huangshang2009-06-04 12:21:02回复悄悄话
In 1953, the CIA and British intelligence orchestrated a coup d’etat that toppled the democratically elected government of Iran. The government of Mohammad Mossadegh. The aftershocks of the coup are still being felt.
螺杆2009-05-25 19:30:35回复悄悄话
谢谢憨哥的回复,您批评的也是啊,我太武断了,太不认真了。我只是从您的题目去大概判断内容,看来,还真是不能 Judge a Book by its Cover 啊。
关于保护中国弱势群体法案,您的意思是其结果受惠于基层的老百姓,这很好啊。但愿那些惠能够到达百姓手里。看来,中国的百姓要受益,还得美国政府来作为,那么,中国政府起什么作用呢?贪污吗?哈哈,开个玩笑吧。憨哥,不必对这个问题一一回复了。我们心里都有答案。晚安。
whatnonsense!2009-05-25 18:25:29回复悄悄话
She reckons that she's to retire in a few years time, so it's the best time to ensure that after retirement, she will continue to be invited for free holidays in China.
Norman Matloff
Each year, Rep. Nancy Pelosi writes a bill that would deny Most Favored Nation (MFN) trade status to China if that country makes insufficient progress in human rights.
The San Francisco Democrat has characterized the debate over these bills as "ideals versus deals."
Pelosi might consider instead her own deals.
She and others in Congress actually coerced Chinese students in the United States into supporting her on the MFN issue. She promised the students U.S. immigrant status in return for backing her China-trade bills.
In polls, these students have repeatedly shown that they oppose Pelosi's MFN bills and support decoupling MFN from the human-rights issue.
They agree with former President George Bush's view that revoking China's normal trade status would hurt ordinary Chinese citizens, would weaken the pro-reform faction in the Chinese government and so on.
Pelosi and others in Congress realized that if the students' opposition to her MFN bills were to become widely known, the case for those bills would be greatly weakened. But these key Congressional players had leverage they could apply on the students.
Zhao Haiching, who as president of the Independent Federation of Chinese Students and Scholars worked closely with Pelosi, explained the nature of this leverage in a July 1991 article in the popular North American Chinese-langauge newspaper Sing Tao Daily.
Zhao first noted that many in Congress were upset about lack of student support on MFN. He then dropped a bombshell: If the students did not endorse Pelosi's MFN bills, Congress would probably not enact another Pelosi bill, the Chinese Student Protection Act. Introduced in 1992, it would grant permanent resident status---namely "green cards," which are treasured throughout Asia, the dream of any foreign student in the United States---to tens of thousands of Chinese students who had been in the United States during the 1989 protests in Beijing.
In 1992, after meeting with Pelosi, Zhao put out a computer message reporting that Pelosi had once again reminded Zhao of the connection she expected the students to make between the two bills. "She reiterated....very bluntly, `You cannot argue against the MFN bill and only want the Chinese Student Protection Act.'"
The Sing Tao Daily article noted that many students resented insistence by Congress on such a quid pro quo. Similar complaints were made on the student computer network, such as the charge by one student that Zhao had "hijacked" the MFN issue by linking it to the green-card bill.
Yet Pelosi had the students over a barrel. Justification for the green-card bill was tenuous at best.
Even Sidney Jones, executive director of the human-rights group Asia Watch, characterized the legislation as unnecessary. She noted that the vast majority of students could safely return home to China, and that the few exceptions could use regular political asylum channels.
(In a wry postscript, the student organization, strapped for cash, is running a promotion for cheap flights to China.)
Thus, the student organization's officials, swallowing hard, did agree to the deal. They have subsequently expressed consistent support for Pelosi's MFN bills, a recent example being their testimony before the House Ways and Means Committee on Feb. 24.
In fact, the student officials' zeal in keeping their end of the MFN-for-green-cards bargain has been so great that they not only promote the impression that the Chinese students support the MFN bills, but even claim that these bills represent the "popular demand" of people in China.
This latter claim is, of course, just as false as the former. Even Orville Schell, the prominent China analyst and human-rights activist, concedes that most ordinary Chinese citizens oppose placing conditions on MFN.
This can also be seen in the results last year of a Sing Tao Daily poll of Bay Area Chinese immigrants. Among respondents who had emigrated from China, 83 percent indicated opposition to Pelosi's MFN bills. (Similar results held for the other respondents as well.)
