I do not know how to write about this

As they say, self-consciousness is a man's greatest enemy.

I am talking about the "controversy" surrounding a quote I applied in my second report, published in the final week of last election, on January 17, 2006. The quote was "All reactionaries are paper tigers".

I say "controversy", quote unquote, because nobody told me exactly what the controversy was with that quote. I had to figure it out myself. Initially, I thought the problem was that "reactionaries" and "paper tigers" are derogatory. Admittedly, it was atypical of me to use such terms in public and apply them to Paul Martin and George W. Bush. However, I felt very natural to do that at the time, given the long list of names I myself had been called (just see the list a couple of paragraphs down below in the introduction) and Martin Liberals' apparent strategy to turn the election campaign into a nasty spitting match over my file.

That's why I tried to play it down a little bit with a sense of humor on my January 24 blog.

Another possible controversy resulted from the realization that nuclear bombs were specifically referred to as paper tigers one time. I realized this about a month after I published my second report, through an article written by a well-known Chinese dissident on a website I frequented. This dissident was of an older generation. Perhaps for people grown up in China in the 1950's or 1960's, it was common knowledge that nuclear bombs were referred to as paper tigers. But when I grew up, I rarely heard that kind of expression.

To me, the meaning of the quote is fairly straightforward. If you are wrong, you will lose no matter how powerful you appear to be. I believe when most people use it, that is what they mean. As far as my writing is concerned, I think the quote fits quite appropriately between the paragraphs. -- Given the way the election was going at the time, I could sense that Martin Liberals were going to lose.

Besides, the quote was one of my pet phrases. (If you have followed my story, you would know why I used the word mantra instead of "pet phrase". I learned it from Pat MacAdam.) I used to say it a lot during my trading days.

When I was trading on my own in 2000, sometimes I felt that the Defendant not only monitored my trading activities, but they also went against me in the same market with their substantially stronger financial resources. – I already wrote in my reports why I thought that my trading activities were monitored. Frankly, I am less certain that the Defendant actually used their money to sabotage my trading because it was just too crazy. That's the reason I did not write about it in my report.

However, it was actually quite easy for the Defendant to do because, due to my limited financial resources, most of my trading was done in the "mini" stock-index markets and I generally took a position for a very short period of time, usually measured in minutes. So if someone had lots of money and could see my trading activities in real time, he could conceivably take a big opposite position in this small market right after me and try to lead the market temporarily to the other direction in an effort to shake me off.

Until I was robbed on or around October 20, 2000, my normal trading only lasted a few months. However, by monitoring related regular contract markets as well as the underlying indices, I did feel somebody was going against me. The price discrepancy between the regular and "mini" markets was easy to see – however brief it might be.

When this happened, the critical thing for me to do was to maintain my confidence in the markets. So I just kept saying to myself: "All reactionaries are paper tigers." (In Chinese)

I hope I have dealt with all possible controversies resulted from this quote.

Update the day after: In English, the thought of the quote came to my mind through Dick Morris’ book The New Prince. “Paper tigers” is in the title of one of the chapters.

Update the day after the day after:

I picked up a copy of The New Prince during a huge book sale, thinking that the Machiavelli stuff might help me become more “mature”.

Instead, I found myself right at home with the politics of positivity that the author preached.

Haven’t bought any other politics book since.

Gloom

Even with that funny screen shot, I didn't feel like laughing.

While the major cause of my depression is years of unemployment/under-employment, recent events just made me sad and sadder:

• The failure to bring justice for Cecilia Zhang made me sad. Dr. Jiang's death made me even sadder.
• The plight of Darfur refugees made me sad. The negligence of international community made me even sadder.
• Watching the stream of soldier's caskets coming back from Afghanistan and their funeral services at home made me sad. That there was not enough debate about their role there made me even sadder.
• Missiles hitting Lebanon. Rockets hitting Israel. Innocent people caught up in the crossfire. The war between Israel and Hezbollah made me sad. Seeing both sides claim victory after a long overdue ceasefire made me even sadder.
• Last but not least, a sitting prime minister of Japan bowing his head to the Yasukuni Shrine that honors war criminals on the historically significant anniversary of the end of World War II made me sad. That there was scant international condemnation made me even sadder.

I think I may have more to say on the last one.

Laughter, the best medicine

I dug out this two-year-old gem the other day.

Funny, eh?


Immediate update: Part of the background can be found in my first Report, here. -- At the time when I wrote my Report, I thought it was somebody from Liberal Party that fed Kinsella information. Thus I called him "Liberal insider". Now, of course, I think it was RCMP/CSIS who put me under survelliance and passed on my information to him.

