Eric's Beijing Diary

Had an interesting conversation this evening with a guy who was, for some time, a judge in the countryside. I had met him at the English corner, and had wanted to talk to him because I am interested in the problem of justice in China (as in any society). I had mentioned to him previously about a situation I had read about where a lawyer had been sent to prison on charges which seemed to be questionable. It looked suspicious--like he was sent to prison for defending his client to aggressively. I told him that one of the key elements of a free society is the right to aggressive defense. He told me that a bigger problem in China is that the judges are not independent. Their judgment is often influenced by outside factors or persons, such as the party secretary. And he did acknowledge that being a defense lawyer can be dangerous.

He asked me what I thought of the death penalty for bribery. I told him that I thought that was probably a little stiff, although I do believe in capital punishment. But capital punishment is rarely practiced consistently, certainly not in America. If you have capital punishment, and there a thousand murders, there should be a thousand executions. But the death penalty is applied very unevenly throughout the United States. I told him about the situation where the governor of Illinois (who believes in capital punishment) actually ordered a moratorium on capital punishment, because so many innocent people were on death row. Concerning bribery, I told him that you cannot fix the problem of corruption merely by passing laws. In order to deal effectively with corruption, you must have a certain portion of your population who refrain from bribery and such things just because they believe it's wrong, not merely because they are afraid of being caught. In China, you have a whole generation of people who have been brought up to believe that there is no God to whom they are accountable. It takes more laws to control this kind of population.

Everybody claims to believe in it. Countries like to have it in their names (Democratic People's Republic of Korea). All recogonize it as a supreme virtue, and as a measure of the "goodness" of a society. While countries like China maintain that they are not able to adopt it completely, none would dare to repudiate it. During the recent elections in Iraq, a political cartoon in the China Daily showed a dove with an olive branch in it's beak flying over a war-torn area (obviously Iraq), and discovering a ballot box. The subheading under the cartoon was one word: Hope.

We say that democracy began with the Greeks, but the democracy of the Greeks was pretty restrictive by modern standards. Certainly there have been experiements with various levels of democracy down through the centuries. But what we understand as "democracy" really began with America. Before the dawn of the great American civilization, nothing like what we take for granted had ever been implemented in any society ever. As I said, there were certain elements of democracy and democratic rule, but America truly is the first of the modern democracies.

How, then, did democracy, this most dangerous of social experiments--this first-cousin to mob rule, come to be viewed as the supreme virtue to which all men and nations ought to aspire? The answer to this question can only be found by understanding where American freedom came from. Americans were blessed with a very unusual measure of freedom, because America was founded by people who went to America because they wanted to be able to worship God freely. A number of years ago, I took my children to the Mayflower (a complete replica), and the Plymouth Plantation (a living history community, where historians dress in period costumes, and play the roles of the original pilgrims). As I was standing there in that community with my children, I saw some soldiers in period costumes, marching back toward the village. I watched for awhile, and it became evident that this was a militia made up of men from the community. I picked out one of them, who was playing the role of a blacksmith. I followed him into his blacksmith shop, and watched him take off his armour,

"I saw you marching out there. Who are you defending yourselves from?"

"The Spaniards."

"Why are you worried about the Spaniards?"

"Because they are Papists, and we fear and hate them."

"But you don't get along very well with the Church of England, either, and they're not Papists."

"They might as well be."

The Pilgrims were separatists. They were extremely independent, and isolationist. When they first landed, they were obliged, by the circumstances, to tolerate among them the presence of the ship's crew, who could not return immediately to England. They hated this. Ordinarily they would not have anything to do with "strangers." But in this situation, they had no choice, so they drew up an agreement called the Mayflower Compact, which was basically, in their minds, a written agreement between the saved and the damned. You can read any number of copies of the Mayflower Compact on the Internet, but what is missing from all of them is what you see if you actually go to the Plymouth Plantation, which is the statement that this is a covenant between the "Saints and Strangers." The "Saints," of course, are the saved. The "Strangers" are the damned. The Pilgrims were not missionaries. They were hyper-Calvinists. But they changed their world because of their determination to be themselves, and to honor God above all things.

