Friday, October 24, 2008

"Who is Hu Jia?"

A website for Chinese bloggers that I regularly visit is Yesterday a post there titled "Congratulating Hu Jia, Congratulating Zeng Yan" led me to the page that reports Chinese government's protest to the European Parliament, which awarded activist Hu Jia of the Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought. That is not the interesting part, because we have already read about the news from CNN and alike. The interesting part is, as I saw yesterday, there were over 4000 comments on that Chinese report, while only about 200 were visible. When I looked again this morning, it's "5311 commented, 357 displayed."

BBC has hailed Hu Jia as "the best-known of China's imprisoned dissidents." However, if you take a closer look at the displayed comments on, lots of Chinese are asking "Who is Hu Jia?" "What did he do?" Apparently, my relatives (who I talked to) in China had not heard the name either.

(There is also this comment, "I don't believe that a man, who's thirty-something and still asks for money from his parents, can save China." That's a funny one. Don't most activists, Chinese or not, live off of others?)

Of course, since we who live in the US have the advantage of being besieged by the Western media, it is impossible to not have heard the name "Hu Jia" – he made the headline when he was arrested last year, and made the headline again recently when the Chinese government protested his nomination for the Nobel peace prize. And again now. On both sides of the Pacific Ocean, the media acts according to a classical Mao admonishment: "Whatever the enemy opposes, we must advocate; whatever the enemy advocates, we must oppose."

I just don't understand how the Chinese government can't see the stupidity in their official protests against such prizes. Not only does the argument against "interfering in China's internal affair" hold no logic to those non-governmental organizations, but the effect induced by such protests is to further excite the Western media and spread the news the government did not want their people to know.

A Chinese blogger put it more incisively in a post titled "Our criminal, world's hero": "Sometimes I feel sad for [the government]. On one hand they continuously produce candidates [for international prizes], on the other they are scared into a cold sweats by their own production of such candidates."

It is not that the Chinese government is unable to act smarter. As recently as yesterday, as reported by CNN, Premier Wen Jiabao signed a decree that permanently allows foreign journalists to interview Chinese citizens and travel within China without government permission. Personally, this is very welcome news, as I have plans to interview people in China on sensitive topics such as the Cultural Revolution, and I would prefer not to be arrested. More importantly though, this gives us hope that the Chinese government is capable of changing for the better.

The mixture of stupid and smart decisions from the government seems to me to reveal a wrestling match between the relatively more open-minded leaders and the outdated communist bureaucrats. I surely hope the former will overpower, or at least outlive, the latter as time goes by.

Returning to the topic of Hu Jia, I'm not sure what make of the EU choosing him over other Chinese activists. In the last chapter of Out of Mao's Shadow, Philip Pan describes Hu as "one of the nation's most outspoken human rights advocates", and, "in the debate between the purists and the pragmatists, Hu was one of the purists. Some people thought he was too much of a self-promoter, too willing to confront and provoke the authorities… But if he sometimes behaved recklessly, he also never backed down." Only we don't get an idea what his "pure" and provocative actions have actually achieved.

While mentioning Hu Jia in passing during summarization, Pan devotes several full chapters to a number of other people whose stories are familiar to me, and to many Chinese. Among those, there are the Southern Metropolis Daily journalists, whose tactful but effective true journalism resulted in the government's abolishing the unjust and cruel "shourong" system; there are the two authors who wrote the book An Investigation of China's Peasantry that pushed for the eventually realized relaxation of the peasants' unbearable tax burden; there is the retired army doctor who first exposed the severe reality of Beijing's SARS disaster to the outside world, helping to avoid an even bigger calamity... All of those people also suffered punishment from the government. They were not purists, but they aimed for actual change instead of simply provoking.

I don't know what the criteria are for the "prize for freedom of thought," but why not give it to those people?

One thing that made Hu Jia stand out from the others, it seems, is that he is presently in prison while the others are not (though some of them have been). If this indeed was the main consideration for the European Parliament to issue him the prize, I doubt it is truly effective in promoting "freedom of thought," or even helpful to Hu's own freedom. But perhaps such considerations are beyond the European Parliament, just as sensible tolerance of "pure" activists like Hu Jia is beyond the Chinese government's.


Anonymous said...

I have promised myself not to get carried away with the negativity that is China-related cyberspace, but here I am again. What a disappointing post!

