Being in China and at Tiananmen Square

I’ve been to China and its capital of Beijing twice – in 2005 and 2011 - and both times I found myself with a need and a desire to stand in Tiananmen Square. Each time, even in a crowd of tourists, I could envision the lone pro-democracy demonstrator standing where I stood staring down a line of armed tanks 25 years ago today - the now iconic image of the Tiananmen Square massacre and the courage and fortitude of the young protesters.

Today, people around the world are remembering those activists and the price they paid for their courage even as Chinese leaders have used intimidation to squelch dissent and discussion of the events in advance of the anniversary, as Sophie Richards, the China Director of Human Rights Watch, writes.

Chinese troops gunned down hundreds, perhaps thousands, of pro-democracy demonstrators in and around Tiananmen Square in June of 1989. The killings were capped on June 5 by that photo of the lone activist. CNN in a piece today tells what happened to some of the protest leaders who survived.

As I stood in the Square In 2005, I felt a smidgen of the discomfort they must have felt. Armed soldiers were visibly present all around. Not because of any hint of potential protests, I'm sure. But the mausoleum of China’s great hero, chairman Mao Zedong rests there. A huge picture of Mao is displayed on the Tiananmen gate leading to the Forbidden City.

Nothing in Tiananmen Square commemorates or acknowledges the massacre that took place there. That didn’t surprise me. Though Chinese officials were busily touting their phenomenal economic and physical changes – and they were/are real – some crucial things about China politically and socially seemed stuck on pause.

Many of the Chinese people I officially talked to seemed scripted – spouting feel-good propaganda for my benefit and the other journalists who were visiting – and those I spoke with unofficially were tentative and let me know they were probably being “observed.” I was told by some young people during my last visit to Bejing three years ago that Chinese “observers” were all around. And those who said too much or spoke out of turn were likely to find themselves invited for “tea” with Chinese officials – invited for tea is the euphemism given for what we might call a trip to the wood shed. For Chinese strayers though, that wood shed might wind up being jail.

The apprehension and furtiveness I felt from some of the Chinese young people I spoke to is echoed in a piece I read in Foreign Policy from a young person born after the Tiananmen Square killings ho didn’t want to be identified. He writes in part:

“I am a member of the jiulinghou generation; the roughly 135 million Chinese born in the 1990s. We are web-savvy, dig Western movies and pop music, and are the future leaders of China. And we were born after the Tiananmen Square massacre of June 4, 1989, when Communist Party troops descended on Beijing’s central square to bring order to pro-democracy protesters, killing and injuring hundreds or thousands in the process. It was a pivotal moment in Chinese history. Yet a great many of us in this generation know almost nothing about it – and those who know don’t dare to discuss it.”

He goes on to say he learned about what happened from a 7th grade teacher who said that a few leaders had been “erased” from our recent memory, ousted for sympathizing with student protesters seeking democratic reform. When he asked his parents about the matter they gave him disapproving looks. So he tried to find out more for himself through the internet, which he said was less censored then than it is now in China.

“The key distinction between the 1989 Tiananmen Square uprising and other politically sensitive events in modern China is the relative official silence about the former,” he writes. “For example, although the state prevents discussion of the full details of the 1966-1976 Cultural Revolution, a period of massive political turmoil that saw the persecution of intellectuals around the country, the event is nonetheless tested on high school and college entrance exams and depicted in popular books and movies. The 1989 Tiananmen protests, on the other hand, lack an official account or a chapter in our history books – not even a sugarcoated one for us to dispute. Baidu Baike, China’s Wikipedia, doesn’t contain an entry for the year 1989, and names and places such as Zhao Ziyang and Tiananmen Square are permanently or seasonally blocked on the Chinese Internet.”

He ends by saying “I’m not eager to argue which side was right on June 4, 1989, but rather to present the historical facts and discuss the best future for our country and our people.”

The article has  a poignant endnote: “Due to the possibility of Chinese government retaliation for speaking out about Tiananmen, this author has chosen to remain anonymous.”

What happened in Tiananmen Square 25 years ago is a troubling reminder of the lengths authoritarian governments will go to squash dissent and maintain rigid control. China has undergone remarkable and impressive changes since then. But today in China true freedom remains elusive as officials continue to suppress and repress its citizens. Any praise for China's economic changes must always be tempered by that knowledge.

- Associate Editor Fannie Flono

Michael Barnes letter: What I did and did not do

From Michael Barnes, at-large member of the Charlotte City Council. This letter will appear on Wednesday's Charlotte Observer Opinion page: 

Recent articles in the Charlotte Observer regarding my work as the Charlotte City Council District 4 representative and Twin Peeks nightclub have compelled me to clearly state what I did and did not do. As detailed planning and other work on the Blue Line Extension light rail project got underway in 2012, a number of businesses along the corridor – from a hardware store to a bakery - began contacting me because of the impact the project would have on their businesses. They were generally concerned about limited access, limited visibility or the complete demolition of their businesses. Put simply, the business owners were concerned about whether the work on the light rail project would put them out of business.

