Confucian structure. Unlike the PRC culture, which is an artificial construct that couldn't survive without a constant application of force, the real Chinese culture is dynamic and self-perpetuating. It is responsible for the success of the overseas Chinese communities, and absent a state policy of cultural subversion, is free of the characteristic authoritarianism of the mainland. Your comparison of authoritarian Chinese culture vs. liberal Western culture creates a false dichotomy, because there already exists a culture that is both Chinese and liberal. A model which the mainland will hopefully one day follow, once the edifice of state control is removed.

The only way the CPC/PRC will lose control of China is to collapse of its own dead weight, same as the USSR, which will happen.

The Chinese who have escaped the mainland for free societies are the Chinese who hate and detest the CPC/PRC; those that remain don't hate it - they either dislike it, ignore it and get on with their lives or love and never leave it. After 1989 no one here is going to revolt because nearly every mainland Chinese turned off by the event have emigrated. Virtually all immigrants to the USA are of the same stock, emigrating from rigid Old World societies, cultures and (absolute) royal governments. The wealthiest new entrepreneur Chinese can be found in one of two places: a mainland prison because they got too rich and powerful for the Party to tolerate (Putin's approach too) or they are living in free countries abroad to avoid the former. There's no one left on the mainland any more to revolt.

There isn't going to be any revolution on the mainland. The people who complain are complaining about low wages and inflation, not CPC rule. During the Great Depression in the USA, when did the population revolt against the government. For one thing, they didn't have to because they could vote in the New Deal which the sheeple of the PRC absolutely cannot do. The sheeple wouldn't know what to do with democracy if they had it, and that's reality dude.

Your mischaracterizations of my statements concerning Tianaman as being trivial are offensive, especially when you starting talking tanks and bullets against the students. Besides, the crackdown came because Beijing was transitioning from an incipient uprising to a mass rebellion, not only because of those in Tiananman. Now that so many of the population of Beijing have fat wallets and bellies, there won't be any further such developments or events. For 20 years now, the Politboro knows best and those who know otherwise are gone abroad.

And yes, as you well know, Mao is very much on the PRC money. For those who might not know, Mao is on the largest PRC currency denomination, the RMB 100 note. However, later this year Mao will suffer the indignity of being demoted to the RMB 50 note. In Mao's place, the new RMB 100 note will contain - - - an image of peaceful countryside. And a new highest value note will be introduced, the RMB500 with Mr. Tiananman himself on it, Big Bucks Deng. From the Cultural Revolution to Tiananman - now that's progress.

The CPC/PRC or the sheeple still haven't any idea what their term, "market socialism," pulled out of a hat 30 years ago means nor do they care.

Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose. Same same but different.
As to Pu YI, you make my point exactly. Pu Yi easily found a new home in the then totalitarianism of the CPC, which is now reduced to authoritarianism and which has the same effect as the former. Further, the mainland remains deeply Confucian altho since the Cultural Revolution Confucious himself is profoundly persona non grata throughout the PRC. Mao and his fascists could discredit the man but not the code he articulated long ago which continues to define Chinese life (Confucious always was a reactionary, Mencius was no better).

Mainland Chinese today still talk glowingly of Marx and Engels, especially in my university classes. At the proprietary university where I teach the internet for students in the dorms is super high speed completely slow, the water gets shut off all day Saturday and at other unannounced times, students consistently lose hot water in their dorms during winter, the electricity supply is inconsistent and the canteen food sucks. Periodically certain students take to their dorm rooftops to protest, throwing banana peels down on the caps and shoulders of the campus cops, throwing toilet tissue and sometimes their computers to the ground; most damning of all, however, the students on the rooftops shout the worst condemnation that one can say in the PRC, calling the university administration "capitalists."

I say to my students in my classes and also say it to students and faculty Party cadre outside of the classroom that capitalists would never survive running a shythole institution as the spanking new and expensive university they attend/teach.

