|
|
December 02 The "Great Nations" series
chose 9 nations. Only nations in the modern world were selected (i.e.
after 1500s). This is significant, because, as the narrative said, the
year 1500 defines the first time that different disparate parts of the
world finally met and compete (and conflict) with each other. Before
that, China was the center of its part of the world, so the Chinese
empire (and the Roman, Persia, Alexander, Mongolia, Ottoman Empires)
did not count. The subtle message is also that, in this new order China
should not be thinking about restoring its old hegemony, because that
hegemony only extended to a small part of the world, i.e. NE Asia; as a
result, the future objective for China is not to dominate the world,
but become a major player like (the average of) what ( the "three really qualified great nations") Britain, Holland and USA is playing today. - Some Chinese commentator complained why the Qing empire was not included
in the "Great Nations". After all, Qing still had over 1/4 of the
world's GDP until mid-1800s. Qing was also a very effectively managed
empire in terms of direct control. I think the key word is the the term
"modern". The series was very adamant in stating that Britain was the
FIRST modern nations in the world after Glorious Revolution, and Qing
was definitely not a "modern" nation in this sense. The 3 nations
preceded Britains all made contact with the whole earth (including Asia
and the New World), while Qing was a local empire not different than
Han or Persia of 2000 years ago.
Here are the extent of these empires at their apogee. A few point worth noting - According
to the series, cultural influence is important, so these colonial
empires, even though largely disintegrated by now, still maintain
cultural influences to the areas they once occupied
- The
influence (and contribution) to the world is one of the most important
measure for a Great Nation given by the series, many of them (e.g. USA)
influenced the world much more that what the map below paints
- France
was hailed as a nation that influenced the war much more than the hard
power it projected (i.e. despite its total failure in all the major
wars it participated, including the Napolean wars. However, the program
acknowledged Napolean for spreading the spirits of French revolution
across the European continent, and in its emphasis on rule of law, the
Napolean Code)
1) Portuguese Empire (Brazil became much larger later)  2) Spanish Empire (only the red areas)  3) Dutch Empire
(Dutch was hailed for its business achievement, i.e. expanded basically
without the use of force (it was noted that Dutch ships did not have
guns and were therefore much lighter and cost effective than the
Spanish or British ships). The subtext is that Dutch basically was
competing under the modern rule of globalization competition .)  4) British Empire 5) French Empire 6) German Empire (Colonial empire shown, short term occupation in WWI and WWII not counted)  7) Japanese Empire (areas outside red/pink are short-lived occupation in WWII and should not be counted)  8) Soviet Empire (Only red areas, includes satellite states)  9) American Empire
(This is post Spanish-American war map, does not include NATO sphere of
influence or Okinawa after WWII, or occupied Afghanistan and Iraq)  10) Other colonial empires in wiki. China Rest of Asia Rest of the world
November 29 The question "What does China want" has been asked by western observers repeatedly,
especially back in the times when "China threat" rhetoric still
received some attention (i.e. before Zoellick said "China is not
USSR"). In an early posting
of this blog I have argued that it does not matter what China's
intention is, because in the medium term (i.e. 20-50 years) it will
focus on economic development (and maintaining the hope of re-uniting
with Taiwan some day in future), beyond that China's leadership would
have changed a few times and it won't matter what it wants now, the
optimistic case is that it will probably become a democracy joining the
West (or be like Singapore, if not Japan). Therefore, the major concern
for the West is not what China intends to do today, but to prevent
major disaster in China's path of reform and development, because that
may derail the risk-averse do-nothing path it is taking currently. Apparently
the CCP leadership did form some ideas on what they want for China in
the longer term (on top of the near term goal of feeding its people and
playing "economic catch up"), i.e., not surprisingly, China still
aspires to restore the glory it enjoyed centuries ago, and want to
become a "Great Nation". The hint comes from a recent TV documentary series of 12 episodes, " The Rise of the Great Nations"(大
国崛起), which I recommend highly to those who are interested in the
future of China, and in particular Chinese politics and international
relations. In terms of materials and production, the TV program
is probably no different from the Discovery or BBC documentary in world
history. One does not expect revolutionary academic insights from them,
especially because CCTV is not yet in the same tier of BBC in general.