I said all this to say that America became a great nation, and a great civilization precisely because of people like this. God blessed America because of people who were determined to honor His name. Becuase they feared Him, he could risk letting them have democracy. But democracy in and of itself is not good government. Democracy just means "rule of the people." If the people are good, you have good government. If the people are evil, you have evil government. There is nothing about democracy that is inherently better than a monarchy. If you have a good king,you have good government. If you have a bad king, you have bad government. Now, it is true that a democracy is very good if the people have a standard of righteousness. But it is the right living of the people that makes a nation great, not democracy per se.

This is where America has fallen. When once the Americans gave glory to God, they were, in turn, given a great measure of freedom, a freedom so great and so profound, that they were able to implement something as risky as democracy without harm. But now, instead of giving glory to God for their freedom, they give glory to democracy. And instead of bringing to the nations their message of hope through sound Christian principles (as MacArthur sought to do in Japan), they are exporting democracy. The Americans believe that democracy exalts a nation, and that tyranny is a reproach to any people. But the Bible says, righteousness exalts a nation, and sin is a reproach to any people. The Biblical value does not set well with most Americans, because Americans tend to prefer a sinful democracy. So they strive to make America (and every other country) more democratic, but in the process, they have had to sacrifice freedom, because freedom comes from God, not from democracy.

America is getting more democratic. There's no question about that. A few days after I finished high school, I hitchhiked across the country from Oregon to Florida. In Florida, I got involved with a project by the Miami Baptist Association, where we were sharing the Gospel with demonstrators in the streets during the Democratic Convention. At the time, although I was certainly interested in current events, I was not that interested in politics, because I did not believe that political systems had the answer to the basic problem of man, which is alienation from God. There was a lot of talk about revolution in those days, but what I was most interested in was spiritual revolution. It was 1972, and Hubert Humphrey showed up at the convention without having run in the primaries, hoping to be drafted by the convention. He was a generation too late. That's how they used to do things in the old days, but things had changed by 1972. And after 1972, the rules were changed even more, so that the selection of party candidates has gotten more and more democratic all the time. There is nothing in the Constitution that mandates this. All parties have a right to select their own candidates their own way. But the parties have chosen to "democratize" to the extent that now the candidate of the party is pretty much a foregone conclusion by the time of the party convention. No more floor fights. No second or third or fourth ballots. It's all a done deal before the convention even starts. So America is significantly more democratic in the way presidential canditates are selected. But does this mean that America is more free?

Prior to the eighties, when the equal time provision was lifted, a phenomenon like Rush Limbaugh would not have been possible. Radio stations that aired a program which could be identified as having a political position, were obliged, by law, to give equal time to the opposing position. Since Rush Limbaugh's program is three hours long, the cost of finding enough people to fill that much time with stuff that advertisers would not be willing to pay for would be prohibitive. But things changed. After the equal time provision was lifted, stations didn't have to fill that requirement. They could air any opinions they liked. This, of course, made people like Limbaugh wealthy, but tended to frustrate those from the other end of the political spectrum, who felt that Rush Limbaugh's viewpoints should be balanced with equal time. Limbaugh's response to all this was vintage Rush, "Wrong. I am equal time!"

But it started before Rush. It was Ted Turner, really, who opened things up. Before he came along, there was a mainstream position in the press (at least the television press) that was decidedly liberal. So when you watched a show like Washington Week in Review, which contained political commentary, what you got was several different versions of the standard, politically correct position. Ted Turner changed all that. The show was called "Crossfire." I first saw it in 1981. Pat Buchanan on the right and Tom (Eight is Enough) Braden on the left. I was astounded. Journalists who would actually admit that their viewpoints were either "left" or "right?" TV journalism was never the same after that. It never used to be that way when I was a kid. Clearly the people have more choices now.

But do they really have more freedom? I don't think so. I believe that freedom has been steadily eroded for most Americans. It started with the Supreme Court decision which many believe outlawed prayer in school. In fact, the Supreme Court ruling did not actually outlaw prayer. It merely said that the State of New York could not dictate prayers which students would be required to pray. Well, this provision was widely interpreted to mean that, in order to avoid lawsuits, a school would be better off just not having any prayer at all. I was a country school teacher in North Dakota during the eighties, and I had prayer with my students quite often. But I was particular. I never forced anyone to pray, and I never, never suggested a prayer that students should pray. I always made it optional. You see, prayer in school is actually not illegal. But because of the Supreme Court, and the role it plays in American society, freedom was effectively restricted for most Americans.