Capitalist students would call their capitalist parents who would call the capitalist university to demand capitalist refunds in the exact capitalist amounts that failed capitalist services were not provided, and would have the set and established rule of law to support their demands. Moreover, the demands of parents for refunds or credits towards tuition and fees for failed services would by law need to be respected and 'honored' by the university.

Not so in the PRC. No one calls anyone, except roommates calling roommates in January to say the hot water to include the shower is gone again. The university is expensive so all dorm rooms have four occupants - other universities in the PRC have as many as eight occupant roommates, with six roommates being common. And if you might want to think the dorm rooms are spacious or remotely comfortable you might want to think again.

My students gape as I tell 'em I had my own private dorm room at my undergrad university in the USA. And they're shocked to learn there isn't an 11 pm curfew by which you gotta be back in your dorm room or else POW by a guard up against the locked gate - or that there isn't any such thing as a curfew on normal campuses in the USA.

Yeah, those damn capitalists in the PRC, same same as elsewhere.

1. Most Chinese immigrated out for economic reasons, not political. The percentage of political asylum seekers with respect to total immigrant population is very, very small. My dad was able to get a visa due to a lottery draw, and my mom was able to follow a year later. Both my parents didn't come from wealthy, nor influential backgrounds, nor highly educated. They certainly weren't 'elite', they were common folks. I've seen them grow from their 'know-nothing' attitude, working two-three jobs to make a living. To moving up to a comfortable American middle-class, and being opinionated on the matter of politics and voting.
-
2. Tiananmen happened because the students wanted a more open and democratic government, their demands were to talk with CPC representatives. They had popular support, including from the more liberal-reformist wing of the Party. The crackdown order came from the hardliners within the CPC. Their justification? The Chinese people weren't ready for democracy. The same line trotted out by none other than you. I don't see how you could be offended, unless it's inadvertently showing that you are more pro-CPC than I am.
-
3. Mao did more than just discredit Confucianism. He wiped out all of its social institutions, everything. Children denoucing their parents? Check. Landlords (and other 'burgeoise') dragged and beaten, their properties given back 'to the people'? Check. Three generations of Soviet-style schooling for all children? Check. Persecution of scholars and intellectuals? Check. Last time I checked, in classical Confucian society, scholars and landlords had the most prestige and power, and parents were sacrosanct. And I don't think they taught Confucian values in a Soviet classroom. And was your point that Pu Yi enjoyed living the rest of his life as a common laborer? A prole? Because that lifestyle is massively different from living in a palace and having hundreds of servants waiting on him hand and foot. That transition is anything but easy.
-
4. And all of it distracts from the fact that Confucianist values are alive and well in Japan, S. Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Singapore. All of which are the only non-Western societies to reach parity with the West. There was no 'painful tutelage', given that the West were pretty hands-off during the so-called 'East Asian economic miracle'. During the Cold War the US didn't care if an ally was democratic or not, as long as they were anti-Communist, their support came from military protection and trade. The East Asians were allowed to modernize on their own terms, thats why the Japanese and Asian Tiger development models were vastly divergent from the US development model.
-
Japan's modernization strategy was based on the Kyochokai (The Co-operation and Harmony Society), which co-opted free market principles with Confucian principles of harmony, self-sacrifice, and non-individualist pursuit of a common goal. Major investments in education, social safety-nets and process engineering were implemented to increase the productivity of its workforce. (source: Industrial Harmony in Modern Japan: The Invention of a Tradition, look it up on amazon). The other Asian Tigers followed similar paths, under a similar Confucian value system, when China was still straining under an inefficient Soviet model. To this day Japan and the Asian Tigers are the only non-Western nations to successfully modernize, while retaining their characteristic Confucian mindsets.

Your graph 1: Congratulations to your parents, whenever it was in the past they migrated to the US from mainland PRC. Presently, however, a slew of migrants leaving the PRC for free societies are very wealthy and are migrating for the political-economic reasons I communicated above, i.e, to avoid imprisonment by the Party because of their independent base of wealth and power and to keep and enjoy their newfound fortunes. They aren't the only migrants from the mainland, but their migration is high-profile, significant, revealing.

