HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: liuyh@vis.toronto.edu (Yuanhui Liu)
Subject: Re: Conference, Sino-Tibetan Relations: Prospects for the future
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto
Date: 29 Sep 92 16:12:55 GMT

In article <92Sep29.115027edt.114@orasis.vis.toronto.edu> liuyh@vis.toronto.edu (Yuanhui Liu) writes:
>In article <BvCIx2.3IA@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca> richter@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (C. Richter) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep29.021103.14076@marlin.jcu.edu.au> phsj@marlin.jcu.edu.au (su jianfeng) writes:
>>>The whole Canada was taken over by force, because the first group of
>>>whitemen arrived Canada by warships (the sailers of the ship had
>>>weapons).
>>
>>Canada is trying to make amends by including minorities in the recent 
>>constitutional negotiations.  They have participated whole-heartedly. 
>>What is China doing?
>>
>yes, as long as the native rights doesn't bug the Quebeckers,
>and they can't have whatever they want as long as whiteman can
>build a huge dam or golf course on their /hunting/traditonal/scared/burial
>land.  
>>

and on the second note, what's china doing?  I don't deny China don't
have a democratic government.  However, you will be surprised that
Cultural assimulation is not at all one of the tactic of that brutal
government.  Tibetans are still there, after thoudsands of years of
livint with the Han, so are the Muslims"Hui", I think they wind up
increased their populations and expanded through out China.  I don't you'll
find any Chinese Muslim restaurant here in Toronto, but in large Chinese
cities, or in the "Chinese West", you can find the faces of the "Muslim China".
scary, isn't it?  You thought they are going to wage Jihad everywhere?  ;->
The MOngolians are still roaming the plain & desert, although inner mongolia 
now has large industrial cities, and in the cities mongolians and Hans are
quite similar, but on the plains the nomads had settled down in permanant
tends, other than that nothing changed.  and the Manchurians, well,
ok, they got assimulated, but hey, it's their own fault, is it?  The
nobles and soldiers of Manchu decided to live in Chinese cities
as rulers rather than roaming the plain the forest, they can't complain,
after all they ruled the country for 3 centuries, and Nobody asked
them to of course.  
>>-- 
>>Conrad Richter                     richter@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca
>>Richters Herbs                     71550.3411@compuserve.com
>>Goodwood, ON L0C 1AO Canada        Tel 416-640-6677 / Fax 416-640-6641
>
>


Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: Tuya@ccmail.uoregon.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
Subject: My Prediction About the Bill
Date: 28 Sep 92 16:23:00 GMT
Organization: Indiana University
X-Vers: University of Oregon Version dmm-02 30-Oct-90
Posted-Date: Mon, 28 Sep 92 11:42 EST


          Prediction:  Bush will sign it into effect on Friday to
          maximize the drama;  It is like selling his stocks at the
          peak value.
              
          Analysis:  If he does not sign the bill, he will have
          another point of weakness to be attacked by Clinton, which
          is not something he can stand at this critical stage of the
          campaion.  He will be deemed as an irresponsible and
          incompetent guy by the american public.  

          Exception:  If a major deal is striken between him and the
          CG, so the CG can make incredible concession about Human
          Right, during the 4 days left, he may veto the bill.  It is
          as clear as the sky that Bush is using the bill as an
          important barginning chip to negotiate the CCP.  From
          Bush's point of view, if he can get a diplomatic victory
          at this moment, it will be the optimum result he can play
          out from this gamble.  

          So in the final analysis, who decides whether the bill can
          pass?  Not Bush, not congress, not Cliton, but DXP.

          I hope people focus on how the ccp will respond to him, and
          what concessions will the ccp make.  That is the key, not
          how many phone calls we make to the white house.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: Tuya@ccmail.uoregon.edu
Subject: Re: My Prediction of the Bill
X-Vers: University of Oregon Version dmm-02 30-Oct-90
Posted-Date: Mon, 28 Sep 92 17:38 EST
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 22:26:00 GMT

 txa95@isuvax.iastate.edu writes:

Who do you think you are to CCP? 

        [ Smart question.  I think they may consider me their
          "zhang3 bei4" if they like :-)]

Important chip? Give me a break. CCP has too many issues to worry about: F-16 fi
ghter to Taiwan, Trade talk, GATT,.... You said this bill is more important to C
CP than all these above?