Pelosi, who has Congress convinced that her Chinese American constituents support her on MFN, dismissed the poll respondents as consisting only of "those merchants" (who want to do business with China).
This is an egregious insult to the nonmerchant majority who simply wanted people in China to prosper. As expressed by one respondent (a former Voice of America radio announcer), "Most of us have relatives in China. Why would we support a bill which would hurt our own relatives economically?''
In urging China to democratize, we Americans ought to start practicing what we preach. To use coercion and disinformation to pass legislation promoting democracy is a shameful irony inneed.
Norman Matloff, who teaches at UC-Davis, has worked closely with many Chinese students. He speaks Chinese and has been immersed in the Chinese immigrant community for 20 years.
穷,没地位,摆弄相机,整个汽车,到处旅游。
http://www.democracynow.org/2003/8/25/50_years_after_the_cias_first
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2003/aug/20/foreignpolicy.iran
中国的贪官集团试图阻挡“民主监督”的大潮,不想接受人民的监督。中国人民是不会答应的。
90 年前来美的有许多是公派,也就是国家百姓供养的。选中的不敢说有多少是党的人,至少都是单位所谓政治可靠的培养梯队。这些人若没64卡,不得不回去一番作为,岂不对中国的民主起作用?
那年月,一个国内大学生要50个农民供养。一个留洋的要多少供不起自己子孙读书农民的血汗?这些公费生有多少把费用还给国家?就算交给国家也就等于交给贪官,有多少人捐给慈善机构以助贫困生?
借债还钱都作不到,谈什么公平?
没有美国,有今天日本韩国(可能被金正日统治着)的富裕吗?没有美国,苏联东欧能解体吗?没有美国购买中国廉价品,美国的大量外资,中国能有今天的发展吗?没有美国,独裁国家会只剩下10个吗?
(萨达姆入侵占领科威特的时候,你的正义感哪里去了?萨达姆驱逐联合国大规模杀伤性武器核查人员的时候,你的正义感哪里去了?)
其实,我也不喜欢美国的傲慢,但是美国希望中国民主监督,符合中国老百姓的利益,符合美国的利益,符合全世界的利益,但是不符合中国执政者的利益。
看来佩洛西要到中国来直接指挥颜色革命了。
喳喳老巫婆在伊拉克所言所行所谎, 就知道她不过是黄鼠娘。
算你拣过根黄鼠娘吃剩的绿卡骨头,就鸡拜黄鼠娘, 找死!
被美国政客策反的国家多了去了,不是败家就成奴才。
记住,美国政客从来认为中国是威胁,想当奴才人家都不要,你跟他,只有败家一条
大多数的知识分子,都是写一些美化独裁者的文章,歌颂主旋律。有几个知识分子能反思这个社会,为老百姓争取更多的权益呢?????可悲!
如果是中国人,那就是“美国的走狗”,“反华分子”,“颠覆国家罪”
如果是外国人,那就是“反华势力”,“利用人权搞跨我党”
所以啊,中国就继续独裁吧,中国官员不适合接受人民监督,中国的老百姓也不适合监督政府,这是中国的国情。否则的话,我们怎么贪污呢?我们怎么转移资产到海外呢?我们怎么偷偷瓜分国有资产呢?
如果必须接受老百姓的监督,谁还愿意在中国做官?