Your graph 2: You like syllogisms, specificialy in this instance, that the CCP and I agree people on the mainland haven't a clue in respect of democracy, which therefore would make me pro-CPC. I hope on reflection you can see how stupid that is to say or to suggest - perhaps assinine [sic].

Your graph 3: Check, check, check, check and check. My obvious point is that Pu YI enjoyed being pals with PM Cho En Lai and the elite leadership of the CPC. It certainly elevated him from his final days as a 'rehabilitated' prole. And the CPC elites loved chumming around and about with the last emperor himself, Mao jacket and all. Moreover, as it was Sun Yat Sen and the KMT that ran Pu Yi out of the Forbidden City, Mao and Pu Yi shared a common adversary.

Your graph 4: Agreed, Confucianism is alive and well in the places you mention. Confucianism is not causal however. It's strength - the strong paternal family unit - is also its weakness, i.e., it causes people to have a low level of social skills in society in general, among people they don't know outside of the family unit. One manifestation of this low level of social skills outside of the family unit is the constant use of the word "shy" to characterize East Asians.

+

I noted to myself some time ago that it's your constant theme that Western civilization and East Asian civilization are the the two big deal civilizations of the modern world, with Chinese Confucian civilization being the bedrock of human civilization since ancient times.

Point 1: My parents immigrated in the late 80's, my friend. I don't know any Chinese immigrant, recent or otherwise, that came to the US with any extensive knowledge of Western cultures, institutions, or traditions (except what is necessary to pass the citizenship test). My parents started out not knowing about voting, or how to drive a car, had limited English skills, and were mystified about borrowing credit. They had to learn these things themselves, and picked up on it pretty quickly and successfully, given that they spent the first half of their lives as 'sheeple', as you would call them. (I'll be sure to call them sheeple the next time I talk to them, they'll have a good laugh about it).
The wealthy Chinese that immigrate may be more high profile, but they are still a small percentage of the whole. They may send their kids to an Ivy school in the US, but they never settle there. They tend to have houses in Hong Kong, Austrailia, Europe, etc. and travel around. Instead of going through the process of naturalization in a given country, they tend to distinguish themselves apart the rest of the immigrants as part of the new 'internationalist class'.
-
Point 3: Pu Yi knowing the CPC big-wigs presents a really weak and non-conclusive link between modern PRC and dynastic China. Especially when weighed against all the evidence that I presented, as well as the obvious destructive tendencies that the Communist movement is historically known for.
-
Point 4: I never said Confucianism was without its flaws, only that Confucianism (and East Asian culture in general) presents no barrier to modernization nor the absorption of Western ideals. Whatever it's flaws, it's still better than 90% of the cultures out there. I'd rather live in a modern society full of 'shy' people, than what they got to offer in Africa, South Asia, South America, or the Middle East.
-
"I noted to myself some time ago that it's your constant theme that Western civilization and East Asian civilization are the the two big deal civilizations of the modern world, with Chinese Confucian civilization being the bedrock of human civilization since ancient times."
I've said this in another thread a while back (I don't know if it exists anymore), that East Asian civilization was the second-best civilization around. The first being the obvious. I don't recall ever claiming that Confucianism was the bedrock of human civilization, since Confucianism never travelled beyond China, Korea, Japan, and to a limited extent, S.E. Asia.
Yes, one of my themes is that East Asian nations are the only non-Western nations to achieve parity with the West. This is relevant, given that Western nations have built their institutions in almost every corner of the world, only to slide back into barbarism when the white man left (i.e. Zimbabwe, South Africa, Pakistan), or function at a reduced capacity (i.e. India, Latin America). East Asia states have avoided this curse, because there is something unique about its character that allows it to intuitively co-opt Western ideas and institutions with its own, and maintain its level of civilization without needing the white man to hold their hands the whole way.

