All comments are subject to moderation by eChinacities.com staff. Because we wish to encourage healthy and productive dialogue we ask that all comments remain polite, free of profanity or name calling, and relevant to the original post and subsequent discussion. Comments will not be deleted because of the viewpoints they express, only if the mode of expression itself is inappropriate.
Please login to add a comment. Click here to login immediately.
And, doesn't the "world wide web" include both "Chinese and Western." Wouldn't it be redundant to offer specific countries and regions after one had referred to the "world wide web" . . . and if it isn't redundant, then why wouldn't it be necessary to continue in this manner" "the world wide web, Chinese and Western, and Middle Eastern and African." Truly, doesn't the "world wide web" include all those regions and so isn't it redundant to say "Chinese and Western."
Jan 26, 2013 20:11 Report Abuse
Now, why did I point out these issues of logic with the words from GUEST 7816 : "This means that either a miracle happened and he was acquitted of all said crimes throughout the worldwide web, Chinese and Western, which would make this article and all herein invalid." Why, why did I point out these issues of logic? SOme might suggest I was stooping to the same sort of venting as I have been 'blessed' with here by other posters. BUT NO, that is not my reason. I pointed to these issues with GUEST 7816's logic so as to give an example of real "verbal diarhea." You seem to be getting lost, GUEST7816 in the need to responde, such that you are not using clear thinking. BUT, how can a new comer to this site descern the difference between my reference to the words of GUEST 7816 as anything distinct from the the venting of GUEST 7816? This is how. I WROTE SO MUCH BECAUSE I ANTICIPATED THE SORT OF RESPONSE THAT I HAVE GOTTEN -- so, dear new reader, please do due diligence and read all previous post before coming to the conclusion that I am simply wallowing in the same sort of online "identity uploading" and venting that I have pointed to.
Jan 26, 2013 20:22 Report Abuse
I will close with my comments to you, dear GFuest 7816 . . . ignore everything that has been said here, tonight . . . just go back, reread my earlier posts and please deal with the facts and logic which I tried so hard to express - albiet in lenghty posts, because I KNOW IT TAKES A LOT OF WORDS TO MAKE A SIMPLE POINT IN THE WORD TODAY , where so many people are intent on "uploading their identity" and finding someone to rant at.
Jan 26, 2013 20:23 Report Abuse
And how is this sort of comment - and I suspect it comes from a westerner, any different in motication or maturity from the writer who suggested it was "justice" that others acted CRIMINALLY by hacking Mr. Hale's website as just punishment for his CRIME. This is comment above is ridiculous. See, Sir/Madam, you are using a rather collogial version of the word ridiculous. It is actully ridiculous that you should place such a comment as to "dude" me with your advice about "meds". The thing I see here as that a great many folks are actually thrilled that they now have me to focus on. This sort of use of time and internet is ridiculous. Truly, come on now, admit it, your actually happy to have me to now vent at. On the other hand, I wasn't venting at all. AAAH, perhaps that is it, venting, not being logically, is seen as the real pupose of the internet.
Jan 26, 2013 19:13 Report Abuse
How is this comment by rgillette10@yahoo.com really any more mature or useful then the writer who, getting his/her logic backwards, suggested that crime should be dealt with on a case by case basis, acording to variables - in suggestng this, I assume, he/she, believed they were giving an an accurate description about how LAW shoudl work. In fact, they had it completely backwards. In China, Crime is address on a case by case basis according to how the outcome best supports the local cultre and certain political ideologies which must be maintained as valid. Again, if this writer had taken a moment to thinkcearly, rather than reacting emotioally, I suspect they would have chosen their words better. AH, but maybe there to the writer was actually pleased to have someone to vent at.
Jan 26, 2013 19:17 Report Abuse
I am not being rude, simple judicious, and I hope helpful, when I point out to rgillette10@yahoo.com that you are commintting a fallacy of logic. You are attacking the speaker and not the speaker's words. You can do that, if you choose . .. but how does it move the forward the issues here in China. But, hey you are getting "thumbs up" responses. I guess that is what matter, right?
Jan 26, 2013 19:20 Report Abuse
rgillette10@yahoo.com wrote: "you really need to be on meds dude or find something constructive to do in the real world". I have to ask, why would you say this. Why wouldn't you try to see the best in people, and try to believe that I was actually attempting to make change and to create improvement. Why wouldn't you take me at my word when I wrot tha it take a great many words to make a point in the world today? Why. Persoanlly, I think the reasons, your motivations are obvious . . . so many people feel that the internet is a place for "uploading identify" and aplace to win popularity. But my purposes are just as valid. And I am not guily as some are, of paying lip-service to validity and not guilty as some are, of pretending I care about the issues. I don't get, don't you SIR?MADAM reaslize that you could have found something positive to say. I mean, I'm not your mother, so I don't wish to be scolding you . . . but surely you can see my point. Then again, you re getting "thumbs up" . . but does that mean I am wrong, or simply that the facts are unpopular and that "it does take many words to make a simple point in the world today."