还好你说了句实话“美方的目的不在于中国人民的利益,而是希望贸易国际伙伴与美国有相同的意识形态。”但愿以后美国人直说意识形态,不要总是打着为了中国人民的利益的幌子。
身份不同,路不同则道不谋,观点不同很正常,对你的观点,站在我的立场也很理解,站在你的立场相当地赞同。如果说对你这样的美国人还是很敬佩的话,对楼下你的美国人同胞CMOS就不敢恭维了。
to CMOS:你确实太激动了,至于吗?许多省份的人想方设法往北京、上海、广州挤,并不意味着北京、上海、广州就没有贪官污吏,就什么都好。没有人不承认美国的强大,GDP在那里放着呢,但是,美国也不是什么都好,说一下美国,你激动个什么劲,真是的,为你这样的美国人脸红。
憨哥,怎能老指望别人来保护呢?!当我们都"自由"了,解救同胞出水深火热的只能用里应外合的"和平演变" : )
比如“我想,如果她真的关心中国的人权和民主,就应当到乡下普选的村庄去看看,听听他们的意见;就应该到南方倒闭的工厂去拜访,听听失业进城务工农民的心声;就应该多去了解生活在底层的中国百姓的疾苦和愿望,。。。“
作为美国国会众议院议长的佩洛西,她在中美之间,首先要考虑的是美国工人,农民的心声。如何为本国选民,人民在中美贸易中的到最大利益是她的第一目的。作为美国国会众议院议长,她为什莫要为中国农民着想?同样中国人大委员也不会为美国人的利益着想。
美国多年来把人权民主作为对中国的主要话题是必然的。在世界大国中,中国是唯一非民主国家。作为美国的第一贸易大国和伙伴,美国当然希望中国早日与美国有相同的意识形态和民主制度。中国国内有强硬派和改革派,美国国内同样也有强硬派和温和派。在与和美国意识形态不同的中国进行大量贸易的同时,美国的执政党必然受到国内各方强硬派的压力。所以,人权和民主在很长一段时间会是中美对话的话题,美方的目的不在于中国人民的利益,而是希望贸易国际伙伴与美国有相同的意识形态。
他 们 不 是 所 有 人 有 病 ,
但 是 有 病 的 的 确 不 少 。
这 种 病 叫 盲 目 。
关于保护中国弱势群体法案,您的意思是其结果受惠于基层的老百姓,这很好啊。但愿那些惠能够到达百姓手里。看来,中国的百姓要受益,还得美国政府来作为,那么,中国政府起什么作用呢?贪污吗?哈哈,开个玩笑吧。憨哥,不必对这个问题一一回复了。我们心里都有答案。晚安。
我不能像你说的,什么都关注,什么都去写,我还要养家湖口,打工挣钱,博客只是自我休闲而已,如果你付我钱,能让我养家糊口,你让我写什么我就写什么,你让我骂谁我就骂谁,OK?
BTW,您太武断了,太不认真了:)尽管我不可能什么都去关注,什么都去写,但是关于邓玉娇,我前几天就写了“操在当代中国:官操 民操 穷操 富操大不同(组图) ”麻烦您去看一下。谢谢!
“干涉中国内政”?美国议会干涉中国内政的议案提案决议案还少吗?单说绿卡法案,当初也是有条件的,与最惠国议案条款关联的,虽说对留学生留美有好处,严格说也是对中国内政的干预。美国主张人权无国界嘛,在美国干预一下算啥?你可以到我上个帖子看一下评论,网友对外国使馆在中国境内保障中国人的人权还拍手称道呢,你太不与时俱进了:)
我的意思呢,是:你不是关心中国人的人权吗,你不是关心中国的弱势群体吗?但是美国议员的许多关于中国的提案面上看是难为中国政府,实际上受害的是中国最底层的百姓,比如人民币问题和贸易保护问题,造成了成千上万进城务工农民失业,而政府官员的薪水没有受到任何影响。你要是真关心他们,就不要做这些伤害他们的事情。或者,就像当初关心留学生那样,批发绿卡,解决一部分受影响的贫困人口和在美国没有身份的打工的国人,哪怕是象征性的也好。当然,这里是我的忽悠讥讽之谈。
“移居美国的人都是因为中国的贫穷和美国的富有吗?”还是请你去看一下我上个帖子的评论,看看有的网友怎么说为什么来美国,哈哈。你不在美国生活吗?我个人观感,移民美国的人,形形色色,穷富都有,各种原因都有,在中国也并不见得贫穷,在美国也不见得富有,每个人情况不同。其实我以前很多帖子谈过美国移民生活状况的问题,在这里就不再赘述了,有时间您自己去看吧。
“据我说知,很多移居来美国的中国人,比当地的美国人富有的多。 美国身份就拿么重要吗?重要在哪里?”据我所知,有富的,有穷的,富的不多,穷的不少,当然,穷是相对的。比当地的美国人富有?人家两百年前来圈地的时候,咱们还没来呢,哈哈。至于身份问题,你可以到移民论坛上去找答案。我只是知道,没有身份,在美国生存是很艰难的。许多偷渡来的,避难来的,为发财来的,没有合法身份,工作不好找,许多事情不好办,而且有随时被遣送终生不得进入美国的风险。谢谢您的关注。
也一并谢谢所有来过、评论的朋友,谢谢大家,晚安。
看不起那些MY的头头,个个跑到国外还唧唧歪歪说什么以大局为鉴,一个赶一个下流。不知道89年的事,只知道部队上了街(妈妈还抱着我去看过街上的装甲车,她说兵哥哥都是18,19的小孩),死了很多人,都是学生,这些人不该死。更看不起那些党,国不分的人。党是党,国是国,不信所谓的Commie又不是反对中国。
===
...这位邪恶的美国老太太...