The second major restriction of freedom came with the Supreme Court decision in 1973, when a lady in Texas (who now admits she was lying) said she had been raped and needed to have an abortion. The Supreme court not only allowed the abortion, they said that individual states no longer had the freedom to pass laws restricting abortion rights. This ruling spawned a whole host of other provisions, such as the common practice of providing abortions to high school students without the consent or even knowledge of their parents. The freedom and independence of families has been sacrificed on the altar of democracy and individuality. How could this happen in America? Because America is a democracy ruled by a people who have forgotten God.

The third major restriction in freedom came in the decade of the seventies. Between 1970 and 1980, 48 states out of 50 passed "no fault" divorce laws. These laws were supposed to make divorce less acrimonious, because neither spouse would be tempted to "invent" accusations of adultry in order to get out of an unwanted marriage. But the "no fault" divorce actually exacerbated the problem considerably, because it made divorce easier, and the presence of children in the conflict ensured that there would still be plenty of animostiy. Children are now basically viewed as wards of the State, and the State decides whether or not you get to keep your family together.

The fourth and most recent restriction in freedom has to do with the most "sacred" of rights in a market economy, and that is the right to private property. In the case of Kelo v. City of New London last June, the Supreme Court allowed the City of New London, Connecticut to seize property from individuals who did not want to sell it, for the purpose of creating a new large business development. This case is controversial, and perhaps a bit confusing to some, because most Americans are familiar with the concept of eminent domain. It is widely understood that governments have the right and authority to take land (with compensation) from private individuals for public use. Some naturally wonder why this case should be any different, or how the case could even be argued. But this case is very different. One of the most basic tenets of English Common Law is that the government may not take private property from one person, and give it to another person. In Kelo v. City of New London, the Supreme Court basically forced private individuals to yield their private property to other individuals to be owned by them as private property. The court's reason was that this was going to be used for business which would benefit the public, and help the economy. But this is tortured logic. Private property is private property, and either we respect it or we don't. The point is that for the first time in American history, the government was allowed to violate one of the most fundamental principles of a free society.

How then, came this great democratic civilization to voluntariy surrender it's freedoms one by one? The reason, of course, is that a democracy ruled by a people who do not value freedom, will not, ultimately, be a free society. Freedom, then, does not come from democracy. It comes from God, as a gift to a righteous people. America is clearly a civilization in decline. I believe this is because America has turned from God. And because of this, certain forms of unrighteousness have been institutionalized. Every time there is a vacancy on the Supreme Court, we begin to hear a lot of discussion about about whether a given candidate is "liberal" or "conservative." But when it comes to an issue like abortion, the discussion is largely irrelevant, because we seem to have evolved a status quo such that no candidate can be approved without giving assurance the he or she will not make any decisions that might encroach upon the institutionalized slaughter of innocent unborn children. On the plane flying down from Beijing last Friday, I was listening to the NPR podcast of the Roberts confirmation hearings. It was both amusing and pathetic to hear the kind of causuistry that a candidate is "forced" to engage in to get through one of these confirmations. Roberts reaffirmed his commitment, made when he became a federal judge, to the principle that Roe v. Wade was "settled law." But he stopped short of promising not to overturn it. His statements were made in such a way that organizations like Planned Parenthood do not have confidence that he will protect their "reproductive freedom,” and thus oppose his nomination. But if he ever does vote to overturn Roe v. Wade, those same groups will probably say, with some justification, that he dissembled during the hearings. How could the discussion of such basic principles as the sanctity of human life be turned into such a circus in a Christian society? The answer is simple. America is not a Christian society. America is a democracy. A democracy ruled by people who no longer believe in the sanctity of human life.

But what does this have to do with China? Quite a bit, actually, because so much of the talk about China coming from the West centers around human rights and the need for democracy. But democracy is not the answer for China. The best description of the spiritual condition of China is found in Luke 11:24-26:

"When the unclean spirit is gone out of a man, he walketh through dry places, seeking rest; and finding none, he saith, I will return unto my house whence I came out. And when he cometh, he findeth it swept and garnished. Then goeth he, and taketh to him seven other spirits more wicked than himself; and they enter in, and dwell there: and the last state of that man is worse than the first."

