Another Rejected GT Op-ed: “Criticism needed in a rising China”

Our friend Eric Fish has once again been told that they can’t publish his opinion piece, which was written as a sort of reaction to this op-ed they did publish.

It seems to me, and Eric said his experience seemed to match this conclusion, that the Global Times has been cutting down significantly on the critical-of-China content in their editorial pages over the past few months. Here’s Eric’s submission as-is; would you run it if you were the editor?

Criticism needed in a rising China

By Eric Fish

2010 was a rough year for Chinese foreign policy. Numerous events unfolded which laid criticism on China from an American search engine, a Norwegian prize committee, the Japanese coast guard and South Korean leadership…just to name a few. And, as a recent Global Times editorial pointed out, rising China WILL endure more criticism. But as a rising nation, China absolutely should receive it.

As China charges ahead with development and takes a larger role in the world community, it’s inevitable that it will bump elbows harder and more often with other nations. And since the foreign media is gaining more access to China, it’s also inevitable that criticism will continue to pour in for things China considers internal issues. In either case, this criticism is good.

But whenever critical comments come from abroad, the Chinese leadership and media’s first impulse is to go on the defensive. Newspaper headlines are full of angry verbs that “blast, rap, condemn, or reject” the criticism. Government spokesmen and editorials lash out at those critics for not understanding China or interfering with its internal affairs.

Those Chinese leaders and journalists need to realize that criticism is not the same as interference. And not everyone who voices opposition to Chinese policy is interested in seeing the nation’s progress stunted. China can’t be 100% correct in every single action it takes, so having outside voices point out the faults is constructive, not hostile.

Those decision makers sitting in China feel what they’re doing is right, but their scope is unavoidably limited. No matter what country you’re in, it’s hard to see your own big picture when you’re standing in the middle of it.

I remember in 2003 during the lead up to the U.S. invasion of Iraq, many of us Americans were insulted by the international opposition to the war. At that time, over 70% of Americans supported it. The scar of the 9/11 attacks still hadn’t healed and a sensationalist media left us paranoid and trigger-happy. We were then told that Iraq’s brutal regime illegally harbored stockpiles of horrible weapons…and may have even had a hand in 9/11.

Our scared populace wasn’t able to detach from their emotions and view the situation rationally. Even our leaders seemed to sincerely think the war was necessary and that we’d be greeted as liberators.

So we didn’t listen to the international chorus condemning us for the action. Many Americans even boycotted France for spearheading the UN rejection of the invasion. But if we had listened to the criticism of those who were far enough removed to see the war for the reckless debacle that it would become, things could have been very different.

Heeding, or at least listening to the criticism of those with an outside view can help prevent irresponsible and self-defeating actions. It’s cost the U.S. eight years, a trillion dollars, and over 100,000 American and Iraqi lives to learn that lesson. I hope China too can learn that criticism shouldn’t automatically be viewed as a malicious force to be fought.

China’s at a vulnerable stage as it gets used to its new found power in the world. Abroad, its actions are being felt further away and more intensely than ever before. At home, rapid social and economic changes are forcing leaders to juggle priorities and make tough decisions.

Many of the countries scrutinizing China have lived these problems in their own development and felt their consequences. Still others have active interests in a stable prosperous China and don’t want to see it self-destruct. That’s why it’s so important to listen to these voices of criticism for the sake of China’s and the world’s well-being.

Of course, some of those voices criticizing China are hostile and have no constructive use, but they don’t represent the majority. Those rants should be taken in stride and not empowered with inflammatory responses.

But for the rest, I have some simple advice for China that I wish my own country had heeded. In the coming year when something inevitably happens that leaves you on the receiving end of international criticism, don’t automatically blast or condemn it. Instead, try out a new verb: listen.

The author is a master’s candidate of Global Business Journalism at Tsinghua University. His blog: sinostand.com

Advertisements

0 thoughts on “Another Rejected GT Op-ed: “Criticism needed in a rising China””

  1. I’m fairly certain the editor stopped reading after paragraph 4.

    I find the article quite balanced, but 2 more comments on this:
    “It’s cost the U.S. eight years, a trillion dollars, and over 100,000 American and Iraqi lives to learn that lesson.”

    1.)I doubt the US has learned its lesson..
    2.)100,000 American and Iraqi lives?? I believe 4000 American and 100,000 Iraqi live would be a little more accurate. But hey, that’s only a small price to pay for saviour, right?

    Like

  2. While the author makes some valid points, it is just not very well written and too personalised. Also, rather arrogant. I’m not at all surprised it was rejected.