Now that Hu Jia got the Sakharov price, we have all these bloggers who ask what has Hu Jia actually done for democracy or human rights in China except being jailed?

Good question, but why stop at Hu Jia? What did Zou Rong ever do for the cause of the Chinese republic except being jailed and die in prison? What's Tan Sitong's contribution to constitutionalism except writing an obscure essay and being executed? What was Sun Yat-sen actually famous for before he was kidnapped by the Chinese embassy in London in the 1890s? What did Qiu Jin ever do to the Chinese people, except writing a few essays, posing provocatively in front of a camera and dying a martyr's death? You can do away with the whole pantheon of Chinese national heroes this way.

The upshot is that in any repressive society, there are people that put their political beliefs above personal comfort. Hu Jia, for all his defects and self-promotion, is one of them.

The thing that gets my goat about this post and a lot of other comments on Hu Jia is this tendency to think that there is a "correct" way to go about democracy and human rights in China, and our task as China-watchers is to figure out what that way is. The problem about that idea is that there is no single way to create a democratic society. Democracy is about how to cope with different opinions and how to accommodate conflicts. In a like manner, there are different ways to push for more democracy in China.

Hu Jia is a confrontational person who wants to expose the Chinese government by risking his own personal safety. Savvy journalists at Nanfang Zhoumo expose dark aspects of Chinese society through their reports and through manipulating censorship. Liberal elements with the CCP push for more reform by working within the system. All these people contribute to the building of a more open Chinese society. Why put them in opposition to each other? Why assume that thew attention Hu Jia gets is at expense of other people that also make their own contributions to the cause? There is time for heroics and there is time for low-key activism, we can chose what strategy we like and act accordingly. But I see no reason to "put down" Hu Jia this way. That is even less constructive than being jailed for a couple of petitions.

He has taken risks that neither you and me are prepared to take, and he should be commended for that. The Sakharov Price is not a personal award to him, but a modest way of highlighting the fact that 2008 has been a bleak year for human rights in China. That's what the price is about; nothing more and nothing less.

feng37 said...

Great post, Xujun!

Regarding Hu Jia, I think it's important to point out that there are in fact quite a few of people in China who know who he is, and that many of those come from media, academia and netgeek circles. More importantly, perhaps, is the reason why the majority of Chinese citizens have no clue who this person is.

It's also interesting to contrast the effect of Chinese authorities' controls over what ends up online or in print with a tendency within a small but loud portion of the English-language 'China Bloggers' to overlook, downplay or even deny that China's internet censorship has teeth, and then to take the official version--what doesn't get deleted, for example--as an authoritative indication of truth. Similar to that is the trouble everybody has trying to discern (offical/nationalistic) politically-motivated comment-spam from genuine commentary on such news articles, a phenomenon with enough bearing and influence on a sizable enough segment of online opinion that I feel must be taken into consideration.

Is Hu Jia a political pawn or an under-appreciated inspirational figure for Chinese free speech activists? Most relevant to that in my eyes is that what has been written about Hu in Chinese tends, for the most part, to be far more relevant to who he is and what he has done, than what shows up in English. Something I feel you could have given more consideration are the reasons that Hu Jia creates the buzz he does in Chinese as opposed to in English.

There certainly is information out there in Chinese regarding the work Hu Jia has done--even in mainstream Chinese media, if you go back far enough to a time when he hadn't been labeled "unharmonious"--and all the things he has accomplished, which as far as I know do not readily appear in English, and I would heartily encourage anyone interested in Hu Jia's work to take the time to seek that information out.

As for the European Parliament's "prize for freedom of thought" being given to a political prisoner blogger with a large domestic following and a wife still blogging, do you allow that the internet in China is this country's de facto public sphere? Or at least one of them, given incrementally increasing freedoms being given to Chinese print media?

If you do allow such a statement (which includes: Hu Jia has done a significant amount of work that foreign journalists just do not know about, and that Hu Jia has a very significant domestic following for that reason), then you must also allow that it was a smart move on the part of the European Parliament to on the same day as bestowing Hu Jia this award, to also earmark 11 million Euros "to develop anti-censorship tools and services".

Pausing for a second, I see there's a comment on this post which basically asks the same question you do:

Now that Hu Jia got the Sakharov price, we have all these bloggers who ask what has Hu Jia actually done for democracy or human rights in China except being jailed?

