Last week an opinion piece in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz about the killing of Sheik Ahmed Yassin said, "This isn't America; the government did not invent intelligence material nor exaggerate the description of the threat to justify their attack."

So even in Israel, George Bush's America has become a byword for deception and abuse of power. And the administration's reaction to Richard Clarke's "Against All Enemies" provides more evidence of something rotten in the state of our government.

The truth is that among experts, what Mr. Clarke says about Mr. Bush's terrorism policy isn't controversial. The facts that terrorism was placed on the back burner before 9/11 and that Mr. Bush blamed Iraq despite the lack of evidence are confirmed by many sources ? including "Bush at War," by Bob Woodward.

And new evidence keeps emerging for Mr. Clarke's main charge, that the Iraq obsession undermined the pursuit of Al Qaeda. From yesterday's USA Today: "In 2002, troops from the Fifth Special Forces Group who specialize in the Middle East were pulled out of the hunt for Osama bin Laden to prepare for their next assignment: Iraq. Their replacements were troops with expertise in Spanish cultures."

That's why the administration responded to Mr. Clarke the way it responds to anyone who reveals inconvenient facts: with a campaign of character assassination.

Some journalists seem, finally, to have caught on. Last week an Associated Press news analysis noted that such personal attacks were "standard operating procedure" for this administration and cited "a behind-the-scenes campaign to discredit Richard Foster," the Medicare actuary who revealed how the administration had deceived Congress about the cost of its prescription drug bill.

But other journalists apparently remain ready to be used. On CNN, Wolf Blitzer told his viewers that unnamed officials were saying that Mr. Clarke "wants to make a few bucks, and that [in] his own personal life, they're also suggesting that there are some weird aspects in his life as well."

This administration's reliance on smear tactics is unprecedented in modern U.S. politics ? even compared with Nixon's. Even more disturbing is its readiness to abuse power ? to use its control of the government to intimidate potential critics.

To be fair, Senator Bill Frist's suggestion that Mr. Clarke might be charged with perjury may have been his own idea. But his move reminded everyone of the White House's reaction to revelations by the former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill: an immediate investigation into whether he had revealed classified information. The alacrity with which this investigation was opened was, of course, in sharp contrast with the administration's evident lack of interest in finding out who leaked the identity of the C.I.A. operative Valerie Plame to Bob Novak.

And there are many other cases of apparent abuse of power by the administration and its Congressional allies. A few examples: according to The Hill, Republican lawmakers threatened to cut off funds for the General Accounting Office unless it dropped its lawsuit against Dick Cheney. The Washington Post says Representative Michael Oxley told lobbyists that "a Congressional probe might ease if it replaced its Democratic lobbyist with a Republican." Tom DeLay used the Homeland Security Department to track down Democrats trying to prevent redistricting in Texas. And Medicare is spending millions of dollars on misleading ads for the new drug benefit ? ads that look like news reports and also serve as commercials for the Bush campaign.

On the terrorism front, here's one story that deserves special mention. One of the few successful post-9/11 terror prosecutions ? a case in Detroit ? seems to be unraveling. The government withheld information from the defense, and witnesses unfavorable to the prosecution were deported (by accident, the government says). After the former lead prosecutor complained about the Justice Department's handling of the case, he suddenly found himself facing an internal investigation ? and someone leaked the fact that he was under investigation to the press.

Where will it end? In his new book, "Worse Than Watergate," John Dean, of Watergate fame, says, "I've been watching all the elements fall into place for two possible political catastrophes, one that will take the air out of the Bush-Cheney balloon and the other, far more disquieting, that will take the air out of democracy."

"Since ideas matter it is necessary to go out and engage in public debate about them. All ideas, even reprehensible ones, must be allowed to be spoken so that we are allowed to show why they are foul.

For those who also agree that politics is to be fought with our minds, pens, and mouths, we can engage with them peacefully, without threat of physical violence.

However, sometimes we must recognize when others do not seek to engage with us peacefully, wish to do us great harm, and who believe the best way to slay an idea is to slay the person who holds that idea. If that is the case then the most honest response is to defend yourself, with violence unfortunately, and to take the fight to them. Fight we must until the enemy unconditionally accepts our right to speak freely, disagree freely, and govern freely. And once they have made this acceptance we should welcome them with open arms into the community of civilized humans."