Jan 26, 2013 19:56 Report Abuse
Simply put, what is wrong with my version of "constructive" as compared to someone who enters a discussion only to tell me, a person who has clearly gven the matter a lot of thought and effort, that I am not being "constructive." I'm sorry, but I prefer my version of constructive to yours.
Jan 26, 2013 19:57 Report Abuse
Please, tell me I am wrong, if you believe I am. But if you do that, kindly refer unemotionally to the facts, points and logic that I have tried to bring to this discussion. I mean, seriously, do me that small favour "dude." Oh, I should apologize for the sarcasm in that last sentence -- sarcasm, is "the lowest form of humour" (William Shakespeare)and best avoided. The use of "dude" as I have just now used it, and as you did previously, is pure sarcasm and is very unbecoming of us all.
Jan 26, 2013 20:01 Report Abuse
YOU YOURSELF SAID IT, GUEST 7816, "we are we are talking about how this affects so many in the China community." You are suggesting that this matter is bigger than Mr. Hale's individual case. And yet, the irony is, you don't see that people are missing the really big issue - lack of RULE by LAW in China, and continue to want to focus n what you refer to as "credible facts" about Mr. Hale's case. IN a society that does not accept RULE OF LAW, how can the people trust what might or might not be "credible facts.? Take a moment of thought - "law" should not be applied on a "case by case basis based on variable." This sort of application of the law is the PROBLEM in China. I suspect, Guest 7816, that you are a westerner, and if so then a moments thought will help you see that in your country laws are not enforced this way. Variable are examined only as mitigation during sentencing, in western countries. SO, I am sorry GUEST 7816, but you have your logic and reference backwards, in a sense. It is the fact that laws are applied on a case by case basis - allowing the use of Guanxi and excuses such as "blind mans' advocate" that discussion about straight forward matters of crime become inflamed here in China. Now, don't misunderstand. I am not naive, variable are sometimes employed at the policing stage of the justice system in western countries - but that is highly irregular. If you are arrested for willful damage -as was Mr. Hale, in Canada, America, or Britain, and you will be processed under the law, regardless of your personal relationships or any intentions to be a "blind man's advocate." The best thinkers in China are attempting to remove the use of tradionally valued methods of doing business and avoiding the law such as Guanxi -- the local government in Shanghais recently outlawed the use of Guanxi in an stock market business. So, you see, Mr./Ms Guest 7816, it is not I who is behind the drive to help promote the RULE OF LAW in China. There are many fine thinkers in China who are pushing for this. And if China accepted the rule of law, normal citizens, Foreigners and Chinese, would not feel the need to try and resolve matters of crime on the internet; they would trust the police and the justice system to deal with the matter and move on to discussions about other pressing social issues. In a country that accepted the RULE OF LAW, there would be much, much less fear that a crime might be forgiven because the perpetrator used their Guanxi or claimed "blind man's advocate". In a country that accepted the RULE OF LAW, Guanxi would become a rare thing and many fewer, very many fewer people would feel the need to even become a "blind man's advocate." In these discussions there have bee many people who have sympathized with Mr. Hale's frustration at the cars parked on the sidewalk -- though only a fool would agree with his actions. If China accepted the RULE OF LAW there would be much less need to sympathize or not with Mr. Hale - and much less discussion, because the RULE OF LAW would better insure that drivers were not permitted to park their cars on sidewalks. All over the news these days, Mr./Ms Guest, we see the new leaders of China talking about cleaning up the justice system in China, by giving greater power to the RULE OF LAW in China. I, personally feel that our time would be better spent getting behind this effort, adding our weight to this social change, rather than getting into heated policies and culture based discussions about Mr. Hale. We should be working to increase the trust that normal citizens feel for their police and courts, rather than mistakenly adding our comments to the understandable anger of a people, the Chinese, who feel they have no other recourse to justice then internet discussion - because they don't trust their own police and courts. I am not making the case for RULE BY LAW in China. The verdict has already been passed in favor of RULE by LAW. I am merely trying to help use all see that Mr. Hale's case remains vague and the discussion about it politicized because we are not placing this matter into the larger context of RULE by LAW.