In fact, it continues to use the notion of "combined power" along with RFGP by Paul Kennedy. Then why is this program important? and as a result believed to be a hint to China's next wave of reform by many observers? Because,
if you believe it is part of the state propaganda then it would be an
interesting exercise to deconstruct the messages it tries to convey,
and there are many hints pointing to the allegation that the program is
produced under an instruction from the Politburo- Explicit acknowledgement from the producer: The director (who is also the head of CCTV), Zhao Huayong, wrote in the preface (there is an accompanying book, in case the audience missed the messages) that,
"The CCP Politburo attended a seminar in Nov 2003, the topic was the
lessons of the development of the 9 major world powers from 1500 to
today......These power has all hurted other nations, including China,
in sometime on their path to great become great power, what kind of
attitude and embracement should we adopt toward them? What experiences
and learning should we find from their paths?" -- so even if this is
not an instruction from the Politburo, the fact that CCTV dares to use
the Politburo seminar in its promotion of the program tells us
something. (Other interviews with the production crew here)
- "2003
年11月24日,中共中央政治局组织了一次集体学习,内容是“15世纪以来世界主要国家发展历史”。这次学习在社会上引起了广泛关注,人们在想,斯时斯
地,打开尘封已久的历史,所为何来?...新中国的几代领导人反复强调:我们的发展,要吸收和借鉴全人类的文明成果。这些曾经在近现代历史上引导世界潮流
的大国,在历史上或多或少都对其他国家和民族造成过伤害,包括中国。今天,在中华民族重新崛起的进程中,我们应该以什么样的胸怀和态度看待它们?中国的和
平发展可以从中借鉴什么样的经验和教训?
- Coincidence in timing:
The documentary took 3 full years to produce. So it started in 2003,
roughly right after the Politburo meeting. Either the CCTV director
overheard the Politburo discussion and charged ahead or he received
some instruction from the Politburo, as it is an unlikely coincidence
in time. Since even the head of CCTV is probably not a very powerful
figure compared with the Politburo, it is more likely the latter
- Careful choice of word:
The fact that the title was called "Rising", instead of "Development"
explains that this documentary is for domestic consumptions. Because
many Chinese citizen view the choice of the word "development" to be
too weak and they still would like to see China "rising"; that it chose
to use the word "great" instead of the more often used word "strong" in
Chinese history is also important -- see below on definition of "Great
Nation"
- Pragmatic purpose:
Regardless of the intent, the result of airing this documentary is that
the Chinese citizens will get the messages conveyed in this series, and
such message must not contradict the party line as otherwise it would
have been banned. Therefore, for all practical purposes it is in line
with the view of the Politburo (including the decision to skip the old
teaching that colonialism pillaging crucially contributed to the
initial stage of capitalism)
- Heavyweight advisor team:
this particular program from CCTV was able to enlist the best of the
Chinese scholars, including internationally renowned scholar Wang Jisi
(who was instrumental in the Hu-Zoellick meeting last year), in its
advisor team. More likely, if one believes the theory that the
Politburo ordered the production, Wang himself is the brain behind this
series, and he probably carefully selected the messages to be conveyed
in this series. In addition, Wang Jisi, together with historian Qian
Shengdan who both were interviewed in the program and led discussion in
the Politburo seminar, are said to be the mastermind behind this
program (source).
During the production of the program a
lot of interviews with prominent international scholars were conducted.
The director then used these interview clips (by professors at top
universities of the world, such as Paul Kennedy of Yale, and
ex-politician Berezensky) to tell what it wants to tell its audience.
This is a credible and low political-risk way of getting the message
through. On the other hand, since it is an
impossible mission to condense the lesson of a great nation into a 40
minute (in the case of Britain, Russia and USA, 80 minutes) episode of
the documentary, the content has to be highly selective, so much that
perhaps less than 1% fo the interviewed quotes (source) made through
the final editing. Therefore, I have strong reason to believe the
selection is thus highly deliberate.
Such selective highlighting
of the lessons tells us what the Chinese leadership (or the director of
the documentary) wants to tell its people/audience, because it wants
the support of the people on what where it is going to lead them to.
