Jeikun
-
Posts
1,872 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
3
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Calendar
Gallery
Posts posted by Jeikun
-
-
watched this thread carefully, tried to stay out of it, but.......
sounds like a family business going on here, hope you get your cut Dennis
come on guys, read this all again and reflect on how you are supporting a lie and go and delete all your smart posts in other threads on visa fraud and to all the guys you have said "sorry that happened to but only if..."
Dennis you are a good guy, you know whats right.
This is undoubtably the most asinine post that I have yet to read during four years as a member of this forum.
Your post speaks for itself and any intelligent member can see it for what it is.
While I wouldn't give it that designation (I'm certain I've seen hundereds of posts more deserving of being called asinine), and I have some serious doubts about the viability of such a relationship... I wouldn't call it visa fraud. It's only visa fraud if they met, and then one of them surepticiously, or both of them knowingly, pursued a visa when there is no bona fide relationship.
While the circumstances of them meeting may indeed be fraudulent (to one or both of them), if they truly build a relationship from that point, it would not be visa fraud. Also, if they didn't pursue a relationship it of course wouldn't be visa fraud, because no visa.
Either way, Dennis wouldn't be a "party to" anything beyond their first meeting, because that is between grandpa Al, and chickie-boo at that point.
So while questioning Dennis' decision in being a party to their introduction and witholding information from Al is within bounds (hey he even asked for it). Suggesting he's condoning or assisting in visa fraud is innacurate and overreacting.
And Dennis, re your recent post mentioning my comment of "he's a letcher"... that wasn't my verdict... just a possible explanation in my mind for why a mature 45 y/o man who has likely been around the block a few times and saw the moon landing on TV would want to pursue marriage with a 22 y/o freshly minted girl who probably can't remember life without the internet and a cell phone, and might have "gone steady" for a year or two once, and doesn't even know how to say "I like cheese" or "Which way is the library" in his native language. I seriously doubt it's because he thinks they are twin souls and she just understands him SO DEEPLY (and even if so that part is due to the machinations of your sister-in-law as she isn't even the girl he THINKS he was talking to). Nevertheless, that isn't an opinion on what you asked about... my opinion on that was, keep your mouth shut this time, but make clear you don't want to be a party to future "matchmaking".
-
I agree. The punishment fits the crime.
Would I like to see people like Bernie Madoff tried & punished in the Chinese way? You betcha!
However, it really doesn't seem as though the level of corruption in China is better than in America. Is their system of justice really a better deterrent than ours?
Criminals don't consider the consequences. They think only of themselves, only of easy money.
It's not a deterrent, but a way to make a show of doing something about it. If you can pick a few people to put to death it seems like the problem is solved to many, even when that is far from the case.
However, I do think our system of locking people up for decades and decades, putting out $50K of law abiding people's money for their care and housing per year, even those sentenced to death, is broken and shameful also. I wouldn't mind a few more executions here either.
-
Poor ole Al, this 45 year old man thought he was traveling 8000 miles to China to meet a beautiful 22 year old girl. Boy howdy we're all gonna just weep for him when he learns that his dream girl's already gotten married and instead he'll be greeted by her 22 year old cousin who's even more beautiful. Yes, poor ole Al suckered for becoming just a meal ticket for this beautiful young woman.
Breaks your heart don't it. 
Seriously, that's really the crux of it. My wife says that Jin and Jie look quite a bit alike, but Jie "is more beautiful, and more hard working and smart and drives a car and..."
Come on, the man's going to be well taken care of, how many men go through life having and getting an opportunity like this? And, I am told to just throw cold water on him/it, because deception is deception and lies are lies and the end result don't matter...
You can see where I am leaning...to just stay silent and hope for the best. And, yes, by not speaking up, I have become an accomplice... I know.
I still have a few weeks to give my final answer though.
