Domestically, the election campaign went on pretty well for the opposition parties – to their own credits. As I wrote in my previous report, “by steadily and clearly spelling out Conservative’s plan for the country day after day, [Mr. Harper] helped to turn the election campaign into a forum for policy debate.” The media, who was “in the loop”, also appeared to be fairer to the Conservatives, perhaps a sympathetic response to Bush administration’s “theatrical” assistance to the Martin Liberals.
A significant break came just after the Christmas holidays, i.e., the news came out that RCMP launched a criminal investigation into Liberal government’s income trust leak. It looked like that my major objective of de-electing Martin Liberals would very likely become a reality.
I wrote four blogs and one report during the campaign. I will give the correct interpretations here to avoid any further misapprehension.
December 29, 2005 blog
This blog was a reflection of my relaxed mood after learning the income trust probe by RCMP.
By mentioning my mother, whom I cared very much, I implied that she was part of my consideration in my “limited participation”. Indeed, my mother is 75 year old and very frail. If at all possible, I would like to spare her of the anguish of having to watching me at the center of a nasty political storm. (My mother was largely kept in the dark about the details of my struggle in the last few years. For example, she did not know that an innocent child had been murdered in connection to my experience here in Canada; she did not know that I had fasted; she did not know I had to check myself into a shelter; she did not know I had climbed a bridge and was put in jail, etc. Any one of the above news would have devastated her.)
January 4, 2006 blog
This blog might have come as a surprise to people “in the loop” who were immersed in the campaign. But I went directly to the heart of my consideration. The message was that I did (and still do) care about China and wanted to be open and honest about it. I was in fact starting to tell everybody why I was not going to fully participate in the campaign.
January 5, 2006 blog
I won’t get into the daily rhythms of the campaign. But my message to the opposition parties was: Remain cool and stay on course. The blog should also give people “in the loop” a sense that Chinese government’s backing of me was very likely for real.
Also, as I was gathering materials for my upcoming report, I decided that I should include Bush administration’s (media) nuclear bomb in it. I knew this event was related to General Zhu’s nuclear comment earlier, but I did not want to say so in my report lest it ignited a “phony war” between U.S. and China during the election. So I mentioned them separately, within a very short time span of each other.
January 7, 2006 blog
Again, we need to get into the daily rhythms of the campaign to understand my message to the opposition campaigners: Maintain the momentums in the polls. There was also a message to the Chinese government that, although I knew they were backing me, I did not always agree with the ways my file was handled. More to the point, I was not on the same page with them on my file.
(I actually knew that the Chinese leadership has a very sophisticated understanding of sustainable development as well as an awareness of China’s deteriorating environmental realities. In fact, I was quite impressed by it. – Local governments are a whole different story, though.)
January 17, 2006 report
The content of my report was a reflection of my difficult position in the campaign. On the one hand, I wanted to inform Canadian electorate about Martin Liberals shameful record on Cecilia Zhang crime and their utter deceit with respect to Canada-U.S. relations. On the other hand, I wanted to keep Chinese government away from making any news during the rest of the election period. As I was conscious of the appearance of a conflict of interest in writing and publishing such a report during the campaign, I provided some justification for writing the report: “In fact, I consider it my responsibility as a Canadian resident to right the wrongs in our not-so-perfect society.”
My biggest concern was, of course, Chinese government might react to my report. That’s why I deliberately toned down the part of the story about Matthew Li. In particular, I completely buried my conjecture that Bush administration had tried to “parachute” him into Beijing.
After my report was published, I realized that the gap between publishing it online and getting it onto the mainstream media still existed. Publishing it near the end of the campaign had an unfortunate consequence for me – I was running out of time for myself. That’s why I am still struggling today.
The Chinese government was evidently disappointed at me after I published my report. Through Li Yang’s last article on February 15, they essentially said that I was going to be on my own. I have not seen his articles on the Internet since.
Looking back, I think that I have done the right thing despite the difficult situation I was in. I am satisfied with my action although my personal situation remained difficult. As for the Chinese government, I hope they will have understood why I took the decision as I did. (By the way, my disinterest in a career in politics should not be interpreted as anything negative for the Chinese government. On the contrary, I think successive Chinese leaderships have been doing rather well in managing the historic transformation of one-fifth of humanity since the late 70’s. And the trajectory continues. -- The current 5-year plan, which emphasizes the development of rural areas, is a smart social-economic policy modification aimed at attacking the greatest inequality in China, i.e., the gap between cities and countryside. This policy also makes sound strategic sense because only when the living standard of the vast majority of Chinese people improves, can domestic demand be truly stimulated and international trade surpluses be fundamentally reduced.)
Wednesday, May 03, 2006
Tuesday, April 25, 2006
Canadian Election 2006 (7): My decision of “limited participation”
In this section, I will try to re-count how I arrived at my eventual decision of “limited participation”, which took place mostly towards the end of the campaign. Obviously, it is impossible for me to remember what went on in my mind on each particular day during the campaign. This description is thus only a rough, streamlined version of my thought process at the time. Also, my understanding of those events now is obviously different from my understanding then, largely because of the recent development across Taiwan Strait.
As you can imagine, I was almost constantly torn by two competing desires during the campaign. On one hand, my desire to join in the fray was very strong because I felt my long journey was finally about to come to an end and justice for Cecilia Zhang and myself would finally be done. Specifically, I wanted to achieve a number of objectives with varying degrees of importance to me, such as (I did not have such a list on paper at the time, but they should be all somewhere in my mind.):
On the other hand, I also saw that both United States and Chinese governments were eager to battle it out over my story in the context of Canadian election. My instinct to de-escalate conflicts told me that I should keep one side away because, as a Chinese saying goes, one hand cannot clap. I could not do much about the Americans, so my only choice was to keep the Chinese from making any news during the election period. Waiting and seeing in the first couple of weeks, I gradually arrived at my decision of “limited participation” aimed toward the end of the campaign period as I figured my story would have a lesser chance of developing into a full-blown spat between U.S. and China during Canadian election.
My other two considerations against participating in the campaign were (1) the appearance of a conflict of interest; (2) my legal situation.
The appearance of a conflict-of-interest
As I wrote in the background section, Martin and Bush were on the same (wrong) side of the lineup around the issues of my story, while the Chinese government was on the right side. Still, I was surprised to see the apparent eagerness of Paul Martin to draw the Chinese government into the fray at the beginning of the election campaign. What’s more, Bush administration appeared to be ready to take on the Chinese government too, as reflected in Rice’s repeated emphasis on the connection between Chinese government and me in her article.
I dismissed Martin’s apparent eagerness (and Bush administration’s readiness) to bring China into the election as Martin Liberals’ campaign ploy. Indeed, I could imagine that China would become another punch bag for Paul Martin in that scenario. And if the campaign were to turn into an international spat, or, a “phony war”, between United States and China, the spat would necessarily take voters’ attention away from the real issues that mattered to them, i.e., Martin Liberals’ shameful record in Cecilia Zhang crime. At the same time, Martin could don the role of an international statesman because political theaters were his strength. (But remember, it was Paul Martin himself who made my story international by seeking help from Bush administration to prop himself up in the first place.) Finally, the deterioration of Canada-U.S. relations – real or not – could be blamed on me or China.
As for Rice’s implied suggestion that I was doing China’s bidding, my conclusion was that although there was not much substance in it, there was nevertheless an appearance of a conflict of interest on my part. The little “substance” they had against me appeared to have come from two sources: (1) Chinese government was very likely backing me; and (2) I wrote in late September a Chinese article Media bias in covering Pacific Gateway. But to me, the appearance of a conflict of interest came about fundamentally because I wanted to be honest about my affection for China if it were to become an issue. (And it looked like it would become an issue if I joined the campaign fray.)
In my journey to seek justice for Cecilia Zhang and myself, I had always viewed myself as an immigrant trying to right a wrong. (I still do.) Canada’s interest was first and foremost in my mind. (It still is.) Actually, China never entered my mind until last summer. In fact, because of the verbal threat by Li Peng’s son, I had been afraid of going back to China for quite some time. (Note that only a month after my sister and her family landed in Canada I was harassed by New Westminster police. The defendants, in particular, Matthew Li, had to put pressure on me here in Canada once they realized that they could not easily carry out their threat – delivered by Li Peng’s son - against me or my family in China.)
When I realized Chinese government was backing me last summer, my feeling was mixed. On one hand, I was of course glad because I desperately needed support, even just moral support. On the other hand, I knew Chinese government’s backing of me was mostly based on a desire in my service and I had no interest in a career in politics. (I still don’t.)
Bush and Martin governments knew that Chinese government was backing me and at times sending me messages through Li Yang’s articles. They then suggested that I would do Chinese government’s bidding. It’s obviously that there was a gap in that reasoning. I did not point out their flawed reasoning until the rising tension across Taiwan Strait and the looming prospect of a real conflict because of legal considerations, which I will get to later in this section.
As for Rice’s suggestion that national interests were at play in this Canadian election, my interpretation was that Bush administration was trying to change the subject, from a political scandal of a murder cover-up by themselves to the grand topic of national interests. To me, Rice’s suggestion might not be as idiotic as Martin’s accusation that I – who else could it be? – would “split up” Pacific Gateway from the rest of Canada, it still was quite unsubstantiated.
Judging from the words of Paul Martin, Matthew Li and the mysterious figure “No.7” as I described in Chapter 5 of my previous report, the little evidence – or, 把柄, to use Matthew Li’s words – Bush and Martin government had against me seemed to have come from the Chinese article I published in late September, Media bias in covering Pacific Gateway. So let’s examine this article carefully as I had done many times myself.
I started writing that article in mid-September, after my email to the New York Times reporter did not solicit any response. As I mentioned before, my primary objective of writing this Chinese article was to try to establish some credibility for myself in the overseas Chinese community as I felt there was not much chance for my story to get onto the mainstream media directly. Actually, I had at least half a dozen potential topics in mind (or as computer notes). It’s just that I wrote too slowly that I only ended up with one and a half finished articles before the election campaign started.
Bush administration and Martin government knew my real purpose. As I noted in my previous report, the first time Mr. Matthew Li called in the interactive talk show on Channel-M in Vancouver in October, he bragged about his access to the Office of the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party, in an apparent attempt to sound more credible and respectable in the Chinese community than me.
My article was about media bias, a topic I felt pretty heavy about. (Imagine if the media were truly free and unbiased, I would have been in the news in summer 2004!) In it, I guess I revealed two things that were “offensive” to Bush and Martin people. One was that I appeared to be rooting for the Conservatives. That was pretty serious because, to them, it was “oxymoronic” for me to do that. But I guess my real “crime” was that I was positive towards the idea of increased trade and better relations between Canada and Asian countries. (But as immigrants from these countries, who wouldn’t?) And that became their so-called 把柄 against me. They then extrapolated it to the limit and essentially accused me of either doing China’s bidding or splitting-up Canada. This is just, well, too far-fetched.