The central question is the million dollar question for China observers
and internationl relations pundits:
what does China want? The message the program wants to convey is that
China aspires to be a great nation, and more than that, a SUSTAINABLE
great nation. If we believe in the theory that this program is part of the state propaganda, then it tried to redefine what it means by the concept of "great nation" (and what it means by "Rise") for Chinese leadership as well. The
definition is that a great nation is one that brings well-being and
properity to its people, and contributes to the progress of the world.
This definition of "Rise" or "Greatness" is not exactly the same as
what the Chinese people (and other people in the world) used to
associate with "Great", which is almost synonymous with "strong" and to
a lesser extent, "Rich" (as known in Shang Yang's 商鞅 "Strengthen the
military by enriching the nation" 富国强兵). Therefore, the leadership
feels the need to educate the people about this definition so that the
people will not mis-interpret the policy (e.g. of playing the
stakeholder role as advocated by Zoellick) as being "weak". The program
tried to define "Great Nation" by identifying a few key properties,
which are re-emphasized in its concluding episode (the Finale)
"Thinking through our actions based on broad and rightful principles"
(大道思行), as follows:
- Great Nation = Innovation and contribution to its own people and the world:
innovation of Thomas Edison, Dutch shipbuilders, Japanese businesses
were discussed throughout the program. In the Finale the head of
Chinese Diplomatic Institute Wu jianmin was quoted as saying something
like this, "Great nation contributes to the world development,
innovation is essential for making such contribution, and innovation is
not possible if free thinking is constrained" (一个国家要崛起,它思想得创新吧,对吧。如果全是老思想,国家能崛起吗?崛起不了。思想如果都束缚住了,能创新吗?创新不了。所以文化的作用在这里出现了。)
- Aggression through force is to be avoided at all costs, as demonstrated by the example of Germany and Japan:
- It showed the picture (below) of Warsaw Kneeling along with the comment "The moment Brandt kneels down was the moment Germany stood up in the world", sending the strongest message on its view that aggression is the wrong path to building a Great Nation;
- in
addition, it carefully defined the Meiji Restoration as a 100 year
process (instead of 20-40 years, ending in the wars in 1895 and 1905),
ending in 1968 when Japan finanlly rose with respect from the world
through its economic success, and discounting the Japan's military
success as short term aberration (in the Japan episode, the conclusion
for Japan's lesson is that a Great Nation should (a) Bring prosperity
and happiness to its own people (b) Bring peace and security to the
world
- The Japan lesson is further reinforce when it looks back
to the lessons of the Iberian powers, conluding that without building
one's own ability to generate wealth the rise is short-lived, and
wealth through expansion and aggression are not to be depended upon
- thirdly,
the program made it clear that the modern world order is one in which
competition is by business and innovation, and contribution to humanity
and scientific knowledges, not by military success.
 - Rule of law and building of a system:
in almost all episodes, especially that of UK and US, the rule of law
were emphasized. It was repeated again when it discussed the rise of
Germany, and a long section on Thomas Edison and that US made the
protection of intellectual property into its constitution, then again
on how innovation in information technology helped US to lead the world
again economically
- Focus on internal development and building sustainable capabilities:
the Iberian powers were quoted as short-lived because they did not
build the system and sustainable capability with all the wealth they
accumulated from the New World. furthermore, this quote from Professor
Zheng Yongnian of Nottingham University is note-worthy,
"一个国家外部的崛起,实际上是它内部力量的一个外延。国家内部的制度还没有健全的情况下,很难成为一个大国,即使成为一个大国,也不是可持续的。"
- A lot of attention is given to building a system and ensuring the fundamentals, both economically and politically:
an example is that of the Dutch bank which lent to the enemy Spain
during war, maintaining its independence, the other are that of the
Dutch government in 1600s which were formed by capitalist merchants,
the narration talks about the Dutch paintings which portray the citizen
(vs nobles and religious figures in other countries) with admiration
- For catching up 'great nations' (e.g Germany, Japan, Russia), the government must play the leading role:
This is perhaps the most controversal point in this program, IMHO, as
it not only emphasized the role of government "planning", praising its
contribution to the Russian industrialization in the 1920s-1930s, it
also praises the Keysian economics which influenced the role fo the
governement in Rosevelt administration -- my concern is that it is
difficult and tempting to forget the fact that government role is
needed only when the problem is so serious that the invisible hand is
unable to cope with it, and Chinese bureacracts, like bureacrats
elsewhere will soon forget the principle that government intervention
is needed only as a last resort)
- Together with the government
role above, the views on USSR's "worthy experiment" on socialism and
planned economy is positively ambiguous. My speculation is that the
Politburo could not agree on these issues and decided they will keep
the conclusion open (again, this is assuming that the program is part
of the state propaganda). Same can be said about when globalization
will truly make aggressive war obsolete, as in the Finale it stated
such time will come even though if not in the medium term.
