http://www.economist.com/node/15580832/comments
Law@HK wrote:
Feb 25th 2010 5:09 GMT
I am very interested to see what the Economist has said regarding regarding the US mistreatment of Martin Luther King in the 70s and whether they are equally critical to the US government.
Recommend (12)
---------------------------------------------
haldenrn wrote:
Feb 25th 2010 11:48 GMT
LAW@HK's comments are the usual fare of the politically inept. If you go to Haretz (Jewish newspaper) you will find some comments that the situation in Gaza is not perfect. The next comment will be a Law@HK clone saying "what about Afganistan' " what about Katrina" etc, etc. It adds nothing to the discussion and avoids answering the questions raised by the original article.
Recommend (6)
---------------------------------------------
Bardamu wrote:
Feb 26th 2010 12:41 GMT
The Economist is often highly critical of the US government and system, as anyone who reads the magazine regularly will know. This sometimes enrages people on the US far right, who accuse the Economist of being anti-American (though not so much recently, with a Democrat in the White House). Ring any bells with anyone? I certainly see a parallel in many of the reactions to the Economist's articles about China.
Recommend (3)
---------------------------------------------
Daveycool wrote:
Feb 26th 2010 1:16 GMT
haldenrn,
on the face of it, Law@HK's comment may seem pointless but it's actually a concise way of saying:
It's easy to complain. I, too, can find problems and poke holes in just about anything. It's a lot harder to figure out a solution. What's your solution? What's anybody else's solution to a similar problem? If no one has yet come up with a good solution, 1. why are we being held to an impossible standard, 2. perhaps a satisfactory solution doesn't exist after all.
Recommend (6)
---------------------------------------------
Daveycool wrote:
Feb 26th 2010 1:25 GMT
haldenrn,
I forogt to add:
3. We're unhappy for being scolded when you can't even live up to the standard you hold us to.
Recommend (3)
---------------------------------------------
Amir Akeel wrote:
Feb 26th 2010 10:35 GMT
Oh God, here we go again...
The Economist points out (rightly) that China has a sufferage deficit and everyone comes out and either blames America or claims that the US has worse problems.
The Economist rightly takes America to task often for its socio-political deficiencies, and yet you don't see Americans blaming shadowy Chinese Communists for gerrymandering.
Recommend (4)
---------------------------------------------
nkab wrote:
Feb 27th 2010 6:19 GMT
This article is superfacial and distorted at best.
Interestingly, a comment by "canadianchinaman" wrote: Feb 27th 2010 5:51 GMT on another currently running Economist article "What are they afraid of" fits the bill far better in my view. I am taking the liberty to post his comment below to share:
Quote---: canadianchinaman wrote: Feb 27th 2010 5:51 GMT
[@bismark111: Firstly I know that corruption exist in China. But unless you are a member of the Politburo, how do you what is required to become a member. The system is done through closed doors, we don't know what deals are made. The Chinese political system is closed oligarchy, whereas the West is a more open oligarchy. That is the main difference. There are factions that fight for power, just like there is between faction in a Western political party.]
Widespread and blatant corruption by officials. No doubt about it. But at the highest level China has been very blessed in that these leaders have been free of scandal. For this we have to thank the fates that Deng Xiaoping lived just long enough to set the ship of state right. (read my earlier comment on China's leadership succession.)
DXP set by example what good stewardship of the state is. His example is more powerful than any law can confer. DXP selected his successors. So will the current leaders select their successors. Who one's chosen successor is will impact on one's legacy in history. This is no small decision. Thus in China's succession protocol a disaster like George W Bush would never have gone higher than a county headman.
Obama would need twenty more years working through the ranks and prove himself before he can reach the highest office. China does not need charismatic leaders. What she needs is good honest managers who can keep the peace and manage the public purse. The people can do the rest to make China prosperous.
In China's system there is a strange process called Internal Struggle. Singapore's Lee Kuan Yew gave the best explanation. In this process The CPC cadre can discuss anything and take any position in a debate and there will be no repercussions.
But once a decision is arrived at all must accept the decision and there must be no dissent. The decision is passed up to the next level where the whole process of internal struggle is done again. And so it goes up and up until it reaches the highest level responsible for the final decision and its implementation.
By that time everyone is aware of the pros and cons of the issue and voting on the final decision is a matter of formality. A politburo member cannot just throw in a dissenting at the last minute view without providing compelling arguments. No filibusters allowed.
The Peoples Congress is no rubber stamp.
---Unquote.
没有评论:
发表评论