    Like

  3. Arrogance always always throws up red flags (er.. pardon the expression).

    That said, it always annoys me when Chinese (and long term 中国通 say) “if you don’t like it here, then go home”.. it’s just a braindead-bury-your-head-in-the-sand attitude.

    Obviously everyone wants to improve China, and improve things here, we’re all excited to be part of an exciting developing and evolving world here in the Middle Kingdom, and we are seriously considering settling down, etc. We’ve spent countless hours learning the language and have developed life long friendships here. I guess it’s just too hard to tell whether someone is genuinely offering constructive criticism, or just having a bad day.

    Like

  4. That said, it always annoys me when Chinese (and long term 中国通 say) “if you don’t like it here, then go home”.. it’s just a braindead-bury-your-head-in-the-sand attitude.

    What’s wrong with that? China bashers tells me to ‘go back to China’ all the time when I make disparaging remarks about the US all the time.

    Like

  5. I don’t mind criticism but sometimes the problem is that sometimes the people who criticize about China are usually talking out of their A** instead of their mouths. An example is about reports of China’s restriction of rare earths. This criticism is especially loud from Japan. Today Japan reports that import of rare earth to Japan of 2010 was relatively the same as 2009. On the other hand, China was saying all that time that they were not restricting rare earths yet nobody wants to listen. Sometimes these Western countries just want to shout in top of their lungs while putting their hands on their ears.

    Like

  6. Looking at the rest of the opinions which can be found at Global Times (http://opinion.globaltimes.cn/editor-picks/), I think the major reason why this opinion did not get published is because it’s too general and reads like a troll bait.

    Does the Chinese media need to criticize the Chinese government more? Definitely. But pointing out this fact after the nth time is like pointing out again and again that Western media is biased. I do this sometimes when I get bored and it works great to get the trolls from both sides excited, but it doesn’t really bring any new ideas into the discussion.

    Looking at the other opinions at GT it seems that the editor likes to publish issues which are more specific and less repeated. In the last 6 days where opinions were published, I can find 3 opinions which are critical of the Chinese government. One talked about the need to make school buses more safe. One complained about Chinese government spending too much tax payer’s money to get high tech gadgets for themselves(iphone4 was mentioned), and one complained about the government forcing villagers off their land.

    Like

  7. “Obviously everyone wants to improve China, and improve things here, we’re all excited to be part of an exciting developing and evolving world here in the Middle Kingdom, and we are seriously considering settling down, etc”

    I don’t think this is obvious at all, because not everyone would agree on what is to be an “improved” China. What you may think is good for China may conflict with what other Chinese people may think is good for them. Rather than listen to the reasons why Chinese believe the way they do and empathize, often the Western critics brush off any ideas which may challenge their conventional thinking with kneejerk responses, or enter into stages of victim complex.

    Personally, I find many of the western critics of China to be disingenuous because they are too politically correct, too inflexible, or perhaps too arrogant, to admit that their ideas are often not all that great. If Western critics really want to improve China, they would better tackle issues which are actually appealing to the Chinese people, such as government corruption, high real estate prices, etc. Stay off lofty issues like Tibet. When complaining about human rights I think freedom of speech is something which would resonate with Chinese population well, but other concepts like protesting Death Penalty is stupid.

    Like

  8. “China was saying all that time that they were not restricting rare earths yet nobody wants to listen.”

    Off-topic, I know. But since you mention it, nobody was listening because China’s claim last year to not be restricting REs was full of shit. Period.

    Like

  9. “What’s wrong with that? China bashers tells me to ‘go back to China’ all the time when I make disparaging remarks about the US all the time.”

    Beyond their lack of a health care system (which by the way, is pretty much exactly the same as the Chinese system–walk into the hospital with a broken leg and a credit card–I’m not sure what you would be griping about in the US. China is basically a right wing paradise (ironic, I know). If you can accept that in hardcore republican USA, the Christian thing is just a marketing campaign, the similarities popup everywhere. And when you realize that Democracy in the US is a very blurry, hazy matter (eg. who really pulls the strings, the voters, or the lobbyists), the two superpowers are not that different.

    My criticisms of China boil down to education, basically, which is what you expect from a developing country. I’m not going to ‘pack up and go home’ because of such a trivial matter.

    Like

  10. Off-topic, I know. But since you mention it, nobody was listening because China’s claim last year to not be restricting REs was full of shit. Period.