The messages couldn't be clearer. The question is how committed and how capable the Politburo is to push them through.
--- p.s.
1) The next wave of reform and policy making? If we believe the theory that this program tries to pave the way for the next wave of reform, this is what it tells us - US or UK style Democracy will be the long term goal:
the program clearly stated Britian and USA (along with Holland, in
which the discussion also focused on people's choice and innovation
"有历史学家认为,近五百年来,真正意义上拥有过世界霸权的只有三个国家:荷兰、英国和美国。这三个国家对市场经济进行了接力棒式的创新和发展。学者们还
认为,英美两国为经济发展提供了相应的制度保障。") are the only sustainable Great Nations among
the 9 nations examined, and devoted a whole episode on the Magna Carta
and Glorious Revolution, and also half an episode on US Consitution
making. Many scholars were also quoted as supporting the view that the
political/societal infrastructure play an essential role in the rise of
UK and US -- all these are challenging the traditional party line that
there are many types of definition for so-called "democracy" and that
"China is different". In fact, the director stated that China has no
choice but to learn from them and take the same path; it is also
important to note how much it praises the contribution to humanity by
the French people, in particular, the concept of "Freedom, Equality and
Fraternity". The amount of discussion given to Liberty, equality, fraternity motto of the French revolution and the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen
surprised me. This may not be new to readers outside China, but it is
probably the first time it was given such high profile and positive
exposure in mass media in China (screenshot below: 200th
anniversary of Bastille Day -- where bikers marched before the fat lady
sang, to remember the event 40 days before that ceremony) -- see also
Qian and Wang quotes below
 - To make China an open society before turning it into a democracy, i.e. I expect there will be free speech and perhaps even less control on media: "..so
Britain from 1688 onwards was not [yet] a democratic society, but it
was an open society, in which ideas can be readily spread to a wider
circle of the people, ..... that's a great achievement, and we were the
first country in the world to achieve it." Harry Dickenson of Royal Historical Society
was quoted as saying. Wu Jianmin's quote of no constrain in academic
study also support this view (although academic research is pretty much
free in China today already, I am not sure if the leader realize
innovation happens also outside the academic circle and it is such
innovation that fuels the academic breakthrough as well); Tolerance of
difference is also emphasized in quoting Elizabeth I's tolerating
Shakespear's negative portrayal of monarchs and women. (在
莎士比亚的历史剧当中,君主往往是反面角色。英国女王伊丽莎白一世当然知道这一点,她却并没有下令禁止演出莎士比亚的戏剧。尽管在《哈姆雷特》这样的剧
中,就有“脆弱啊,你的名字是女人!”这样的台词,但这并没有影响伊丽莎白女王就坐在舞台对面的包厢里看戏。 ...
女王的宽容,成就了莎士比亚的艺术高度,而女王的开明并不仅仅表现在对待艺术的态度上,在处理国家事务时,她也表现出高超的技巧和智慧。女王明白:权力的
基础是全体英国人组成的民族,没有民众的支持做后盾,王朝就没有立身的可能。为了获得民众的支持,伊丽莎白一世在强化王权的同时,恪守了祖先传下来的一个
重要的政治传统)
- China is determined to play by the rule of the modern world, and to make compromise both internally and externally
(China already compromised with the US in many internsational issues
and began its rapproachment with Japan): much tiem was spent on how
compromise among different groups have led to the forming of democratic
gevernments in Holland, UK and US. The producer said in an interview
explicitly on this as well (see this interview with one of the producers).