Jan 24, 2013 20:41 Report Abuse
Guest216770. Well, I very much appreciate your comments. Thank you for taking the time to read my thoughts on the matter of Law in China. I apologize if you had to wade through my misspellings and typos; I am generally quite disciplined with my writing but the steam of emotional comments I received caused me to, I will confess, take less time with proof-reading and editing than I would have liked. I am addressing these comments to you. In fact, I have a couple of projects I am working on - only obliquely related to the matters being discussed here. You seem a rather clear thinker. I'd be interested in swapping email address, off site, and running a few ideas past you. But to your comments: Yes, and "people who live in glass houses should not throw stones." The 'thing' that gets me, and I am often called an idealist for my views - because I do expect people to think and apply a bit of logic before they speak/write, the thing that gets me is how ( and I'm as capable as anyone else when I find myself less than clear-thinking about something that riles me) is how netizens seem to enjoy getting riled up, and getting involved in this sort of "trial by media" and how it is that so many are not careful about looking at their own logic before they speak. Now, as I said, I too can fall prey to this sort of "speaking before I think". But I think what has happened to many is that they have 'bought' into a few of the negative aspects of online communication, and the modern world generally, without really examining the merits of those "aspects."
Jan 25, 2013 20:53 Report Abuse
In particular I am thinking of: the young lady who approved of criminal/wrongful attacks on Mr. Hale, and called this "justice" without seeming to take a moment to reflect on how "two wrongs don't make a right." And then there was the writer who, again, getting matters completely backward, suggested that criminal cases in China should be dealt with on a case, by case basis, apply "variable" so as to better approach justice - this writer seemed to not note that dealing with criminal activity on a "case by case basis" is one of the primary short-comings of a legal/justice system that does not accept the RULE OF LAW - and the writer seemed to be suggesting, by implication, that this sort of "case by case" attitude towards crime is accepted in the justice system of western countries; and, there was the writer who 'mocked' me because I pointed out that all of us working foreigners and foreign own enterprises are in China as part of China's development program - this writer quipped that he/she did not "get the memo", when in fact all of us working foreigners in China received Visa as "Foreign Experts" clearly indicating our purpose here in China, as a resource used towards China's development. Now, the reason I review these three comments is to again point out how difficult it can be to make simple points - which I believe mine were, in our modern world where being intelligent and thoughtful about what we say has 'gone out of style.' And I review these three comments because I would like to, again, suggest that it is one thing for people who are not familiar with the rule of law and logic to miss my points but it is another thing for westerners to be so aggressively apposed to a bit of simplicity. I would like to place both these kinds of misunderstanding in different categories. There are those who are unfamiliar with the concepts and simple thinking I had referred to through-out; we can call their misunderstanding simple misunderstanding. But many of the others who become so vocal, and here I have to include a lot of westerners, are actually intentionally misunderstanding. And I would like to call that a symptom of "uploading identity" here on line. This sort of identity creation is different than 'downloaded identity', where identity is received from our parents, leaders, books, etc - from recognized authority. Ah, but those authorities are still out there as is our respect and fear of those authorities and thus we are caught in a very complex web of our own making - some might call this web of complexity a very clever survival tactic employed by those authroties, as a way to maintaining the status quo. I am not a conspiracy theorist. I think the issue is very simple - we are caught by own own nature. If you are interested in such notions, take a look at the writing of: Steven Pinker -- "The Blank Slate"; of David Deutsh -- "The Beginnigs Of Infinity"; of Vince Cable -- "The Future Of Money"; of Jane McGonigal -- "Reality Is Broken; and -- edited by Joh Brockman, "Is The Internet Changing The Way You Think?", or anything by the physicist Brian Greene: to name a few of my personal favorite writers on the world of the 21st Century.
Jan 25, 2013 20:57 Report Abuse
Here, with these final comments, I am returning to one of my original points - how it is that many years ago I believed the internet, quick and easy communication across cultures and around the world, would mean that we normal citizens would not be able to hide from simple truths about human nature and universal ideas about right and wrong. But, sadly, history has proven me wrong . . . and I think it is important to look at the reasons why. One of the primary reasons, in my opinion, is how it is that culture has become a market driven commodity and as a result people are forgiven for using their local culture as an excuse to be uncultured. As well, those who, comming from more 'aware' or educated cultures, those who should know better, find means, often based on economic goals, to overlook their own better judgment and commonsense so as to accept behaviors that they have every opportunity to know are 'uncultured', regardless of the demands of local culture. The world it seems has not only "globalized" - the global come to the local, but with respect to the 'appreciation' of culture the world is also "glocalized", the local has gone global, meaning that the host of high quality 'universalized notions of right and wrong - one of those being the RULE Of LAW, now have to contend with the marketing strategies of culture venders. From my point of view this is creating a huge contradiction.. And I think this is a shame, primarily because I find so many people will, in their private moments, speak what they really feel about un-cultured behavior but will then, perhaps for economic reasons or for the appearance of being open-minded, grant room in discussion, in management practices for those same uncultured behaviors.