However, with Martin Liberals’ inflammatory campaign rhetoric, I could conceivably be asked to confirm my affections towards China. Therefore, although I could honestly say that there was no conflict of interest on my part if I joined in the campaign, I had to conclude that there was an appearance of it.
Legal considerations
My attempting to get on the news by climbing the Pattullo Bridge had nothing to do with the Chinese government. The major reason that I had left out Chinese government in my writings until February 27 was that I did not want to unnecessarily complicate my legal situation, considering that (1) I have been without a lawyer since the end of November and (2) I had a hostile media trying to put me down at every opportunity.
The idea of climbing the bridge came from a Caucasian, who, I believe, has absolutely no connection to China. This person gave me the idea – solicited, I might add – on at least two occasions and during one of which there were at least two other witnesses.
The first time I got the idea from that person was, I believe, in September. If I had been doing the bidding for the Chinese government, I would have done it much sooner than October 31 because, as I said, from reading Li Yang’s articles, my feeling was that the Chinese government had wanted to see my story break as soon as possible.
October 31 was one of the last few days when I could do it without causing an “unwanted” winter election for Canadian public. It was very unfortunate that the police at the scene locked down my cell phone during my protest because I had established communication with a news outlet at one time. – If my story had broke before the election was called, there would not be an appearance of conflict of interest problem surfacing during the campaign. (But what more could I have done to get on the news? Haven’t I protested and fasted in minus 20 temperatures on the Hill? Haven’t I written (too) enough so that people could find a couple of 把柄 in my writings? )
As you can imagine, I was almost constantly torn by two competing desires during the campaign. On one hand, my desire to join in the fray was very strong because I felt my long journey was finally about to come to an end and justice for Cecilia Zhang and myself would finally be done. Specifically, I wanted to achieve a number of objectives with varying degrees of importance to me, such as (I did not have such a list on paper at the time, but they should be all somewhere in my mind.):
- Martin Liberals should be punished in the polls for the murder cover-up.
- Bush administration’s role in the murder cover-up and the utter deceitful campaign rhetoric by Paul Martin and David Wilkins should be exposed.
- Criminals should be brought to justice. In particular, there were, I believe, more than one suspects involved in Cecilia Zhang crime.
- Underlying issues should be discussed.
- I should get compensated and get my life back.
On the other hand, I also saw that both United States and Chinese governments were eager to battle it out over my story in the context of Canadian election. My instinct to de-escalate conflicts told me that I should keep one side away because, as a Chinese saying goes, one hand cannot clap. I could not do much about the Americans, so my only choice was to keep the Chinese from making any news during the election period. Waiting and seeing in the first couple of weeks, I gradually arrived at my decision of “limited participation” aimed toward the end of the campaign period as I figured my story would have a lesser chance of developing into a full-blown spat between U.S. and China during Canadian election.
My other two considerations against participating in the campaign were (1) the appearance of a conflict of interest; (2) my legal situation.
The appearance of a conflict-of-interest
As I wrote in the background section, Martin and Bush were on the same (wrong) side of the lineup around the issues of my story, while the Chinese government was on the right side. Still, I was surprised to see the apparent eagerness of Paul Martin to draw the Chinese government into the fray at the beginning of the election campaign. What’s more, Bush administration appeared to be ready to take on the Chinese government too, as reflected in Rice’s repeated emphasis on the connection between Chinese government and me in her article.
I dismissed Martin’s apparent eagerness (and Bush administration’s readiness) to bring China into the election as Martin Liberals’ campaign ploy. Indeed, I could imagine that China would become another punch bag for Paul Martin in that scenario. And if the campaign were to turn into an international spat, or, a “phony war”, between United States and China, the spat would necessarily take voters’ attention away from the real issues that mattered to them, i.e., Martin Liberals’ shameful record in Cecilia Zhang crime. At the same time, Martin could don the role of an international statesman because political theaters were his strength. (But remember, it was Paul Martin himself who made my story international by seeking help from Bush administration to prop himself up in the first place.) Finally, the deterioration of Canada-U.S. relations – real or not – could be blamed on me or China.
As for Rice’s implied suggestion that I was doing China’s bidding, my conclusion was that although there was not much substance in it, there was nevertheless an appearance of a conflict of interest on my part. The little “substance” they had against me appeared to have come from two sources: (1) Chinese government was very likely backing me; and (2) I wrote in late September a Chinese article Media bias in covering Pacific Gateway. But to me, the appearance of a conflict of interest came about fundamentally because I wanted to be honest about my affection for China if it were to become an issue. (And it looked like it would become an issue if I joined the campaign fray.)
In my journey to seek justice for Cecilia Zhang and myself, I had always viewed myself as an immigrant trying to right a wrong. (I still do.) Canada’s interest was first and foremost in my mind. (It still is.) Actually, China never entered my mind until last summer. In fact, because of the verbal threat by Li Peng’s son, I had been afraid of going back to China for quite some time. (Note that only a month after my sister and her family landed in Canada I was harassed by New Westminster police. The defendants, in particular, Matthew Li, had to put pressure on me here in Canada once they realized that they could not easily carry out their threat – delivered by Li Peng’s son - against me or my family in China.)
When I realized Chinese government was backing me last summer, my feeling was mixed. On one hand, I was of course glad because I desperately needed support, even just moral support. On the other hand, I knew Chinese government’s backing of me was mostly based on a desire in my service and I had no interest in a career in politics. (I still don’t.)
Bush and Martin governments knew that Chinese government was backing me and at times sending me messages through Li Yang’s articles. They then suggested that I would do Chinese government’s bidding. It’s obviously that there was a gap in that reasoning. I did not point out their flawed reasoning until the rising tension across Taiwan Strait and the looming prospect of a real conflict because of legal considerations, which I will get to later in this section.
As for Rice’s suggestion that national interests were at play in this Canadian election, my interpretation was that Bush administration was trying to change the subject, from a political scandal of a murder cover-up by themselves to the grand topic of national interests. To me, Rice’s suggestion might not be as idiotic as Martin’s accusation that I – who else could it be? – would “split up” Pacific Gateway from the rest of Canada, it still was quite unsubstantiated.
Judging from the words of Paul Martin, Matthew Li and the mysterious figure “No.7” as I described in Chapter 5 of my previous report, the little evidence – or, 把柄, to use Matthew Li’s words – Bush and Martin government had against me seemed to have come from the Chinese article I published in late September, Media bias in covering Pacific Gateway. So let’s examine this article carefully as I had done many times myself.
I started writing that article in mid-September, after my email to the New York Times reporter did not solicit any response. As I mentioned before, my primary objective of writing this Chinese article was to try to establish some credibility for myself in the overseas Chinese community as I felt there was not much chance for my story to get onto the mainstream media directly. Actually, I had at least half a dozen potential topics in mind (or as computer notes). It’s just that I wrote too slowly that I only ended up with one and a half finished articles before the election campaign started.
Bush administration and Martin government knew my real purpose. As I noted in my previous report, the first time Mr. Matthew Li called in the interactive talk show on Channel-M in Vancouver in October, he bragged about his access to the Office of the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party, in an apparent attempt to sound more credible and respectable in the Chinese community than me.
My article was about media bias, a topic I felt pretty heavy about. (Imagine if the media were truly free and unbiased, I would have been in the news in summer 2004!) In it, I guess I revealed two things that were “offensive” to Bush and Martin people. One was that I appeared to be rooting for the Conservatives. That was pretty serious because, to them, it was “oxymoronic” for me to do that. But I guess my real “crime” was that I was positive towards the idea of increased trade and better relations between Canada and Asian countries. (But as immigrants from these countries, who wouldn’t?) And that became their so-called 把柄 against me. They then extrapolated it to the limit and essentially accused me of either doing China’s bidding or splitting-up Canada. This is just, well, too far-fetched.
However, with Martin Liberals’ inflammatory campaign rhetoric, I could conceivably be asked to confirm my affections towards China. Therefore, although I could honestly say that there was no conflict of interest on my part if I joined in the campaign, I had to conclude that there was an appearance of it.
Legal considerations
My attempting to get on the news by climbing the Pattullo Bridge had nothing to do with the Chinese government. The major reason that I had left out Chinese government in my writings until February 27 was that I did not want to unnecessarily complicate my legal situation, considering that (1) I have been without a lawyer since the end of November and (2) I had a hostile media trying to put me down at every opportunity.
The idea of climbing the bridge came from a Caucasian, who, I believe, has absolutely no connection to China. This person gave me the idea – solicited, I might add – on at least two occasions and during one of which there were at least two other witnesses.
The first time I got the idea from that person was, I believe, in September. If I had been doing the bidding for the Chinese government, I would have done it much sooner than October 31 because, as I said, from reading Li Yang’s articles, my feeling was that the Chinese government had wanted to see my story break as soon as possible.
October 31 was one of the last few days when I could do it without causing an “unwanted” winter election for Canadian public. It was very unfortunate that the police at the scene locked down my cell phone during my protest because I had established communication with a news outlet at one time. – If my story had broke before the election was called, there would not be an appearance of conflict of interest problem surfacing during the campaign. (But what more could I have done to get on the news? Haven’t I protested and fasted in minus 20 temperatures on the Hill? Haven’t I written (too) enough so that people could find a couple of 把柄 in my writings? )
Saturday, April 15, 2006
Canadian Election 2006 (6): Events that changed my perspective
Li Yang’s article the next day
Incredibly, the day after Ms. Rice’s article, Li Yang published an old article entitled A brief analysis of American’s strategic direction in Iraq on the usual Chinese website (creaders.net). The article basically argued that the Americans were in trouble in Iraq, thus read like an encouragement to me.
This was another key moment when I was totally in odd with the Chinese government. Maybe they thought they were helping me by sending me encouragement because, as is well-known, I have depression. But in actual effect, not only did I find their apparent eagerness to join in the fray extremely foolish, I also felt that, instead of helping me, they only succeeded in making my life even more difficult.
Incredibly, the day after Ms. Rice’s article, Li Yang published an old article entitled A brief analysis of American’s strategic direction in Iraq on the usual Chinese website (creaders.net). The article basically argued that the Americans were in trouble in Iraq, thus read like an encouragement to me.
This was another key moment when I was totally in odd with the Chinese government. Maybe they thought they were helping me by sending me encouragement because, as is well-known, I have depression. But in actual effect, not only did I find their apparent eagerness to join in the fray extremely foolish, I also felt that, instead of helping me, they only succeeded in making my life even more difficult.