连老布什都承认美国的情报局涉及推动人民在北京示威.
怎么那些带头的人,一个都没死?都逃到美国来了?
一鼻孔出气.
请她这次严守当地法律!
引:"...她 不 该 初 衷 ,也 是 一 种 信 仰..."
===
她的初 衷和信 仰都是错误的,都是邪恶的!
改过才能为善!
你的想法大错特错!
老外基本上的心态是反中的!
看看,满清和共产党没有关系,他们一直反它,欺负它,打它!
老蒋最反共,美国也是一直说他坏话,反他,支持台独,支持反对派...
清楚点,OK!
===
她是知法犯法!
不配做护法的众院领袖!
我们请求您救救我们的母亲,我们看到你在地震中对孩子的关爱,让我们感动,你是一位善良的总理,人民的总理。我们的老母亲现在中国,正在受到深重的伤害,我们的心在流血,而我们没有能力保护她,我们只好请求中国政府关注她,帮助保护她,母亲毕竟是为国家打江山的老一辈啊!为什么人们的心变得那么残忍?为什么无处讲理?为什么恶势力那么猖狂?请您在百忙中抽出时间来关注一下我们可怜的母亲吧!
我们是侨居美国的四姐妹。我们的母亲是一个革命老战士,今年已经八十多岁,现住中国上海,长期由我们的哥哥照顾生活。我哥哥是个成功的玩具企业家,为国家创下巨额外汇。不幸的是他两年前,他劳累过度突然病故,留下了巨额财产和一双幼儿。母亲丧子之痛已经心碎,儿媳妇戴煦煦霸占了丈夫上亿财产,并剥夺了母亲看望孙子孙女的权力,三年没有让母亲见亲孙女孙子了,母亲为此伤透了心。戴煦煦连丈夫的墓地至今未买,就已经另寻新欢同居。法庭判给母亲心痛的的遗产,戴煦煦拒绝支付,母亲要求法庭强制执行,2月9日就获批准,可是长宁法院到现在还没有执行。
我哥生前为母亲再婚买了房子。(继父是个非常优秀的老战士。)由于继父的媳妇程瑜(上海瑞金医院眼科医生,新党员)不同意老人再婚,把继父赶出家门,继父在哥哥买的房子里住了八年,今年一月因病去世。
母亲面临丧子丧夫之痛,已经够让人同情心痛。却又遭到儿媳妇们争夺遗产的一场又一场诉讼,在上海那么寒冷的冬天,一次次地坐在轮椅上被逼到法庭应诉。而长宁区法院的法官们不断接受儿媳妇们的恶性诉讼,程瑜扬言说她有很多关系,不用律师就能搞定法官,赢得案子。戴煦煦拿着丈夫的巨额遗产到处撒钱开路打击婆婆。在长宁区法院,她们呼风唤雨,一个案子刚开始,又一个案子又立了起来。同时起诉立几个案,挂在那里慢慢折磨,迟迟不判决,一再拖延,给母亲的身心,权益带来极大的打击和伤害,母亲已经忧虑成疾,患了严重的白内障,眼睛几乎失明了,老天看了都会同情她啊!经历过文化大革命中的冤,假,错案的折磨,她不想再打官司了!可是法官们还在继续立案,拖延。。。。
求求总理救救可怜的老母亲,让她再过一段平安的日子吧!母亲失去儿子丈夫后,就再也没有见到过孙子孙女一面,在长宁区法院,已经面临三个没完没了的官司,(不知道还有什么“诉讼案”还在她们的设计中):
1,继父的媳妇程瑜,王晓松的遗产争夺诉讼:
老人再婚时,有婚前财产公证,婚后AA制,并有亲笔签名并按了手印的遗嘱。继父仅12万人民币遗产。这样一个简单明了的遗产分配。却被根本就没有在一起居住过的继媳妇程瑜和丈夫王晓松,将继母告到法庭,如愿地立了案,审了三个月还没有结案。。。长宁区法院徐艳婷法官还突然宣布,无限期地冻结了八十多岁的再婚老人130万私人遗产,此案一拖再拖,母亲要求法官开庭,徐法官说,“案子太多了,没有时间开庭。”法院有时间立案,却没有时间开庭。谁都明白拖延对一个八十多岁的老人意味着什么?