The answer is out there in Chinese for anyone willing to find it, but can the same be said for English?

Anonymous said...

I agree with anonymous that this was not one of your better posts. You may be right that there are others in China who have accomplished more, risked nearly as much, and been around longer than Hu Jia. Even so, I'm pleased that the EU saw fit to award the prize to a man who sits in a Chinese prison for expressing an opinion. In the end, this is less about Hu Jia and his relatively modest accomplishments than it is about shaming China's government. To the extent that this prize calls attention to the continued predations of the CCP, I applaud the EU's decision. Perhaps the Nobel committee will see fit next year to do the same. How much longer will we all continue to make excuses for a government that continues to imprison scholars, dissidents, protesters, religious believers, etc.?

Xujun Eberlein said...

Feng37 and two Anons,

Thank you for the thoughtful posts.

First, let me make it perfectly clear that I am not questioning Hu Jia’s bravery. He knew he was facing jail and still continued with his actions. Some time ago I, like many other people in China over the years, was threatened with prison on the basis of my words. I stuck by them, but fortunately escaped imprisonment. Clearly, even today, not everyone is so lucky.

But all of this continues to beg the question: what is being recognized?

To be put in jail for your beliefs is a terrible thing, but honoring "freedom of thought" on the basis of suffering alone distracts us from the larger issues. I grew up in Chongqing nurtured by the heroic novel "Red Cliff" (红岩) and I have parents who risked their lives as underground Communists. But look what their sacrifice led to. Ironically, holding up as heroes those who suffered for their beliefs is one thing I have come to dislike about the Chinese communist tradition. My sisters and I were all named for such heroes, people who died for a cause with wasted efforts.

Btw, to Anon #1 - your comparison of Hu Jia to all the other historical big names neither makes sense nor does anything for me.

To Anon #2: I'm curious: what is a "good" or "better" post to you? Simply one that concurs with your opinion? Is it a "bad" one if it doesn't?

feng37, thanks for pointing out that "There certainly is information out there in Chinese regarding the work Hu Jia has done--even in mainstream Chinese media." As a journalist I follow the above- and underground Chinese internet regularly and I am unaware of this. If you could provide some links that would be most helpful.

feng37 said...

Hi Xujun, this seems to be the best and most recent link that I can think of:

Aspirant said...

Give Noam Chomsky the Nobel Peace Prize and see who does what. And for that matter, how many Americans know the name Noam Chomsky?

Xujun Eberlein said...

Thanks, Feng37. Will go take a look.

Anonymous said...

I can understand that the list of martyrs I gave makes no sense to you, my mistake. And your mention of your own CCP background make no sense to me. If you want to talk about that fair enough, do so. Why bring in Hu Jia into that discussion?

To be put in jail for your beliefs is a terrible thing, but honoring "freedom of thought" on the basis of suffering alone distracts us from the larger issues.

Well, as Anon #2 has pointed out, Hu actually has done a bit more than just being jailed. But what are really the "larger issues" here? As far as I am concerned the elephant in the room is: the CCP and its power over Chinese society.

Anonymous said...

Congressman for Hu Jia? He should run for a post in people's congress and give advice for legislation for better human right conditions in China. then he will be rememebered and respected for doing something real good for ordinary chinese, and get a much bigger prize. Sadly now the government now portraits him as a "traitor" or "Han Jian" of the country... Any good job, China government. Bcoz most chinese people hate "traitors" or "Han Jian", esp those who kowtow to foreign organizations for support.

Xujun Eberlein said...

Anon, thank you for the post, though it seems somewhat more fevered than is appropriate. It does help if you at least first try to read others' words before rebutting them, otherwise you risk making yourself a fool. My "own CCP background"? I was never a CCP member and, to repeat, in the 1980s I was threatened with prison for writing an anti-CCP story.

My purpose in mentioning my parents' background as underground Communists in the 1940s is to actually point out the irony of history that you don't seem to see. When you listed all the great martyrs, why didn't you include the famous underground Communists who suffered in Chongqing's Refuse Hole (渣滓洞) prison in the 1940s? Because they were CCP members and the CCP has not been doing much good for the Chinese people since their victory in 1949, right? Apparently you are also judging "heroism" by the consequences, not just by the actions alone.