In the Finale it mentioned explicity that "No great nation was built by
defeating the hegemon at the time". Wang Jisi further commented that
although US was involved in aggressive war in the North American
continent when it expanded, such aggression are not the contributing
factors to the rise of US
2) The Taiwan problem- The program stated that economist Friedrich List
was instrumental in the unification of Germany in 19th century, in that
he advocated unification by peace, not by force, and specifically
through economic integration. Prussia created a common market without
tariff before it could formally unify Germany. This was cleverly done
through the mouth of a Ruetlingen University Professor (where List
resided). Such strategy is already in place when China deals with the
Taiwan problem
--- Links: 1) Videos websites (1-7, 8, 9, 10, 11-12) or bittorrent. (Server hjosted in the US, run by an exile pro-democracy activist Hu Ping), alternative host at Chinesenewsnet's Wan Runnan blog. 2) script is available in Wan Runnan' blog. 3) Discussions and comments by others (the most comprehensive collection so far), Selected
translation by ESWN (ESWN seems to have only translated the first 2
pages, which are mostly negative comments, while the positive comments
are on the next 2 pages of the webpage he translated)4) My post yesterday5) HK blog "MO's notebook"6) Sina interview with Wang Jisi and Zhou Yan (executive editor, script writer)
7) people.com interview with Ren Xue-an, Editor of the series, Tang Zhongnan (President of Japan Study), Wang yiming(Deputy Director, Macro-economic Institute, DRC). 8) Mai Tianxu (one of the producers) interview on "compromise" --- The quote of Wang Jisi and Qian Chengdan in the Finale中国北京大学历史学系 教授 钱乘旦: 英国最早地确立了现代的国家制度。比如说我们现在熟悉的内阁制、君主立宪制、两党制、政府对议会负责等等这样的一套政治制度,在英国都是最早地确立。这样的政治制度能够使得这个国家长治久安,长久地保持一种稳定的状态,所以对经济发展是有利的。 Qian (Professor, Beijing University; speaker in the Politburo seminar) Britain
was the very first nation to establish the modern nation system. Take
for example, political systems such as the now familiar cabinet system,
monarch constitution system, 2 party system, parliament system, etc.,
were first established in Britain. Such kind of political system ensure
the long term stability and security of this nation, it was able to
maintian the stable status for a very long period of time, so that it
is beneficial to its economic development
中国北京大学国际关系学院 院长 王缉思: 欧洲移民到了美国以后,等于是在一个新大陆上建立了一个崭新的国家。这样的一个国家,它有一个至高无上的《宪法》,在《宪法》下面有一套很完整的法制体系,通过这个权力制衡,相对来说呢,就推动了社会生产力的发展。 Wang
(Director of Institute for International Relations, Beijing University
-- was said to be a key advisor to Hu Jintao on international affairs,
esp to US) When European immigrants arrived
at the American continent, they were building a brand new nation on
this new continent. This country has a supreme "constitution", under
the "constitution" there is a complete set of legal system, through
such a mechanism of power checking [judiciary, excutive and
legislative], the productivity of the society was pushed forward. ---
These two key advisors to the programs did not say anything else in the Finale, and
they made explicitly clear what they thought regarding the connection
of a "political system" to "economic development"! There is reason to
believe that CCP leadership got it, and we are going to witness
fundamental changes in China in the coming years, not immediately, but
in 3-10 years, step by step, perhaps.