Jan 25, 2013 21:15 Report Abuse
I will give one example. Every management course I have ever taken, ever good manager and safety regulator I have every known insisted that "running in the work place always meant bad management." But, so many of the work places I have encountered here in China, and so many of those are 'governed' by western managers, overlook running in the work place. Running in the work place is never the workers fault. Running in the work place always means BAD MANAGEMENT. Running in the work place always means that the worker has two many bosses, has not been given a clear job description nor safety guideleines and so feel unable to say "no", or the worker is feeling pressure because an implied condition of the work place is that "there are thousands out there waiting to take your job." Management is now often simply policy enforcement or profit building. Hmmm, but . . . bad management has become the rule in many places; if I am repeatedly calling my wife from work, while she too may be working, to ask her if we will be eating at home or in a restaurant this is bad management also. Hmmm, mobile phones . . . but don't get me started on how it is that ALTHOUGH NECESSITY MIGHT BE THE MOTHER OF INVENTION, INNOVATION IS OFTEN THE MOTHER OF NECESSITY. Innovation often causes us to look like we are doing more but I think that conjecture is not supported by what we really see in the world today: how can it be an improvement that people are doing business when they are on the subway, from two mobile phones at once, or while theyare in the toilet?
Jan 25, 2013 21:21 Report Abuse
Sir/Madam, your language is hyperbolic . . . and thus does not move the discussion forward.
Jan 24, 2013 20:41 Report Abuse
That brings me to the second point: throughout I have tried to suggest that if China accepted the RULE of LAW, then there would be very little need to examine each case, in inappropriate venues such as discussion sites, because if China accepted the RULE OF LAW, then normal citizens would trust their police and justice system and there would be very little mystery or concern about what would happen to Mr. Hale. I really fail to see, how it is GUEST 7816, that you can avoid the implication of your own words; Your own words, Guest 7816, prove the fact that the real issue here is the lack of RULE OF LAW in China: you are speaking about the use of Guanxi and about "blind man's advocate." Additionally, MeiMei, earlier spoke out in defense of the "Muslim extremist" who, she reported, "hacked into Mr. Hale's website." She referred to this criminal activity, against Mr. Hale, as "justice". Do you not see my point? Can you not see that because China lacks RULE by LAW, people feel the need to seek justice in by other measures and do not see how naive it is that they refer to "hacking" (which is a crime) by "Muslim extremist", no less, as a proper method of justice. Not to mention the inflammatory nature of using purple prose such as "Muslim extremist." In a country that accepted the RULE OF LAW, people would dismiss this kind of 'justice' as criminal activity no different in essence from Mr. Hale's actions. But, here in China, such comments actually gain popularity - and that is because normal citizens like MeiMei are rightfully outraged BUT they do not trust their own police ad justice system. My point here is that in China people will support one criminal activity when it suits their purposes but not others when it attacks their personal life or insults their personal sense of what is right and wrong. Dealing with matters of crime should not be done emotionally. People become emotional and make BIG DISCUSSIONS about straight forward matters of criminal activity because China does not have RULE by LAW. AND ONCE AGAIN, Mr./Ms GUEST 7816, RULE OF LAW is not the same as laws and the legal system. RULE OF LAW is a concept that is held as the foremost power of governance in so-called developed countries and that is why, in those countries, people feel much less need to make BIG DISCUSSIONS out of matters such as the circumstance surrounding Mr. Hale's stupid behavior. In China, RULE by CHINESE CULTURE and rule by certain political ideologies are placed in a higher position than the RULE OF LAW. This is why people feel the need to make a BIG DISCUSSION out of the individual actions of one man, rather than placing that man's actions into the larger discussion of how best to deal with this matter and other matters of crime in China.
Jan 24, 2013 20:40 Report Abuse
I am visualizing the scene in the movie Airplane 2 where everyone is committing suicide after enduring the long sad tale over and over again. You just don't get it do you? You are responsible for all this upholding you say? Why, when I signed for my visa, did I not get the memo? Should I thank you for this? Yet, you have offered no credible information about this individual or this case. I guess you are in love with repetitive writing. Well.... more power to you if thats what you love to do. I, personally, am going to go paint a house.