Since you didn't seem to understand the subtlety in my comment, let me spell it out to you: Don't use the CCP way of thinking to oppose the CCP. Do something better. Call me anti-heroism – I'd rather applaud results than martyrdom. And you know what, judging from your emotional intolerance to different opinions, I'm not sure you would be a better ruler than the CCP if you were given a chance. I would also point out that, the way you present yourself, you are alienating people who also disapprove of the CCP.

Anonymous said...

Sorry if I come across as feverish or made assumptions about you. It was also stupid of me to invoke the list of martyrs. However, I still feel that you are again exorcising ghosts that have little to do with the discussion.

Don't use the CCP way of thinking to oppose the CCP.

I beg your pardon. Did you even bother to read my original post? What I reacted to was the unnecessary negativity of your post and your tendency to pit Hu Jia's form of dissent against other forms of changing China. That is exactly the "either-or" mentality that you decry yourself.

We can discuss Hu Jia and his work, but I think it is fundamentally a good thing that he got this prize. I don't think that this comes at the expense of other equally worthy recipients.

I'm not sure you would be a better ruler than the CCP if you were given a chance.

I beg your pardon.

feng37 said...

I agree with Xujun that it's important to stick to the concrete, actions and accomplishments.

As a relatively longtime reader and translator of HJ and his wife's work, I can say there definitely a fair amount of it. The majority of what I consider his more valuable contributions, namely the blogging he did from home while under house arrest, hasn't been made public and little is known about it among non-Chinese readers. Ideally, those who still have remnants of Hu Jia's work lying around on their hard drives would start putting it online or otherwise archiving it publicly. That it hasn't been archived and made public so far only plays into the hands of his extremely well-organized detractors. To a certain extent, I believe that includes the accusation the Hu Jia was "all heroics" and short on the substance. Those who know more about him know differently, but so far those people haven't had much voice that I can see. Alternately, those who stop and consider just how the "heroism" label is being applied, there isn't anything really being used to back it up, but the nature of an accusation or label such as this is that clarification or justification isn't usually necessary or called for...

Xujun Eberlein said...

Anon, I appreciate your latest post. Perhaps now we can actually have a more meaningful conversation. I don’t think the “negativity” you cited is necessarily a bad thing, especially when it co-exists with enthusiasm. It raises interesting questions and furthers our thinking. If, with a subject like this, there are only purely positive or negative reactions, that would be more alarming. As to the “either-or” mentality, I wasn’t the one to imply that it is either martyrdom or running for congressman. I do believe though there are many middle ways that could work more effectively.

Whether Hu Jia getting this prize is a fundamentally good thing, or if this comes at the expense of “other equally worthy recipients,” that is a more interesting question. I’m not so sure about this as you obviously are, but please allow me to further discuss it below, together with Feng 37.

Feng37, I really appreciate your explanation. I look forward to reading Hu Jia’s substantial writing if I can find any. Because you seem to have known him for a long time, I honestly want to hear your idea on a question I have.

As I mentioned in my blog post, Philip Pan, a Washington Post journalist who wholeheartedly supports Chinese activists, in his recent book “Out of Mao’s Shadow” described HJ as “one of the purists. Some people thought he was too much of a self-promoter, too willing to confront and provoke the authorities.” It seems unlikely Pan would have written this without basis. I have also heard from other sources of similar impressions about HJ. But what concerns me more is something Pan described in his book, the fights between the so-called “pragmatists” and “purists” within the activist camp that sometimes paralyzed their actions. For example such fights partially resulted in the failure of Cheng Guangcheng’s defense. It seems to me the “pragmatists” care more about actual results than the “purists” who seemed more interested in provoking for the sake of provoking or self-promotion. If this is true, then the rewarding a purist like HJ is not necessarily a good thing to the “rights defense” movement. It could actually further the conflicts between the “pragmatists” and “purists.” If you know more details about these things, I would really like to hear.

feng37 said...

Hi Xujun,

I haven't read Pan's book (yet) and I don't know much about China's activist circles, so I'm even less sure what to say than, say, those who don't even understand Chinese.