What makes this human, human

While making the background of your blog is a good protest at the current blocking of Typepad sites, I'd like to make another protest suggestion. Why not explain why you are blocked?

I don't mean in a whiny way. It doesn't have to be in an overtly political way (though for some, like myself, it might very well be rather political). It definitely shouldn't be in a way that holds yourself in too high an estimation. Some people in China have gone to jail for their beliefs: those are the people to respect.

This, on the other hand, is simply going to be a collection of ordinary statements by ordinary people explaining their ordinary thoughts. The power of a network is precisely its ability to quickly move around and past obstructions, like water flowing around the boulders in a stream.

My suggestion is that if you write about what makes you human (i.e., the very things that some people in Beijing feel compelled to "block" others from viewing) please trackback to everyone else who has written something similar. In this way, if someone comes across one declaration of beliefs they can easily link to the next and then to the next and then to the next. I hope this one will be the first of many, not just of bloggers in China but of bloggers around the world.

This is my statement. It's the things I enjoy, the things I believe in, the things I value.

I'm a quiet guy. I'm not a social talker and don't do well with people I don't know. I give the appearance of someone boring, a not entirely incorrect image. However, if you're a friend then some volubility will appear.

The things I like to talk about are news and sports. I've always liked the news. I don't know why. Even when I was a kid I would go to the mailbox on Monday or Tuesday to get Time Magazine before anyone else could get ahold of it. I'm still like that, which is one of the reasons I have this here blog. Vanity is another reason for this web site.

If I respect your thinking I'm happy to argue. If your thinking is sloppy or divorced from the facts though, I'd prefer to speak with someone else. Either way, I'll join a political discussion only if invited: most people aren't interested in politics and forcing a conversation along those lines is too pushy for my tastes.

At my local you'll find three televisions set to either CCTV 5 or Star Sports. Most people don't pay them much attention. If there's a good game on though, I'm prone to pay more attention to the sports than to the people I'm with.

I've come to enjoy watching soccer, but my first love is still American football. Some, perhaps many, see a game of over-sized, over-protected men beating each other for 5 seconds and then resting for 50. I, however, see a grand intellectual match, a clash of strategies between two coaches who must work with their team's weaknesses, exploit their opponent's, and respond to changes throughout the game.

I see Barry Sanders making defenders tackle air, Brett Favre playing one of the best games of his career the week his father died, Reggie White stuffing running backs and quarterbacks with equal abandon, and I see Bill Cowher calling a trick onside kick in Super Bowl XXX.

I see a spiraling football arching down the field, I see someone running through a hole that appears before him and disappears behind him, I see a cornerback stepping up at the last moment for an interception even as the receiver leaps at where he thought the football would go. And I think that is all beautiful.

I am not the hardest worker, some would say I am lazy and many would say I procastinate excessively. They would not be wrong. In a narrow sense, I have rarely been punished for these vices. In a broader sense of course, this lack of discipline was an unlucky blessing.

I like where I am from, America, but this doesn't preclude me from wanting to see many other places also. I want to see the world as it is. I think that is possible.

I am not of the school that all cultures, all values, and all ideas are equal and/or irrelevant. I think that is meaningless thinking.

Sometimes this makes me pessimistic or overly negative. I'd prefer it didn't.

I would like to see a world where liberal democracy is the system of government for every group of people. I think it is the best system of government on offer because people should rule themselves.

If people choose their own government they should also choose the state they live in. In that sense, I believe the further freedom spreads the more we will see that today's national boundaries are imposed and false.

If people choose their own government they of course are responsible for setting the rules for their society. I would like to see the rules ensure that everyone is equal. That means that the state cannot treat its citizens differently according to their different ethnicities. I thus disagree with segregation in the past and affirmative action in the present, though can understand their intentions could not be more dissimilar. That means that it cannot give some rights, such as marriage, to one set of citizens (heterosexuals) but deny them to another set (homosexuals). That means it cannot raise one religion above others as a state religion.