- Memo to the Chinese leadership: United States may be able to meddle with other country’s affairs (and get away with it). Not China. If China wants to become any kind of power at all in this century, it should be careful to stay clear of the image of an American-style power.
Apparently, Chinese government has no idea about the sacredness and intricacies of elections in a democracy. But they should know that I am an “immigrant without privacy”, “living in a virtual solitary confinement”. Indeed, it did not completely surprise me that, right after this old article of Li Yang’s re-appeared, some people “in the loop” knew about his identity - a politically motivated leak by Bush and/or Martin government. So you can see the Chinese government achieved nothing but making me more determined to keep them away from doing anything during Canadian election.
Update 20060417:
On Iraq War, I am obviously against it. But now that the Americans are in it, I wish them speedy success. In fact, the sooner they can stabilize the situation there, the better.
Because of Bush administration’s role in Cecilia Zhang murder cover-up, they were my opponents in my struggle to seek justice for Cecilia. So when Li Yang said that they were in trouble, I saw it as an encouragement to me. Just like earlier when Li Yang said “China should strive to be American’s friend”, I interpreted it as a reminder that “I should strive to be American’s friend”. It was like an analogy.
Am I making myself clear? Gee, do I hate writing! It looks like the more I write, I more I need to write.
Canadian Election 2006 (5): Events that changed my perspective
Condoleezza Rice’s article on Washington Post
In the second week of the eight-week campaign, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice wrote an article, The Promise of Democratic Peace, for Washington Post on December 11, 2005. On the surface, Ms. Rice’s article had nothing to do with the Canadian election. So why did I call it Bush administration’s “action plan” for Canadian election in my last blog?
Because there are several instances of nut-cracking contained in her article.
“Fundamental character”
As I said before, my guiding principle is to do the right thing. That’s the primary motive behind my unrelenting efforts to seek justice for Cecilia Zhang. Therefore people could conclude that I have a strong character. I also believe that, if the perception that Mr. Warren Buffett has been paying attention to me turns out to be true, it would also be due to my character.
However, when Ms. Rice used the word as part of the phrase “fundamental character of regimes”, the connotation suddenly became political. It revealed Bush administration’s plan to put emphasis on the connection between Chinese government and me in the coming battle in the context of Canadian election.
“Conservative temperament”
In my email to the reporter at the New York Times in late August 2005, I used words such as “cautious” and “conservative” to describe the conclusions I made about Cecilia Zhang case. Therefore, people might say that I have a conservative temperament. (Depends on the circumstance!)
What Ms. Rice was trying to convey in this nut-cracking, especially to Canadian Conservatives, was that I may be conservative, but I am not a Conservative. (Again, I won’t feel comfortable to be granted any simplistic ideological label.) It was essentially an attack on both the Conservatives and me because of the perception that we were working together. It was also a jab at my poor English as I had earlier made the (embarrassing) mistake of not be able to distinguish between “liberal” and “Liberal”.
(But does it really matter what my political views are when all I want is to seek justice for Cecilia Zhang? For such a basic right-and-wrong issue, anybody with a conscience should be supportive of me.)
This was exactly the same kind of attack as their earlier one on my blog entry Summer hibernation where the key word was “oxymoronic”, meaning that the Left and the Right should work together to defeat the Liberals. Wrong on the issue, Bush administration resorted to ideological wrangling. This is the kind of politics that turns people off.
“Strategic logic”
I write about this nut-cracking last because it had the most impact on my decision of “limited participation” towards the end of the campaign.
I emphasized many times that, when I drew my conclusions about Liberal government’s involvement in Cecilia Zhang abduction and murder and the implications on Paul Martin personally, I relied upon facts and logic. My logical thinking is plainly reflected in my (too) many writings. As I wrote in the introduction of my previous report, it is precisely because of my sound logic in arriving at the truth of Cecilia Zhang murder that I was attacked on other fronts, such as attack on the format of my writing, personal and political attacks, etc.
In this instance of nut-cracking, Ms. Rice again appeared to be emphasizing the connection between Chinese government and me. What’s more, she seemed to suggest that national interests were at play here in Canadian election. This latter point came as a surprise to me because I had always thought that Cecilia Zhang murder cover-up was a scandal for Bush administration. (I still do.) I’ll talk about the role it played in my decision of “limited participation” later.
In the second week of the eight-week campaign, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice wrote an article, The Promise of Democratic Peace, for Washington Post on December 11, 2005. On the surface, Ms. Rice’s article had nothing to do with the Canadian election. So why did I call it Bush administration’s “action plan” for Canadian election in my last blog?
Because there are several instances of nut-cracking contained in her article.
“Fundamental character”
As I said before, my guiding principle is to do the right thing. That’s the primary motive behind my unrelenting efforts to seek justice for Cecilia Zhang. Therefore people could conclude that I have a strong character. I also believe that, if the perception that Mr. Warren Buffett has been paying attention to me turns out to be true, it would also be due to my character.
However, when Ms. Rice used the word as part of the phrase “fundamental character of regimes”, the connotation suddenly became political. It revealed Bush administration’s plan to put emphasis on the connection between Chinese government and me in the coming battle in the context of Canadian election.
“Conservative temperament”
In my email to the reporter at the New York Times in late August 2005, I used words such as “cautious” and “conservative” to describe the conclusions I made about Cecilia Zhang case. Therefore, people might say that I have a conservative temperament. (Depends on the circumstance!)
What Ms. Rice was trying to convey in this nut-cracking, especially to Canadian Conservatives, was that I may be conservative, but I am not a Conservative. (Again, I won’t feel comfortable to be granted any simplistic ideological label.) It was essentially an attack on both the Conservatives and me because of the perception that we were working together. It was also a jab at my poor English as I had earlier made the (embarrassing) mistake of not be able to distinguish between “liberal” and “Liberal”.
(But does it really matter what my political views are when all I want is to seek justice for Cecilia Zhang? For such a basic right-and-wrong issue, anybody with a conscience should be supportive of me.)
This was exactly the same kind of attack as their earlier one on my blog entry Summer hibernation where the key word was “oxymoronic”, meaning that the Left and the Right should work together to defeat the Liberals. Wrong on the issue, Bush administration resorted to ideological wrangling. This is the kind of politics that turns people off.
“Strategic logic”
I write about this nut-cracking last because it had the most impact on my decision of “limited participation” towards the end of the campaign.
I emphasized many times that, when I drew my conclusions about Liberal government’s involvement in Cecilia Zhang abduction and murder and the implications on Paul Martin personally, I relied upon facts and logic. My logical thinking is plainly reflected in my (too) many writings. As I wrote in the introduction of my previous report, it is precisely because of my sound logic in arriving at the truth of Cecilia Zhang murder that I was attacked on other fronts, such as attack on the format of my writing, personal and political attacks, etc.
In this instance of nut-cracking, Ms. Rice again appeared to be emphasizing the connection between Chinese government and me. What’s more, she seemed to suggest that national interests were at play here in Canadian election. This latter point came as a surprise to me because I had always thought that Cecilia Zhang murder cover-up was a scandal for Bush administration. (I still do.) I’ll talk about the role it played in my decision of “limited participation” later.
Canadian Election 2006 (4): Events that changed my perspective
Paul Martin’s speech at UN conference
In the initial phase of election campaign, while the opposition parties talked about policies, Paul Martin resorted to patriotic rhetoric. On the surface, Martin seemed to just focus on bashing the Americans. But that was only part of Martin’ plan.
On December 7, just a week into the election campaign, Paul Martin had this to say at a news conference at UN Climate Change Conference in Montreal: “To the reticent nations, including the United States, I’d say there is such a thing as a global conscience …”
Martin’s words revealed that he had more than United States in mind. Curious audience must have been wondering: What were the other nations that Martin was trying to bring in for a spat? The answer was China.
(Incredibly, US ambassador David Wilkins repeatedly fell into Martin’s trap and willingly became his punch bag. Even the White House reacted by scolding Martin with “cheap electioneering”.)
Martin’s words were widely reported during the campaign. The reason, I guess, is that a lot of people found Martin’s choice of words "striking". But I knew he was cracking nuts.
- “Conscience” was a word I repeatedly emphasized in my “private” emails soliciting help at the grassroots level in early 2005.
- Another word “reticent” also struck me because I first learned it when my English teacher during my SFU days used it in the written assessment of my classroom performance.
Canadian Election 2006 (2): Background
As I wrote in the introduction of my last report during the election, the campaign strategy of Martin Liberals “was to wait for my story to break so that they could turn the campaign into a nasty spitting match”. Martin Liberals knew that the issues contained in my story would be the deciding ones of the election.
My other assumption was that opposition parties also knew about my story and were prepared to deal with it once it broke. Looking back, it indeed looked like the election was going to be largely decided on the issues of my story.
Personally, right at the start of the campaign, through some very unusual - but to me, not surprising anymore – circumstances, I was suddenly left without a lawyer to represent me in dealing with the mischief charges associated with my protest on Pattullo Bridge. Because the strict and unfair bail conditions - which were mostly a result of my lack of legal access at the initial court appearance - brought me considerable hardship, which lasted till this day, I had to take the two court appearances on my own in the middle of the campaign very seriously. My legal problem took away some of my time and energy in the first week of the campaign and also in early January.
Despite these and other personal difficulties, at the beginning of the campaign, I felt my long journey to seek justice for Cecilia Zhang was about to finally come to an end. In fact, despite my tough financial situation, I bought a new computer and signed up for two Internet Service Providers so that I would not encounter those wired “technical difficulties” like I had done before. I was prepared to join the campaign fray.
Of course, I was aware that both United States and Chinese governments had fought at the background of my story in the summer, but I was not too concerned about it. Even for their throwing nuclear bombs at each other over my head – figuratively speaking - I had always thought, despite my initial surprise, that it was just a “phony war”, to use a catch phrase of the time.
To me, what my story is about has always been quite straightforward – it’s about right and wrong. On the wrong side were Martin government, Bush administration and Matthew Li. It was a huge scandal and embarrassment for these two governments. On the right side Canadian people would, once my story broke, undoubtedly join the opposition parties and me.
As for the Chinese government, they were naturally on the right side. From reading Li Yang’s articles – many of which, I believe, contained Chinese government’s messages to me - since last July, my feeling was that they had always been eager to see my story break, in stark contrast with the cover-up by Martin government and Bush administration. This was understandable as they could then gain some diplomatic or moral points over the Bush administration from the fallout of this scandal. They could also, maybe, in a way, get back to Bush administration for their attempt to “parachute” Mr. Matthew Li into Beijing.
