On Jun 14, 8:42 pm, drydem <walter_...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Jun 14, 2:16 am, George Orwell <nob...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > drydem wrote:
> > > On Jun 12, 8:32 am,beernuts<beerwithn...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > >> On Jun 5, 1:33 pm, EMBALMER <Embal...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > >> the thing drydem (Walter) must ask himself is, why must criticism
of
> > >> China, whether over its handling of the Earthquake destruction, or
> > >> anything else, be juxtaposed and compared with similar bad
government
> > >> choices and decisions in other countries?
>
> > >Beernuts(Chris), analysis of why decision or solutions failed
> > > not only tell us what not to do be can sometimes lead us to
> > > solutions or decisions that can succesed. What makesKatrina
> > > Hurrican and the Sichuan Earthquake similar is the magnitude
> > > of the disaster. Size matters when it comes to logistics.
> > > What you need to ask yourself -Beernuts(chris) - is
> > > whether you have become so-sensitive that you can't step
> > > back and look at this objectively?
>
> > >> Doesn't the Chinese govt deserve to be analyzed and,
> > >> yes, critiqued, without distorting the story by bringing up
> > >> Bush,Katrina, or for that matter, any other govt
> > >> or foreign tragedy? What's the goal?
>
> > > What distortion? Analysis of large scale disasters
> > > are not done in a laboratory with control and and experimental
> > > population. Sometimes when there is a global problem like
> > > the avian flu - you can compare the effectiveness of
> > > a goverment respose. However - theKatrinaand Sichuan
> > > Earthquake disaster an objective analysis requires making
> > > comparisons of solutions to other disasters of similar pro****tions.
> > > TheKatrinaHurricane disaster appears to be of similar scope
> > > in geographic impact area - albeit less people died from it than
> > > the chinese Sichuan earthquake disaster. Of particular interest
> > > to me is the mass evacuation of people and the deployment
> > > of emergency services.
>
> > >> To excuse bad choices in one place, by one govt, by
> > >> bad choices in another? That's ridiculous.
>
> > > It only looks that way to you because you are blinded by your own
> > > pride.
>
> > >> It might make Walter feel better, but it certainly doesn't make
the
> > >> victims of the CCP's poor response and clumsy handling any better.
>
> > > No. It's not the CCP poor response - if the CCP had the best
> > > earthquake forecasting equipment from Japan or Taiwan the
> > > CCP would still not be able to handle it any better. Today's
> > > early warning systems for earthquakes is about less than
> > > a few minutes. From what I've been reading - there's nothing
> > > inherently poor or clumsy with the Chinese emergency response
> > > and the major cause of loss of life is not due to their emergency
> > > response plan or implementation but the failure or lack of
> > > a strict enforcement of earthquake resistance building codes.
>
> > >> It's a tact common to CCP spokespeople and CCP apologists
everywhere -
> > >> fend of criticism by comparing yourself to [fill in the blank].
The
> > >> Chinese people deserve better.
>
> > > I disagree - a CCP spokesperson or CCP apologist don't commonly
> > > compare themselves to the USA, Bush or FEMA.
>
> > They can't. The U.S. is set up to handle disasters at the local level
> > first, all the way up to the state governors. When that failed in
> > Lousyana despite years of generous federal funding for their
> > preparedness system to work, every swinging dick started yelling, on
> > cue, for the federal government's ass.
>
> > > It's not that Chinese people don't deserve better but the CCP
mindset
> > > is really much more focus on China (that is to say the rest of the
> > > world doesn't matter). IMHO - critical comparisons are more of a
> > > common tact among westerners - especially in the USA. Some like
> > >Beernuts(chris) may perceive my critical comparison as a defense -
but
> > > that's because he's taken offensive to it. Which reminds me of that
> > > old USA football adage - the best defense is an good offense...or as
a
> > > sophist might say.....The best verbal defense is be verbally
> > > offensive. LOL :-)
>
> > So you're saying that you're on the defense. Read what you wrote.As
> > for your "critical comparison," are you still depending on second and
> > third hand information? I guess what I'm asking is, are you in a
> > position--personally and professionally--to make [honest] critical
> > comparisons? Kindly regale us with your experience and
qualifications.