However, perhaps over and above the imperative of the state to treat with all its citizens equally is the need for the state to not be involved in the lives of its citizens unless absolutely essential. Individuals have the right to live their life as they wish, excepting if their actions cause damage to others, and so the state should be extremely constricted in what rights and responsibilities it is given by its citizens. The state is neither good nor evil by definition, nor are humans good or evil by definition, but precisely because some humans are evil the state should not be given power which such
people could use to abuse their fellow humans.

I understand that others might disagree with my emphases and accept that in a liberal democracy I must live under the rules written by the majority. I do not think using the courts or the executive branch is a legitimate method for obtaining the sort of society I believe is best. I do believe that electing like-minded individuals and participating in the public debate with the hope of nudging society a little in my preferred direction is the best method for writing the laws for a society.

I think such a liberal democracy, even with its flaws, is created out of the minds of humans. It is not given to us by nature or even God. So I think ideas matter and ideas have real consequences. I abhore violence to achieve political ends, so even if I agree that 5+1=1 (Ireland) or 3+2=1 (Basque Country), I reject the terrorism some groups use to reach the supposedly similar destination.

Since ideas matter it is necessary to go out and engage in public debate about them. All ideas, even reprehensible ones, must be allowed to be spoken so that we are allowed to show why they are foul.

For those who also agree that politics is to be fought with our minds, pens, and mouths, we can engage with them peacefully, without threat of physical violence.

However, sometimes we must recognize when others do not seek to engage with us peacefully, wish to do us great harm, and who believe the best way to slay an idea is to slay the person who holds that idea. If that is the case then the most honest response is to defend yourself, with violence unfortunately, and to take the fight to them. Fight we must until the enemy unconditionally accepts our right to speak freely, disagree freely, and govern freely. And once they have made this acceptance we should welcome them with open arms into the community of civilized humans.

These are only my thoughts, but they are part of what make me human. They are what the CCP has sought to prevent others from reading, prevent from responding to, or prevent from ignoring. You no doubt have your thoughts. Why not write about them and trackback to others who have also written about what makes them human? Can you accept simply being "blocked" out of existence?

UPDATE: Some people seem to have completely misunderstood the penultimate paragraph of this post, so I would like to make a clarification so I do not have to read ad hominem attacks against my character for something which I did not in fact mean.

I am not calling for some revolution in China. In fact, that entire paragraph has nothing to do whatsoever with China. It simply explains why I support the War on Terror. That's it. Indeed, very little of what I wrote directly deals with China. It is either a general statement of my politics, applicable across the board, or a personal statement of what I enjoy (I hope it is clear that football has nothing to do with the CCP's "blocking" of Typepad sites).

In addition, my call is just for people to write about what makes them human. It is not about "confronting" the block or even talking about the block. It's just to talk about the things you enjoy, you believe in, you think about and thus to indirectly show the absurdity of the block: Why block what is normal, what is human, what is unthreatening?

If that means talking about falling in love with your wife, then you have understood what I was saying. If that means talking about the books you like to read, the places you like to travel to, the pubs you like to frequent, the friends you like to talk with, or the memories that will keep you warm in the dusk of your life, then you will have understood what I was saying.

Joseph,

Immediately after Rebecca MacKinnon linked to my essay I posted a comment on
her blog explaining that the paragraph you took out of context had nothing to
do with China and everything to do with the War on Terror. In fact, my comment
is the first on that thread on her blog, appearing before yours which was
posted afterwards, but apparently you ignored it as you raced to your
conclusion about the purpose of my post.

I am disappointed that you did not take the time to read my clarification
before posting your ad hominem attack on me. In addition I am angry that you
missed the point of my post, which has little to do with politics, much to do
with asking people to explain what makes them human, and which in the second
paragraph (and by the sixth sentence of the post) should have made abundantly
clear to a better reader that anything I or anyone other person wrote was on
completely lower plane than what people like Stainless Steel Mouse have done.

"While making the background of your blog is a good protest at the current
blocking of Typepad sites, I'd like to make another protest suggestion. Why not
explain why you are blocked?