Lots of shocking info, lots of emotions

Typing on bed with physical pain is not easy. So I'll just add a couple of emphases to the open letter:

1. If no politician in this country is willing to join me to challenge RCMP, I will likely be labeled a terrorist by the Harper government as they implicitly threatened to do because of my blog Summer Hibernation. Apparently, that is what the Bush administration wanted. From the tone of former U.S. ambassador Paul Cellucci's comment in spring 2005, to The Guardian editorial cracking nut on the timing of Bin Laden tape on January 20, to Donald Rumsfeld's speech this past February, etc, etc..
2. As I mentioned in The Meaning of Justice, what affected me most was Cecilia parents' statements. What I did not say, for obvious reason, was how discouraged I was. My sense is that they knew about my (earlier) allegation and knew my allegation to be true when I wrote them last August, because soon after they would have received my letter, I noticed that they closed down their Cecilia Zhang memorial website, which was, according to Raymond Zhang, "specially designed for finding Cecilia". (Whether they knew about RCMP's role is another question.) Also, in last November, when a Chinese reporter interviewed me after my bridge protest, he asked me many strange questions. One of them was whether I contacted Cecilia's parents and what response I got (none). But apparently, he knew the answer already. Yes, Cecilia's parents could be manipulated. But, still … quite demoralizing for me.
3. Also in The Meaning of Justice, I proposed to donate most of my compensation to worthy causes. I had no intention then, and have no intention now to go through a lengthy legal process. I just wanted to re-affirm everything I wrote is true and to break my story with a bit of good news to soften the blow on my mother. Now that another innocent life is lost, I don't think this plan will either work or be appropriate. So, ditch that.

Did RCMP/CSIS Kill Cecilia…and Dr. Jiang? (2)

Dear Mr. Harper:

I believe that you knew about RCMP's role in the crime perpetrated against Cecilia Zhang, even before you became the prime minister. This belief of mine, of course, came about only after my own realization about RCMP's role in the crime, a realization that changed my perspective on many fronts.

Jim Travers' column on May 4 helped me with that new understanding of RCMP, politics and media.

When Mr. Travers' column was published, I thought it was prompted by my blog posted the day before, in which I revealed that the news of RCMP's income trust probe in the middle of the election played a significant part in my assessment of the polls and in my decision of "limited participation" in the campaign. Initially, I thought Mr. Travers was criticizing RCMP for playing politics, as a few other pundits and political operatives had done. Studying his column again, however, I learned that RCMP is a "revered", "untouchable" organization with "star power" and an "iconic" image in Canada. It's almost taboo for politicians to criticize the Horsemen. But, like most other organizations, RCMP is not without its failings and Mr. Travers cited sponsorship scandal and Maher Arar affair as examples. On second reading, I also got the feeling that Mr. Travers hinted about RCMP's role in the crime against Cecilia Zhang.

With this fresh knowledge, I looked back and gained a better understanding of your words and actions after the election.

Just a week after you won the election, you paid a high-profile visit to RCMP headquarters and toured their child exploitation investigative unit. It was reported that you were particularly concerned about child exploitation cases. At the time, your visit and the photo-op stirred fresh criticism of RCMP's alleged meddling in the election and your attempt to take advantage of RCMP's iconic image. I interpreted it as a positive sign because I do think (and said so in my Report) that the underage girl(s) in my story were exploited or manipulated. Re-examining your visit, I figured that you risked those criticisms to send me (and others) a clear signal that you, like every politician else, would support RCMP unwaveringly, and thus questioning RCMP's role in Cecilia case would be off-limit.

I also remembered you said that Canada is a great country and RCMP helps making it so. (I believe you said those lines but could not be sure of the setting. Because of my illness, it's not easy for me to do thorough research now.) You repeated the same message on May 25 when you spoke to reporters at RCMP's Vancouver headquarters, just three days after I hastily visited Ottawa and contacted your office for the first time.

So I understood that blowing whistle on RCMP would jeopardize Canada's image and no politician would likely support me in that scenario. (That probably explains why the front-page throw of National Post on May 17 was OPRAH VS CANADA.) In addition, I remembered that during your very first press conference after winning the election, you, unprompted, praised the contribution Chinese Canadians made to this country and re-affirmed your party's commitment to a formal apology for the racist head tax legislation. Although head tax redress was in itself a right thing to do, I sensed, by following the development of this file, that you made a "trade-off" between these two issues. In other words, it appeared to me that you offered the head tax apology in exchange for a protection of RCMP. Of course, you did not know that I did not know RCMP's role until around May 18. (This probably explains why the age of consent legislation was introduced on the same day of the head tax apology.)

Personally, I had a mixed feeling about your proposed compromise, if that was what you intended to do. However, I also thought Canada's image on the international stage was one of its most important assets and I would loath to see it take a beating. At the time, I still had confidence in you and your judgment, having fought the issue for so long with you and other opposition politicians on my side – even though the battle was never made known to the public. Indeed, I was ready to hand my file over to you and let you and Canadian people decide where you and they wanted to take my story.

What puzzled me, though, was that you appeared to be sending me conflicting messages at the same time.

About a week after Min Chen pleaded guilty, Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay "cracked nut" on CBC Radio's 8:00AM news. I don't have a recording of the newscast, but Mr. MacKay said something like "melting snow" or "melting ice".