    Turns out those people who says that China is restriction RE is full of crap. These China ‘experts’ barely do any research and seems the news about China comes out from a big echo chamber. Heck, many people who run these Chinese blogs rarely at all write anything that is original, including you.

    Like

  11. I find Mr. Fish is sincere enough. He does recognize “some of those voices criticizing China are hostile and have no constructive use,”.

    “but they don’t represent the majority” — This … I completely disagree. I see very few are not hostile. And I have never been a citizen of PRC.

    Like

  12. Regarding the assertion that it’s too general, I think that’s a little off-base given that it was in response to an equally “general” article that DID get published.

    @pug_ster: This is actually like the least original of all China blogs, given that 80% of our material is translations….

    Like

  13. “I retract my earlier statement. I should say that some people don’t write anything original…”

    It doesn’t have to be original to be valid, interesting, or – wait for it – true.

    Pug, old sport, you should go read the latest offering by Eric Fish at Sinostand.com entitled A simple guide to holding power. You’ll instantly recognise another 11 truths about China that you can catalogue under ‘deny at all costs’. Enjoy.

    Like

  14. I checked that post about the ’11 truths’ and I was surprised that eric fish was ever considered to put up an GT op in the first place.

    Like

  15. I think it’s a thoughtful, subtle piece but to me it reads more like a blog entry than a mainstream article. This isn’t a criticism from me, but may be why it was rejected.

    Like

  16. Stuart, good find.

    What I really don’t get is that Mr Fish clearly understands the point of Global Times, but then goes ahead and submits articles directly in conflict with those goals. Does he seriously expect these articles to get published?

    Also, I’m surprised noone has brought up this recent interview with GT’s editor Hu Xijin http://bit.ly/dMeNxd

    Like

  17. @pug_ster and those who agree:

    You’re all missing the point AGAIN. You’re getting into the nitty details of which paragraphs you don’t like, which one-liners don’t hold up to your arguments, etc.

    The point of this is that he should have the RIGHT to publish this! The fact that it’s even debatable that a foreigner should or shouldn’t “criticize” China is exactly the problem here. Even the people who agree with Fish’s op-ed aren’t contributing at all to the main issue.

    In fact, this very debate is exactly what Fish was talking about in his essay! Whenever someone–especially a foreigner, but indeed someone from the PRC, too–criticizes China, it immediately sparks a massive debate, not about what the actual criticism was about, but instead about someone who doesn’t “get it” commenting on something that “has nothing to do with him.”

    Sorry, but Chinese culture is pretty damn strong. This place isn’t going to turn into the next US state just because some random Westerner wrote an essay with some suggestions. Get a grip, and stop freaking out so much about opinions that are different from yours!

    Like

  18. @Some Guy
    Global Times has published my articles in the past that have dealt with nationalism, official corruption, censorship, crackdowns…and several other things that contradict the government line. I’ve submitted ideas that I thought were more critical than this piece that surprisingly got accepted. About 6 months ago I feel was their prime period of openness (while I’ve written for them). If I’d submitted this piece then, I’m about 70% sure it would have passed. So I did think it had a chance now, albeit a smaller one. But whenever I think I’ve found where the line is of what will pass and what won’t, it moves.

    Like

  19. Mr. Fish’s main point about China needing thicker skin is valid. Much of his editorial, however, was really lame. How can we be sure that Mr. Fish’s piece was rejected because it is politically sensitive? Perhaps his editor simply thought it was badly written.

    Honestly, I’d pay to know who this pug_ster is in real life. What a loser.

    Like

  20. @ YWX, King Tubby, LOLZ, Eric Havaby

    Your comments about the writing quality are fair enough. Out of respect for my editor at Global Times I didn’t, and won’t divulge the details of our conversation over this piece…but just know that I don’t send all my rejects here. And I wouldn’t have let this be published on China Geeks as “rejected by Global Times” (with the implied reason) if I didn’t know exactly why it was rejected.

    Like

  21. Michael A. Robson,

    My criticisms of China boil down to education, basically, which is what you expect from a developing country. I’m not going to ‘pack up and go home’ because of such a trivial matter.

    I never said you should pack up and go home. But if you are going to make statements that other people strongly disagree with, you are going to be a lightning bolt for personal attacks. It is like the subject of this blog all along, you should just have a thicker skin about it.

    I can tolerate people calling me going back to China and ‘loser,’ but I won’t tolerate people who talks about my family. Gan Lu does that kind of crap, and I am glad that he got banned from here. That’s the same reason why I don’t want to divulge more about myself.