 "Rise
of the Great Nation" 大国崛起 is a new TV documentary aired by China's CCTV
this month. It runs in parallel to Paul Kennedy's Rise and Fall of Great Power, and a similar documentary series 18 years ago, The River Elegy (河殇). - (Paul Kennedy interview conversations were actually shown in many episodes)
I just finished 4 episodes: (1)Portugal and Spain, (2)Holland,
(3)&(4) Britain and (7)Japan. It is well made, with clear message
to the path of development for China today (for the government
perspective). I will show you this link of discussion and commentaries before I write something of my own. Suffice it to say that - it broke a lot of taboos in China;
- it
tried hard to look at more fundamental drivers of changes (even though
they may be obvious to some of us) and spelled them out quite
unambiguously to Chinese audiences; e.g. the honest discussion about
the pros and cons of bottom-up vs top-down approach in th development
of a nation, and even a favor to the bottom-up approach; the unreserved
praise of Freedom and Equality as the definition of a Great Nation in
the "France" episode
- I have a feeling that it will be more
influential than River Elegy, and possibly show us what lessons China's
historians and scholars (and perhaps the CCP leaders as well) have
learned about these stories. (note: some alleged that this is based on a seminar for the CCP Politburo in 2003, and hence the documentary is probably an idea of the Politburo and a prelude to the next wave of reform in China)
- If
you have watched the 200th anniversary Bastille day parade in Paris
(screenshot above) in that fateful year, you would probably understand
why I would compare the Great Nations with River Elegy
More importantly, thanks to the internet we are already able to see it anytime, anywhere, via websites (1-7, 8, 9, 10, 11-12) or bittorrent. The script is available in Wan Rennan' blog. --- P.S. More in next post. November 20 Paradoxes and contradictions, unbelievable, politics in Taiwan defy our
intuition. Ideology, ethnic division often overshadow rationality. They
are always myths to the outsiders. Even for people who are familiar
with Taiwan, it is a non-trivial task to understand the going-on in
Taiwan. In an interview to Phoenix TV in HK a few weeks earlier,
Shih Ming-Teh, the leader of the Red-shirt anti-corrption movement, was
puzzled at why Chen Shiu-Bian chose to do what he did. Shih said, "If I
were Bian, and suppose Bian is innocent, there is really no reason not
to step down while the investigation in under progress. Because, even
if Bian is cleared of the corruption charges, because he is still in
power while the investigation is in progress, the opposition will find
an excuse to accuse him of influencing the investigation. Instead, if
he steps down temporarily, and emerged as innocent, he can really prove
himself to be clean." Meanwhile, Ma Ying-jeou is no better.
Caught in a similar, although milder, case with Chen's Special Budget
mis-use, Ma, a Harvard-trained lawyer, had found the " Anthony Leung wisdom" of thinking that aftermath donation will prove himself clean. Another
myth is about why DPP is willing to bundle itself with Ah Bian and sink
with him, and why CSB chose to give up the center and appeal to the
deep Green who are his supporterd no matter what. This has puzzled me
for a while, until I read this New News article (初選制度,害民進黨變一言堂), the answer lies in DPP's primary nomination system. - 一
向大鳴大放的民進黨,成為一言堂,貪瀆的人沒事,批評貪瀆的人反而要被移送中評會,民進黨到底為什麼變成這樣?又怎麼連反都不敢反?有人說,「黨沒有分裂
本錢、天王間的恐怖平衡,保住了扁的地位。最佳切割點應在年底北高選舉後。」立委黃偉哲表示:「病人在病重時,是否適合再做大手術?」
- 但
其實,追根究柢起來,明年的「立委初選」就是他們自我閹割的癥結。一位同樣不願具名的南部立委不諱言地表示:「黨內各個有意參選的人,為了順利爭取提名出
線,現在的﹃不語﹄是理所當然的。因為他必須考慮到後果,如果得罪了深綠選民,絕對在初選中討不到便宜。」民進黨的初選制度,是採三○%的黨內黨員投票;
加上七○%的民調為基礎來決定候選人。
- 不過,如果是考慮初選,由深綠主控的黨員投票目前祇占三○%;具決定性的還是七○%的民調,雖然淺綠與中間選民已傾向不表態,又為什麼沒人考慮「造反」,以呼喚出這群不表態的選民衝高民調數字呢?
- 最
主要的原因是,民調公司的尋找和題目的設計、訂定,都由黨中央決定,而黨中央一片保扁意識,與黨中央作對會有什麼下場?再者,民進黨前民調中心主任吳祥榮
表示,今年的全代會確定明年立委初選的民調採用新的方式,也就是「排藍式民調」,亦即,會在題目中設計一題題目,問受訪者的政黨傾向,如為支持泛藍者,就
不予採用,這是「為了確保初選勝出的候選人,確實受到民進黨支持者的認同。」他曾說:「以往沒有將支持藍軍的樣本數排掉,容易造成選出來的代表有代表性不
足的問題。敵對方會刻意在民調上支持某人,但此人在真正代表民進黨出來參選時並不會當選,所以現階段的民調方式需做改變。」
- 但這樣的改
變雖使得提名人更為「正綠軍」,卻也使得板塊不大的深綠選民,除了穩穩控制住黨員投票這一部分的結果外,也可以將力量延伸至另外的七○%,這也就是為什
麼,陳水扁與保扁的黨中央都清楚,祇要控制深綠,就扼制了派系與有意參選公職的人的咽喉。這樣的邏輯,就可以理解為什麼民進黨這次會如此表現。
Basically,
the reasoning goes, everyone who wants the party resources in his next
election has to stick with the party line (i.e. CSB apologetic).