        [ Sure, you are given the break.  But I am not CCP, so I don't 
          pretend I can judge for them what is more important.  I
          know one fact:  The CCP doesn't like this bill.  I also hope you
          realize that neither you or me hold a vote in the polibeaurau, so
          a discussion between you and me about the importance of issues
          is pretty much senseless. ]

Yes, to those who want to get their 6.4 green card, this bill is too
important. But do not think it is something to CCP, too.

         [ See the above ] 

They will not care much.  You need to beg to those US politician. Show them 
that you hate CCP and you are loyal to the US.  Show them that you can 
make some noise to help US in the Sino-US relationship. If you can convince 
them and they are in good mood, they may issue those cards to you, just like 
giving quarters to the beggars. Do not be naive enough to think you can fool 
around and get it for free.

         [ Well, you probably need to go to Mr. Zhao Haiqing's office
           and tell him this.  You might suddenly find you are not as
           silly as you thought you were before :-).
           But I doubt you can offer any idea better than what he has 
           already known.  Partly because your attitude, partly
           becasue the intelligence displayed in your message.  So be
           prepared to receive a bai2 yan3 and -- be ready to get
           verbally abused, i.e. getting a guo2 ma4 or something like
           that :-)]

Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: liu@ENOS2.UCDAVIS.EDU
Subject:      This is a test
Reply-To: liu@ENOS2.UCDAVIS.EDU
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 23:31:44 GMT
Comments: To: china-nt@uga.cc.uga.edu

Sorry to bother you, folks.  The reason I am doing the test is that I haven't
received any mail for 4 to 5 days.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: "UCLA K.Y." <EDT2LRF@UCLAMVS.BITNET>
Subject:      Interview by LA Times reporter (forwarded CCNL posting)
Reply-To: "UCLA K.Y." <EDT2LRF@UCLAMVS.BITNET>
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 08:54:00 GMT

This is a report posted on the CCNL net, I forward it for those who
subscribe only China-nt. If you also subscribe CCNL, you already
have it.

Kevin

P.S.
Please notice that the reporter who conducted the interview does not have
the final say on whether the L.A. Times will make an editorial or not.
The decision will be made by the editor at higher level and based on the
story written from the interview.


-------------------------TEXT-OF-FORWARDED-MAIL--------------------------------
Date:         Thu, 1 Oct 1992 18:28:00 PDT
From:         "MA, SIFENG" <sma@PHYSICS.UCLA.EDU>
Subject:      Interview by LA Times reporter
To:           Multiple recipients of list CCNL <CCNL@UTARLVM1.BITNET>

The interview by LA Times held at UCLA earlier this afternoon was
very successful. About 20 from UCLA, USC and Caltech attended it.
Whithin the two hours of interview, we were able to make the issues
very clear: Promote human rights in China; Exert pressure on Chinese
government; Release Shen Tong and others immediately; We deserve
freedom. Many used their own or friends' stories and experience
to get the points across. An editorial is under way (of consideration).

We feel it is very important to learn how to use the media and to keep
a close relationship with it. Although we'll have to wait to see what
actually appears, none of us feels it'll hurt.

We'd like to take this opportunity to thank those from USC and Caltech
who attended the interview. It wasn't easy for them to drive twenty
miles to UCLA, because the traffic in LA is incredibly terrible!

UCLA Lobby Task Force
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: "Ignatius Y. Ding" <ding@HPSMTC1.CUP.HP.COM>
Subject:      Re: IFCSS NR-4042:  Senator Gorton's Speech on S1216
Reply-To: "Ignatius Y. Ding" <ding@HPSMTC1.CUP.HP.COM>
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 18:42:28 GMT
Comments: To: taoc@troi.cc.rochester.edu, china-nt@uga.cc.uga.edu

>
> How about a sample of thanks letter ?
>

How's the following grab you???

Ignatius Ding
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

			   SAMPLE LETTER TO EDITORS


      Last week, the Congress passed a bill designed to protect Chinese
students, scholars, and their families in this country from political
persecutions by the totalitarian regime in China.  It is the Gorton Chinese
Student Protection Act, also known as Bill S1216 on the Capitol Hill, named
after its sponsor, Senator Slade Gorton of Washington State, who introduced the
legislation on June 4, 1991, the second anniversary of the infamous Tian'anmen
Square Massacre.