However, several events in the early goings of the campaign together changed my perspective and resulted in my eventual “limited participation” which took place mostly at the end of the campaign. These included Paul Martin’s interview on Vancouver radio station CKNW on December 5; his speech at UN Climate Change Conference in Montreal on December 7; US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s article on Washington Post on December 11; and Li Yang’s re-publishing of an old article on December 12.
My other assumption was that opposition parties also knew about my story and were prepared to deal with it once it broke. Looking back, it indeed looked like the election was going to be largely decided on the issues of my story.
Personally, right at the start of the campaign, through some very unusual - but to me, not surprising anymore – circumstances, I was suddenly left without a lawyer to represent me in dealing with the mischief charges associated with my protest on Pattullo Bridge. Because the strict and unfair bail conditions - which were mostly a result of my lack of legal access at the initial court appearance - brought me considerable hardship, which lasted till this day, I had to take the two court appearances on my own in the middle of the campaign very seriously. My legal problem took away some of my time and energy in the first week of the campaign and also in early January.
Despite these and other personal difficulties, at the beginning of the campaign, I felt my long journey to seek justice for Cecilia Zhang was about to finally come to an end. In fact, despite my tough financial situation, I bought a new computer and signed up for two Internet Service Providers so that I would not encounter those wired “technical difficulties” like I had done before. I was prepared to join the campaign fray.
Of course, I was aware that both United States and Chinese governments had fought at the background of my story in the summer, but I was not too concerned about it. Even for their throwing nuclear bombs at each other over my head – figuratively speaking - I had always thought, despite my initial surprise, that it was just a “phony war”, to use a catch phrase of the time.
To me, what my story is about has always been quite straightforward – it’s about right and wrong. On the wrong side were Martin government, Bush administration and Matthew Li. It was a huge scandal and embarrassment for these two governments. On the right side Canadian people would, once my story broke, undoubtedly join the opposition parties and me.
As for the Chinese government, they were naturally on the right side. From reading Li Yang’s articles – many of which, I believe, contained Chinese government’s messages to me - since last July, my feeling was that they had always been eager to see my story break, in stark contrast with the cover-up by Martin government and Bush administration. This was understandable as they could then gain some diplomatic or moral points over the Bush administration from the fallout of this scandal. They could also, maybe, in a way, get back to Bush administration for their attempt to “parachute” Mr. Matthew Li into Beijing.
However, several events in the early goings of the campaign together changed my perspective and resulted in my eventual “limited participation” which took place mostly at the end of the campaign. These included Paul Martin’s interview on Vancouver radio station CKNW on December 5; his speech at UN Climate Change Conference in Montreal on December 7; US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s article on Washington Post on December 11; and Li Yang’s re-publishing of an old article on December 12.
Canadian Election 2006: What happened? (1)
I did not really want to write this article for two reasons. First, I am typically a "reticent" person and I find it unnatural to write a story of which I was at the very center. I had always hoped that a journalist would interview me. Secondly, I have never wanted to get involved in politics and still don’t. Writing about my experience with politics therefore creates the appearance of a contradiction.
However, in my zeal to disperse the “crazy speculation” in my last blog entry, I unwittingly made a promise. So I felt a certain obligation.
Originally, the title of this article was Bush administration’s “action plan” for Canadian election. Then I found that just focusing on Condoleezza Rice’s article along would not be sufficient to show what happened in the last election campaign. So I ended up with a more ambitious title. Sigh.
I nevertheless hope this exercise may not turn out to be a bad thing. I always feel it’s important to let people have the truth. In particular, Canadian public deserves to have the truth. Also, given the recent rising tension across Taiwan Strait - which was related to my story - I feel it is important to put everything on the table so that there will be no international misunderstandings, intentional or otherwise. So, after some hesitation, I decided that I would broadly outline my part of the story in the context of last Canadian election and hope others will fill in the rest.
However, in my zeal to disperse the “crazy speculation” in my last blog entry, I unwittingly made a promise. So I felt a certain obligation.
Originally, the title of this article was Bush administration’s “action plan” for Canadian election. Then I found that just focusing on Condoleezza Rice’s article along would not be sufficient to show what happened in the last election campaign. So I ended up with a more ambitious title. Sigh.
I nevertheless hope this exercise may not turn out to be a bad thing. I always feel it’s important to let people have the truth. In particular, Canadian public deserves to have the truth. Also, given the recent rising tension across Taiwan Strait - which was related to my story - I feel it is important to put everything on the table so that there will be no international misunderstandings, intentional or otherwise. So, after some hesitation, I decided that I would broadly outline my part of the story in the context of last Canadian election and hope others will fill in the rest.
Wednesday, March 29, 2006
PowerPoint: Month in review
- According to pundits, from “immaculate conception” a month ago to “useful idiot” yesterday, I am “running hard to nowhere”.
- I do not mind being called an “idiot”. My favorite movie is Forrest Gump (1994) where the best line is “stupid is as stupid does”.
- But I do have a little problem with the word “conception” as it implied that I had just invented something. I had not. What you see in me is what you get. Always.
- I wish you could get a better me. Unfortunately, this is what you can get for now. Just imagine: unemployed or underemployed for ten years; living in a virtual solitary confinement; neck-deep in debt; and chronically depressed. It’s almost magic that I have not fallen apart.
- I’ve got a good idea for you to get a better me: Simply interview me. Give me a clear question, I will give you a clear answer in return. Look, this fairly long blog entry summarizing Cecilia Zhang murder cover-up was based on my response, which was written in just one evening (after a day’s fast and protest on the Hill), to a reporter’s questions. But this long blog entry took me more than a month to do.
- Sometimes I hopelessly feel my writing cannot keep up with the development. Wanna help, anyone? – Of course, you need to consider the Bush factor, I understand.
Misapprehension - Mr. Travers’ misapprehension of my blog Summer hibernation was buried so deep in his March 14 column that it only dawned on me a couple of days later. At first I shook my head in denial. Then I got worried and I almost had an anxiety attack. Then I was angry. Then I was very depressed.
- Upon careful examination, the only possible misapprehension appears to be that I was suggesting a nuclear winter (and making fun of it). A nuclear winter is the result of mutually-assured destruction (a term I only learned this week). But it’s well-known that United States has a deciding advantage in term of nuclear capability. Therefore, this misapprehension was a bit far-fetched.
- Mea Culpa (posted October 4, 2006): My above analysis of Sino-U.S. nuclear relations is amateurish and indeed wrong. Instead, there is very likely a so-called “asymmetrical nuclear balance” that would still result in a mutually assured destruction in an all-out nuclear war between these two countries. I believe U.S. policy makers knew this fact already. My updated understanding is here.
The right apprehension - Let’s be honest: If you are “in the loop”, you know what I meant by that blog. As I wrote in a “private” email in early June 2005, oxymoron is “a very famous one [word] in Canadian politics”. I blogged here about its origin and how Mr. Jean Chretien made it famous (I believe his assistant Warren Kinsella should get the credit). Canadian mainstream media even bullied me using the word, which may have caused a bit of over-reaction on my part in that email.
- As I talked about in this blog, Chretienites’ strategy in dealing with the Gomery Commission was to try to lump me with Mulroneyites and to create the impression that Judge Gomery was too cozy with Mulroneyites. Their plan was to influence the media to get my story out at the right time, thus causing the fall of Martin government and derailing the Commission. As is well known, I am cheap and also rumored to be a Lefty. That’s why Mr. Kinsella created this memorable line for Mr. Chretien for his “hole-in-one” performance at the testimony: “To call them [golf balls] Westmont cheap -- it would be a oxymoron.” So, the original meaning of oxymoron in Canadian politic is the Left and the Right working together.
- There is also a perception that the Harper Conservatives and I were working together. This perception came about mostly because Mr. Harper had the most to gain once my story came out. Some of the Liberal verbal attacks, such as “the Conservatives getting in bed with the separatists”, had its origin in my “private” emails, too.
- In following my story in the media, I tried to be strictly an observer. Very rarely my tongue slipped and a piece of advice came out. But really, isn’t it a no-brainer that for any political party to succeed anywhere, it needs to hold the political center? However, my “advice” apparently made a lot of people unhappy as if I was going to change the Conservative party. For example, read Gerry Nicholls’ March 11, 2005 column on National Post.
The come-about - I was exhausted both physically and mentally after coming back from Ottawa in mid-June 2005. (Did I mention before that I believed that I was harassed by Ottawa Public Health?) So I took a lot of rest for the following two months.
- Some pundits were extremely critical of my failure to bring down the Martin government. Naturally, I did a lot of thinking. My conclusion was that in order to defeat the Liberals, the Left and the Right needed to be united. (Another no-brainer.) – I had indeed written to both parties in the fall to offer similar advice.
- My habit was to try to maintain some continuity in my blog if there was a big time gap. For example, see this one, and this one. And humor was my way to inform the world that although I was down, I was not out.
- When I tried to “activate” my blog last summer, the first word came into my mind was “hibernate”, not only because I had opportunity to use a newer version of MS Windows program after I came back (Did I mention that I only had an old laptop with one gigebyte hard drive when I was in Ottawa?), but also because I had some opportunity to catch up with some sleep. Then I realized it was summer time. Therefore, a blog entry came about that served as a sorta political principle for the next few months.
Bush administration’s take - Bush administration knew about the right apprehension. In a speech on October 6, 2005, Mr. Bush said: “Islamo-fascism, like the ideology of communism, contains inherent contradictions that doom it to failure.”
- So why did Bush administration react with [media] nuclear bombs? -- I have said many times in my blog and elsewhere that the Martin Liberals were quite nasty. What I found out lately was that Bush administration could be equally malicious. Just read former US ambassador Paul Cellucci’s strange comments directed at me. Do you find a tone of terrorism there?
- Another reason was that Bush administration uses a special brand of logic. It is called strategic logic, as discussed by Condoleezza Rice in this “action plan” for Canadian election, published on Washington Post on December 11, 2005. It will be the subject of my next article.
Memos to Prime Minister Harper: - Glad to see that you are setting the right tone with the US government. Now that Mr. Martin is gone, some people may think that you have to choose between Mr. Bush and me. You don’t.
- It’s not because I was not willing to put myself on the line that I did not (fully) participate in the last general election. I just did not think it’s fair to the Canadian people if the campaign was to become a battleground for the big powers. -- The last thing I wanted was to be seen as someone who either causes worsening of Canada-US relations, or challenges US interest on its turf, especially with the perception that Chinese government was backing me.
从李登辉的“世界大战”论想到的(4)
(Just when I thought I was making progress, I got stuck again quite unexpectedly. – Let me quickly wrap up this article and see if it helps me moving forward.)