程瑜谎称他们父亲有二十多个银行存款,法庭要求三天拿出举证,两个星期过去了,还没有拿出证据,母亲再次要求开庭审判,徐法官说:“他们拿不出证据,我们可以去调查嘛。”一拖又是一个月。
我们心疼母亲,专程回去要求法官快速审理,让母亲早日从这样的精神折磨中摆脱出来。徐法官竟然公开的说:“噢,他们来了,那么,这个案子就又要拖一拖了。我们要一个一个银行地调查,现在刚刚调查了一个账号。”程瑜举证二十多个,三个月了,徐法官仅调查了一个。。。。程瑜不断地举证,法官不断地调查。。。她们这样合伙就可以把母亲折磨致死!可怜的妈妈!这些人良知都到哪里去了!
我们从小接受中国文化,尊老爱幼,孝敬父母,现在这样的优良传统都到哪里去了?徐法官是人,也有父母,看着坐在轮椅上的孤寡老人,为什么心那么残忍!我们与徐法官素不相识,不明白她为什么要利用职权,伤害母亲,我们相信中国的司法,尊重法官,才请她来主持公道。可是她为什么不尊重这样神圣的职业呢?
我们不知道在中国谁能保护母亲,谁能救救可怜的妈妈!我们哭泣,我们长叹,我们无奈!我们走投无路!
徐法官受理的这个所谓的遗产起诉案,永远也不会结案,目的是要整死母亲,程瑜勾结法官欺负老人,天理何在?谁来主持公道!
2,母亲住在自己亲生儿子的房子里,儿子专门还写了“是为了报答母亲养育之恩的一片孝心之举”儿子去世了,母亲怎么就变成了抢占媳妇的财产的罪犯,被告到法庭?中国那条法律写着:父母住在儿女家中是违法的?长宁区法院竟然立了案,要帮助虐待老人的恶媳妇,将孤寡老母亲赶出家门!不论在世界上任何一个国家,老人都可以见自己的子女,都可以住儿女的家的。长宁区法院不知道是在实行什么法律?
儿媳妇戴煦煦阻止母亲和孙子孙女见面,还以孙子孙女监护人的名义(孙女14岁,孙子11岁),驱赶母亲离开再婚后住了八年的住宅。房子是我哥哥的名字和两个小孩的名字。没有戴煦煦。我哥生前写过书面文字:此房子是儿子给母亲的一片孝心,让两位老人安度晚年。两个孩子还很年幼,现住在我哥买的豪宅汤臣怡园里,并没有居住问题。
3,母亲依法要求强制执行的儿子遗产案,2月9日就获得批准,长宁区执行法官黄燕蓉至今没有执行到位。我们要求法庭执行,黄法官坐在那里当面说黄燕蓉不在。还凶狠地扬言说要拖十年才结案。理由是戴煦煦还没有把房子卖掉。事实上已经卖掉了一栋。
在中国,我们是没有能力保护母亲了。不知道长宁区法院发生了什么?在那里,立了一个又一个恶意诉讼母亲的案,而母亲的要求永远没有人理睬,我们永远也看不透他们背后的交易。否则这些人怎么会如此残忍对待一个孤寡老人?
我们和中国大多数的老百姓一样,不认识法官,也没有关系网,法律就不保护我们吗?我们不相信,中国的法律只是保护法官的亲戚朋友的。在世界上任何一个国家里,都会有贪污受贿营私舞弊的事,但是坏人终究是要由法官去审判的,如果法官也营私舞弊,这个国家就没有正义和希望了。贪官毁的是一个企业,法官将毁掉正义,毁掉国家机器,毁掉国家的名誉, 毁掉人民的希望。一个法官比100个犯罪分子对国家的伤害更大!
我们万般无奈,求救于总理,快快阻止结束这一场又一场的没有人性的官司,救救我们在中国唯一的亲人,这些官官相护的官司的煎熬之中,我们亲爱的妈妈,她还能活多久?我们心痛啊!一场诉讼就是一场精神折磨,不要再折磨母亲了!让一个老战士过几天安宁的生活吧!
妈妈还在上海,她不愿离开儿子和丈夫的骨灰,她还幻想着儿媳妇能良心发现,让她见见日思夜想的孙子孙女,哪怕一面,她还等待着长宁区法官能给她一个公道。。。。我们可怜的妈妈呀!总理啊!您救救我们的妈妈吧!我们是您的人民,我们爱国家,我们也爱戴信任您!