[I should add that this was not the only time when Peter MacKay cracked this nut. For those people who do not already know, this nut has a long history. It probably started in Paul Martin's bizarre – that's why I remembered it - campaign rhetoric in the final week of the campaign, although I did not recognize at the time it was a nut-cracking in response to my last Report. U.S. ambassador David Wilkins also cracked this nut around the time of your Cancun meeting, using "spring thaw" to describe Canada-U.S. relations.]

The message you, through your Foreign Affairs deputy Peter MacKay, were trying to convey seemed to be: If I questioned the role RCMP played in the crime perpetrated against Cecilia Zhang, you would not collaborate with my interpretation of the blog Summer Hibernation. In short, you issued a threat against me.

I have provided a full interpretation of that blog already. I knew it was an important and serious matter. That's why I went all the way and wrote a long blog (Canadian Election 2006: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, Part 7, and Part 8) about the last election to back up my explanation. In doing so, I hoped that others – that would include you, sir – would fill in the rest of story. I do not know what your real intent was in issuing the threat, but for you to deny that my file was at the center of last election would be a mockery of democracy.

Besides, you should know the problem with my blog was in the over-reaction by the Bush administration, which was beyond my control. To paraphrase a legal jargon, it was an act of a Buddha. (And a merciful one, too, because my previous "technical analysis" of Sino-America nuclear imbalance could be wrong.)

Looking elsewhere, I saw mainstream media attacking my credibility as a result of the show trial. For example, see Washington Post's editorial pages on May 12. Of all the political and intellectual elites, Warren Kinsella was the most vicious one. On the very day when Min Chen pleaded guilt, he started threatening me with lawsuit, attacking my credibility and generally spinning the story on his blog.

Obviously, RCMP and some people in the political establishments worked hand in hand on my file, and provided cover to each other. Given how professionally the trial was turned into a show, I am wondering if political interference extended into the courtroom.

In short, to say that I was dealt with a severe blow by the "trial" and related events is an understatement. During the days following the "trial", lots of shocking information I had to absorb, lots of emotions went through mind. I could sense there were powerful, dark forces at work behind the scene. I wanted to do something but was practically at a loss.

On Saturday, May 20, Norman Spector appeared to be giving me a hint to go to Ottawa on his daily press review, with words such as "Vancouverites would die to be back east today" and "vote with their feet". Since I had to report daily to my Bail Officer, I made a hasty decision to fly to Ottawa on Sunday evening to take advantage of the long weekend. I was quite hopeful to be able to meet someone in your office the next day. And I was ready to hand over my file to you and release myself of any active role in the subsequent development. Unfortunately, nobody in your office ever returned my call.

On June 1, I felt I could not keep my silence any more, having been under attack for weeks. So I posted my first blog about the case since the "trial", in which I re-affirmed my earlier allegations, with a strong conviction. Incredibly, the next day, another big news was in the making: RCMP/CSIS arrested 17 suspected terrorists in Toronto.

According to media report, RCMP/CSIS controlled the sale and delivery of three tonnes of ammonium nitrate to this group of suspected terrorists. Once the deal was done, the RCMP moved in for the arrests. This raised the question of whether the arrests were prompted by my blog the day before, as the RCMP/CSIS feared that my next blog entry might expose their wrongdoings in Cecilia Zhang case and they wanted to create a big news to divert the attention.

I did not follow the terrorism case very closely at the time as I put energy into writing my next blog, which was on Min Chen's motive. It backed up my even stronger conviction on my allegation. After I posted this blog, Warren Kinsella stopped his malicious attacks on me and instead, kept saying "I am not afraid" on his blog. But on the other part of the political establishments, the Mulroneyites launched their coordinated attack on our perceived compromising approach. On June 6, Greg Weston of Ottawa Sun attacked you for the perceived working with me. On June 7, Geoff Matthews, also of Ottawa Sun, went a step further and cracked the nut about my blog Summer Hibernation. On June 8, both Greg Weston and Simon Jenkins of The Guardian cracked the nut about some "fall guy". I guess they meant Matthew Li.

I am not sure if the Mulroneyites had any direct influence on you. My sense is that they took their orders directly from Washington. No wonder the first column Pat MacAdam wrote after the "trial" was titled and about some "Amber room". He knew I read his column every week and he wanted to give me the hint – which I didn't get at the time - about the Amber Alert in Cecilia Zhang case so as to set us onto a confrontational course. Apparently, a confrontational course was what Washington wanted to see.

As I said before, as an immigrant, I wish for good international relations among all countries, especially Canada, United States and China. "The last thing I want is 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." That's why I did not initiate any contact with your government until I sensed there was a problem.

Still, I find your conflicting massages puzzling and your continued silence on my file unsettling. You appear to be different from when you were at the opposition or on the campaign trail. For example, when you were at the opposition, you said you weren't blinded by ideology. But now you look like Bush's ideological sole mate. We live in a diverse world. If you constantly look for differences, rather than similarities, between you and other people, you will just be a leader for fewer and fewer people.

These criticisms may be hard for you to swallow. And you may question my bias. If you feel you are in a difficult position, you can always tell Canadian people the whole story and seek wise guidance from them.

Sincerely,

Jim Yu