So far I have described the circumstances surrounding General Zhu’s nuclear comments. In my previous report, I also briefly touched on my belief that it was my blog entry Summer hibernation that prompted US government’s decision to de-classify documents regarding President Kennedy’s alleged plan to attack China with nuclear bombs in the sixties. (Given the “crazy speculation” coming out of media circles in the past two weeks, which caused my being stuck, I will apparently have a lot more to say on this topic later. -- As they often say, what would we do without pundits?)
Therefore, although Sino-US relation – probably the most important bilateral relation in the world - looked good on surface, it already had certain well-hidden signs of “cold war” rivalry. That’s why Lee Teng-hui’s public comments about China and United States engaging in “Cold War II” alerted me.
By the way, given Lee Teng-hui’s well-known 日本情结, it’s not surprising that Japan is part of this grandest conspiracy. Two cases in points:
- 去年12月14日，日本首相小泉为自己参拜靖国神社辩护说，这是他个人的“精神问题”。“精神问题” 一词源自我11月6号博客文章。
- 2月4日，日本外相麻生太郎美化日本对台湾的殖民统治。当他的言论受到广泛抨击时，他反而说别人是“断章取义”。“断章取义”一词源自我1月17号的报告。
***
Finally, when I embarked on my journey to seek justice for Cecilia Zhang (and myself), I asked myself why I was doing this. I ended up with eight reasons. Each one of them was important to me. However, events of past few months taught me that none of them is as important as peace. Because without peace, we have nothing.
Let me take this opportunity to go over Cecilia Zhang’s wishes again and repeat this one: “My other wish is that there are no more wars in the world and equality is everywhere.”
There is wisdom in innocence, folks.
Wednesday, March 15, 2006
从李登辉的“世界大战”论想到的(3)
(I know this article is coming about very slowly. But hey, at least I am making progress!)
As I have said before, I don’t want to get into politics – anywhere. But I am a naturally curious person. I am thus a little relieved to know (sort of) the answers to the questions in my mind. This led to a period of online activities towards the end of August 2005.
But I did not feel good. My mood was reflected in the first entry on my new blog Chinese, eh? – As a Canadian immigrant, I felt I was in a dilemma and that there was not much I could or would do. Indeed, I thought what Chinese and US governments did to each other was quite “pathetic”. And I certainly did not want to be any part of it. What I could do was to be a bridge between China and western societies and to promote understanding between these two. One issue I cared about was China-bashing in the media as I had experienced many along my journey to seek justice for Cecilia Zhang (and blogged about before). Not only was China-bashing bad for China, it’s also bad for Chinese immigrants here. Sometimes it was simply a subtle form of racism. Besides, a lot of western journalists, when they criticized China, did not seem to have a sound knowledge of it.
Of course, now that a fly had gotten into my stomach, I needed to get it out. – I had to say something about General Zhu’s comment. Actually, that was the initial objective when I started a separate blog because I wanted to separate it from my main (and single) issue about Cecilia Zhang. In other words, despite the perception that General Zhu’s comment was connected to my situation, I attempted to disassociate myself from it. Talk about tough life!
By then, more than a month had passed since Zhu made his comments. Bashing him right after I started the new blog would seem – well, wired – for me. I guess I had become too self-conscious. It would have been much easier for me to criticize Zhu without knowing the circumstance surrounding his comments. Instead, I felt particularly awkward as if I was taking on a heavy task.
At the mean time, I felt it was important to let people know my true intention and interest. And I certainly knew that the ultimate solution to my quandary was to get my story out before it got even more complicated. I decided to contact a reporter at New York Times. The reasons I picked Times were: (1) I had tried virtually all mainstream Canadian media before; (2) I became more sure of US government’s involvement in Cecilia Zhang murder cover-up (and thus a US media outlet should be interested in my story); and (3) I thought I would have the best chance with Times amongst US media outlets. The letter I wrote to the reporter was quite long. Indeed, I spent a lot of energy and quite a few days on it. In it I reiterated that my goal was to be able to work for Warren Buffett someday. I figure that I had made a strong and convincing case for myself. I fell short of saying that I did not have any “political ambition” only because it would have been presumptuous for me to do so. I sent out the letter to the reporter on August 27, 2005 via email, knowing that my email would likely be monitored and then broadcasted. I specifically mentioned in my letter that August 30 is Mr. Buffett’s birthdayand “a date of significance for me”. In my mind, I think I had decided that it would be the date on which I would say something about Zhu’s comment. I hope this fact did not lost on those people who were closely following my journey. Indeed, after I had posted the blog entry “Rein Zhu in” on that day, I felt – well, just like I said – that I had finally got the fly out of my stomach. And you can see I did not touch that blog for a long time afterwards.
(To be continued…)
As I have said before, I don’t want to get into politics – anywhere. But I am a naturally curious person. I am thus a little relieved to know (sort of) the answers to the questions in my mind. This led to a period of online activities towards the end of August 2005.
But I did not feel good. My mood was reflected in the first entry on my new blog Chinese, eh? – As a Canadian immigrant, I felt I was in a dilemma and that there was not much I could or would do. Indeed, I thought what Chinese and US governments did to each other was quite “pathetic”. And I certainly did not want to be any part of it. What I could do was to be a bridge between China and western societies and to promote understanding between these two. One issue I cared about was China-bashing in the media as I had experienced many along my journey to seek justice for Cecilia Zhang (and blogged about before). Not only was China-bashing bad for China, it’s also bad for Chinese immigrants here. Sometimes it was simply a subtle form of racism. Besides, a lot of western journalists, when they criticized China, did not seem to have a sound knowledge of it.
Of course, now that a fly had gotten into my stomach, I needed to get it out. – I had to say something about General Zhu’s comment. Actually, that was the initial objective when I started a separate blog because I wanted to separate it from my main (and single) issue about Cecilia Zhang. In other words, despite the perception that General Zhu’s comment was connected to my situation, I attempted to disassociate myself from it. Talk about tough life!
By then, more than a month had passed since Zhu made his comments. Bashing him right after I started the new blog would seem – well, wired – for me. I guess I had become too self-conscious. It would have been much easier for me to criticize Zhu without knowing the circumstance surrounding his comments. Instead, I felt particularly awkward as if I was taking on a heavy task.
At the mean time, I felt it was important to let people know my true intention and interest. And I certainly knew that the ultimate solution to my quandary was to get my story out before it got even more complicated. I decided to contact a reporter at New York Times. The reasons I picked Times were: (1) I had tried virtually all mainstream Canadian media before; (2) I became more sure of US government’s involvement in Cecilia Zhang murder cover-up (and thus a US media outlet should be interested in my story); and (3) I thought I would have the best chance with Times amongst US media outlets. The letter I wrote to the reporter was quite long. Indeed, I spent a lot of energy and quite a few days on it. In it I reiterated that my goal was to be able to work for Warren Buffett someday. I figure that I had made a strong and convincing case for myself. I fell short of saying that I did not have any “political ambition” only because it would have been presumptuous for me to do so. I sent out the letter to the reporter on August 27, 2005 via email, knowing that my email would likely be monitored and then broadcasted. I specifically mentioned in my letter that August 30 is Mr. Buffett’s birthdayand “a date of significance for me”. In my mind, I think I had decided that it would be the date on which I would say something about Zhu’s comment. I hope this fact did not lost on those people who were closely following my journey. Indeed, after I had posted the blog entry “Rein Zhu in” on that day, I felt – well, just like I said – that I had finally got the fly out of my stomach. And you can see I did not touch that blog for a long time afterwards.
(To be continued…)
Tuesday, March 14, 2006
从李登辉的“世界大战”论想到的(2)
I tried PowerPoint but it did not work for this complicated story.
当我在7月中旬第一次看到朱成虎的言论时，我的反应是：“Oh, this is one of those wired news and this guy [General Zhu] must be crazy.” 我甚至考虑过在网上发表我的想法。
当时，我只熟悉两种网上发表意见的方式──我的博客以及我们大学同班同学的集体电子邮件(我在网上论坛发表意见还是近来的事)。对我的博客，我一直想保持其“单一话题”；除非我比较确信某件事跟我或张东岳有关，我不想将它搬上博客。这也是为什么我对某些有关联的事情在开始时“反应”比较慢的一个原因。另一种方式是我们同班同学的集体电子邮件，我相信它基本上是公开的；但由于我受到其他同学的嘲笑，那时还刚跟其他几个同学争吵过，觉得不便再在上面发表什么看法。所以这件事就这么放下来了。当时我觉得朱成虎言论跟我没什么关系，发不发表意见并不是什么大不了的事。
大概在7月20日左右，我读到了李扬的文章《中国应该努力成为美国的朋友》，觉得他说的很有道理。(当时他的文章我可能读过两三篇，但还没有特别留意“李扬”这个人。我6月15日之前在渥太华，上中文网站的机会很少。)而且下面这段话引起了我的注意：
他似乎是在说朱成虎，但又没有明说。考虑到这篇文章发表的时机以及文章的主题，作者似乎是在提醒谁，应该通过批朱成虎的言论来向美国示好，即“应该努力成为美国的朋友”。由于我一直希望能去美国为Warren Buffett做事，我也有向美国示好的必要，而且还考虑过针对朱成虎的言论发表意见，所以我在想：“李扬”是在提醒我吗？有了这个疑问，从那以后我就比较留意作者“李扬”的文章了。
当然，在此之后紧接着就有黎彦修的“政治抱负”的文章出笼(7月25日)；而且我立即就意识到他的文章的目的。自然的问题是：(1)中美两国政府高层是否都在关注我的事情？(2)我是否会被不情愿地卷入到一个大的争执中？
这个问题在我看到《环球邮报》8月22日的漫画之后，基本有了答案。我在上一份报告中已经说明了为什么我觉得这幅漫画是针对我的。因为我平常根本就没有考虑过核弹的问题，再加上这幅漫画背后的美加政府背景，我得出的结论是：(1)“李扬”的文章(至少是那些在我回温哥华之后能看到的)可能是中国政府写给我看的；(2)朱成虎核战言论的出台至少在时机上是为我提供批判材料，使我有机会博得美国人的好感；(3)布什政府早就知道前面两点(美加两地很多媒体人士至少到几个月以后的加拿大大选时也都知道了)，这幅漫画是对我的沉默的一个攻击；(4)如果布什政府在“挺”黎彦修的话，中国政府可能希望我能回国效力。
知道了这些之后，我的心情是一种说不出的复杂。从大的方面来说，中美关系远比我想象中的要差。一方面布什政府企图通过黎彦修来分化甚至颠覆中国政治秩序；另一方面，中国军人竟然用核武器来威胁美国。虽然朱成虎核战言论是为了让我在美国人面前有做好人的机会，但这个事情还是让我觉得象吃了一个苍蝇一样不舒服。
从个人的角度来说，我觉得我似乎陷于了一个更深的困境。本来在我为张东岳讨还公道的过程中，我的中国背景就已经成了马田政府和某些媒体人士的攻击目标(比如说，硬将我跟美加合作的导弹防御计划扯上关系)；现在好了，中国政府很可能确实在“挺”我了。试想一下，我是中国人，当然是希望中国好的；我在加拿大住了十多年，也早就喜欢上了这个国家；而我的最大愿望是能有一天去美国为Warren Buffett工作，我不希望跟美国的关系搞僵。作为一个移民，我是衷心希望中美加三国都保持良好的关系，这样我的日子也好过一些。
(To be continued...)