I'm not sure if you previously left out the ages... 45 year old USC having a shell game with 22 year old chinese ladies
I think I've heard enough... I think I'd warn Jie at this point
Holy crap, I didn't pay attention to that either. Off topic a bit maybe... but while age is just a number... he was older than she is now when she was born... 23 years, wow. And not a 65-42 23 years... But a college student marrys a grandfather 23 years. And she's really good looking to boot? Pardon the stereotype but sweet young thing, college age marrying the 45 year old from Wisconsin, on the basis of manufactured emails? Sounds like a starter husband or a lecherous mid-life crisis guy type situation to me. Maybe both...
I'm harping... but this guy was communicating with a woman much older believing it to be the young one, yes? So maybe he thinks she is wise beyond her years and a tasty dish to boot... but... I harp on this because it adds another dimension to it:
Generation gap (not just age gap) + Serious language barrier + Culture shock + deception = what exactly? And what are the odds of not getting pinged at GZ?
-
I feel bad for Al, and I don't agree with the deception. But I also see the side that you don't want to cause a big turbulence in your family situation either.
If it sits wrong with you, I would say you should say you will not be a party to it anymore, and to leave you out of it. After all it's your wife's sister, so it's not like you can control her actions. Just say you won't be a part of it in the future.
As for Al, it sucks but he's collateral damage. Play stupid and hope it works out for him.
It's funny how some suggest it's Chinese culture, but every Chinese woman who posted here was very against it. Just goes further to show Chinese culture isn't as homogeneous as many like to think. Also remember the guy who is caught up in it isn't Chinese, so Chinese culture or not, his feelings are just as important.
-
I think if any one does not believe the development of west European and USA RULE BY LAW is not really about constraining the common citizen behaviors while excusing the behaviours of corporate and political corruption is smoking something too strong .
Better let china come up with something bettter, why would they want to adopt such a currupt and socially injust system as we have ?
Not smoking anything, but not with you on that one. I do agree that there is much corruption and abuse in our system, and in all government systems. I also agree that something better would be nice, maybe govenment controlled by an infallible AI computer?
I can't think of a better system, or I wouldn't be working here for a living... But for the development of the concept of Rule OF law being DESIGNED to constrain the commom citizen and excuse corruption? I can't be that cynical even on a bad day, sorry. -
What seems improbable to me is that the modern Chinese really considers their 5000 years of history when deciding what to have for breakfast this morning...
After the Cultural Revolution, after following Deng's "to get rich is glorious" dictum for the past 3 decades...How much of the distant past does the average person carry with them??? I don't think any amount of explanation will satisfy you when you simply want to apply it to breakfast decisions... but maybe start with why some eat dumplings at midnight of new yeasr's eve
There is too much history to speak about and how it's ripple effect occurs.I tend to think that the west likes to consider history like waste going down the gargage disposal. We like to send it off with some noise but hope to never see it again; The chinese see history as something that is recycled to some degree...
Chinese fa jia legalism: Not so much like the western concept of rule of law. More like a totalitarian ideaology, that squashes any idea of personal freedom or liberty. The idea of law being above the ruler is there, but in support of a harsh meritocracy that viewed common people as evil and stupid.
Imperial China... hardly purged of legalism, it's far more ingrained in Chinese law and thought that 15 years of Qin, though coated in a shiny confucianist shell so Chinese would continue to swallow it.
right.. it predates rule of law; it is the chinese approach of simply rule by law based on their circumstance/culture/history.
The legalist did believe the opposite of Confucius concern man's original state; they believed man was originally more depraved (self-seeking) than good BUT that man could become good... but law was the rudder which should steer them (and punish them). Thus, in theory, even the emperor could be selfish and self-seeking and the thus, nobody should be over the law. Law should be standardized and self-sufficient for the legalist. The problem was that the laws were cruel and oppressive and coincided with the overly ambitious projects of the time. It also produced the self-fulfilling prophecy; the men which were subject to the tryanny took self-seeking (survival) steps and returned an eye for an eye.