My actions on behalf of all those businesses were the same. I tried to develop an understanding of the problems and I then asked our staff to contact the businesses to determine whether there were any solutions to their problems. Sometimes we were able to provide better access to the businesses. Sometimes we were able to provide supplemental signage. In the case of Twin Peeks, I was told by our staff that the timetable for the light rail project did not leave any options for keeping that business open. I then asked our staff to discuss that with the business owner and my work ended there. I never pressured or persuaded our staff to arrive at any particular conclusion or to do anything special for Twin Peeks or any other business. I asked our staff to contact the businesses, develop an understanding of the scope of the problems and determine whether there was anything we could do to help.

My conduct was consistent with what I believe almost all elected officials strive to do for their constituents. Whether it has been a concern about a neighbor’s tall grass, a broken street light, a pothole or in this case, the light rail’s impact on businesses, since 2005 I have always made an effort to lawfully assist people when I can.

Another bruise for a big Charlotte business

A peril of being a Fortune 500 kind of city: Sometimes, the companies we call neighbors behave in less-than-exemplary ways. There's been a bit of that going around lately, with Duke Energy and coal ash, plus Bank of America's perpetual legal troubles over unfair lending practices. Now, there's some pending bad publicity for Chiquita Brands International, also based (for now) in Charlotte.

A report today in The Daily Beast says Chiquita has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars lobbying against a bill that would allow 9/11 victims to collect damages in lawsuits from the "sponsors of terrorism." 

Chiquita has no connection to 9/11 terrorism, so why would the company care?  Writes The Daily Beast's Tim Mak:

In 2007 (Chiquita) pleaded guilty to making over 100 payments to the United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia (AUC), a right-wing paramilitary group designated by the United States as a terrorist organization.

Chiquita, which had operated in Colombia for over 100 years, began making payments to the terrorist organization after a 1997 meeting between an AUC leader and a senior executive of its Colombian subsidiary. Nearly every month, additional payments followed. The fruit company has maintained that it only made payments due to extortionary threats of violence, and reacted to protect the lives of its workers.

Through a deal in which Chiquita was represented by now-Attorney General Eric Holder, the fruit company agreed to pay a $25 million fine. Chiquita acknowledged that between 1997 and 2004, it made over $1.7 million in payments in cash and checks to the terrorist group.

“Does [AUC] financing make Chiquita liable for the acts of terrorism and murder committed by those terrorists? That’s the question,” said Terry Collingsworth, a lawyer involved in a lawsuit against Chiquita. “To the extent that (the bill) changes that or clarifies that standard, it would present a threat to Chiquita.”

And so, Mak reports, Chiquita responded to the perceived threat. The company hired a high-powered Washington lobbying firm. It approached members of Congress with Chiquita facilities in their districts, and it apparently found one lawmaker with a sympathetic ear, Rep. Bob Goodlatte of Virginia.

What follows is some rude treatment of 9/11 families and, ultimately, legislation that has been stalled by the lobbying effort. Add it up, and it's a bruise on the banana company, plus Charlotte getting a mention in the wrong kind of way. That's an unpleasant, but survivable, byproduct of being a good place to do business. Besides, we have bigger headlines to wince at today.

Peter St. Onge

Westboro Baptist to protest Angelou funeral

Talk about Sisyphean. The Westboro Baptist folks are at it again, to no end. This time they plan to protest Maya Angelou's funeral.

You'll remember the small, misguided band from Topeka from their protesting at military funerals. Their twisted rationale there was that God was punishing America and the soldiers for fighting for gay rights.

Now, the group plans to protest with signs at Angelou's funeral because she supported same-sex marriage and gay rights. A private service will be held Saturday at Wake Forest University.

The Rev. Serenus Churn, pastor of the church where Angelou was a member for more than 30 years, has it right.

"It is unfortunate that they are some sick people filled with hatred and malice," Churn told the (Winston-Salem) Journal. "They are trying to desecrate the memory of someone who spoke for fair play and justice."

The Westboro folks can safely be ignored. Says Churn: "Nothing that they will do will diminish her stature."

Observer cartoonist Kevin Siers gave his take on Westboro Baptist three years ago:

The passing of an old friend

The cause of death was ruled, dismissively, as "old age." But anyone who saw the puddle of dark liquid pooling under the body would have known otherwise.

Sure, she was no spring chicken, but without the fatal blow she sustained, she could have rolled right along for who knows how many more years.