Update: Some hyperlinks added on August 19, 2006.
当我在7月中旬第一次看到朱成虎的言论时，我的反应是：“Oh, this is one of those wired news and this guy [General Zhu] must be crazy.” 我甚至考虑过在网上发表我的想法。
当时，我只熟悉两种网上发表意见的方式──我的博客以及我们大学同班同学的集体电子邮件(我在网上论坛发表意见还是近来的事)。对我的博客，我一直想保持其“单一话题”；除非我比较确信某件事跟我或张东岳有关，我不想将它搬上博客。这也是为什么我对某些有关联的事情在开始时“反应”比较慢的一个原因。另一种方式是我们同班同学的集体电子邮件，我相信它基本上是公开的；但由于我受到其他同学的嘲笑，那时还刚跟其他几个同学争吵过，觉得不便再在上面发表什么看法。所以这件事就这么放下来了。当时我觉得朱成虎言论跟我没什么关系，发不发表意见并不是什么大不了的事。
大概在7月20日左右，我读到了李扬的文章《中国应该努力成为美国的朋友》，觉得他说的很有道理。(当时他的文章我可能读过两三篇，但还没有特别留意“李扬”这个人。我6月15日之前在渥太华，上中文网站的机会很少。)而且下面这段话引起了我的注意：
“美国有关人士提出使用核武器的主动权，并积极研发小型战术核武器；与此同时，中国的民族主义势力和中国军方一些将领，开始讨论中国如何使用核武器的问题，并出言恫吓可能存在的威胁中国国家安全的形势。”
他似乎是在说朱成虎，但又没有明说。考虑到这篇文章发表的时机以及文章的主题，作者似乎是在提醒谁，应该通过批朱成虎的言论来向美国示好，即“应该努力成为美国的朋友”。由于我一直希望能去美国为Warren Buffett做事，我也有向美国示好的必要，而且还考虑过针对朱成虎的言论发表意见，所以我在想：“李扬”是在提醒我吗？有了这个疑问，从那以后我就比较留意作者“李扬”的文章了。
当然，在此之后紧接着就有黎彦修的“政治抱负”的文章出笼(7月25日)；而且我立即就意识到他的文章的目的。自然的问题是：(1)中美两国政府高层是否都在关注我的事情？(2)我是否会被不情愿地卷入到一个大的争执中？
这个问题在我看到《环球邮报》8月22日的漫画之后，基本有了答案。我在上一份报告中已经说明了为什么我觉得这幅漫画是针对我的。因为我平常根本就没有考虑过核弹的问题，再加上这幅漫画背后的美加政府背景，我得出的结论是：(1)“李扬”的文章(至少是那些在我回温哥华之后能看到的)可能是中国政府写给我看的；(2)朱成虎核战言论的出台至少在时机上是为我提供批判材料，使我有机会博得美国人的好感；(3)布什政府早就知道前面两点(美加两地很多媒体人士至少到几个月以后的加拿大大选时也都知道了)，这幅漫画是对我的沉默的一个攻击；(4)如果布什政府在“挺”黎彦修的话，中国政府可能希望我能回国效力。
知道了这些之后，我的心情是一种说不出的复杂。从大的方面来说，中美关系远比我想象中的要差。一方面布什政府企图通过黎彦修来分化甚至颠覆中国政治秩序；另一方面，中国军人竟然用核武器来威胁美国。虽然朱成虎核战言论是为了让我在美国人面前有做好人的机会，但这个事情还是让我觉得象吃了一个苍蝇一样不舒服。
从个人的角度来说，我觉得我似乎陷于了一个更深的困境。本来在我为张东岳讨还公道的过程中，我的中国背景就已经成了马田政府和某些媒体人士的攻击目标(比如说，硬将我跟美加合作的导弹防御计划扯上关系)；现在好了，中国政府很可能确实在“挺”我了。试想一下，我是中国人，当然是希望中国好的；我在加拿大住了十多年，也早就喜欢上了这个国家；而我的最大愿望是能有一天去美国为Warren Buffett工作，我不希望跟美国的关系搞僵。作为一个移民，我是衷心希望中美加三国都保持良好的关系，这样我的日子也好过一些。
(To be continued...)
Update: Some hyperlinks added on August 19, 2006.
Sunday, March 12, 2006
从李登辉的“世界大战”论想到的
“Please choose the way of peace…”
-- Mother Teresa
“My other wish is that there are no more wars in the world…”
-- Cecilia Zhang
这两个星期来台湾局势的发展使我更加相信我的推断，即陈水扁最近的“废统”动作是跟张东岳命案的阴谋有关的。只说两件事：(1)在我揭露陈水扁阴谋的博客日志贴出来才几个小时，他就愚蠢地针对我的证据“发飙”(媒体用语)；(2)我在博客日志里提到我曾以电影《巧克力》言志；几天以后，他也装模作样地用电影来鼓噪他的“台独”议题。
看到他要缠上我了，感到真是麻烦，所以我尽量保持沉默。再说，跟他这种没有脊梁骨、一心想当傀儡的人计较真是要抬举他了。
不过，李登辉的“世界大战”论倒令我担心起来，因为根据我所掌握的情况来看(李登辉、陈水扁等想必也都很清楚)，如果台独分子继续挑衅的话，在台海地区发生局部战争、甚至进而引发世界大战都是很有可能的。一切爱好和平的人士对此都不能掉以轻心。
中美关系
其实，李登辉的“世界大战”论并不是他第一次引起我关注的言论，去年年底他在渲染“全世界已经开始第二次的冷战”时就引起了我的警惕。后来我上网查了一下，他在更早些时(去年十月份)就预测“说不定新的冷战很快就会来临”，当时他还没有明确说中美是“第二次冷战”的主角。由此看来，李登辉对张东岳命案引发出来的中美紧张关系是一直有跟踪了解的。
当然了，将中美之间关系的紧张夸张说成是“冷战”不过是他这种顽固台独分子的一厢情愿罢了。就象他在说“我看世界大战就开始了”时的那种得意忘形一样，这正好反映了他那种唯恐天下不乱、不惜将台海、甚至全世界推向战争的心态。
但是，鲜为人知的是中美之间关系紧张的程度确实非常令人担忧，而且已有了美苏冷战时期的某些特征，如相互进行核威胁。这可能是在大家都在说“后冷战”时，李登辉抛出“(第二次)冷战” 论的原因吧。
大家还记得去年七月份中国国防大学防务学院院长朱成虎少将说的一番话所引起的轰动吧。他说，如果美国军事介于台海冲突，中国将不惜牺牲西安以东所有城市向美国发动核攻击。
Sorry, I have been trying to write this article for almost two weeks but the progress has been too slow. (The usual blames apply here.) I certainly do not want to spend another two weeks on it because peace is too important a discussion topic to be delayed. So, please allow me to switch to PowerPoint, my least-liked presentation method.
-- Mother Teresa
“My other wish is that there are no more wars in the world…”
-- Cecilia Zhang
这两个星期来台湾局势的发展使我更加相信我的推断，即陈水扁最近的“废统”动作是跟张东岳命案的阴谋有关的。只说两件事：(1)在我揭露陈水扁阴谋的博客日志贴出来才几个小时，他就愚蠢地针对我的证据“发飙”(媒体用语)；(2)我在博客日志里提到我曾以电影《巧克力》言志；几天以后，他也装模作样地用电影来鼓噪他的“台独”议题。
看到他要缠上我了，感到真是麻烦，所以我尽量保持沉默。再说，跟他这种没有脊梁骨、一心想当傀儡的人计较真是要抬举他了。
不过，李登辉的“世界大战”论倒令我担心起来，因为根据我所掌握的情况来看(李登辉、陈水扁等想必也都很清楚)，如果台独分子继续挑衅的话，在台海地区发生局部战争、甚至进而引发世界大战都是很有可能的。一切爱好和平的人士对此都不能掉以轻心。
中美关系
其实，李登辉的“世界大战”论并不是他第一次引起我关注的言论，去年年底他在渲染“全世界已经开始第二次的冷战”时就引起了我的警惕。后来我上网查了一下，他在更早些时(去年十月份)就预测“说不定新的冷战很快就会来临”，当时他还没有明确说中美是“第二次冷战”的主角。由此看来，李登辉对张东岳命案引发出来的中美紧张关系是一直有跟踪了解的。
当然了，将中美之间关系的紧张夸张说成是“冷战”不过是他这种顽固台独分子的一厢情愿罢了。就象他在说“我看世界大战就开始了”时的那种得意忘形一样，这正好反映了他那种唯恐天下不乱、不惜将台海、甚至全世界推向战争的心态。
但是，鲜为人知的是中美之间关系紧张的程度确实非常令人担忧，而且已有了美苏冷战时期的某些特征，如相互进行核威胁。这可能是在大家都在说“后冷战”时，李登辉抛出“(第二次)冷战” 论的原因吧。
大家还记得去年七月份中国国防大学防务学院院长朱成虎少将说的一番话所引起的轰动吧。他说，如果美国军事介于台海冲突，中国将不惜牺牲西安以东所有城市向美国发动核攻击。
Sorry, I have been trying to write this article for almost two weeks but the progress has been too slow. (The usual blames apply here.) I certainly do not want to spend another two weeks on it because peace is too important a discussion topic to be delayed. So, please allow me to switch to PowerPoint, my least-liked presentation method.
Tuesday, February 28, 2006
Trouble-makers
一个唯恐天下不乱。
一个声望跌至谷底。
李登辉宣称：“台湾要怎样，会被人打喔，那都是骗人，都假的啦！不是真的啦！700颗导弹，我说真的，我说真的，你打一颗试试看，我看世界大战就开始了，呵！哪敢打啦！”
一个声望跌至谷底。
由【中国时报】历来相关民调趋势走向来看，可以发现陈水扁声望一路下跌，原先还能保持三至四成，但因扁政府贪渎弊案频传，去年"三合一选举"绿营惨败，阿扁声望首度跌破三成，滑落至二成八，如今又下挫4个百分点，施政满意度创下历史新低点。
Oh, one more point
If you are an avid follower of my journey, you probably remember my total bewilderment over the suggestion that there is a linkage between Cecilia Zhang murder cover-up and Taiwan secession by the mysterious figure codenamed “No. 7”.