Society needs laws, so there is no debating that law remained in chinese history. The Tang Code was a major work partly based on the Northern Zhou (The Zhou dynasty rites were what Confucius was obsessed with reestablishing), but was a conflating of legalism and Confucian political theory. Every culture could be said to have to swallow the rules of their land... some even have to gulp.
But the Sui Dynasty which preceeded the Tang made some effort to bring back legalism. And although punishments were reduced quite a bit during the Tang dynasty they left much of it in place.
On a larger scale, laws in the imperialist era were still harsh and based on legalist ideas despite having the mask of conficianism, or in some dynastys, buddhism hung over them.
For that matter, though once true opposites according to some Confucian scholars some legalist ideas blended in with Confucinism after the fall of the Qin dynasty.
More recently (as I read on Wikipedia just now anyway) Mao had compared himself to Qin Shi Huang and publically approved of some legalist methods.
I would gather from these things, that while pretty much universally reviled by Confucian scholars, Legalism may have ceased to be an independant school of thought in China, but has never truly died.
-
even the emperor could be selfish and self-seeking and the thus, nobody should be over the law. Law should be standardized and self-sufficient for the legalist.
Hmmmm...Did you mean "nobody should be ABOVE the law" David??? My simple understanding of Confucianism is that high officials were indeed above the law...And now it seems from the article I referenced this morning on car accidents in China that the rich are also above the law...
Well in this case, David was referring to fa jia, not confucianism.
-
This is what my husband explained to me: the vegetable or fruits here are organic. It sounds that organic food needs not to be washed. But i wash everything before I cook it. Another phenomenon, when I just arrived here, I was so not used to drinking the water directly from the tap. In China at least where I come from, you either drink the water from the purified water or cook the water before you drink. We are taught drinking the water directly from the tap will make you sick.
Drinking tap water is fine here in the USA, but organic or not, it's still advisable to wash all veggies before eating. Even if they were free of dirt and pesticides, who's to say that a little kid didn't sneeze on them 5 minutes before you bought them, or 50 people haven't handled them, dropped them, etc. Washing is good.
yeah like a bird maybe flew over...
Actually washing helps only a little unless you use an antibiotic rinse. Peeling fruit or cooking everything is more effective.
Certified Organic means it was not exposed to pesticide or other chemicals, although this could have come from the air or water table. Washing does not remove pathogens or pesticide. Pathogens anchor into the skin (especially stubborn on meat) and must be killed not rinsed off. In China you can find these rinses in grocery stores. I've never seen them here in the USA. They are used by commercial processors in the USA.
Every home should have a spray bottle in the kitchen of bleach and water. Only a little bleach is needed. Spray counters and cutting boards whenever they are rinsed between different products. Clean knives between cutting fruit, vegetables and meat. This will reduce your spreading bacteria from one to the other. Make sure surfaces are kept dry so pathogens don't have an environment to grow in. Traditional handling by leaving food out or wrapped in cloth makes the surface dry. When cooked it is often controlled by the PH. Vinegar or Soy Sauce is good for this. USCs trust your spouse when she/he leaves things out that are cooked beyond the FDA/USDA recommended 4 hours. It probably is prepared in a traditional method of preservation.
Here's a fruit and vegetable wash I've seen advertised quite a bit in recent years, should be available in major grocery stores. It's called Fit.
-
Dagnabbit... I wrote this reply and with the click of a button erased it
I don't have time to recreate, so I'll just summarize what I meant to say.Chinese fa jia legalism: Not so much like the western concept of rule of law. More like a totalitarian ideaology, that squashes any idea of personal freedom or liberty. The idea of law being above the ruler is there, but in support of a harsh meritocracy that viewed common people as evil and stupid.
Imperial China... hardly purged of legalism, it's far more ingrained in Chinese law and thought than 15 years of Qin, though coated in a shiny confucianist shell so Chinese would continue to swallow it. I looked and found a Chinese term "Èå±í·¨ÑY"
Confucianism, according to some isn't necessarily anti-democrtic, and in some ways can be interpreted to support it (see some of David's links).