I sure do miss her now. Sure, she had gotten cranky in recent years. She had the ailments that come with a lot of mileage. She had creaky bones. She smelled bad. On her grumpiest days, she'd make strange sounds. Plus, the bills to take care of her were mounting all the time.

But she had been with me for so long, and I was always comfortable with her despite her flaws. She'd go anywhere with me. She took me on trips to the beach, and to more Duke basketball and football games than I can count. She even drove my wife and me home from the hospital after our first daughter was born, and again two years later when our second was born. We felt safe with her on those drives, knowing she'd help protect these miracles who had come into our lives. We would take her to the Anne Springs Close Greenway and she was great with having our two big Weimaraners come along with us, even when they'd come back wet and muddy.

There was nothing all that special about my 2000 Chevy Tahoe, I guess. She was just so familiar to me. I knew how to press her buttons. I was with her for years longer than any other. She was always there, ready to go, never demanding much.

I'm a little ashamed to admit it, but I replaced her with another before she was even fully gone. This new one and I are still getting to know each other. But she's a lot like the recently departed, and I have a good feeling that we're going to grow old together.

-- Taylor Batten

No property tax cut? That's OK

Six years after the recession prompted big cuts to schools, parks and libraries, Mecklenburg County is back on sound financial footing and wisely reinvesting in those and other areas.

County Manager Dena Diorio, who took the job in January, unveiled her first recommended budget today. It's a starting point, not an ending one, but appears to make smart, strategic investments in essential county services.

The highlights:

• The property tax rate remains the same.
• $26.8 million more to Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools, a 7.4 percent hike. That includes 2 percent raises for locally funded staff but not raises for teachers, which primarily is the state's responsibility.
• Increased spending on parks and libraries, which were slashed in the downturn.
• Substantial new hiring in the Department of Social Services, and funding to hire 33 more school nurses and three nurse supervisors, ensuring at least one nurse in every school.
• Bulking up code enforcement with 24 new positions, and internal audit, with two new auditor positions.
• 2 percent raises for county staff.
• More money for the Charlotte Regional Partnership and the local film commission.

Diorio said development (and thus property tax) and sales tax collections are rebounding, putting the county on better financial footing than it was even before the recession. Guidelines call for the county to have 28 percent of prior year revenue in its piggy bank; the county is now at 40 percent and growing, allowing for the new spending.

The obvious question is whether some of this largesse should be returned to taxpayers in the form of a property tax cut. We haven't crunched the numbers, but it appears that any responsible rate reduction would put only a small amount back in taxpayers' pockets.

We won't believe the legislature will pass a reasonable teacher-pay plan until it happens, but Diorio is right not to get out ahead of legislators on that front. We do wonder whether the Charlotte Regional Partnership has earned more county money at a time when state changes put its role in flux and there is talk of redundancy in economic development efforts locally.

Overall, though, given all the services county residents demand -- including great schools, pleasant parks and modest help for the lowest-income residents -- Diorio seems to be off to a strong start.

-- Taylor Batten 

Shame on North Carolina: Raise legislator pay!

North Carolina's pay for legislators is an embarrassment. Some even have to take other jobs just to make ends meet! It's true they don't meet 12 months a year, but think of all the work they have to do after hours -- going to cocktail parties, dinners and sporting events, for example.

How can our great state compete for the best talent when legislators can just cross the line to another state and make thousands more? Did you know starting legislators in Alaska make $50,400 a year, plus a hefty per diem? For goodness' sake, we pay our legislators only $4,000 more than Mississippi!

Do we not value what these people do? How can we find it acceptable that our children are taught about politics from people who make less than sanitation workers? An entry-level legislator has to work for years to see any bump in pay. Why, they have to work their way up all the way to majority or minority leader to get a $3,000 raise. No wonder they don't feel appreciated.

It's true that legislators don't go into this field to get rich. It's their passion for the work; nothing is more rewarding than that moment that they see that light go on in a campaign donor's eyes and they know they've made a connection. That's what it's all about.

Still, do they not deserve a living wage, for all they do? Thankfully, there is finally a push being made to do right by the people we entrust our public policies to each day. Rep. Robert Brawley, R-Iredell, is taking a courageous stand: He has proposed a bill that would nearly triple legislators' pay, from $13,951 to $36,000. They would, of course, maintain their expense allowance of $559 a month and their per diem of $104 a day when they are in session.

But with legislators being so vital to our future, we propose an even better approach than across-the-board raises. It includes a menu of options (though some might not go over well with the legislators' union):

• Instead of giving a raise to everyone, we will give a raise only to starting legislators. Those in their first term will get a 5 percent bump, but all others will remain flat.