In light of the recent development in Taiwan, are you wondering just like I am: Is this all a conspiracy on the grandest scale???
In light of the recent development in Taiwan, are you wondering just like I am: Is this all a conspiracy on the grandest scale???
Monday, February 27, 2006
A few quick points before I head out to see my bail officer
- Although I myself do not have any “political ambition”, the possibility exists in my previous analysis that the Chinese government had been interested in my service. That possibility first came to my mind last August and it was the reason why I started this separate Chinese blog, with a dilemma-ish feeling.
- To borrow a phrase from President Bush, I have not always been able to see the Chinese government eye to eye, despite the above possibility.
- My approach to dealing with conflict was laid out in this blog entry a long time ago and consistent with Cecilia Zhang’s wishes.
- Memo to Mr. Bush: The Chinese leadership had no ill-intent against your great country and with all due respect, I think you knew it.
- 今天早上，我看到陈水扁果然向“台独”的方向又迈进了一步。说“果然”，那是因为尽管陈水扁口口声声说不改变现状，他的动作再一次清楚地向世人显示了到底是谁在企图改变台海现状。
- 最令我气愤的是，陈水扁竟然将自己的这种挑衅行为说成是带领台湾人民“做对的事，走对的路”。我注意到，他第一次说这种话是在2月3号，即在我最近一份关于张东岳命案的报告发表后不久。我在那份报告的前言中总结指出：张东岳命案是一个很基本的是非对错问题。显然，陈水扁是在利用公众对张东岳命案真相的不了解以及由这个事件引发的国际混乱；他的这种煽动性言论不仅是对台湾人民的欺骗，更是对小东岳在天之灵的亵渎。
- 我也注意到，当2月5号温哥华多元文化电视台“周日对话”节目讨论陈水扁的言行时，黎彦修竟然打电话进来说“不要理他”，再一次暴露了其阳奉阴违、搞阴谋、造冲突的本性。
Wednesday, February 22, 2006
从拉姆斯菲尔德的用词方式想到的
彭定康上周一作客CBC电台，访谈很有意思。我的一些感想已经贴在了加西评论上。这里谈谈彭定康对美国国防部长拉姆斯菲尔德用词方式的奚落让我想起的一个推测。
彭定康在访谈中说到拉姆斯菲尔德“要中国加入到文明世界中来”的可笑言论时说：“Wow, where has it [China] been for the last 3000 years？” 彭定康通过奚落的方式告诉拉姆斯菲尔德一个众所周知的事实--中国是有着3000年历史的文明古国。
彭定康的捺愉很有意思。不过，这段访谈倒让我想起了拉姆斯菲尔德去年六月在新加坡推销他的“中国威胁论”时，针对中国的军费开支说的另一句用词方式也很特别的话：“Why the growing investment?”指责中国为何增加防务。
把军费开支叫做“投资”，大家可能会觉得比较新奇。人们不禁要问：拉姆斯菲尔德为什么要选择这种用词方式？
我觉得他心中想到的是我。
为什么呢？首先，美加政府中很多高官，包括布什本人、前任美国驻加大使Paul Cellucci、加拿大驻美大使Frank McKenna、马田以及马田的发言人Scott Reid等等都曾经针对我玩过这类文字游戏。这方面的细节我已经在最近的一份报告中有过叙述。
其次，虽然我本是一介草民，但“圈内人”都可以看出，美国著名投资者Warren Buffett对我有所关注，我也一直希望有一天能做他的学徒，学习投资与管理的真谛。从这方面来讲，我确有与众不同之处。这也解释了拉姆斯菲尔德为什么选用“投资”一词。
剩下的问题就是：为什么他要将我跟中国的国防联系起来？
起先我也觉得奇怪，甚至一度怀疑他说的这番话是否真的与我有关。但到了去年夏天的时候，我开始有了一个猜测。这个猜测就是：掩盖张东岳命案真相的关键人物黎彦修在此过程中取得了美国政府的信赖并以此换取他们的支持来实现自己的所谓“政治抱负”。
黎彦修在掩盖张东岳命案真相中的关键角色
关于黎彦修在掩盖张东岳命案真相中的关键角色，可参见网上我写的诸多材料。这里我简要总结一下。
黎彦修和我都是从中国科技大学大学毕业的。我于2002年11月在BC省高等法院递交的民事诉讼中，他是被告人之一。正是由于我提出了民事诉讼这件事，才使得针对张东岳的阴谋开始展开。
我提出民事诉讼要解决的问题是，被告人对我进行了多年的骚扰，而且他们不断地破坏我的工作，使得我无法生活下去。其实，刚开始的时候(1993年)，黎彦修并不是什么关键人物，也没有对我进行过骚扰。那时，我的教授(亦为被告)为我给他所在公司的老板(亦为被告)写了一封污蔑性质的推荐信，因为他是我申请那份工作过程中的“中间人”，又是我的“校友”，他看过推荐信后私自留了一份，当时给人的印象好像是要为我打抱不平。实际上，他非但没有帮助我，反而利用这封信抓住其他被告的“把柄”，不断将冲突扩大化，为自己谋利。(2003年2月7日，他通过温哥华的《环球华报》对我说：这封推荐信对他来说是一颗宝玉，而对我来说没什么用处。)比方说，我在1995年底跟他见过一面；因为其他被告的骚扰，当时我已经失业有好几个月，跟他见面的目的就是为了请他帮忙谋得一职。因此我的态度非常好，甚至没有提推荐信的事情。但他在见面后不仅不帮助我，而且还在他的老板(亦为被告)面前说我的坏话，把事情弄复杂。黎彦修就是这种不择手段、挑拨离间、两面三刀、唯恐天下不乱的人。在把事情弄复杂、把冲突扩大以后，他竟然慢慢取代了其他被告成为骚扰我的主要幕后组织者。一般的人都是尽量避免冲突，黎彦修却喜欢制造冲突，因为他是那种越是有冲突的地方，他就越能为自己找机会争权谋利的人。
在那封推荐信之后，这些教授又开始在学校里散布我的谣言。对我的骚扰就是从那时候开始的。他们甚至将其中一位教授K.Lawrence Weldon的女儿也扯进了谣言中。大概两年后(1995年夏天)，Weldon的大女儿(她的名字可能是Kate Weldon)的确给我家里打过一个电话，在电话录音机里说了一个sexually explicit的留言。这件事情后来被被告无限放大，到处散布，以激起别人、包括加拿大政府对我的敌视。这就是我为什么一直找不到工作的原因。而且这种敌视也被转移到华人身上，成为张东岳命案的动机。我注意到，正是在张东岳被绑架后不久，政府或被告通过骚扰的方式传递给我这么一个信息：黎彦修跟Weldon的女儿发生了某种性关系。其实，我早就觉到黎彦修跟Kate Weldon的关系很暧昧，因为他毕竟抓住了她父亲的“把柄”。至于他们私下的交易，我估计是：以后要赔偿我的钱(他们“开给”我的数目由2000年的几十万元到后来的几千万元)就由黎彦修出了，因为那些教授出不了这么多。
在此过程中，这些被告人(除了黎彦修之外都是白人)取得了加拿大政府以及部分联邦自由党政客(包括前任总理马田)的保护。他们为自己的所作所为找的理由是(用他们的话来说)，Kate Weldon就像是加拿大的公主。黎彦修也利用他跟其他被告人的这种乱七八糟的关系，建立了一条通向加拿大权力中心的渠道。(难怪当去年马田总理访问中国的时候，《环球华报》虽然成立才四年，却成为唯一一家中文媒体随团访问。)在这些被告获得政府及政客保护的同时，黎彦修也积极配合政府及政客进一步对我实行控制。由于跟我打交道的人当中很多是华人，因此他的作用不可或缺。后来，当马田政府在国内政治压力之下，为使自己不至于因张东岳命案而下台，拉住布什政府作靠山，黎彦修自然又向更大的权力中心靠近了一步。
我是在2004年夏天意识到张东岳命案里有疑问的。从那以后，为了使公众了解命案真相，我开始了一个人的努力。与此同时，黎彦修更是不遗余力地为美加政府掩盖命案真相而效力。
我所做的努力主要有两方面：一是希望吸引媒体、特别是主流媒体的注意，另一方面我也希望得到我身边的平民百姓的支持和鼓励。我特别希望我的同学能帮助我。
我在2004年10月20日开始绝食之前，给我的大学同班同学发了电子邮件告诉他们事情的前前后后。但是，这么长时间以来，我非但没有得到他们中任何一个人的帮助，还受到了他们当中某些人的嘲笑。可以肯定地说，我的同学中间一定有人受到黎彦修的指使，他们从中引导其他同学对我的看法。我感觉到的谣言就有：(1)将我的事情贬低成仅仅是我与他“两兄弟”之间的矛盾;(2)污蔑我利用张东岳命案来吸引媒体或公众对我的民事诉讼的注意；(3)将我的绝食行为贬低成某种形式的“推销”；(4)用不雅照片一事来吓唬我放弃努力(被告或政府将摄影监控装置安到了我的住所内)；(5)如果我给同班同学发个电子邮件告诉他们我的近况，有人或灌水搅局或有意稀释。所以，一直到现在还有同学公然说不知道张东岳是谁、也不在乎她是谁。
虽然我在渥太华一个收容站呆了半年多，用了包括绝食抗议在内的各种方式努力将事件暴光，但主流媒体迫于政治压力不理，周围的人又受到政府或黎彦修之流的干扰拒绝帮助我，我在身心极度疲惫的情况下于6月15日会到温哥华。美加政府此时都为马田政府没有垮台而吁了一口气。
黎彦修的“政治抱负”
7月25日，我的一个同班同学给我们发了两篇有关科大校友的文章，其中一篇较长的是关于黎彦修的。看完这两篇文章、再做了一些调研后，我发现这它们的出笼绝对不是偶然的。
这两篇文章是当天在木子网公告栏被同一个人贴出来的，登录者用的是walstrt的虚名。引起我注意的当然是那篇关于黎彦修的文章《华尔街的科大人校友黎彦修》，因此我在网上查了一下相关内容。
- 另一篇文章《张朝阳的妹夫钱中山》是一篇老新闻。将一篇老文章跟一篇新文章一起贴出来，黎彦修是有他的用意的。新文章显示他要开始向政界发展，但他知道我将是他最大的障碍，他必须要解决我的问题，因此他向我传递的信息是：(1)将他与我的关系定位成类似张朝阳与钱中山的关系(以前他多次通过骚扰的方式对我说“咱俩是兄弟”)，言外之意他与Kate Weldon之间不是性关系，而是兄妹关系；(2)我以后可以去他的公司当主管。
首先我发现的是，这篇《华尔街的科大人校友黎彦修》是在另一篇题为《黎彦修：玩笑造就的华人投资巨星》的基础上扩展出来的。因为很多文字一模一样，两篇文章应该出自一个人之手，即同时服务于国内的《民营经济报》和美国世界新闻网的记者韩杰。
- 最近看到韩杰的一篇类似采访手记的文章(发表于2005年12月12日)，里面提到采访黎彦修的偶然性，这大概是黎彦修在发现他炮制这两篇文章的痕迹暴露出来后的补救行为吧。-- 他应该象美国的情治机构一样，对我的网上行动了如指掌。
根据网上资料显示，韩杰写的第一篇关于黎彦修的文章发表于2005年3月15日左右。这个日期引起了我的注意。一直跟踪我的消息的人(特别是“圈内人”)应该知道，那是在我因为身体原因宣布暂停绝食(实际上是降低绝食强度)之后不几天。这是我在为张东岳命案真相的努力过程中一个很重要的事件。正是因为我在3月11日宣布暂停绝食，前任加拿大总理Mulroney的人Pat MacAdam才开始与我有比较认真的接触，我的问题的解决在那时也似乎露出了一线曙光。
以黎彦修“圈内人中的圈内人”的身份，他当然了解我的一举一动，也预计到了事情的这种发展将会对他产生的影响。因为我如果停止绝食，就意味着我停止了在渥太华抗议活动，这将促使一直犹豫不决的MacAdam放弃踌躇，帮忙将我的事情见报。(事实上，MacAdam在跟我见面的时候，他有点不高兴地问过我为什么要来渥太华抗议。)而我的事情一旦见报，黎彦修的所作所为自然就会被公众所唾弃，因此他赶忙请人炮制出一篇形象文章。
- 在MacAdam弄清楚我并没有完全放弃绝食抗议之后，又在是否帮我的决定上犹豫起来。在我与他后来的一次电话中(4月25日或4月29日)，他不太情愿地给我说了一个记者的名字(好像是Geoff Matthews)，他说该记者很擅长公关(PR)。我当时还觉得挺奇怪的，因为我一直没有想到有什么公关的问题在里面。我绝食抗议又不是为了公关。但是很显然，黎彦修这种人对公关是很在乎也是很擅长的。
再比较一下两篇文章的内容还可以发现一些更有意义的东西。
第一篇文章的内容都是关于投资的。第二篇较长，大部分内容也是投资方面的，但其中却硬塞进了一节关于黎彦修对政治感兴趣的内容。而且在讲到他的“政治抱负”的时候，很明确地挑明了他是想往中国发展。
最初兴趣是政治
黎彦修说，受他姐姐和当时中国推崇科学风气的影响，他大学读的是数学专业，打算将来成为像陈景润那样的数学家。读大学时正是中国大陆改革开放走向深入的年代，他又对政治产生兴趣，积极参加学生运动。
[......]