Clearly, the demon has been cast out. The Cultural Revolution is over. During the three year period before I came to China, I read a lot of books about the Cultural Revolution. Most of them were personal narratives. Of course everyone's story is different, but there was one thing they all seemed to have in common. At the beginning, the authors of these narratives were believers in the system, but they all became disillusioned with the god they had worshiped. And in every one of these books, I could identify the point where they stopped believing. A graduate student at Arizona State University once told me, "In China, we have lost our religion." So many times since I have come to China, I have heard someone say, "We Chinese don't believe in anything," or "We Chinese have nothing to believe in. This is our problem." Never before have I heard so many people express such sentiments.

Many people here ask me how I feel about China, and especially about the future of China. I always tell them that I believe China is at a critical crossroads. It is as if God has given China a second chance. If China turns toward God, and follows after truth and justice and right living, then this country will be blessed as never before. But if the people are thinking only about making money, then the future for China will be very dark. There is a tremendous spiritual vacuum on this country. The only question is who or what will fill it.

I love freedom. I thank God for freedom. But I don't thank God for democracy, because I can't. I don't live in a democratic country. I don't have democracy. But I do have freedom. Freedom to live and work and worship God. Religion is regulated in China, but this does not mean that China does not have freedom. And there is much talk about websites being blocked, but I listen to Christian radio every day, and I have never had trouble getting through.

So what about China and democracy? As I said before, it is righteousness that exalts a nation, not democracy. If China has righteousness with or without democracy, China will be blessed. But democracy without righteousness would be devastating. I cannot imagine a worse fate for this country. And what about America? In many ways, the case of America is more precarious, because America is a civilization that once had the light and is now in the process of turning from it. It has happened before. Having been delivered by God from the bondage of Egypt "with a strong hand, and with a stretched out arm," the Children of Israel, instead of giving glory to God, built a golden calf and offered their thanks to this idol. Democracy is the "golden calf" of the Americans.

During the sixties, we used to watch a program called, "Slattery's People," which always opened with the following line (obviously a paraphrase of Churchill):

"Democracy is a very bad form of government, but I ask you never to forget it; all the others are so much worse!"

The first part of that statement is still true. But we can no longer be sure about the second part. Why is this? It is because America has turned from the light. The money still says, "In God We Trust," but if it were expressing the sentiment of the American people today, it would say, "In Democracy We Trust." But God is not mocked. "Whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap." Because the Americans refuse to give glory to God for their freedom, because the Americans persist in their unbelief, and in the mindless slaughter of the innocent, with no sense of accountability except to the democratic process, God, in His infinite wisdom, has allowed that the Americans should experience greater and greater democracy, all the while enjoying less and less freedom.

Labels: Democracy, Freedom, Human Rights, Individual Liberty

They feed me well here. They put my meals in the conference room. Generally pretty good stuff, except for my chronic problem with breakfast. For some reason, cold pickled vegetables just don't set well with my stomach in the morning. They put out several little plates of these vegetables, usually an egg or two, and some rice porridge. And there is always a little plate of salted peanuts. But I think they noticed that I haven't been eating the pickled stuff much. This morning, I came down and found one little plate of pickled vegetables, eggs, a small bowl of rice porridge, and a mountain of salted peanuts. They're catching on.

In other news, Yahoo is in trouble. Lot's of people are mad at Yahoo because they supplied information that allowed the Chinese government to trace an email to the person who wrote it. Journalist Shi Tao was given a ten year prison sentence. According to the prosecution, the document he leaked was classified, and contained a warning about the possibility of problems in connection with the coming anniversary of the Tiananmen...shall we say "incident?"

There are several issues here. First of all, leaking the secret document was a federal offense. Anyone who divulges classified information should expect to have trouble. The Journalist admitted leaking the document, but insisted in court that he did not know the document was classified. The second issue, one raised by many in the West, is the fact that Beijing's "state secret" classification is so broad that it tends to sweep in stuff for which any kind of "secret" classification would seem absurd in more open societies. A recent editorial in the China Daily addresses this issue. The editorial concerns the declassification of the death toll from natural disasters. Of note is this observation: "it is a move that shows the country's growing confidence and maturity, a sign of progress." The statement appears to me to be a subtle hint that perhaps the government should consider further declassification as a step toward even greater maturity and progress. At any rate, the current system makes completely innocuous information a "state secret" and, I believe, causes the world community to view China with a measure of ridicule. The final issue is that Yahoo has used it's access to private user information to help the Chinese government lock up a journalist who, in the minds of most western journalists, was not doing anything wrong.

