Guilty for Spreading “Hate Speech”

December 24, 2008

BBC reported that 59 Tibetans were arrested for spreading rumors and trying to stir up racial hatred and incite violence. It’s already funny enough that spreading rumors can so easily be a crime in China, as if the Chinese public are particularly stupid and they can easily be misled by rumors. (I don’t remember any of the conspiracy theorists who claim that the US government planned 9/11 attack were ever arrested. Aren’t those more “harmful” rumors? How about those who claim that the US has never landed on the moon? Doesn’t that harm the “great image of this great nation”?) But what I want to talk about is the crime for spreading hatred.

Again, I don’t want to talk about whether spreading hate speech can be a crime in itself. For the purpose of this post, let’s assume that it’s super bad and should be punished by law. The problem is, why only Tibetans are arrested for spreading hate speech rather than the Han people? Is this an indication that none of the Han people publicly made any hate speech against Tibetans, Uyghurs, Taiwanese, Japanese, French, Americans, etc.? Clearly there are enough hate speech from the Han people. But apparently they face no punishment from the law.

Let’s further assume that areas like Tibet, Taiwan and so on are indisputably part of China, and those minorities are all, along with the Han, Chinese. Then this current case naturally comes down to this simple fact: 59 Chinese made hate speech against some other Chinese. So the conclusion is Chinese should not make hate speech against each other. Again, why no arrest made for those Han (who are Chinese) who made hate speech against Tibetans, Uyghurs, and Taiwanese (who are also Chinese)?

You see, I am typing this post with my fingers. I don’t remember the last time I was shouting to people again and again that these ten fingers are part of my body; I don’t remember the last time I claim that my fingers are plotting to leave my body; I don’t remember the last time that I decided to punish my fingers for something they did to my body while ignoring the bad things that my other body parts did to my fingers. Sounds pretty ridiculous, isn’t it? That’s about as ridiculous as this whole China’s sovereignty and nationalism are. The Han have always treated Tibetans, Uyghurs, and Taiwanese as de facto aliens. Now the louder they claim that they own these people and lands, the more retarded their logic seems.

Advertisements

Web Site “Maintenance”

December 20, 2008

China began to block many foreign web sites again after the temporary lift of ban during the olympics. No big deal; no surprise there. What’s funny is the comment made by a spokesman for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Beijing, when he was asked about this by foreign reporters. Here is the New York Times article.

“Concerning your particular question, we’re not really familiar with the details,” said a spokesman for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Beijing, who declined to give his name. “Web site maintenance is not within the job purview of the Foreign Ministry.”

There are two levels of retardedness here. First, he’s saying he can’t comment because blocking web sites is not part of the job of the Foreign Ministry. Damn right it isn’t! Just like sending a space craft is not your job; building a dam is not your job; cracking down some protests is not your job; or hosting the olympics is not your job. Among a billion things that are going on in China every day, few actually involve the employees of the Foreign Ministry. But isn’t it your job to comment on them when you are asked by reporters? If you can get away with saying that’s not your job, then I WANT YOUR job, because that has to be the easiest job on the face of the earth, and apparently as a government official it pays well.

Second, did he really say “Web Site Maintenance”? My guess is that this is a small error in translation. I think he meant “web site regulation.” If that is the case, then there is no joke here. However, if he did mean “maintenance,” then my question is does China even own those web sites? No, it doesn’t! That infamous “the Great Fire Wall” is only an eyelid. You can close it to prevent your eyes from seeing things, but you can’t change what’s out there. I can’t imagine that China can actually “maintain” foreign media’s web site. But I am now really curious about what would happen if China can edit those sites for, say, a week. It must be highly entertaining.

Lastly, if that spokesman has a brain, I feel sorry for him for having a duty to say things that he knows are retarded. If he doesn’t have a brain, well, no surprise there again.


The Mother of All Bombs

December 11, 2008

That’s the real name of a real bomb, called the MOAB (mother of all bombs). It’s the biggest none nuclear bomb with a blast radius of over 150 yards. This is how it was shown on FutureWeapons on the Military Channel. The commentator says: “You are at full scale war, but you can’t go nuclear, what do you do?” Then the next footage is a B-52 dropping cluster bombs. “You can drop hundreds of bombs, but civilians can be harmed.” Then I automatically think he’s about to talk about some “smart bomb” that can alleged hit Saddam’s trash can in his office but not his desk. But guess what, the next footage is a huge cargo plan dropping something in the size of a truck–the MOAB. After the bang on the ground, the commentator said: “this footage is taken blar blar miles away, and the cloud created by the bomb reached several thousand (or hundreds, I could be wrong) feet. That is indeed the biggest bang I’ve ever seen apart from the nuclear bomb. The commentator continues: “this one bomb can destroy the whole downtown area…”

But wait, I thought you said something about not harming the civilians just five minutes ago….


Best Picture and the Biggest Disappointment

December 10, 2008

Spoiler waring, involving The Dark Knight, and Wall-E.