I don't mean in a whiny way. It doesn't have to be in an overtly political way
(though for some, like myself, it might very well be rather political). It
definitely shouldn't be in a way that holds yourself in too high an estimation.
Some people in China have gone to jail for their beliefs: those are the people
to respect.

This, on the other hand, is simply going to be a collection of ordinary
statements by ordinary people explaining their ordinary thoughts. The power of
a network is precisely its ability to quickly move around and past
obstructions, like water flowing around the boulders in a stream."

While politics takes up more of my time than it might of others, I explicitly
noted that others would have entirely different interests if they chose to
write in response to my post.

"My suggestion is that if you write about what makes you human (i.e., the very
things that some people in Beijing feel compelled to "block" others from
viewing) please trackback to everyone else who has written something similar.
In this way, if someone comes across one declaration of beliefs they can easily
link to the next and then to the next and then to the next. I hope this one
will be the first of many, not just of bloggers in China but of bloggers around
the world."

Someone who did understand what I was saying posted his response here.

http://www.unipeak.com/getpage.php?_u_r_l_=aHR0cDovL3dvYnVtaW5nYm
FpLnR5cGVwYWQuY29tL3dvX2J1X3poaW
Rhby8yMDA0LzAzL3R5cGVwYWRfYmxvY2tlZC5odG1s

I also explicitly called against political violence.

"I think such a liberal democracy, even with its flaws, is created out of the
minds of humans. It is not given to us by nature or even God. So I think ideas
matter and ideas have real consequences. I abhore violence to achieve political
ends, so even if I agree that 5+1=1 (Ireland) or 3+2=1 (Basque Country), I
reject the terrorism some groups use to reach the supposedly similar
destination."

Lastly, I'd like to clarify for you that I'm not white. I would have thought
that was obvious, since my name is Andres, however time and again I am
impressed at the blindness of people who think I am the same as them simply
because I can read and write the same language, English. As for whether I am a
coward because I am angry when people called my girlfriend a whore simply
because she was going out with a foreigner, it seems clear that you and I have
different perspectives on what is appropriate and inappropriate behavior.

I understand the anger you must have felt when you read what I wrote,
especially given the context of your experiences. However, I would appreciate
a clarification on your part since I did not in fact mean what you thought I
meant. I'm pretty angry at being slandered and cursed on your blog for saying
things which I did not in fact say. As you are the second person to
misunderstand that penultimate paragraph I will short put my own clarification
at my blog so that I do not have to see my name dragged through the mud again.

Andres Gentry

Dear Mr. Gentry,

I am first going to copy below an exchange of e-mails between Rebecca and I
from this morning:


From: "Rebecca ZZZZZZZZ
To: joseph@josephbosco.com
Subject: RE: thanks
Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2004 23:25:52 -0500


Joseph,
As he explains it, he was not calling for violence against the Chinese
government at all, but against terrorism. The problem is, the way his essay
is written it seems like he is advocating violence against those who have
blocked his freedom of speech. However he claims this is not what he meant
so I have to believe him. Something I think all of us bloggers need to avoid
is the temptation to assume that readers of any given post have read our
previous posts and thus understand the context in which we are writing. This
is a dangerous assumption. You may want to contact him directly for your own
clarification. Can't hurt.

Cheers,
Rebecca


-----Original Message-----
From: Joseph Bosco [mailto:joseph@josephbosco.com]
Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2004 11:06 PM
To: rebecca XXXXXXXXXXX
Subject: RE: thanks

Dear Rebecca,

I look forward to your visit to Beijing. I am responding to the last e-mail
somewhat later; I tired and went to sleep about 4:00 AM here in China.

By the way, what is the deal with the Andres Gentry post advocating violence
against the Chinese government for blocking his site that you quoted? I was
greatly troubled by it and based a rather scathing post on The LongBow
Papers taking issue with such a dangerous, reckless call to arms. However, I
see that you have taken it down due to an exchange of comments between you
and Mr. Gentry that I do not understand. Is he comparing this blocking situation to
Saddam's murderous regime?