• Legislators will give up their tenure, er, safe seats. But in return, the top 25 percent of legislators will get a $500 per year pay bump. Speaker Thom Tillis and Senate leader Phil Berger will decide which legislators are among the best 25 percent.

• We don't want to reward the bad legislators, only the good ones. So we will institute a pay-for-performance merit raise structure. Only those legislators whose constituents score well on civics tests will be eligible for a raise.

• Every legislator will get a letter grade from his or her constituents. Those who are awarded A's will get raises. All others will not. This will create incentives for our legislators to do their best.

• Any legislator who earns a Masters in Public Policy will not be awarded extra pay.

North Carolina was once a state where a legislator could get a fine meal every night and put it on the lobbyist's tab. No more. It's time we show how much we care.

-- Taylor Batten

Bill would nearly triple N.C. lawmakers' pay - no joke

The state may be short of cash to give school teachers a raise but Rep. Robert Brawley, R-Iredell, thinks there should be enough to give his legislative colleagues a big bump in pay.

In a bill filed today, Brawley proposes that the pay of members of the General Assembly be increased to $36,000 a year starting with the 2015 legislative session.

Brawley and his colleagues in the House currently earn an annual salary of $13,951 with a monthly expense allowance of $559.

Brawley himself won't benefit if House Bill 1176 gets adopted. He lost recently in the primary to John Fraley.

Brawley though isn't the only lawmaker looking at the pay issue. In South Carolina recently s the state Senate approved boosting their legislative salaries. But public sentiment is running strongly against it with even S.C. Gov. Nikki Haley critical of the idea.

Some S.C. lawmakers would  see raises up to "192 percent" with the senate bill that's proposed, according to watchdog groups. Lawmakers would get $12,000 more in pay - added to the $10,400 a year salary and their $12,000 a year annual expense pay for a new total of over $34,000. The raises would cost the state over $2 million annually. Observers speculated that if such a bill passed the House, Haley would veto it and there would not be the votes to override her veto.

No price-tag has been put on Brawley's bill but it could be higher given lawmakers' lower starting point. N.C. Gov. Pat McCrory hasn't commented on it.

Brawley apparently feels strongly that lawmakers aren't compensated enough for their part-time work. Last year, he introduced legislation to allow legislators and legislative employees to accept gifts from lobbyists.

Brawley didn't forget teachers. Also on Wednesday, he filed a bill that would allow each county to increase property taxes by one-cent for teacher compensation.

Brawley doesn't appear to be in the good graces of the GOP legislative leadership though so neither bill could see much support. On Wednesday, he was either ousted or dropped out of the House Republican caucus.

Brawley said a "vote of no confidence" was called at a meeting of the House Republican caucus on Tuesday which "effectively, removed me from the caucus."

Majority Leader Edgar Starnes disputes that, saying that Brawley "voluntarily" removed himself from participation in future meetings of the caucus, meetings where lawmakers plot strategy and debate issues considered too sensitive for public exposure. Caucus meetings aren't subject to the state's open meetings laws. Brawley has ticked off legislative leaders by publicly exposing what has gone on in some of those meetings.

Will the N.C. legislature legalize pot?

Will North Carolina become the first Southern state to legalize marijuana?

Mecklenburg Rep. Kelly Alexander is urging his fellow lawmakers to do so - for medical purposes.

Alexander filed a bill Tuesday to allow the use of medical marijuana in the Tar Heel state. Rep. Carla Cunningham, a registered nurse, also of Mecklenburg is co-sponsor. Both are Democrats.

House Bill 1161 is called the Medical cannabis protection act, and is "an act to amend the North Carolina Constitution to legalize the medical use of cannabis.

If the bill passes, it would be placed on the ballot as a referendum for voters to approve or reject. The proposal says "this act shall be submitted to the qualified voters of the State at a statewide general election to be held on November 4, 2014, which election shall be conducted under the laws then governing elections in the State... If a majority of the votes cast on the question are in favor... the amendment becomes effective December 1, 2014."

"Cannabis is a substance that does have medical applications that are provable," Charlotte's WSOC TV quotes Alexander as saying.

Alexander said hearing about people who struggle with chronic pain, specifically veterans, is a big reason for his push.

He also said the state could make big money -- anywhere from $100 to $200 million in tax revenue.

That money could help the state address numerous needs, Alexander said. "Salary increases for teachers,” he noted.

This fall, Alaska and Florida are the latest states set to offer voters the chance to legalize pot. Will North Carolina join them?

If it was left up to young people, that would be a safe bet. A Pew Research Center poll from February showed 70 percent of people between 18 and 29 years old believe marijuana should be legalized.

That is compared to 32 percent of people 65 and older who support it.

Currently, 21 states and the District of Columbia have legalized marijuana for medical purposes. Recreational marijuana is now legal in Colorado and Washington state.