Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Ted Cruz

7 (6.5%)

Rick Santorum

16 (14.8%)

Michelle Bachmann

13 (12%)

Chris Christie

23 (21.3%)

Rand Paul

49 (45.4%)

Total Members Voted: 107

[Owlbread]

I wonder how we can enter the correct state of mind. What kind of meditation will this require? I could get ahold of some incense sticks and a whale song CD for us if someone finds a bubble bath big enough for all of us to fit in.

[ggamer]

Only when we are indoctrinated by the Chinese government will we be in the correct (read: state-approved) state of mind to understand the Chinese position.

[Owlbread]

I do read the South China Post at times which is apparently pro-Beijing, but I don't think that cuts the mustard.

[GlyphGryph]

Whether or not you're in the correct state of mind, you are DEFINITELY in the wrong thread. This is the American Politics thread, not the Asia Thread!

Speaking of which:
http://statelessmedia.net/documentary/chutzpah/
Chutzpah - a short video to help you understand Weiner.

[SalmonGod]

Communism failed, capitalism won, countries that adopted capitalist policies flourished, if for no other reason than everyone was more willing to trade now that they were all mostly on the same page. That's not an opinion on what is right or wrong, that's just the facts of the situation.

Wouldn't call that entirely facts, either.  I think military interventions had plenty to do with the way things played out.

[Gervassen]

I wonder how we can enter the correct state of mind. What kind of meditation will this require? I could get ahold of some incense sticks and a whale song CD for us if someone finds a bubble bath big enough for all of us to fit in.

The correct state of mind includes being willing to look at information that isn't on Wikipedia.

Everyone on Sina Weibo that follows the reform movement in China takes the implications of "Document Number 9" very seriously as an indication that Xi Jinping is sympathetic to hardliners like Jiang Zemin; but until it reaches Wikipedia, it won't exist for people like MSH. It's unimportant because it hasn't reached the real sources of information, which are all western and quite removed from actual Chinese events. Nothing truly exists in China, unless and until it has become prosaic enough to be reported in wikipedia. When I said that this frame of mind was contradictory to his stated purpose of predicting what will happen in a country where very little real discussion of current events is available in English, I really meant that without sarcasm. Since you seem to pick this serious statement up as a source of humour, I find it unfortunate that you choose to mock what you are unwilling to understand.

If Maoism was back, wouldn't China be FUBARed by now?

It won't be a quick transition, but reform has ground to a halt, and the pendulum has begun the backward swing. It kinda is FedUBAR already, though. I'm sure you heard about ICBC running out of cash in June and getting a quick liquidity injection from the government. I know engineers that have gone months without pay, then gotten pay cuts, from 4500RMB to 3500RMB a month. Life is not great for most Chinese. And this is under what you'd call capitalism.

Whether or not you're in the correct state of mind, you are DEFINITELY in the wrong thread. This is the American Politics thread, not the Asia Thread!

There's no Asia thread, just an Australia thread. Nothing exists in China unless an Australian notices.

[Sirus]

Nothing stopping you from making an Asian or Chinese thread, y'know.

[Gervassen]

I actually prefer not to dwell on such political things on a long term basis. Bad for the health. I'm just saying in passing that the common American view of Chinese economic and political reform being inevitable is perhaps not realistic given the facts. In fact, internal memos suggest just the opposite.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

The correct state of mind includes being willing to look at information that isn't on Wikipedia.

Everyone on Sina Weibo that follows the reform movement in China takes the implications of "Document Number 9" very seriously as an indication that Xi Jinping is sympathetic to hardliners like Jiang Zemin; but until it reaches Wikipedia, it won't exist for people like MSH. It's unimportant because it hasn't reached the real sources of information, which are all western and quite removed from actual Chinese events. Nothing truly exists in China, unless and until it has become prosaic enough to be reported in wikipedia.

Very interesting how you've chosen to latch so completely unto Wikipedia when it was never once brought up before in this discussion. You have been unable to present a trustworthy source for this Document Number 9, and as such we have no reason to trust your analysis based off of it.

While the NYT article you have pointed to might be alright depending upon sources and authorship, it is probably worth telling you that most people are long since locked out of NYT articles, due to the site having a view limit. Frankly, the fact that the Infowars article about it is more highly rated by search engines suggests the contrary.