I will say this, though, that Western civilization is better at innovation, but East Asian civilization is better at preservation. On principle, I believe they actually complement each other quite well, and the West has no better partner than East Asia when it comes to upholding modern civilization. Given the demographic and cultural shifts in Western nations (i.e. the Islamification of Europe), brought about by reckless immigration policies and political correctness, this might be more necessity than luxury.
-
When the West no longer resembles the West that we know, culturally or demographically, we might take solace in the fact that the ideas, techologies and institutions that made it so beautiful will survive and still used effectively in the Far East. It's funny how two civilizations that were isolated from each other for most of their histories, would evolve characteristics that complement each other so well in this time of need. As if this was God's plan all along.

You accuse me of mischaracterizing your arguments, but you have shown repeatedly to fabricate (yes, outright fabricate) things I have said. I've never said China was going to take over the world, that is something you said and claimed that it was me. What I said was that East Asian (not particularly China) and Western civilization should work together to maintain modernity in the world, given their complementary attributes. Actually read my comments next time, Publicus, before you respond to them. You seem to do this a lot, it is getting tiresome.
-
I'm not stating a fantasy, I am stating reality. It's a known fact that the birthrates of native Europeans are declining, and the birthrates of its Muslim immigrant population is very high. There are 50 million muslims in Europe, and that number will double in the coming decades. In 2005, 85% of Europe's total population growth was Muslim. In the areas of highest concentrated population growth, the most common baby name was "Mohammed". The numbers don't lie. Neither is the imposition of Muslim culture, religion, and Sharia law on European soil by the immigrants who refuse to properly assimilate.
-
This isn't Chinese fantasy (the Chinese don't give a crap that this is going on in Europe), Publicus, this is coming from a Western perspective. There's already anti-Muslim backlash going on in the West, as evident with the burqa ban in France, the minaret ban in Switzerland, and the increasing nationalism and anti-immigrant sentimentality in Europe. I don't enjoy the fact that Europe is having to endure this. I love Western civilization, I love its history, I love its cultures, I enjoy its fruits. And I've never said the West don't have a fighting chance, only that political correctness and open-border immigration policies are severely hampering any effort otherwise.
-
As for your rant on Christianity. Well, I'm too tired at this point to start an entirely new lengthy discussion on religion vs secularism. But I will say that I've dealt with many cocky, self-satisfactory Atheists before. Hell, I've used to be one. So say what you want about us, label us as 'crazy wing-nuts' (because all Christians = Teabaggers, right?). You are not doing me, your daughter and her husband, and billions of Christians world-wide any favors.

Somewhere around 30 comment posts ago, I began to feel that the dynamic of this discourse had become more like an upmanship contest between two Chinese grandmothers (luv 'em all) who, while strolling in the summer late afternoon-early evening with several other grandmothers and their grandchildren, have somehow taken a discussion between them apart and separate to the other three or four Chinese grannies ambling along as a part of the small group of the Jung Gwo grannies and their descendant toddlers.

I make this tongue in cheek analogy because you and I - and some others - know the meaning of the reference to Chinese grandmothers.

Let's return to the focus of of the discussion, i.e., the original point that there are 1 400 000 000 Jung Gwo sheeple on the mainland of China who few can foresee ever contributing to the extension, never mind the preservation of Western Liberalism. For 5000 years the Jung Gwo (central country) is unchangingly, invariably, a culture, society, political system that is profoundly totalitarian/authoritarianI've. So what could lead one to state the wild proposition that the place, its sheeple and its deeply rooted top down nature could radically and suddenly change to a state in which it could be compatible to Western Liberalism to include especially democracy? You slay me!

You've stated your view, which I agree is accurate, that the East Asians are superb at preserving their history and culture. You've identified countries of the region that have adapted well to the modern world.

However, the Jung Gwo are arguably the most steadfast, rigid and unyielding in this regard. The present dynasty of the Jung Gwo, the CPC/PRC, showed in 1989 that they are no less ruthless and heartless than their connected dynastic predecessors for thousands of years before them.

Indeed, the present CPC/PRC authoritarian rule of the Jung Gwo and their relentless support of the northern Han Gwo (DPRK) are two peas in a pod, and they are the only such pod that no one is buying as each continues to rot on the market counter due to their well known poisonous nature.