Okay, I think I've made my point in that respect. In case you hadn't noticed yet, here's a collection of the human rights work Hu Jia did during 2007: I went through a few and it seems many of these are interviews with other activists and related human rights reporting he presumably did from home; mostly text but some interviews in mp3 format. As for his activist roots I can suggest this China Youth Daily feature from 2001:

I haven't been following Hu Jia that long, but from what I do know about him, I consider him a human rights blogger. As a blogger, there are more effective ways to position yourself as a attention-seeker such as beating dead horses and the whole copy-and-paste+empty rant fight-picker than the (as far as I know) very low-key way that Hu Jia chose to distribute his human rights reporting (done under house arrest): via e-mail, and not on his blog. As a human rights activist, whether his documentation and monitoring of human rights issues and (peer) activists' situations can be called purist or provocative, those with capacity to themselves make that sort of judgment given the facts will most likely do so based on their own (or lack of) values.

Since he was under house arrest, I suppose giving up and watching CCTV was as much an option as making it a daily task to provoke whichever state agents were within egg-throwing range, but again, I don't know if he was prone to either of those sorts of behavior.

Every activist movement will always have more public faces to represent it, and in a Chinese context, in a way it makes more sense to have that in someone not only under long-term house arrest, but who also just happens to be a very efficient dispatcher of his peers' actions, situations, persecutions, etc., perhaps the same way it makes sense to offer a freedom of thought award to an active (and I assume nobody is questioning his earlier accomplishments in AIDS and presumably environmental activism) rights defender who, having had his freedom taken away, turned to the internet and arguably magnified his impact and influence.

Xujun Eberlein said...

Thanks, Feng37. Your point taken.

Anonymous said...

The idea that the EU would choose to award Hu Jia as a way to comment on the continued failings of the CCP shouldn't be much of a surprise to you. In recent years, the Nobel committee did very much the same thing when it chose to recognize Jimmy Carter, Al Gore, and Paul Krugman - all outspoken critics of the Bush administration. Likewise, the Nobel committee was well aware of Harold Pinter's virulent anti-Americanism when they awarded him in 2005. (Pinter's acceptance speech did not disappoint. It was a lesson in anti-U.S. vitriol. Quite over the top.) While it's true that these people are all quite accomplished, politics was certainly a factor in the committee's decision. Had Paul Krugman not been so outspoken in his criticism of George W. Bush these past few years, would he have been as attractive a candidate? What about Jimmy Carter, Al Gore, and Harold Pinter? Do you blame the Nobel committe for wanting to send a message? I don't. In the case of Hu Jia, one might argue that the normal standards of accomplishment should not apply. Simply put, speaking out in China is not quite the same thing as speaking out in Cambridge, MA. The former constitutes a significant risk while the latter doesn't. That is, Hu Jia's actions must be viewed in the appropriate context. One simply can't imagine a private Chinese citizen founding an independent center similar to the Carter Center. It is similarly difficult to imagine a Chinese citizen traveling the world and lecturing to packed halls on the subject of global warming. Sadly, given the current state of China's civil society, such opportunities are not yet available to even the most exceptional, well-intentioned, and patriotic Chinese - though I expect (and hope) that this will soon change. In the end, the award was intended as much to draw attention to the CCP's manifest willingness to crush even the most insipient forms of free political speech as it was to celebrate Hu Jia. You might say that 长平 (an assistant editor at 南都周刊 and blogger who has written on the need for free speech in China) deserves an award. After all, he's sacrificed a lot. Moreover, many more people know who he is. Then again, 长平 is not sitting in prison, and his wife and child aren't under house arrest.

People like you want to quantify everything - to make a list of the various candidates' good works and then award the person with the longest list. Hogwash. The one letter that Hu Jia wrote (in both English and Chinese at was worth ten thousand blog posts by you. Instead of invalidating the award by insisting that it was given to someone simply because he suffered at the hands of the CCP (and thereby establishing a perverse equivalence between Hu Jia's imprisonment and your family's experiences during the Cultural Revolution), perhaps you should ask yourself, "What kind of government imprisons a man for writing a letter?" And the fact that I myself am incapable of governing China doesn't mean I don't recognize tyranny when I see it - in China or anywhere else. Consider the charge leveled against him - "subversion of state power" - and then ask yourself if it wasn't worthwhile for the EU to draw attention to this brave young man?

The following essay on Hu Jia is by Xiao Qiang (of CDT) and appeared in the Friday issue of The Guardian:

A Life of Purity and Dignity

(The moral strength shown by Hu Jia, jailed in China for subversion, stands in sharp contrast to the state that persecutes him.)

On June 4 1990, a year after the Beijing massacre, a young man stood in Tiananmen Square – which was full of armed soldiers and police – with a small white flower pinned to his black outfit, a traditional sign of mourning in China. His name was Hu Jia, and he was a high school student in Beijing.