    About this op-ed, it does not state the obvious conclusion. While, the US won’t face criticism over the Iraq war resulted in dire consequences, what kind of consequences have had China had since they didn’t face criticism?

    Like

  22. Why would you expect Global Times to publish this, it’s the most nationalist media I’ve ever seen.

    Simple facts are:

    -People can accept self-criticism but not criticism from others
    -Criticism is nearly always biased and ill-informed
    -The most important a country is the more criticism it gets, justified or not

    Beijing and some nationalist kids just need to relax and shrug it off. I mean, how much criticsm does the US take every day? Just like with personal relations, overreaction alienates those around you.

    Like

  23. I am among those not suprised that this was not published. While it is in responce to an op ed piece, the general thrust is that the Chinese government should be responsive and willing to change policy in the face of vocal interest groups.
    While I don’t disagree with the intension of the message -that China should be open to recieve criticism- focusing on correcting errors was perhapes not the best medium. Highlighting criticism as moments for media and diplomatic engagement with the rest of the world misght have been more in tune with the thrust of the original piece and the ears of the editors

    Like

  24. Shuiage,

    If you had read what LOLZ says that Western Media only criticize these issues that does not really matter to them. If you go to headline of Chinadaily’s website, their main article is that China’s pledge to ban indoor smoking was defeated by Lobbyists. I’m sure if Hillary Clinton, or any human rights group criticize China about this I will fully agree with them. Of course, they are eerie silent shows what kind of disconnect between pro and anti-China groups. Heck, if Eric Fish writes something like this for the GT OP ed, I would be surprised.

    Like

  25. @ pugster: I think you’re making some weird connections there. The reason that HR groups don’t care whether the smoking ban passes or not is that smoking indoors (or, not having people smoke indoors) is not considered by anyone to be a fundamental human right.

    Moreover, while my guess is most Western HR advocates are also in favor of the ban since secondhand smoke can cause cancer, these groups necessarily prioritize they put time and effort into, based on what is most important AND what’s most possible. The smoking issue is (1) not that important and (2) very difficult to change because of the lobbyists, and because so many Chinese people love cigarettes.

    I don’t think it’s at all unreasonable that a human rights group would ignore the smoking ban and focus instead on torture in police stations to obtain confessions (for example). The latter is an issue of basic human rights, it doesn’t have an economically powerful lobby behind it (the government just passed a law banning this, so at least someone in the Chinese government doesn’t like it).

    I don’t see how any of that would make them anti-China, or how a group that cared about that AND the smoking ban would be “pro-China”.

    Also, the terms anti- and pro-China are sort of ridiculous. Anyone who is actually anti-China is an idiot. Anti-Chinese government is a different thing, although the government of course implies the two are the same.

    Like

  26. What a sensationalist title. Have you ever considered the fact that maybe the editors thought this was badly written? And based on my ten years of reading the NYT and LA Times and Le Monde, I think it’s badly written.

    It’s hard to measure the editorial criteria. John McCain had a major public spat with the NYT a couple of years ago because they refused to publish his article but published one by Obama(?). So if you were trying to manipulate the readers by resorting to sensationalist titles, well…on the other hand pourquoi pas. Go ahead.

    And glad to see the haters stuart, some guy and outcast converge here. This blog is going to be another chinasmack reeking of racism. Omedetou.

    Like

  27. Anyone who is actually anti-China is an idiot.

    ——
    You’ve got one right here amongst the comments of this blog. Yet you do nothing about the trolls.

    Like

  28. @Some Guy
    Global Times has published my articles in the past that have dealt with nationalism, official corruption, censorship, crackdowns…and several other things that contradict the government line. I’ve submitted ideas that I thought were more critical than this piece that surprisingly got accepted.

    It’s words like these that unfortunately get drowned, because it undercuts a lot of the comments here, like the idiotic remark by some guy saying the Global Times wouldn’t publish articles critical of what’s going on in China, so of course it’s ignored. Good ostrich.

    Like

  29. A few issues here:

    1. In terms of quality of writing and its editors, are we really comparing Global Times to NY Times, LA Times, etc.? Take another look at the original essay he was responding to, and think about whether THAT would have been published in any newspaper of repute.

    2. The debate happening here about the rejected op-ed is actually strengthening Mr. Fish’s argument. We’re talking about criticism, and everyone is freaking out. All the nitpicking comments about specific cases are missing the point. This is not about any specific issues, but the nature of criticism as a general idea. And clearly a lot of people on this site just don’t like the idea of criticism (to things they don’t agree with).