One night in July this year, I was about to see Wall-E with my friend after work. We ended up with The Dark Knight, because I thought 1. The Dark Knight would be as good as Batman Begins for me, which I watched twice in one day in the iMax theater in Shanghai; and 2. Wall-E could only be another movie on my netflix list. I did put Wall-E on the list, and I didn’t see it until several days ago. Now I realize that I made a mistake that night by watching The Dark Knight instead of Wall-E, and neglected the latter until now. Wall-E should be the best film I saw this year, if not ever. And The Dark Knight is the biggest disappointment of the year, if not ever.

Let me talk about the Dark Knight first. I am not saying that the acting is no good. Keith Ledger definitely shines in that movie, along with almost everyone else. What I hate the most is the theme. Surprisingly, compared with an animation about a love struck robot, the theme of the Dark Knight is cheesy, and wrong. First of all, the story is trying to show that the seemingly corrupted and hopeless city still has some hope. How did they show the hopelessness? For example, the citizens required that Batman to reveal himself when they were threatened with something I don’t really recall (it seems to be a typical “superhero” situation, where superheros are hated by the very people they are trying to protect) ; they tried to kill the guy who wanted to reveal the identity of Batman because Joker would blow up hospitals if he does. Fine. How do they show that this city has hope? Well, even inmates refuse to blow up the other ship to save themselves. Wait, there is a gap of logic here. Previously, when Joker made threats about hospitals, swamps of people (who are not personally threatened) tried to kill that one guy. Now, when they are in a situation where it’s either your life or mine, they decide to act selflessly, like saints. Are we still in the same city? The biggest question is: if this city still has hope, like what is portrayed in the movie, then why the hell did Batman want to conceal the situation around Two Face’s death? If people really have hope, they don’t need fairy tales to keep their hope; they can face the ugly reality, which is actually not that ugly: an upright prosecutor would resort to revenge when his love was murdered. There is nothing “un-human” about this; it’s only “un-saint.” Creating a saint doesn’t help anything, because saints are naturally breakaways from the society. People love them, but that is all. It’s a level too high and too unrealistic to achieve. What people really need is solid lessons and facts, and figures with bones and flesh, not some glowing “entity” flowing in the sky. Suppose the city would lose hope when they learn that their beloved prosecutor ended up a villain, then this city should fall; the city would truly have hope if, despite the ugly fact, people can learn the lesson from “Two Face” can still improve, love and forgive. Batman (or the movie Dark Knight) is clearly trying too hard in a wrong direction. In a Chinese idiom, it’s called “drawing a snake and adding legs for it.” Contrary to Batman’s intention, the cover-up might create a false impression that in this city, only saints like that prosecutor can fight evil, while normal people can only stand aside and cross their fingers. The right message should be: there is no saint, there is only a normal human being, and everyone can fight evil.

And naturally, that concludes why I hate The Dark Knight and love Wall-E: the ugly fact is that the earth is still as ugly as a trash can, but hope strives not from fantasy, but from the real, down-to-earth, will to live on.

Oh, I liked the love story in Wall-E. No further comment because I don’t know how to comment it.

As for the debate about whether an animation should or should not get Best Picture or only Best Animation Feature, I don’t see why an animation cannot be called Best Picture, unless the title is “Best Picture with Mostly Human and Real things in it.” Just because in the history of Oscar no animation won the Best Picture, doesn’t mean it shouldn’t. And, come on! We have seen some big changes this year, I’m sure we can handle one more.


Idiots

December 5, 2008

There is a second wave of “boycotting French merchandise” in China because, you guessed it, the French president met Dalai Lama again. BBC reported that some guy posted on the discussion board of China.com, saying something like I swear with my real name that I will boycott any French merchandise for life. This is idiotic on several levels.

First, most of the Chinese don’t even know what Dalai lama looks like, let alone the history of Tibet. His photos are banned in China. I really don’t know why they find it no problem fighting such a faceless figure. Why faceless? Out of disrespect, respect, or maybe fear?

Second, Dalai Lama probably has met most of the world leaders. That guy, along with other “patriotic Chinese” really should boycott all merchandises from all the countries whose leaders met, greeted, and shook hands with Dalai Lama. That probably includes, but is not limited to, North America, most of the EU nations, Japan, and others. Ah….bummer! I guess they definitely won’t be reading my post, since it’s on the internet and cannot be accessed without using a computer which, most often than not, runs either Windows, Mac OS, or Linux, all of which are from freaking America, whose presidents and senators welcomed Dalai Lama like welcoming the Santa! All I can say is, I don’t agree with those patriotic Chinese. But I respect those who put words into real action. Good luck out there guys!

Lastly, dear leader Chairman Mao met, greeted, and shook hands with Dalai Lama before. As far as I can remember from the footage, they dined at the same table too. Also, Dalai Lama’s representatives has been negotiating with the Chinese government up until several weeks ago. If the boycotters have to put China onto the boycotting list, which I think they should, I cross my fingers and toes for their glorious crusade.

One more personal note, patriotic Chinese? Sounds more like idiotic Chinese to me.