      Senator Gorton personally talked to many of us (most are young and highly
educated with advanced degrees in many fields), and fully understood our
terrifying fear of repercussion for our support of peace activists in our
homeland back in 1989.	Knowing the track records of Chinese Communists in
human rights abuses, he pledged to help secure our safety and offer us the
opportunity to stay in this country until the time is right for us to return to
serve our own people.

      Many argue that there is no proof of imminent danger to returning
students, and the Chinese government has promised to treat those who would
choose to go back with favorable working environment and financially rewarding
assignments.  What they don't understand is these sugarcoated promises could
lead to years of agony, mental and physical abuses, and even loss of our
dignity and lives at a later time once we fall for the BIG BAD WOLF.  Many
intellectuals were penalized for minor "offense" against the authorities in
China, such as "having an counter-revolutionary attitude" - i.e. disbelief in
the absolute power of any party official at any level.	A "mistake" made years
ago can come back to haunt someone for life.

      Senator Gorton understands our situation and he will not tolerate the
evil intent of the Chinese government.	He has worked tirelessly with his
colleagues in both houses of the Congress and gained unanimous bipartisan
support for the passage of S1216.  We have learned so much of the concept and
the principles of human rights ever since we came to the west, but we never
knew what they really mean until the reality hits so close to home.  Senator
Gorton and other members of the Congress have shown us their determination to
stand for the highest principle of this nation as their forefathers did in
support of what the Bill of Rights calls for.  We just can't thank them enough,
ever!


					    Name/Address/City/State
					    Daytime Phone Number
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: UFDZ@UFPINE.BITNET
Subject:      Re: ZW's group A and group B theory
Reply-To: UFDZ@UFPINE.BITNET
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 21:44:00 GMT

Dear Mr. Wang, Would you please count another point, many CSS came early will
actively help CSS who came late by many ways,helping to find job, financial help
,and many? Who said chinese just like sand? I do not believe it! D.Zhou
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: mzhao@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Min Zhao)
Subject: Re: Lobbying Senators Thurmond and D'Amato
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 19:57:14 GMT

In article <Bv911t.9x3@cs.psu.edu> echeng@phys.psu.edu (Eddie Cheng) writes:
>In article <Bv8xqH.7BC@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> yawei@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (~{QG9p~}) writes:
>>In article <DENG.92Sep26152301@dd-ap.rhic.bnl.gov> deng@dd-ap.rhic.bnl.gov (dp) writes:
>|>A side note, I heard from a friend that Californians will vote on term
>|>limitations.  If passed, Pelosi will be out of job soon. That's bad news on
>|>the Chinese issues. Since California has a large Chinese-American (or
>|>American-Chinese) community, how many Reps and Senators care about their
>|>wishes?
>|
>|The term limit is probably for state legislatures. The state has no right
>|to impose term limit on federal offices. Even if such term limit is
>|imposed it cannot withstand court challenges.
>
>
>	How can you be so sure?  If Tom Foley could be as sure as you are, he
>would not have to put on such a fight a couple of years ago in Washington
>state.  :-)  There will be legal disputes but the answer is far from 
>clear.  After all, the "federal officers" are employees of their 
>constituents.  The [collective] employer could have the right for their
>terms.
>
>	But term limit IS a bad idea.  If the voters can not vote out those
>damned Washington insiders, it is their own problem.  :-)  
>
>
>	 Eddie

 
    May I remind you "damned" is a hateful word in this context.  You can 
use many other adjectives such as crooked, inept, corrupt, even stupid, etc.
being sentimental or hateful is not the right attitude !
    However, I do agree with your point if that's what you really mean, 
although it's hard to tell from the way you represent yourself. 
 

Joe

Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: yawei@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (~{QG9p~})
Subject: Re: Lobbying Senators Thurmond and D'Amato
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 16:56:41 GMT

In article <DENG.92Sep26152301@dd-ap.rhic.bnl.gov> deng@dd-ap.rhic.bnl.gov (dp) writes:
>A side note, I heard from a friend that Californians will vote on term
>limitations.  If passed, Pelosi will be out of job soon. That's bad news on
>the Chinese issues. Since California has a large Chinese-American (or
>American-Chinese) community, how many Reps and Senators care about their
>wishes?