Sitting here in my apartment in the dormitory at Fujitsu in Fuzhou listening to the Old Fashioned Revival Hour with Charles Fuller. Amazing how well the audio integrity of these old recordings is preserved through the process of converting them to audio files. "Listen carefully, sinning friend on the broad road to destruction. Will you take heed please young man? Christ is the only savior. No other way for a lost sinner to escape except through Christ!" Preach it, brother.

The program here in Fuzhou is basically a contract with Fujitsu. Employees here at Fujitsu are offered a chance to get a master's degree from Beihang University, and take all the classes right here at their place of work. Because the courses I teach are heavily oriented toward "doing" technology, I always insist that each student has his or her own computer. The lecture room I am using has no computers, but they have made sure that each student has a laptop, and that network connection is available to each student. I was supposed to teach this class last spring, but they were not really set up for the requirements I had set out, so they postponed the course. That was fine with me; I told them I would rather wait and do it right.

China is impressed by Koizumi's landslide victory over the weekend. His "political suicide" clearly paid off. It was a bold move. It was a risky thing to do, and it could have finished him off, but it worked. The issue is privatization, represented most significantly by the national Post Office, a bureaucracy which has grown to be the largest bank in the world as measured by total deposits. Resistance to Koizumi's reform efforts has come from traditionalists in his own party, who are sentimentally and politically attached to the Post Office.

The Post Office has been a part of the landscape in Japan in the generation that followed the second World War. I still remember when I was seven or eight years old, and Dad took us down to the Post Office in Sakata to open our first bank accounts. But the Post Office has grown to be a mammoth bureaucracy, which bleeds the taxpayers, and tends to foster corruption. I am not opposed to government. But history has demonstrated quite consistently that business functions are usually better managed by private entities. You name the business, and most of the time, a private company can do it more profitably and efficiently than can a government agency.

On this point, today's China is sympathetic. Marxism as a philosophy is dead. Privatization is in. Economically speaking, China is a very Republican society. But China has been opposed to Koizumi because of his visits to the Yasakuni Shrine, and because he has consistently resisted China's demands to yield to Chinese control the oil fields that Japan claims. The Chinese did not pass up the opportunity to demonstrated their clumsiness with diplomacy by sending warships to the disputed area just before the election. Obviously, it didn't work. Maybe this will teach them something. Somehow, I don't think so. When it comes to diplomacy, the Chinese have a long long way to go.

I started the undergraduate class I am going to be teaching here on campus. Friday I am going to Fuzhou to teach a graduate extension course at Fujitsu. I will also be teaching a graduate course here in Beijing, which I have scheduled to start after I get back from Fuzhou.

Most of the students in the undergraduate class I know, because I taught Technical English to them in Langfang when they were freshmen. The first day of class, I stressed the importance of getting a textbook. The textbook we are going be using is published in the States, and it is pretty costly in China. But they really need to have it, because I have designed this class so that students who thoroughly study the concepts taught in each chapter until they really know them well, will be able to succeed even if they have trouble with the language. In other words, if they can read English, and they are willing to study, they can get by even if their oral English is somewhat limited.

Well, the second day of class, I asked them how many of them had gotten a book. Nobody said anything. Finally Cherry rather sheepishly held up her book Interesting. Something about it looked different. They had taken a textbook to a local printer and had a bunch of bound copies made. The cost was a fourth of what the American textbook was. I said, "Did anyone buy the regular book?" One of them said, "We bought one." Hmmm.... These kids are nothing if not creative. How am I going to tell my distributor that I am teaching a class and I need one book? But at this rate, I guess I won't need to worry about it for another 75 or 80 years. I don't think this state of affairs is good. Obviously, I can't do much about what they do with the book they buy. The problem is that the price they are charged for the imported text is several times what they are used to paying. It is a fraction of what the book sells for in the States, but still way beyond what these kids can afford. The only solution I have seen that works, is for the American publisher to allow a Chinese company to publish it in China. This is what Oracle does with all of their stuff. The Oracle Press books I use are all printed in China. They are cheap paperbacks printed on low quality newsprint, but in every other respect, they are exactly the same books I used in the States. And they sell for a price students can afford. I have never seen students copy one of those books.