I actually prefer not to dwell on such political things on a long term basis. Bad for the health. I'm just saying in passing that the common American view of Chinese economic and political reform being inevitable is perhaps not realistic given the facts. In fact, internal memos suggest just the opposite.

Reform is always inevitable for everybody. No civilization ever remains constant for a significant period of time, and in the global age we find ourselves in now the rate of change is only faster still.

[misko27]

Reform is always inevitable for everybody. No civilization ever remains constant for a significant period of time, and in the global age we find ourselves in now the rate of change is only faster still.

Baah, but here's the rub: Reform is a average over time. Overall, the world is moving. But in specifics, things can go completely FUBAR. It is entirely possible to regress, sometimes significantly, and sometimes for a long time. Remember the middle ages.


There is a pressure pushing China in the right direction, but it's easily ignored.

[Chaoswizkid]

Communism failed, capitalism won, countries that adopted capitalist policies flourished, if for no other reason than everyone was more willing to trade now that they were all mostly on the same page. That's not an opinion on what is right or wrong, that's just the facts of the situation.

Wouldn't call that entirely facts, either.  I think military interventions had plenty to do with the way things played out.

Oh, absolutely. I'm not saying that capitalism defeated communism or anything like that, I'm just saying that one system failed and one flourished and that's the reality we live in. The reasons for why that played out are probably a thousand-fold that everyone disagrees on.

[Askot Bokbondeler]

i wouldn't put it like that though, i'd say the cold war was less about competing systems and ideologies and more about competing superpowers. communism as an international movement may have died but plenty of socialized systems thrive in western nations. i also don't think capitalism will survive much longer in it's current shape, but that may just be my southern european point of view. i just hope the transition won't be too destructive, but the status quo isn't very benign either

[Gervassen]

You have been unable to present a trustworthy source for this Document Number 9, and as such we have no reason to trust your analysis based off of it.

Well, okay, if the NYT isn't good enough for you, then you can't be reached on any reasonable level. Meanwhile you've been unable to present any source at all. I have the NYT, and it is not a sufficient argument on your part simply to say that the NYT is too high-brow and expensive for you. That has never been a debating tactic that worked. "Uhh. That guy had some fancy sources. His whole argument is now invalid!"

"It has not been openly published, but a version was shown to The New York Times and was verified by four sources close to senior officials, including an editor with a party newspaper."

I'm wasting my time when I point out that NYT is banned in China, but I still access it. I could point out that NYT articles tend to get syndicated elsewhere and... oh look...

Sydney Morning Herald

And a dozen other free newspapers simply by searching for the important part of the URL.

While the NYT article you have pointed to might be alright depending upon sources and authorship, it is probably worth telling you that most people are long since locked out of NYT articles, due to the site having a view limit. Frankly, the fact that the Infowars article about it is more highly rated by search engines suggests the contrary.

You're a close-minded person, eh? You'd make a good Chinese cadre, given a bit of re-education, because you certainly have the attitude. I've never heard of Infowars, but your attitude toward protecting yourself from alternate points of view says it all. I doubt you'll go to the Sydney Morning Herald either.

Reform is always inevitable for everybody. No civilization ever remains constant for a significant period of time, and in the global age we find ourselves in now the rate of change is only faster still.

Reform is narrowly understood in this context. You know that it is narrowly understood to mean specific things that aren't actually likely to happen.

[10ebbor10]

Communism failed, capitalism won, countries that adopted capitalist policies flourished, if for no other reason than everyone was more willing to trade now that they were all mostly on the same page. That's not an opinion on what is right or wrong, that's just the facts of the situation.

Wouldn't call that entirely facts, either.  I think military interventions had plenty to do with the way things played out.

Capitalism is in crisis, and in fact, has been partly abolished in favor of interventionism.

[SalmonGod]

I think the flaw is over-reliance on having a system.  No one way of doing things is ever going to work for everything and everyone, and the longer we try to force it anyway, the more problems will build up over time.  Every system is doomed to terminal illness from birth if it's routinely applied to situations that fall outside its scope, and no system will ever be designed to cope sufficiently with all or even most situations.