We're not perfect but I don't think our zoning by-laws would permit the storage or production of high-explosives for military purposes near populated areas.
Tianjin Explosion
- Thread starter |2 /-\ | /|/
- Start date
We seem to be okay with building residential neighbourhoods (which used to be industrial) next to railway corridors transporting hazardous chemicals and oil.
China is not a dictatorship. It is a one-party state. A dictatorship is run by a dictator. A dictator is a supreme ruler who has no accountability and rules until he gets overthrown or dies.
Xi Jing Ping was nominated by the Central Committee Politburo, and his selection ratified by the Central Committee. The latter can oust him if they want, although it's never happened before. The Chinese President and Prime Minister can stay in office no more than 10 years.
In comparison, the US has a two-Party state. They essentially have the same policies. There is never any room for a third party or independent candidate that has any serious chance of winning: the system does not allow it in practice. The US President is elected by the Electoral College, and not directly by the electorate.
Your description of China and explanation of how it differs from dictatorship is spot on, but your disparagement of American democracy is wrong.
What you gloss is that the two parties shift their policies constantly in a fight for the political middle and wind up being similar only because they are both similar to the views of the average American. They reflect the population, which they should do in a democracy.
You ignore the dynamic, changing nature of the two parties as they track the opinions of Americans.
The Chinese system is more stable and more resilient than a dictatorship but it pales in comparasin to a modern western democracy.
What you gloss is that the two parties shift their policies constantly in a fight for the political middle and wind up being similar only because they are both similar to the views of the average American. They reflect the population, which they should do in a democracy.
You ignore the dynamic, changing nature of the two parties as they track the opinions of Americans.
The Chinese system is more stable and more resilient than a dictatorship but it pales in comparasin to a modern western democracy.
When police profile people because they are black (DWB Driving While Black), beat up people and then frame them with assault in order to exonorate themselves, shoot people on the flimsiest of pretexts and always getting off scott free, has the highest incarceration rate in the world, you wonder just what country really has a human rights problem. You really don't have that many rights in the US, unless there happens to be a dash-cam or smart phone camera pointing in the right direction. Even then, police accused of assault and abuse of power get let off without a criminal record so as to not undermine their careers.
At least, Chinese police are normally not armed, and don't go around beating people over the head.
The parties don't change quite as fast as their rhetoric does. Like Canada American Democracy presents people with the illusion of choice. It is a better system then PRC but lets be honest. When is the last time you voted for someone you really admired.
Last edited:
The US Democratic Party is plagued by Bipartisanship. They very often go along with Republican policies, although the reverse is not usually true. That's why they are virtually the same parties. They may be dynamic, but they move in the same direction all the time. There is also a distinction between the legislative and the executive. The US congress does not always follow the Presidential line, even though they are the same party. Both parties tracking popular opinion is also a sign that they are the same: they follow public opinion (shaped by the corporate press, btw, or just another form of brainwashing). Both will try to get the most votes, not just a minority of votes that suit their policies. On foreign policy, they are virtually the same. Democrats start as many wars, and overthrow as many foreign governments as Republicans in power. Most congressmen go on their Israeli (paid) pilgrimage every year to pay their hommage to Bibi, the king of the jews.
It's not usually a matter of personal freedom. It's a matter of economics.
Anyway, the PRC does not allow immigration (people moving to China to become citizens).
Of the over 300,000 Chinese citizens who visit Canada every year (there were more Chinese tourists than Germans in Canada last year), only about 700 claim refugee status, and 350 are declared bona-fide and accepted. That's how much people want to 'escape' China. Not very many.
Lots of people on teaching assignments, especially language. They are employed by Chinese schools. There are even some westerner free-lancers who teach English in internet cafes, pubs etc and manage to make a living at it and not get caught. The lifestyle can be different somewhat, and you can have a great time in the bigger cities. Nightlife in the bigger cities is pretty good.
In case you didn't read above, over 300,000 Chinese tourists visited Canada last year, which is the most non US tourists after UK and French tourists. 700 claimed refugee status and a mere 350 were accepted.
China does not accept immigrants (people wanting to become Chinese citizens), except for special circumstances like the boat people who were kicked out of Viet-Nam all of whom were ethnic Chinese. But now, you can get a 10 year visa for China. Once you've been there one year on a work visa, you can buy property.
Of course, some people are still stuck in Cold War mentality.
And despite the negative ways you put it the two parties ARE aligned with Americans, and have shifted their positions as the attitudes of Americans have shifted. Every system had warts, the American system certainly has its share, but in general terms it is a robust democracy that returns a government that reflects the wishes of the people.
My point is that it is a false criticism of a two party democracy to point out that the two parties are similar. It would be weird if they weren't similar, given that they are both fighting over the same population of voters.
I think that debris was bulldozed there, it looks a little too neat.
Also Chinese govt says only 50 people died or so, but I call bullshit on that. My guess is death toll is in the hundreds at least. We'll probably never know exactly how many
They are going by what Chinese govt tells them, and they dont always tell the truth.
Here's another pic. You can see the completely destroyed apartment buildings. I assume they are, but they could also be office buildings.
People were basically burned alive. A horrible way to die