He caught me coming out of the coffee bar this morning. I first met him the other day. He was recruiting for a company that needs native English voices. I told him I was busy, but he persisted, "Only thirty minutes. Only thirty minutes." For that I was to be paid 100 RMB. I finally told him I would call him the next day, but somehow I got busy and forgot about it.

This morning, I almost ran into him, "OK, where do we go." He took me to a place around the corner, where I was ushered into a room with a microphone and sound system. This was a cell phone company that needed some native English pronunciations. The lady sat me down and asked me to begin by stating my name. Then she told me to state my age.

She said, "Say 38."

"But I'm not 38."

"OK, then say 48."

I was thinking, "I don't believe this. This lady is trying to bargain with me about my age!"

Now, you can't live in China very long without doing some bargaining, unless you really like being taken advantage of. I have to bargain all the time when I go to the used book store. Almost any major purchase involves a bargain. I take friends with me when I can, but sometimes I don't have that choice. So I have tried to learn how to bargain as well as I can. The key to it is to find some way to learn the value of the item. But bargaining about my age? No. That's where I draw the line.

I assume the issue is that they have been told to recruit people between certain ages, and since I did not meet this criteria, they wanted me to lie. I told the lady I was not going to do that, so she told me to go ahead. We completed the session a half-hour later, and she took me out to sign my name and get paid. Her boss came in and she told him that I had put down my real age. He then asked her what I had said when I was in the sound room. She informed him, with some measure of concern, that I had told the truth. Then she wanted to know if she should still pay me. I think they assumed that I could not understand them, which wasn't far from the truth. But I was thinking, "Oh, this is good. If they don't pay me, we're going to have a really interesting conversation." If she had told me at the outset that they could not use me if I insisted on being honest, I would have said goodbye and left. But she didn't. She put me through the whole process. So they were obligated to pay me. I think the boss realized this point, because he told her to go ahead and give me the money.

I left politely, but with a bad feeling about the whole thing. It isn't just that I was being asked to say something that wasn't true. It is the fact that I intensely dislike being sold something that is not, in fact, what it is presented as. If you want to sell me something used, don't wrap it in a neat package and pretend it's new. Tell me it is used, and then we can argue about the price. I hate having to guess whether the item or service I am being sold is genuine. And I just wasn't going to be part of helping these guys do just that to whomever their client was. I have no idea how they are going to edit that part of the track where I state my age, or if they will be able to convince whomever that my voice should be accepted. I am afraid they may have wasted 100 RMB. Liars. They deserve it.

Went to dinner with James and Anne this evening. I asked them how they came to know the Lord. Anne told me about her faith, and then her husband told me that it had taken him a long time to overcome the many questions he had about God. He was a physics major, and had approached his entry into faith in a very deliberate manner.

Not unusual. Christian fellowships in China, particularly informal ones, are made up mostly of women. It is well known that their are more men than women in China, because a boy baby is preferred in traditional families, especially rural families. But the ratio among Christians is quite the other way round. This is a country where people have been told for a generation that there is no God. I have never gotten hostility from Chinese when I discuss my beliefs. The people I talk to are not hostile toward my beliefs. They just don't believe. They are not unbelievers in an obstinate sort of way. If fact, they sometimes sound like they really wish they could believe. But they don't, and men whose attention is focused on getting ahead and making their way in life, do not have time to waste on myths that are only designed to make the country people feel good. Again, they are not hostile. In fact, many Chinese men like having Christian wives. But they themselves do not believe.

Yesterday Claire and I took the subway over to the east side of town to visit a foster care home run by a couple of sisters who really love Jesus and really love Children. There are lots and lots of handicapped children in China, largely because of a lack of early intervention in childhood handicaps. I don't like institutions, but this one is one of the most cheery I have ever seen. And the kids really seemed pretty happy. I have thought a lot about adoption, but I don't know if I could adopt a handicapped child. Even adopting a normal child is a big job for a single person, but it is legal. I just don't know. I wish there was more I could do about the orphan problem in China. I just can't help all of them. But maybe, just maybe I can help one. Think how different this world would be if every Christian family adopted one child.