虽然中国科大地处安徽省合肥市，但因为它所设的专业比较前沿、学生成绩较好以及与国外大学和科研机构交流频繁，学生的思想非常活跃。他在校期间积极参与学生活动，曾任中国科技大学的学生会主席，并当选为全国学生联合会副主席。他一度曾想往政界发展。毕业一年后他来美国留学，目的是想学习美国的先进经验，最终实现自己的政治抱负，为建设中国出力。[......]
不过，要说黎彦修想往中国政界发展，他早就有这个条件了。看过我的网站的读者可能知道，早在2001年初他就派人搬出李鹏家族的牌子来吓唬我。2002年春节期间，我回老家过年，李鹏的儿子更是指使别人来威胁过我。以此看来，他跟李鹏家族的关系是由来已久的，而且应该比较“铁”。再加上这么多年来他在中国的活动，他肯定还建立了自己的人脉基础。(当然，我在7月25日之前一直以为他仅仅是那种趋炎附势的人，还不知道他有政治野心。)
我早就在网上说过，我从来就是对政治不感兴趣的，我心里更是明白，我不是干这一行的料。说实在的，如果不是因为自由党的某些政客卷入到我的事情中来，我可能到现在连左派右派都分不清。正是由于政客涉入的原因，使得我这几年来必须跟踪政治新闻以了解事情的进展。如果有人因为黎彦修有“政治抱负”就得出了我是否也有“政治抱负”的结论，那是不正确的。
其实，正是部分地因为我对政治毫无经验，我在为张东岳讨还公道的过程中吃了很多苦头, 也长了一些见识。其中的一个见识就是：“在政治中，时机是一切。”(我就是不会把握政治时机，很多情况下总是慢了几拍。当然，这跟我被政府或被告几乎完全控制起来以及我的健康状况有关。)
布什政府-黎彦修-唐家璇？
那么，黎彦修的时机是什么？他为什么要在7月25号将这篇文章贴出来，而且还在第一时间让我的同学发给我呢？
很显然，他是在向我示威。示威什么呢？应该不是他赚了多少钱，而是政治方面的。但是，如果仅仅是“政治抱负”，这也不值得拿出来炫耀，因为有政治抱负的人多得很。因此，我的结论是：他是在向我示威他在政治上有动作了。这个政治动作应该是比较大的动作，涉及的至少是比李鹏家族还要大的政治势力。而根据当时的政治气候以及他在前一段时间的所作所为，我自然而然将目光投向了白宫。
刚好那天白宫来了一个本来我就比较感兴趣的中国高官--国务院国务委员唐家璇。
为什么我对唐家璇比较关注呢？前面说到，温哥华的《环球华报》多年来代表黎彦修给我发了很多很多的信息，我自然也关注该报的运作。该报曾刊登过其发行人张雁跟唐家璇的合影照片，因此我的印象中黎彦修跟唐家璇应该是关系比较密切的。(从中国大陆来的人都知道，中国高官一般是不会跟别人合影的，除非是刻意支持。这一点不同于北美。)
唐家璇去年夏天的外事活动也很引人注目，他跟美国高官的会面特别多。7月上旬赖斯访问中国时刚跟他见过面；7月下旬他又访问美国，见了很多美国高官，而且还受到布什总统的亲自接见。因此，我心中一直有个疑问：布什会不会当面向唐家璇“挺”黎彦修、甚至要将黎彦修“空降”到北京呢？
不要以为我太过多疑了；我觉得这种可能性还是有的。而且我看到，由张东岳命案引发的国际效应似乎仍在持续中……
Saturday, January 07, 2006
Sustainable development!
读到这种新闻真是令人气怄。不知道中国人懂不懂sustainable development的概念。
是要成为世界工厂还是地球的垃圾堆?
“获益不多”并不完全正确。不是还有“利益集团”吗？问问他们获益多不多，再看看他们是否在乎环境灾难。
唉！
中国的经济持续保持高速增长，出口也会大幅增加。“但这种奇迹不久就会结束，因为环境跟不上，”德国《明星》周刊援引中国环保当局的一位负责人说
是要成为世界工厂还是地球的垃圾堆?
这位环保当局负责人说：“生产同样价值的产品，我们消耗的资源是日本的7倍、美国的近6倍、印度的近3倍。中国是世界工厂……但令我忧虑的是，中国正沦为地球的垃圾堆。”
“获益不多”并不完全正确。不是还有“利益集团”吗？问问他们获益多不多，再看看他们是否在乎环境灾难。
中国为全世界提供产品，但本身从中获益并不多。有些地方的工作条件与其说是21世纪的，不如说是19世纪的。
唉！
Thursday, January 05, 2006
酷
IF every one of my wishes would come true like this...
Cool.
（北京路透电）因为公开恫言中美如果爆发战争中国将首先使用核武器，中国国防大学防务学院院长朱成虎少将遭大学“行政记过”，一年内不得擢升。
Cool.
Wednesday, January 04, 2006
新年(新)希望
What are the wishes of the Chinese people in the new year?
面对2006年，我们希望，中国的改革攻坚取得关键性的更大成果，国泰民安，社会和谐。
我们希望，不再有那么多矿工葬身于黑暗的地下，他们的妻儿在他们出门的时候不再挂肚牵肠。
我们希望，每个死刑嫌疑犯都能够得到最有经验的法官的最严格的审核，排除所有疑点，让每一个死刑案件都经得起时间的推敲。为此，哪怕付出较高的司法成本。
我们希望，每一位农民工在勤苦劳作一年之后，都能够足额领到自己的工资。当工资被拖欠的时候，能够找到说理的地方，行政和司法机构能够向他们及时地提供有效的保障。
我们希望，农民对土地的权利能够得到更切实的保障，各种形式的征地真正透明化，并且让农民得到公道的补偿。
我们希望，工人们的工资水平能够大体跟上经济增长与物价上涨的水平。为此，我们希望，工人们的权利，包括参加工会、以此维护自己利益的权利能够得到保障，他们能够与雇主进行平等的协商。
我们希望，各级政府能更科学地理清财权与事权，用国家财政保障每个孩子都能接受九年义务教育，不至于因为家中无钱而被迫中断基础教育。
我们希望，“外来人口”这个概念能够渐成历史，户籍制度的樊篱能够逐渐降低，上亿的新市民能够融入城市，在其为城市做贡献的时候，也能够平等地享受到城市所提供的福利。
我们希望，任何患者不会仅仅因为没有钱就被医院拒之门外，医疗体制改革能够扩大增加民众的选择范围，服务价格和医药价格的上涨幅度也不会大大超过百姓收入的增长速度。
我们希望，地方政府在管理城市的时候以人为本，而非以“面子”为本；流浪乞讨者不会仅仅因为影响了城市“市容”就被随意驱赶，而市民也能够以更大的善意对待他们。
我们希望，政府稳定房地产市场的措施能够真正奏效，房屋价格能够保持稳定，房价上涨幅度将被控制在民众收入增长幅度之内，政府也能够想出向贫困群体提供住房的好办法。
我们希望，政府更加审慎地制定公用事业改革方案，确保公用事业改革真正的市场化；我们希望通过引入竞争，确保公用事业改革不至于导致价格快速上涨。
我们希望，每个人，当其周围遭受严重污染或疫情的时候，能够从政府那里及时地得到相关信息，获得必要的救助，并确保他们有权通过司法渠道向污染制造者索取赔偿。
我们也希望，更多的官员能够意识到自己的道义责任，在自己所负责的部门和地区出现灾难或者自己的工作出现重大失误的时候，拥有更大的道德勇气。
我们还有很多希望。归根到底，我们希望，在我们的社会中，不管是谁，他在宪法、法律上的权利都能够得到保障。在新的一年，他可以按照自己的意愿、运用自己的天赋和技能，到自己认为合适的地方，追求属于自己的幸福。