Because the deep Green determines whether you would get the party
nomination or not. Although the DPP nomination takes 30% party votes,
and 70% public opinion poll, the public poll design is flawed, and
rejects any sample from Blue-supporters, and defeats the purpose of
being a poll for supports from voters outside the party. Hence, in
reality only deep Green opinions were counted. Hence, CSB chose to
speak Taiwanese dialect instead of Mandarin which has much wider
audience. All senior DPP members chose to sink with Ah Bian even though
that alienates themselves with the central voters and guarantee
election defeat, because they would not even obtain party nomination
otherwise. N.B. 1) the reason for excluding Blue samples is
to prevent Blue-supporters from influencing DPP into picking the
'wrong' candidate -- but the logic is flawed, since the true
conspirator will not reveal that he supports the other party in such
polls. A better approach is probably to employ a neutral party for the
survey or do not reveal the purpose of the poll 2) KMT has adopted a
similar nomination mechanism, with 30% in party and 70% public poll
weights. But I do not know if the so called "public poll" deliberately
exclude some people The Kuril quake is 8.3 in Richter scale according to USGS, i.e., 10^(-0.8)=1/6 the energy of the 9.1 quake in Sumatra 2 years ago that caused the monster tsunami, and 10^(8.3-4)=10^4.3=20000 times the North Korea (alleged) "nuclear" test last month. | Magnitude | 8.3 (Great) | | Date-Time | Wednesday, November 15, 2006 at 11:14:16 (UTC) = Coordinated Universal Time Wednesday, November 15, 2006 at 10:14:16 PM = local time at epicenter Time of Earthquake in other Time Zones | | Location | 46.616°N, 153.224°E | | Depth | 28.5 km (17.7 miles) | | Region | KURIL ISLANDS | | Distances | 440 km (275 miles) ENE of Kuril'sk, Kuril Islands 500 km (310 miles) SSW of Severo-Kuril'sk, Kuril Islands, Russia 1650 km (1030 miles) NE of TOKYO, Japan 7185 km (4460 miles) NE of MOSCOW, Russia | | Location Uncertainty | horizontal +/- 7.1 km (4.4 miles); depth +/- 8.2 km (5.1 miles) | | Parameters | Nst=213, Nph=213, Dmin=812.9 km, Rmss=1.05 sec, Gp= 65°, M-type=moment magnitude (Mw), Version=9 | | Source | USGS NEIC (WDCS-D) | | Event ID | usvcam |
Many strong after-quakes were detected around 153-155E, 46-48N. There are many reasons that the tsunami is much weaker this time. - Weaker quake (of 1/6 the strength)
- Deeper epicenter (28.5km below surface)
- Direction of the quake was not as vertical as that in Sumatra
The
location of the quake is right on the rim of on the Pacific Techtonic
Plate, and in the middle of Kuril Island Chain, between the south tip
of Kamchatka and NE Hokkaido. in (also November) 1952 a 9.0 quake struck the SE tip of Kamchatka,
about 600km NE of the epicenter of today's quake. If there is a simple
trend, then 54 years later, people in Hokkaido should be very vigilant. Ukulele is a Hawaiian 4-string guitar. It is also the name of a very
popular band in Taiwan (优客李林), of two musicians with last name Li and
Lin. The most famous song by this band is called Admitting Mistake (认错) (right click to save) - downloadable via Baidu's mp3 search. When
the ROC legislators Li Wen-chung and Lin Cho-shui resigned from the
Legislative Yuan, the most entertaining TV program in greater China,
People's Pot aka Quanmin Da Menggui (全民大悶鍋), produced this hilarious
clip. Enjoy. 總統府就是你家 前立委 林鐲水1. CNN introduction of the program Mengguo here. 2. For latest clip of Mengguo fgrom Youtube use this link. Y-axis represents the number of visits for the 4 week period from Oct 4
to Oct 31, normalized at the total # visits on Oct 4 as 100. Around
October 25-26 visits from mainland China were blocked, ISP by ISP. 
|
|
|
|