The Coupling of Green Cards and MFN for China
San Francisco Examiner, May 20, 1994
Norman Matloff
Each year, Rep. Nancy Pelosi writes a bill that would deny Most Favored Nation (MFN) trade status to China if that country makes insufficient progress in human rights.
The San Francisco Democrat has characterized the debate over these bills as "ideals versus deals."
Pelosi might consider instead her own deals.
She and others in Congress actually coerced Chinese students in the United States into supporting her on the MFN issue. She promised the students U.S. immigrant status in return for backing her China-trade bills.
In polls, these students have repeatedly shown that they oppose Pelosi's MFN bills and support decoupling MFN from the human-rights issue.
They agree with former President George Bush's view that revoking China's normal trade status would hurt ordinary Chinese citizens, would weaken the pro-reform faction in the Chinese government and so on.
Pelosi and others in Congress realized that if the students' opposition to her MFN bills were to become widely known, the case for those bills would be greatly weakened. But these key Congressional players had leverage they could apply on the students.
Zhao Haiching, who as president of the Independent Federation of Chinese Students and Scholars worked closely with Pelosi, explained the nature of this leverage in a July 1991 article in the popular North American Chinese-langauge newspaper Sing Tao Daily.
Zhao first noted that many in Congress were upset about lack of student support on MFN. He then dropped a bombshell: If the students did not endorse Pelosi's MFN bills, Congress would probably not enact another Pelosi bill, the Chinese Student Protection Act. Introduced in 1992, it would grant permanent resident status---namely "green cards," which are treasured throughout Asia, the dream of any foreign student in the United States---to tens of thousands of Chinese students who had been in the United States during the 1989 protests in Beijing.
In 1992, after meeting with Pelosi, Zhao put out a computer message reporting that Pelosi had once again reminded Zhao of the connection she expected the students to make between the two bills. "She reiterated....very bluntly, `You cannot argue against the MFN bill and only want the Chinese Student Protection Act.'"
The Sing Tao Daily article noted that many students resented insistence by Congress on such a quid pro quo. Similar complaints were made on the student computer network, such as the charge by one student that Zhao had "hijacked" the MFN issue by linking it to the green-card bill.
Yet Pelosi had the students over a barrel. Justification for the green-card bill was tenuous at best.
Even Sidney Jones, executive director of the human-rights group Asia Watch, characterized the legislation as unnecessary. She noted that the vast majority of students could safely return home to China, and that the few exceptions could use regular political asylum channels.
(In a wry postscript, the student organization, strapped for cash, is running a promotion for cheap flights to China.)
Thus, the student organization's officials, swallowing hard, did agree to the deal. They have subsequently expressed consistent support for Pelosi's MFN bills, a recent example being their testimony before the House Ways and Means Committee on Feb. 24.
In fact, the student officials' zeal in keeping their end of the MFN-for-green-cards bargain has been so great that they not only promote the impression that the Chinese students support the MFN bills, but even claim that these bills represent the "popular demand" of people in China.
This latter claim is, of course, just as false as the former. Even Orville Schell, the prominent China analyst and human-rights activist, concedes that most ordinary Chinese citizens oppose placing conditions on MFN.
This can also be seen in the results last year of a Sing Tao Daily poll of Bay Area Chinese immigrants. Among respondents who had emigrated from China, 83 percent indicated opposition to Pelosi's MFN bills. (Similar results held for the other respondents as well.)
Pelosi, who has Congress convinced that her Chinese American constituents support her on MFN, dismissed the poll respondents as consisting only of "those merchants" (who want to do business with China).
This is an egregious insult to the nonmerchant majority who simply wanted people in China to prosper. As expressed by one respondent (a former Voice of America radio announcer), "Most of us have relatives in China. Why would we support a bill which would hurt our own relatives economically?''
In urging China to democratize, we Americans ought to start practicing what we preach. To use coercion and disinformation to pass legislation promoting democracy is a shameful irony inneed.
Norman Matloff, who teaches at UC-Davis, has worked closely with many Chinese students. He speaks Chinese and has been immersed in the Chinese immigrant community for 20 years.
如 果 她 朝 三 暮 四 ,“与 时 俱 进” ,就 令 人 鄙 视 。
拭 目 以 待 吧 。