>
> > G.O.
>
> A poster's profession cannot be verified over the usenet
> being that such things can easily be forged or faked.
> So such a requirement is irrelevant on the usenet.
>
> One ability or position to make a critical comparison
> on the usenet is limited to the data that is presented.
> Can you verify the data?
>
> As far as being defensive -- If having a healthy dose
> of skepticism is being defensive - yes - my education
> and my experience on the use net
> has taught me to be skeptical.
>
> With regards to CCP spindoctors tactics - my readings
> include the Chinese news sources which I use to
> validate and provide opposing view points from the
> western news source I normally read. For example,
> when the US electronic reconaissance plane and
> PRC jet fighter collided in midair - I made sure to
> read both Chinese and American news sources.
> With respect to Western news sources using
> critical comparison - I was just reading one that
> compared Japan with the USA. The New York Times
> story was about the Japanese mandate to win
> the battle of the bulge ( getting everyone to slim
> down )
>
Actually that NYTimes article has nothing whatsoever to do with the
issue I brought up, which is CCP spokespeople and apologists
continually striving to deflect criticism by pointing to faults of
other nations and governments (primarily the US). The NYT article
you mention (about waste lines, obesity, and associated health policy,
in Japan) was written and published under the Asian section of the
NYT, and includes comparisons made by one JAPANESE Mr. Ogu****, in
addition to general journalistic re****ting on stated weight and waste
line trends in Japan. It's legitimate, it's newsworthy, and
therefore, your referring to it as an analogous "critical comparison"
is patently wrong IMO.
Also, the irony of your earlier reply is that in saying "critical
comparisons' are often made by westerners, you yourself make a
comparison to the west. Funny. Assuming for the sake of argument
that you truly weren't comparing the Chinese earthquake to Katrina for
political reasons, it seems absurd to compare two events like these
given that the dynamics of each are considerably different. And where
they aren't different, there are countless other world tragedies from
the past which are more similar (i.e. some of them earthquakes), that
picking on Katrina seems even more suspicious. It seems clear that,
the real genesis of the comparison is yet another way to make China's
handling of a crisis look more palatable is by comparing it to
similarly botched govt crisis management in the US.
And BTW, I didn't mention anything about early quake detection. I'm
talking about the widely criticized CCP response to the aftermath,
including but not limited to: blatantly censoring western press
coverage, hindering supplies distribution, pulling down buildings
rapidly before performing adequate checks for dead or injured,
mismanaging or completely ignoring the collection and management of
victim information, etc. Don't take the western press word for it,
just like at the pictures of countless mothers kneeling in front of
government offices with pictures of their missing children (before
being bullied away by Chinese security and military forces).
As for as being offended, that's hardly true. I'm not a Bush fan, and
didn't vote for him. I'll be the first to criticize our govt (federal
and state) for mismanaging Katrina, for its handling of Iraq, and a
whole host of other issues. However, your response in this thread
clearly seeks to defend the CCP by comparing its actions to actions of
another govt, and this is a tact that is clearly propaganda, whether
intentional or not. Lastly, you completely duck from the very fair
question (by "George Orwell") of your background to justify making
such a comparison on your own merits. Your response (to that) about
people's stated backgrounds not being trustworthy is laughable given
that, apparently, everything else YOU say IS assumed to be trustworthy
and assumed to be interpreted as such by the reader****p. The
arrogance is actually pretty humorous, and that's not saying anything
about your grammar or spelling. Ah well, at least YOU believe in what
you say, I think.
Again, the irony here is that, even in denying that CPP apologists
compare themselves to the US...you end up making a comparison to the
U.S. Now that's rich.
|