Sincerely,

Joseph



Now I will respond to your e-mail below. I most certainly did not see your
comment exchange with Rebecca before I wrote the post on The LongBow Papers
that you are taking issue with. I read Rebecca's blog much earlier in the day
and let it sit in my mind for awhile before deciding to refute what Rebecca had
quoted from your blog (understand, I cannot read your blog; she can, and after
reading your entire post she came to the same conclusion I did). Why my
comments come after your exchange, I cannot explain other than a technical
glitch; I did not see it when Rebecca and I exchanged comments about which of
her sites were blogged

Before I did respond late last evening, I called my wife Ellen in (an assistant
editor on LiC) and asked her to read the lengthy quotation by Rebecca of your
post. She saw it the same way I and Rebecca did. It is important to note that I
did not take the quote out of context: Rebecca quoted from your essay at some
length. There was absolutely nothing to suggest that you were referring to
Iraq. As Rebecca says, we can only take your word for it, because, no, we do
not read your blog everyday--although it is on my blogroll, and I have
discussed your belligerent style over the months with other bloggers who assure
me that it is not really what you mean. My comment to that has always been that
a writer should not demand that his readers conjure up some past writings that
might have been in his mind when writing any piece that is constructed to stand
alone.

If you were not fomenting violence against the Chinese government for shutting
down a network--not you personally--why in the world would such sentences as
those Rebecca blogged be in your essay?

As for what you call ad hominem attacks upon your character: It is not ad
hominem to call a fool a fool when he writes foolish things, such as advocating
violence against authority in a country where that can have immediate and
terrible consequences. I did not call stupid, to the contrary.

Regarding your "racism": Andres is not a "white" name? Your picture sure
appears to be that of a Caucasian. That is not the point, however, you are NOT
Chinese, and that is the point. The posts I have read of yours taking great
umbrage at being stared at had nothing about a girl friend and the word
"whore." I have been in China two years and am stared at constantly, never have
I been offended by it. I also always smile back at the stare. Guess what? Their
stare becomes a smile, then a chuckle, then a "Hello!"

My admittedly spotty reading of your weblog is that it is decidedly racist and
anti-Chinese. That bothers me since you apparently have chosen to work here and
live here, as a TEACHER, I believe--and that does more than bother me, it
angers me. You are exactly the type of westerner that China sees far too much
of.

I have walked with my female students many times in Xiamen and Beijing, never
have I seen any hostility by Chinese men toward me or the student. Yes, I have
grey hair, and an uncle Charlie weathered face, so perhaps that would explain
the lack of animosity--but I doubt it. I do not walk around China expecting the
worst, only the best; perhaps that is why in two years I have never had an
unpleasant encounter with any Chinese person--only other expats.

Now, about a clarification: Send me your entire essay and let me see if it is
clearly stated that your post is about the war in Iraq and not about your
weblog being shutdown in China and I will be more than happy to take back
everything I wrote and publicly apologize. However, it must be in THAT post;
you must not expect me to have read all of your previous posts to understand
clearly what you meant in that one post.

Sincerely,

Joseph Bosco

Dear Mr. Gentry,

Thank you for your response. Please do not take offense at what I am about to
write and propose.

While you turn a good phrase and, as people I respect have said on your behalf
over other posts you have written which I did not respond to, I see evidence
that you will someday be an accomplished writer, you are, however, in this
instance guilty of sloppy writing and sloppy structure.

In Rebecca's work at Harvard dealing with Blogging as journalism, she
undoubtedly read your piece for its position on the current issue of great
interest to all bloggers: the blocking of blog hosts in China. This is quite
understandable since that is the topic you clearly lay out in your lede graph.

Surely then, since she must read many posts, she read on quickly looking for
the meat to go with your lede. She can be forgiven for glazing over your ode to
American football--although having gone to college initially on a football
scholarship, I rather enjoyed your digression--and finally alighting upon the
graphs that caused the confusion.

In preface to those graphs you very obliquely allude to the IRA and ETA but do
not ever mention the "war on terrorism." Then, with no segue or transition you
are at the "nut" graph of your piece: and that is about violence in defense of
personal freedoms. This, in an essay the thesis of which is how to protest the
blocking of websites: notably "why you are blocked." Since most of your post is
a rather pastoral, even idyllic meander all over the countryside of your mind,
I will not blame Rebecca for seizing upon your "nut" graphs and including them
as the centerpiece of her roundup post on blog blocking in China.