    3. @pug_ster: I’m sorry people have insulted your family. There are mean people all over the world, Beijing and Florida included. But this isn’t about that. We’re talking about dissenting pieces on newspaper editorial pages. What’s your local paper called? Why don’t you pen a letter with all of your criticisms and see if it gets published?

    Like

  30. C Custer.

    You know, in light of the sad event of the Shooting of the Arizona Congresswoman, I saw a WSJ article where William Kristol and David Brooks say “How can Americans love their nation if they hate its government.” This is where I disagree with your line of logic here and people who are Anti-Chinese government are indeed anti-China. All the progress within the last 30 years was because of the ‘repressive’ Chinese government. They can’t do it without breaking a few eggs and good number of people are going to be unhappy. Does that mean that those very same people are going to overthrow the government for this, no. I think many people who wishes ‘democracy’ in China and a democratic government will not do as good of a job of developing China economically.

    Like

  31. keisaat, seriously, do you think you’re bringing the level of conversation up or down? I never said that, and thanks for the “idiotic” comment.

    To what extent is the GT independent of the Party? I don’t know, nobody on here knows completely, although Mr Fish may have an idea (which hopefully he will post about sometime). Although their articles often contain a huge pile of crazy, they also write articles critical of what’s going on in China, even critical of the government. But they won’t challenge the foundations of Party rule, such as the 11 truths in Mr Fish’s post on his blog. It should also be clear that the two rejected articles are in direct conflict with those foundations. Hence the question “Does he seriously expect the article to get published?”

    Like

  32. “I don’t think it’s at all unreasonable that a human rights group would ignore the smoking ban and focus instead on torture in police stations to obtain confessions (for example). The latter is an issue of basic human rights, ”

    The problem is that there is no consensus on what “human rights” is. Given conservative nature of China and India, which make up close to half of all population in the world, I would argue that most of the world think police torture is justified in many cases. Even for nations which agree that police torture is a violation of human rights, they can’t agree with what the constitutes “torture”.

    Personally I think police/military torture is not okay for an obvious reason: It doesn’t work all that well. But what matters here is not what I think, it’s what I think the public thinks.

    Referring back to the topic, while you may think it’s not unreasonable for a human rights group to ignore a lesser cause for police torture, I do think it would be unreasonable for this human rights group to expect any traction in its message. It would be unreasonable to blame the Chinese people for not taking the same political stance as you do (something which China bashers do on a fairly frequent basis).

    Like

  33. LOLZ: There IS a consensus on human rights is. The United Nations ratified a universal declaration of human rights; one of the PRINCIPAL DRAFTERS of this document was a Chinese.

    Just because governments (China’s, sometimes America’s) find it inconvenient doesn’t mean there’s no consensus. And the argument that the rights in that document somehow don’t align with Chinese culture is ridiculous horseshit. Chinese culture is just as amenable to peace and freedom as any other, it’s the government that doesn’t like it.

    As for the definition of torture, I think it’s pretty clear, despite what the US government has said about “enhanced interrogation techniques”. That’s PR spin bullshit. Anyone can tell what’s torture when they see it.

    The extra-ridiculous thing about that particular issue is that EVERYONE and their mother says that torture is NOT an effective or efficient way to procure reliable information. It is a pretty good form of punishment (which is more how Chinese police use it, I think), but regardless of the cultural background, torture is torture, and there is nothing about Chinese culture that makes it inherently more OK here than anywhere else.

    It’s acceptable in Chinese political culture, of course, but that’s not the same thing.

    Like

  34. For those questioning the piece’s writing, of course that’s up for debate. I can’t provide much in the way of proof (publicly), but I have significant reason to believe that this piece was rejected for purely ideological (as opposed to stylistic) reasons, and I would not have published it in the first place (certainly not with that headline and image) if I were not reasonably sure.

    But, like I said, I can’t really provide any evidence of that publicly, so you have to either take me at my word or not. So it goes…

    Like

  35. “There IS a consensus on human rights is. The United Nations ratified a universal declaration of human rights; one of the PRINCIPAL DRAFTERS of this document was a Chinese. ”

    Article 5 of the UN declaration of Human Rights state that “No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” However there is no consensus on what constitutes “torture, or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment”. Again, it’s not the government, it’s the people. In some countries there are still beheadings, which is certainly cruel and inhuman for residents of other nations but accepted by the local population. Death Penalty would also fall into this category.