Jan 24, 2013 20:28 Report Abuse
Regardlesso of what we believe, it is only how the National Chinese Government see us that matters. And they see us as instruments/resources towards their development. Sir/Madam, you are not address the facts here.
Jan 24, 2013 20:37 Report Abuse
From "Soapbox" host - Steven Randford - as reported on ICS TV. Here is an interesting example of time wasted because China does not accept the RULE OF LAW. A few years ago, someone created a web site in China so that anyone who thought they saw a kidnapped child on the street could take a photo and post it to the website. Now, that might be a useful, additional method in the West. But here in China this was hailed a wonderful, and primary, solution to the problem of KIDNAPPED Children. But as the host of ICS, "Soapbox" said . . . "why not just go to the nearest police officer and get him/her to do their job?"
Jan 24, 2013 20:48 Report Abuse
One of the basic points I have been making is MY, MY, what a horrible waste of discussion, waste of intellect and time that has resulted from Mr.Hale's case because people are not looking at the real issue.
Jan 24, 2013 20:50 Report Abuse
Truly, sir/madam, I am not trying to lecture . . . I really wish you would stick to the points I am making . . and then perhaps I would not have to use so many words on a westerners such as yourself. I would much prefer to try and discuss this matter patiently, without politics, or reference to culture, with Chinese commenters - no matter what we think, we are all us responsible to China's development plans. We can accept that responsibility and do our bit, or not . . . I'm not suggesting one way or the other . . . but we are here as part of China's plans . . . we could not come here based solely on our own plans. We each make our choice as to how involved we get . . . but to simply add to the gossip . . . no, I think that is offerig a bad example to the Chinese.
Jan 24, 2013 20:52 Report Abuse
LOL, I have a few moments - my wife just called me to dinner . . .but if you would please stick to the simple points I have made, I would certainly enjoy a real discussion.
Jan 24, 2013 20:54 Report Abuse
THE "MEMO" SIR/Madam . . . please slow down and thin clearly You did get the "MEMO" . .. if you are working in China You are here as FOREEGN EXPERT. This means, you are helping China with its development plans. We have no such designation, to my knowledge, in Western countries. SO . . indeed sir/madam, you did sign the "memo"
Jan 24, 2013 21:03 Report Abuse
This is what frustrates me most, sir/madam, why are you arguing with me . . . I'm not against you . . . I am simply trying to keep matters simple and clear . . . but offering hyperbolic replies is not useful, especially when you are trying to be tricky with your language - and yet not seeing what is logic and fact. You did see the "memo" and you signed the "memo."
Jan 24, 2013 21:06 Report Abuse
solhacehabravida, you are on a crusade here now. Maybe become a writer for echinacities here and make a thread about laws as you know it and laws as they are actually enforced on a case to case basis, based on variables. Then move all your posts here, over there and this thread will be alot smaller and won't look like it is as important as bigger issues, as others have said. The fact that you constantly push these points everytime on one individual in particular lets me feel you have too much time on your hands to do anything else but write Harry Potterlike novels here. This thread has 83 posts, mine included. More than half of the pages and posts are dominated by yourself and some are very long or just short but several in succession. It's as if you were some lawyer trying to convince a jury that your client should receive a favorable judgement. The problem is, it's overkill now and furthermore you still miss 2 issues, 1) we are talking about James Hale as an individual and his individual situation, and 2), we are talking about how this affects so many in the China community as related to Mr. Hale and his deed(s). I could say that at 1st, this topic and everyone was definitely focusing on him but now it has become a "I've got to prove myself" contest. This topic seems dead now, there is nothing interesting coming from it that offers useful and up to date information about the issue with Mr. Hale and his crime. We don't know if he has been or will be terminated from living in China, or was he forgiven on the basis that he committed these deeds while trying the be a "blind man's advocate". If you have credible facts about this particular case, regarding Mr. Hale, please share. For example, how long will it take before we can know the final result of the ongoing investigation? Or, if he has been allowed to stay, how is that possible and does this mean that some foreigners in China are more special than others or is it because he had "blind man's advocate" intentions or is his "guanxi" very strong and if it's the last one, you could even create a new thread called "How to get deep guanxi in China that even if you break the laws, not much will happen to you even in the face of mainstream media". All I see now are individuals with axes to grind about how different things are in a land that isn't theirs to change. Complaining about this stuff makes one feel any better, really? It this a kind of therapy?
Jan 24, 2013 09:13 Report Abuse
Sign up with Google
(
(