I've stated before that China and India are in class of their own as freak of nature countries. No other of the 200 or so countries of the world approaches either country in having more than a billion population, or both together as having a population that totals 2 500 000 000 people, or a third of the current world population.

While India has Anglo parliamentary democracy, which offers some hope, the Jung Gwo who are absolute rejectionists offer no hope. While some 400 000 000 in Inida haven't any electricity, 800 000 000 Jung Gwo indefinitely haven't anything except USD $2 a day or less to live on, which indisputably is nothing.

given the realities of history, to try to argue the Jung Gwo can shed their present CPC political superstructure is to argue the absurd. It's just incredulous, outlandishly unrealistic - foolhardy and eminently dismissable.

Congratulations again to your former sheeple parents who honorably and with grit have done well but only after escaping the central country. The fact remains, however, there are 1 400 000 000 sheeple on the mainland who are truly Jung Gwo so, as such, never for a moment will consider leaving the Middle Kingdom so condequently never will know nothing other than that which they are told from birth by the present dynasty of CPC authoritarian rulers. A tiny minority of the world's population migrates to the United States. Besides, speaking of immigration policy, it's far easier to create a wealthy and advanced nation with a diverse and culturally rich population of a measly 300 000 000.

At this point, I invite you to check out the below from "Pomfret's China: A foreign Devil's Take on the Middle Kingdom," Washington Post/Newsweek, April 20, 2009:

"Jackie Chan's Jab at Freedom

"Jackie Chan believes that the Chinese people need to be controlled! He's befuddled about democracy. He doesn't know about freedom.

"Speaking at the Boao Forum in southern China, Chan said this: 'I'm not sure if it is good to have freedom or not. I'm really confused now. If you are too free, you are like the way Hong Kong is now. It's very chaotic. Taiwan is also chaotic.'

"And this: '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.'

"The Chinese audience loved it.

"Now. there are a lot of reactions you could have to this. There's the 'Jackie Chan is a self-hating Chinese' reaction. There's the cynical take. Chan's latest movie, Shinjuku, is not being distributed in China because it's too violent so maybe he's kowtowing to China's censors. (His next project is a comedy, directed by a mainlander.)

"My reaction, however, is this: Chan is just saying what a lot of other rich Chinese feel. In the 20 years since Tiananmen, Chinese society has changed enormously. One of the most astounding ways has been in the return of a class society and in the disdain with which China's rich view China's poor. When Chan was saying Chinese need to be 'controlled,' to be sure, he was speaking about the poor. He didn't have to say it, but that's what the audience at Boao heard and that's why they cheered him on. Anyone who has conversations of depth with members of China's elite has heard this argument before. 'The quality of the average Chinese is too low,' the line goes. (Zhongguoren de suzhi tai di le.) 'So of course we can't have full freedom.'

"Of course, the elite have become increasingly free. But they also increasingly rely on the instruments of state to maintain those freedoms and to maintain their advantages over China's hoi polloi. Chan is happy, no doubt, that Communism is dead, but he likes the fact that the Communist Party is safeguarding the interests of the well-heeled." (End of Pomfret quote.)

I Publicus is back and present a comment posted to Pomfret's regular website about the Jackie Chan matter, in the original unedited English, as follows:

"Have anyones read some Chinese novels?
The classical ones?

like 'Journey to the West', 'Outlaw of Marsh', and 'Dream of Red Chamber'?

For any political result, that no matter how the main characters fight with the skill of Stone Monkey, or Determination of Bao Yu, or how madly were pressed the outlaws, people or freedom fighters can never win over against their government.

It is rooted from culture. It's truth.
No matter what government people are under, whether in heaven or on earth, as long as you are in the grand view garden, all methods are fit as long as people are controlled. (End of comment at the Pomfret website pertaining to the Jackie Chan matter.)

My concluding observation: Chinese grandmothers (luv 'em all) have taken this as a given for thousands of years. However, there always are the unusual and rare exceptions but they as we know from history are of no consequence to the culture.