Now, this is where I entered the picture: I greatly respect Rebecca as a
professional colleague in the world of journalism, and since I can not access
your site, I relied upon her accuracy. I still can not fault her accuracy after
having read your piece. While in hindsight and with your explanation I realize
that in the end she was wrong, I also realize that you all but assured that a
quick perusal of the post would occasion a mistaken reading.

There is a lesson in this for all bloggers who have not been trained as
journalists or have years of professional writing experience, namely: Not
unlike a doctor whose first commandment is "to do no harm," likewise the first
commandment of writing for publication is to be "clear" or to be "understood"
if you prefer.

This is what I propose we do: Since no one in the Living in China community can
read your blog, I will post it as it is on mine, right above my post in
question. Then I will write a post explaining the circumstances, with any words
you wish me to include on your behalf, and then it can be discussed in any
fashion people so choose. I will await your response.

I must close for now, Ellen is holding dinner and I have already lost too much
of my day to this regrettable incident: I am behind deadline on THREE books.

Sincerely,

Joseph Bosco

Joseph,

First off, thank you very much for your considered response. I do not in any
way take offense to what you wrote in this last email as I also realized after
reading Rebecca's take on my original post that I had been unclear to my
readers which allowed a second unintended interpretation of my writing because
of my somewhat opaque writing style. I take those criticisms on board.

I realize I am sometimes more poetic, or lyrical, or what have you, than I
should be. What I write in this email is, as you propose, part of the public
record. Feel free to quote it entirely or selectively. I trust in this
instance my meanings will be less ambiguous. If they continue to be ambiguous
then I will answer what questions you have.

> While you turn a good phrase and, as people I respect have said on your
> behalf over other posts you have written which I did not respond to, I see
> evidence that you will someday be an accomplished writer, you are, however,
in
> this instance guilty of sloppy writing and sloppy structure.

As I said above, I take this criticism on board.

> In Rebecca's work at Harvard dealing with Blogging as journalism, she
> undoubtedly read your piece for its position on the current issue of great
> interest to all bloggers: the blocking of blog hosts in China. This is quite
> understandable since that is the topic you clearly lay out in your lede
> graph.
>
> Surely then, since she must read many posts, she read on quickly looking for
> the meat to go with your lede. She can be forgiven for glazing over your ode
> to American football--although having gone to college initially on a football
> scholarship, I rather enjoyed your digression--and finally alighting upon the
> graphs that caused the confusion.

My initial post was a meandering piece of work because I intended it to be so.
I just wanted it to express some of the different parts of me that make me a
human being. I am not "of a piece" and I sought my post to give a taste of the
thickets of my personality. My hope in calling others to post and Trackback
was to intice other people to write about the avenues and alleyways of their
humanity, not in straight lines but in evocative vignettes, and show how wrong
it is for anyone to block those expressions of humanity.

> In preface to those graphs you very obliquely allude to the IRA and ETA but
> do not ever mention the "war on terrorism." Then, with no segue or transition
> you are at the "nut" graph of your piece: and that is about violence in
> defense of personal freedoms. This, in an essay the thesis of which is how to

> protest the blocking of websites: notably "why you are blocked." Since most
of
> your post is a rather pastoral, even idyllic meander all over the countryside

> of your mind, I will not blame Rebecca for seizing upon your "nut" graphs and

> including them as the centerpiece of her roundup post on blog blocking in
> China.
>
> Now, this is where I entered the picture: I greatly respect Rebecca as a
> professional colleague in the world of journalism, and since I can not access
> your site, I relied upon her accuracy. I still can not fault her accuracy
> after having read your piece. While in hindsight and with your explanation I
> realize that in the end she was wrong, I also realize that you all but
assured
> that a quick perusal of the post would occasion a mistaken reading.