In the 18 years that have passed since that day, Hu Jia has forged a consistent path. He volunteered to plant trees in the desert in China after graduating from college; he has been an advocate for HIV/Aids patients since 2000; and he became one of China's most vocal and uncompromising human rights activists after lending his name to a campaign for an imprisoned online writer. In 2004, he again brought flowers to Tiananmen Square. Chinese police arrested him, and demanded his mother take him to a psychiatric hospital to have him examined. I believe the police officers did this not because they wanted to use a mental hospital to persecute Hu Jia (as the Chinese government has done to other political dissidents); rather, in the view of the Chinese party-state, this wan, softly-spoken young man, who has chosen a life of compassionate action over the past 15 years, must be crazy.

True, Hu Jia does not have the power of a state or a political party behind him. He walked anonymously around the streets of Beijing, without crowds following him, except a group of plain clothes police. He does not even enjoy good health, and now can only walk in his prison cell. But Hu Jia has lived a life of purity and dignity. And the measure of the moral power of such a life is best seen in contrast to the gargantuan state that imprisoned him.

This kind of dignity is not evident in the spectacular Olympics opening ceremony, nor in the Chinese astronauts who recently completed a space walk. In those productions, we see only the power and glory of the state. Most recently and tragically, we have seen thousands of Chinese babies hospitalised for drinking tainted milk powder following a state media cover-up of the contamination in the run-up to the Olympics – one example of many illustrating the human price Chinese people have paid for the powerful and glorious image of the state.

Hu Jia has chosen to stand with those who suffer, and to lend his voice to those who are voiceless in Chinese society. He has also confronted his persecutors, and brilliantly tapped into the power of digital advocacy. By doing so, he has become a living symbol of defiance and resistance to the world's most powerful authoritarian state. He has paid a price for the moral path he chose. But he deserves the honour of the European Parliament's Sakharov prize for freedom of thought, not as compensation for his suffering, but as recognition of the simple, but powerful, message embodied in such a courageous life: Chinese people do want, demand and deserve human rights and the fundamental freedom to live with dignity, just like all other people on this planet.

feng37 said...

@Xujun, if you're ever interested in compiling a 'major achievements' timeline of Hu Jia's work/activism, I'd be more than happy to help. It might even be worth trying to put something like that up on Wikipedia.

richard said...

That Guardian article says it all about why the coverage of Hu Jia has been so poor. Read the article carefully. There is almost no substance to it. Brought roses to Tiananmen Square, got arrested.... It's good to be pure and dignified. But many people are pure and dignified, and have a far more impressive roster of achievements to the causes Hu was fighting for. The level of cynicism about this award among the international AIDS-prevention/treatment NGOs, that saw Hu as an annoying gadfly, cannot be exaggerated.

Xujun Eberlein said...

Richard is right - the Guardian article is quite hollow. Perhaps Feng37 can write one with more substance?

wuming said...

"And you know what, judging from your emotional intolerance to different opinions, I'm not sure you would be a better ruler than the CCP if you were given a chance. ..."

I don't have anything to say about Hu Jia, but I tend to agree with Xujun's arguments like above. European parliament and poster like anonymous portrays the current Chinese government as one of the worst, using a narrow set of self-serving standards.

The starting point of many of us is that in past 30 years, Chinese government has done more good things for its people than any government in Chinese history. When a political entity like US government, a human rights NGO or the European parliament condemns China, we can't help but to ask the question "could you have done better?" We have NOT been able to get an affirmative answer to the question.

Should we criticize China when it has done wrong? Of course. If the criticism had not sounded so condescending or hypocritical, it might have been listened to.

As an individual, you don't have the responsibility to answer the question raised by Xujun. But other readers can certainly measure the intellectual honesty of your comment by such a standard.

Xujun Eberlein said...

Thanks for commenting, Wuming.

Anonymous said...

Xujun Eberlein,

I dont understand why you ask the following question while talking about the stupidity of chinese government :

I don't know what the criteria are for the "prize for freedom of thought," but why not give it to those people?

What made you believe that Western politicians ever gave a damn about human right in China ?

I usually visit fool_mountain.

Anonymous said...

Personally I do not think they are that bad. Find the files you are looking for at the most comprehensive source for free-to-try files downloads on the Web