    “And the argument that the rights in that document somehow don’t align with Chinese culture is ridiculous horseshit. Chinese culture is just as amenable to peace and freedom as any other, it’s the government that doesn’t like it.”

    People interpret the document differently. Let’s just say that majority of the Chinese do agree with the general notion of article 5. However depending on how they interpret the wording there are some concepts which you may not accept but Chinese people would. Death penalty again is a good example: there are plenty of people who think death penalty is cruel and inhumane, however in places like China most people do not hold this view. Also, I have no evidence to back this up but I would honestly be surprised if the majority of Chinese people think it’s wrong for the police to rough up suspected criminals in order to get evidence. Chinese people who I know hold the belief that unless you have done something wrong the police would not look you up in the first place.

    While looking up the human rights documents I found one interesting article 13 “Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.” It’s funny but to me the Free Tibet people who are against the massive Han migration into Tibet are clearly against Human Rights as well. Afterall, if Chinese from all over the country see opportunity in Tibet why can’t they move there? Of course, if you confront the free Tibet people about this they will simply state that they believe in this article but do not think that Tibet is part of China. So no, I do not believe that Human Rights is nearly a universal concept as you think.

    Like

  36. @some guy

    I have very little idea of how independent GT actually is of the party. I do know that because of it’s ownership structure it’s not under their thumb as much as China Daily is. But like any publication in China, the government is free to stick whatever they want in it from time to time. When you see the same articles published in GT and China Daily (often the huge pile of crazy you mentioned), especially during politically volatile times, those are most likely put in by the gov directly, not by GT. They have a lot of very liberal and internationally-minded people working there, which I think is reflected in many of the in house op-ed’s. But like you also mentioned, there’s people like Hu Xijin at the top. I really have no idea what role people like him play in the English version or their relationship to the gov.

    Certainly what you said is true that they’ll publish critical things about the gov, but nothing to shake its foundation. But I don’t really think suggesting that they should be more receptive to outside criticism or that there’s no evidence of a global underground anti-china conspiracy fundamentally challenges that foundation(but who knows what they think). I got pretty good at finding where the line is of what topics can be published (assuming some parts of what I write might be censored). But for some reason recently that line is all over the place. I wouldn’t waste my time carefully writing articles for them in a way that I think will pass if I thought they would be rejected outright, without even being able to go through the editorial process.

    Not related to the topic, but for some reason my blog entry has been cited several times here, some suggesting it is related. I never said anything about “11 truths.” It was a simple 11 point instruction manual. There’s no more truth to any point than there is to a point in building an 11-step spice rack. You can probably skip several steps and still end up with a workable spice rack. It was meant to be generalizable…hence the hypothetical country name and supporting quotes from all over the world. Connections to real countries are certainly up to interpretation, but if you’re applying (or suggesting I’m applying) it strictly and wholly to contemporary China…you’re going to run into trouble right at point #1

    Like

  37. @lolz: Agreed, there are points that are up for debate. But in MOST cases, it’s pretty black and white. Read for example Gao Zhisheng’s account of what has happened to him at the hands of Chinese police. Do you really think that “most Chinese” would support strapping wires to the testicles of a laywer, and then shocking his balls repeatedly? Beating him so brutally that his attackers got winded from the exercise and had to stop?

    We can argue semantics all day, and there are indeed gray areas, but the bottom line is that 99% of people would agree what’s torture and what isn’t when they actually see what’s happening/when it’s done to them (for example, most of those idiot Fox News reporters changed their minds about water-boarding pretty damn quickly after they had tried it themselves).

    Like

  38. @Eric Fish

    p.s. I actually LOL’ed at your most recent 11 “somethings” post. Despite your protestations, I swear I’ve seen Orwellia and Huxleyana before…

    Like

  39. Don’t forget the execution of a British national Eric; it was right at the beginning of 2010 but I’d like to hope not entirely out of people’s memory already.

    Like

  40. LOLZ. More of your slimy drivel re Tibet and Article 13. Now you can move onto Tajikistan and the 433 square miles (containing energy and other resources) which China just obtained thru thug diplomacy. With some luck, the Islamic Revival Party will bite back when Han migration swamps the locals. Look forward to the day.

    Like

  41. I’m not sure as to “exactly” why your piece got rejected, but whatever the case is, just move on.

    At least, you have it here on Chinageeks.org .

    I’ve read some opinion and commentary articles on Global Times before. I think a lot of people don’t take half of what they say serious, I mean it is still just opinions. On the other hand, there were some articles which made some very good points on with certain topics. Which isn’t always connected to the politics.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s