I do not fault her, her reading of my piece either. That is why I tried to
correct my mistake as soon as possible when I read her commentary at her blog.
I should have immediately posted an update at my blog, but unfortunately waited
another 18 hours before doing so.

And if I might add a suggestion here, she couched her criticism in a short
witticism, "Aha", and immediately changed her post to reflect more closely or
at least more neutrally my post, which made clear to me that I had made a
mistake without throwing my entire character in question. I appreciated that.

In contrast, your post was quite inflammatory and I most definitely haven't
appreciated that even if I understand how you misunderstood my writing. I
would have liked if you had emailed before making your post, as you said you
might, and clearing up the misunderstandings my oblique writing caused in its
wake, rather than clicking on a link at China Herald and having the blood drain
from my face in anger and disbelief as I read what you wrote.

I am open to debating ideas in public, but aiming a full blast of denigration
at me in public based on what I feel is a misapprehension of my meaning (made
worse since calling for a revolution which I am extremely unlikely to suffer
any direct consequences from would be a serious lapse in my judgement) really
gets my temperature up.

I also, to be frank, take umbrage at the implication that I am racist because I
aim some of my criticisms at China. I sincerely hope that readers realize that
I am trying to point out what I believe is wrong here (according to a hopefully
universal standard) rather than training barbs at China simply because it is
Chinese. When I lived in America, Colombia, or Australia, I did the same
things. You'll just have to trust me that I am a critical person (sometimes
excessively so).

My point of view might be overly negative, something I worry about for its
effects on my psyche, but perhaps I have experienced enough negative things
here that it is difficult for me to keep them inside me any longer.

I have not been here for one, two, three, or even four years. I've been here
for five, I've lived in four different cities, and while I still misunderstand
some things I have some confidence that I do not misunderstand everything. In
places where I have made a mistake in translating someone's words or
misunderstood an event, I am (grudgingly) happy to change my interpretation.
In places where the facts are agreed, I have not shied away from entering the
fray, sometimes to my detriment.

I do not believe I am one of those teachers you described in your previous
email. Indeed, I have not been, strictly speaking, a teacher since 2000. I
have seen true misunderstandings between Chinese and foreigners for all of
these years precisely because my job, as a School Director or Director of
Studies, is to stand between the Chinese and foreign staffs of the schools I
have worked at.

I have seen my sympathies migrate in those years so that I often now cannot
understand my teachers' point of view. It is a lonely netherworld to not
understand those you supposedly should understand and not be understood by
those you now feel closer to. Getting side-swiped by your post, to have
someone publically "call me out" for thoughts and feelings of racism I do not
believe I have and which I do not believe are reflected in the everyday living
of my life, was bracing and angering.

I am thankful that this is getting resolved in private and will be made public
as the dust settles. However, there is, I must admit, a part of me still
unhappy to have had a post of mine made target practice of.

> There is a lesson in this for all bloggers who have not been trained as
> journalists or have years of professional writing experience, namely: Not
> unlike a doctor whose first commandment is "to do no harm," likewise the
> first commandment of writing for publication is to be "clear" or to be
> "understood" if you prefer.

I fully agree and hope to change my writing in the future to more closely fit
those standards.

> This is what I propose we do: Since no one in the Living in China community
> can read your blog, I will post it as it is on mine, right above my post in
> question. Then I will write a post explaining the circumstances, with any
> words you wish me to include on your behalf, and then it can be discussed in
> any fashion people so choose. I will await your response.

I would be happy for you to quote this email in full. I have written it with
the public in mind and hope that it is clear enough to be understood
unambiguously. I truly hope others, once they have read the clarifications of
my initial post, will understand my initial post was simply a call for people
to write about what makes them human and not a misguided expression of
sympathy for a "revolution" I would never suffer adversely from.

Andres

Dear Andres,

This time I will begin with an honest apology--with qualifications--because I
am truly sorry that the immoderate part of my temperment occasioned me to write
too much in anger instead of solely in purpose.

The qualifications I ask are that you understand how a call to arms over
blog-blocking by an expat in today's China pierced me to the quick. My life and
career experiences have been such that I have seen too much and felt too much
for me to be still when I perceive a person of safety and means rallying others
to fight against impossible odds. I have jousted with too many mean windmills
that left too many casualties; I will again perhaps take up the gun and gall to
fight another revolution someday, but only when there is absolutely no other
recourse and there is no one younger or stronger to go in my stead.