The term limit is probably for state legislatures. The state has no right
to impose term limit on federal offices. Even if such term limit is
imposed it cannot withstand court challenges.

 Ya-Gui

Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: IFCSS HQ <ifcss@WAM.UMD.EDU>
Subject:      IFCSS HQ NR-4041: Some Clarification
Reply-To: IFCSS HQ <ifcss@WAM.UMD.EDU>
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 17:16:18 GMT
Comments: To: ccnl@utarlvm1.uta.edu, china-nt@uga.cc.uga.edu

**************************************************************
IFCSS Headquarters News Release No. 4041    September 29, 1992
                  SOME CLARIFICATION
**************************************************************
Independent Federation of Chinese Students and Scholars (IFCSS)
   733 15th Street, N.W., Suite 440, Washington, D.C.20005
         Tel. (202)347-0017  Fax: (202)347-0018
                Email: ifcss@wam.umd.edu


                  Some Clarification
                  ==================

      Since last night, there have been some confusions about
the status of the Protection Bill and the lobby strategies.
Here are the explanations.

      1.  Veto of the MFN:   The conditional MFN bill was
vetoed by the President. Some people mistakenly thought
it was the protection bill. The HQ officers had asked
some student to send a clarification message last night
to the email networks.

      2. Where the bill is:  The bill has not been sent
to the White House up  to this morning. We were told
yesterday that the bill is expected to arrive in the
White House this afternoon.

      3. Do not stop sending messages to the White House:
We had asked the students to send messages to the White House
IFCSS legal advisers in Arent/Fox who had drafted the
protection bill and guided its passage in Congress. The
HQ has been working closely with our lawyers (Burt Wides,
Laura Reiff, John Mitchell) on the strategies and everything
we sent out have got their consent.

      This morning, we again talked with our lawyers, they
suggested that we should continue to send messages (including
letters, telegrams, fax, and phone calls) to the White House.
We must keep up enough pressure to prevent a veto (or pocket
veto). We should not take it for granted or take any chance.

      We will have more instructions later today.


***************************************************************
         IFCSS Headquarters Office    Signature
***************************************************************
From: liqiang@kramden.nyu.edu (Li)
Subject: Re: Conference, Sino-Tibetan Relations: Prospects for the future
Organization: New York University
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 22:26:13 GMT

richter@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (C. Richter) writes:

>In article <liqiang.717872979@kramden> liqiang@kramden.nyu.edu (Li) writes:
>>>Absolutely.  And if the US South wants independence then the question 
>>>should be addressed, peaceably by referenda, I would hope.  Do you 
>>>think the Tibetan people are capable enough to decide for themselves 
>>  	   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>in a referendum?
>>> 
>>
>>The use of the term "people" is very confusing and misleading:
>>
>>Adolf Hitler said, "Die Leute der Deutschland ...";
>>Chairman Mao said, "The Chinese people ...";
>>Saddam Hussein said, "The Iraqi people ...";
>>President Bush said, "The American people ...";
>>...........................................
>>Now you are saying, "... the Tibetan people ...". Please clarify or you might
>>as well just mind your own business.
> 
>What is your point?  Is this all you can offer to the discussion?   

I was very serious that some terms should not be abused because abusing
terms and confusing readers doesn't sound to me as a good attitude.

>>>Why not let each province and autonomous region decide in the same 
>>>way Canada is deciding?  Are you afraid of the results?
>>> 
>>
>>At the present point, it's just a waste of taxpayers' money. 

>the trend, and will be the trend for the future.  Empires have been breaking
>up, colonies have been freeing themselves and are running their own 
>affairs as independent countries.  China will eventually lose its 
>colonies also.

If this is all you want, that's pathetic because the concept "China's 
colonies" just doesn't exist. Well, you can certainly hold on to it - your
choice.