Well, the little birdie flew away. I left for about an hour, and when I came back, it was gone. I think the poor birdie just needed to have some time to think about how to get out of my apartment. I tried to show him, but he was too traumatized to listen. All's well that ends well.

In other news, I finally got my ATM card back today. The ATM machine near my apartment ate it a week ago. I think it was my fault this time. I probably just forgot to retrieve it. Anyway, I went immediately to the bank where I do business. My intent was to have my card shut off, but when I told them where it had happened, they told me that the machine in question didn't belong to their bank, so I had to go to that bank. I knew that, of course, but I thought...never mind. I did what I was told. The folks at the other bank were really nice; they told me to come back in a week. I wasn't really too worried about it, because I couldn't imagine anyone guessing a six-digit pin, but it does seem that it should have been shut off anyway just in case. Maybe it's a communication thing. Very few bank workers speak even a modicum of English, and my Mandarin is still pretty limited. But I got the card back, and that's the main thing.

Does anyone know how to get a bird out of your apartment? Someone called (wrong number) at 1:30 in the morning and woke me up. I couldn't get back to sleep right away, because I was rested and felt wide awake, so I decided to listen to Christian Classics (really good story just started), and do some work. Well, I was sitting here working and I heard a fluttering noise. I looked up and saw what I at first thought was a large moth. On second glance, it turned out to be a tiny bird. Not a song bird--it hasn't made a sound yet. But I could not for the life of me convince that poor bird to fly a little low so that she could get through my patio door. What to do? Well, the bird finally flew through my bedroom door into the living room. Don't know how it managed to fly low for that door, but it did. I put some oatmeal on the sill by the window. The window is wide open.

We were just finishing our study from the Book of Ruth yesterday, when Lydia called. She managed to lock her keys in her apartment, so she was stuck until her roommate came back. I told her she could wait at my place. We decided to go out to dinner, because Lydia is from Guangdong Province, and she always knows where to find the good Cantonese chefs. She took me to good restaurant outside the Southeast Gate. She also told me that the restaurant we went to a week ago has just had a major workover. They fired a bunch of chefs and made the place into a lunchtime cafeteria. I guess they figured they could make more money catering to the lunch time business crowd. Hmmm...so the high class Cantonese chefs get the ax because the management wants to downgrade the menu to make more money. As they say here in China, "What a pity!"

Took a cab to Beijing United Hospital yesterday. I wanted to replenish my supply of Cipro. Beijing United Hospital is the international hospital which caters to the expatriate community. I went to the pharmacy and told the lady I wanted a prescription. I wasn't surprised when she told me that I needed a prescription. I told her there were two problems with that. First of all, I did not want to pay the cost of having an appointment, and second, I feel fine right now, so I may not be given the prescription I am asking for.

To be truthful, it's impossible to tell how valid either of my arguments is. My neighbor in the Foreign Teachers' Dormitory had his thyroid removed a long time ago, and he has to go there to get medication. He told me once that they made him pay for the lab tests, but no physician has ever charged him a fee, because he told them he is an English teacher. So those guys really are pretty nice people. But that hospital is designed for foreign business people who are coming to China with expat benefits packages. The bottom line is that they charge American rates, and they expect you to have insurance to cover it. So I don't really want to take a chance of making an appointment there, and getting charged an arm and a leg to have some doctor tell me he isn't going to give me medicine if I'm not sick.

I explained to her that I want to have some stuff when I travel, so that it is available if I need it. Fortunately, this lady was on my side, and she was also a bilingual pharmacist (first time I've met one of those in China). She wrote down the Chinese name for the drug. I seized the opportunity to have her write down the Chinese name for a couple other drugs that were over-the-counter. When I got back to the University, I had no trouble with the over-the-counter stuff (Imodium and Ibuprophin), although I had never been able to get them before, because the pharmacists didn't know what I was talking about. They still told me they did not have the Cipro. I'm guessing, now, but I think what I have to do is go to a hospital, and find a doctor who will say I can have it. In that respect, it is like America, but probably a lot cheaper.