I am truly sorry that my insults born from anger that in truth was closer to
rage fell upon your good name and character. I will make amends as best I can,
knowing full well that a bell can never be un-rung and that the embarrassment
you felt upon reading my words will be slow to fade away.

Unfortunately, the hour is late, and I slept little last night and I have a
lecture to give early in the morning. Consequently, it will be tomorrow before
I can construct the somewhat complex posts we need to fix this matter.

I can quickly put up a note of retraction saying that more will follow. I hope
that will satisfy your ire for this late night.

Again, my heartfelt apology for causing you embarrassment.

Sincerely,

Joseph Bosco

Joseph,

> This time I will begin with an honest apology--with qualifications--because I
> am truly sorry that the immoderate part of my temperment occasioned me to
> write
> too much in anger instead of solely in purpose...

> I can quickly put up a note of retraction saying that more will follow. I
> hope
> that will satisfy your ire for this late night.
>
> Again, my heartfelt apology for causing you embarrassment.

Thank you for your apology. I understand your qualifications: like my
explanation of my hurt they put both of our words in better context. When you
have posted your writing I will link to it in a second update. As an example
of the price of ambiguity, I hope my writing in the future is clearer and more
direct for my readers. It's been a difficult weekend and I will be happiest as
both posts make their slow ways down our blogs and into our archives. And then
we can return to our "regular programming schedule".

Andres

Dear Andres,

Forgive me, but fatigue got the better of me late last night and I was not able
to put up the brief retraction as proposed. I am now back at the computer after
my first lecture of the day and I will soon take care of this most regrettable
incident as best I can. While I cannot unring the bell, I can somewhat lessen
the sting of its echoing clang.

Again I apologize for besmirching your good name.

Sincerely,

Joseph Bosco

"…sometimes we must recognize when others do not seek to engage with us peacefully, wish to do us great harm, and who believe the best way to slay an idea is to slay the person who holds that idea. If that is the case then the most honest response is to defend yourself, with violence unfortunately, and to take the fight to them. Fight we must until the enemy unconditionally accepts our right to speak freely, disagree freely, and govern freely."

WASHINGTON - Leading congressional Republicans announced plans Friday to seek declassification of 2-year-old testimony from Richard Clarke, hoping to show discrepancies between his recent criticisms of the Bush administration's terrorism policies with flattering statements he made as a White House aide.

"Mr. Clarke has told two entirely different stories under oath," Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said in a speech on the Senate floor.

The Tennessee Republican and House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., want Clarke's July 2002 testimony before the joint House and Senate intelligence inquiry into the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks available publicly. ...

The declassification requests marked the latest turn in a Republican counterattack against Clarke, who has leveled his criticism against Bush in a new book, "Against All Enemies," as well as in interviews and this week's sworn testimony. ...

House Intelligence Chairman Porter Goss, R-Fla., who initiated the declassification request this week, said he feels an obligation to make sure Congress' 810-page report, released publicly in 2003, isn't "contaminated by this new revelation" from Clarke. ...

"We have to dig through this," Goss said, "not only for the continued accuracy and utility of the joint 9-11 report, but now we have this further question: Does this change things, or is it part of a book-selling tour?" ...

Former Senate Intelligence Chairman Bob Graham, D-Fla., who worked with Goss on the inquiry, supported the declassification of Clarke's testimony in its entirety and suggested the administration open the door even wider to include documents ? including Clarke's January 2002 al-Qaida plan ? that could help resolve issues in dispute.

"To the best of my recollection, there is nothing inconsistent or contradictory in that testimony and what Mr. Clarke has said this week," Graham said.

California Rep. Jane Harman, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, also wants to see more information disclosed, including 27 pages of the congressional inquiry's report addressing the involvement of a foreign government in supporting some of the 19 hijackers ? an item of dispute with the Bush administration.

"This is selective declassification, in my view, and it is all about discrediting an administration critic," Harman said.