>-- 
>Conrad Richter                     richter@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca
>Richters Herbs                     71550.3411@compuserve.com
>Goodwood, ON L0C 1AO Canada        Tel 416-640-6677 / Fax 416-640-6641

- Li, Qiang

Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: ZHAO@HUXTAL.BITNET
Subject:      CCSA: LEGISLATIVE UPDATE
Reply-To: ZHAO@HUXTAL.BITNET
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 05:42:00 GMT

Distribution-File:
        council@math19.gatech.edu
        cnd-us@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu
        svc@hal.cwru.EDU
        IFCSS@HAL.CWRU.EDU
        CHINA-NT@UGA.BITNET
        osu.chinese@pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu
        china-news-post@mentor.cc.purdue.edu
        ccnl@utarlvm1.uta.edu,
        cgsa@fuzzy.umd.edu,
        cnd-us@library.uta.edu,


*****************************************************************

          CCSA: LEGISLATIVE UPDATE

*****************************************************************


          TO:       Chinese Students and Scholars Nationwide

          From:          Haiching Zhao

          Date:          Sept. 28, 1992

     There have been conflicting messages regarding S1216 on the
net.  Many people called tonight about the rumor that the President
has vetoed the bill.

     The real situation is as follows:

     (1) As of tonight, S1216 is still in the Senate.  It has not
been enrolled and sent to the White House yet.  I have been urging
several key congressional offices today to push it out to the
President as quickly as possible.  It was said that the bill should
be on the President's desk sometime tomorrow.

     (2) Meanwhile, the President has vetoed, tonight, the bill to
condition China's Most Favored Nation trade status.  The bill was
passed by the House last Monday.  A veto-override vote is
anticipated in the Congress sometime later this week.

     For S1216, at this point, the Democrats are not much helpful
in gaining President's signature.  We have been pushing several key
Republican offices today to get some reading from the White House
on our bill.  According to Senator Gorton, the key sponsor of
S1216, a senior aide from the White House indicated today that the
best way to get the President to sign the bill at this point is to
keep a LOW PROFILE at the White House level.  He suggested that we
restrain ourselves for a couple of days from sending tons of phone
calls or FAXs to the White House in fear that it may raise too much
attention and pressure and cause a Presidential veto.  In other
word, let's first give him a chance to sign it quietly.

     We need to do the following:

     (1) Continue to call/write to Republican Senators. The message
should be very simple:  i) Thank them for their support of our bill
S1216, and ii) urge them to call their President to sign the bill.
At this election time, one Republican Senator's phone call to the
President is probably worth more than thousands of our calls.

     (2) Ask our American friends, (people who have votes), to
call/write Republican Senators with similar messages.

     (3) Ask American friends to write/call the White House, urging
the President to sign the bill.

     (4) Go to local media, editorial board, explain to them about
the situation and asking for their help.

     Please stay tuned for any further development and action plan.

/end
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: XIAOJIAN@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Subject:      Who is right, HQ or ZHQ? ---- A political economics approach
Reply-To: XIAOJIAN@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 08:04:49 GMT
Comments: To: china-nt@uga.cc.uga.edu

Everyone must have seen the conflicting messages on S1216 campaign by HQ
and its soldier Zhao, Haiqing. Many must have been wondering which to
follow. Here I offer some of my views from political economics standpoint,
then use your own judgement and follow your own judgement.

In a democracy like this in USA, crying baby gets a big share, the loudest
gets the biggest. This view is systemized by Nobel prize winner
James Buchanan and shared by most political economists. An interest group,
such as group A here, need not have many members, but must well coordinated
and have intense pressure, in order to have and will definitely have the
biggest share out from the democratic process. Of course, the excuse to
shout aloud has to be justified.

Now, the excuse for group A is both moral and political correct. There is
no reason to keep low profile. The more Americans who know about it, the
higher political risk for Bush to veto it.

The gossip that Bush would sign it may well be a political trick, of course
may be not. If at this final stage S1216 campaign turns to be a public
outcry that most Americans know about it, given its moral correctness and
that Bush himself always advocate family values, it will be politically
unacceptable for Bush to veto it in front of voters' eyes. You all know
that how Bush cherish several votes. For several thousand potential votes
he ignored the treaty with the most populated country. To my view, if you
make as many as possible Americans aware of it and call or write to Bush,
S1216 will be guaranteed.

The two bill vetoed by Bush recently will definitely hurt American economy,
and employment sequentially if they become law. S1216 is totally different
becuase most unemployed are ill-educated, not those with at least a Master
degree.

I would like to have counter arguments from Zhao Haiqing to show us why
we should keep a low profile. "The more argument the more clear on truth"


William Deng
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china