I had composed it much more eloquently, but since I deleted it that's the gist.
-
Here is what Confucius predicted (he is not considered a prophet, but it applies here): A country which lives by a rule of law will produce criminals. A country ruled by law will produce citizens.
Consider this (and this is my own theory):
- Rule of law is meant to prevent people from being exploited by the government. (western approach); thus, people are surrounded by laws which directs what they can and cannot do.
- Rule by law is meant to prevent people from being exploited by other people. (eastern approach); thus, people are surrounded by guiding principles of how to treat each other.
Only enough brain energy left to address this part tonight.
Confucius's prediction is both true and false, and can only be both true and false, never just one or the other. One could suggest that makes it negate itself... it says nothing. Because the reality is a country which lives by rule of law produces citizens and criminals. A country ruled by law will also produce criminals and citizens. I see the core point it seeks to convey, but it idealizes one example to perfection, and denegrates the other into complete corruption. Hyperbole.
From my western standpoint, I would say "ruled by law" produces subjects, not citizens... but that's admittedly a western viewpoint, so I will only mention it as an aside.
For your offered definitions, you have the core purpose correct in spirit, but some important nuances slip away in the oversimplification.
In your (western approach) "rule of law", the majority of the laws that choke the US system aren't those designed to protect people from the government, but the ones designed to protect people from other people, which is the law system you are contrasting to it. So one could say it's not truly a characteristic of the rule of law idea, but rather of our (the west's) own implementation of it.
In your (eastern approach) "rule by law", protecting people from other people, neglects that the government is not an alien entity, but also comprised of an elite group of the people, and thus is prone to devising laws self serving to those people, and actually being more forgiving of the non-government people hurting each other. Yet, there are still no shortage of laws which surround people (less perhaps, but far from the point of standing in direct contrast to the other system), as the jails never stand empty.
Still by and large, in spirit you have a good grip on it. The rub, I think is in the fact that while philosophy influences reality, reality tends to defy it openly pretty darn often.
Maybe this part belongs in a seperate post, but I am curious of your opinion if you have one (and god forgive me for mentioning Japan on this board). But Japan, and Korea both have very ancient cultures and histories, closely tied to China's through politics, philosophy, religion, language, writing, art for millenia. The Koreans and Japanese have (in their traditional culture) extremely similar ethics and worldview. It was theorized in the past that both countries would have been model communist countries for mostly the same reasons as China(and North Korea seems to confirm this idea). Yet both Japan and South Korea are vibrant solid democracies. Their peoples have found some way to honor both their traditional cultures, and yet at the same time have a democratic government in no danger of collapse. How is this so? Not to mention Hong Kong and Taiwan... both Chinese, both currently democratic. Despite having nearly identical roots, are mainland so deeply rooted and ingrained in one way of thinking that the very suggestion a democracy is possible there is ridiculous and laughable, while for their cousins and brothers it was possible? If so, what is the intrinsic difference?
I realize that Japan and Hong Kong pretty much had their systems forced on them... but why is it that there isn't constant culture clash, and asians running around with their heads exploding from living in what some suggest are magnetically opposed ethical and philosophical realities? Why??
I don't... repeat don't... REPEAT DON'T mean to suggest those countries systems are "better", "should be a model for China", or any such asinine thing!!! Really!! I am only bringing it up as an example that I think complicates the opinion that democracy and chinese thought are a square peg in a round hole. I think it's not as extreme as it is being made out to be. True, Mainland China is "different", but HOW different, and HOW much does it really influence?
I'm pretty specifically addressing this to David, or to anyone who has deep insight into Chinese and other East Asian culture. I'd prefer (but of course can't truly request
) that anyone who answers that part treat it respectfully and try to give a real answer other than "Jerpan ain't China and China ain't Jerpan, ya lobotomy candidate!". Because I'm seriously interested in an answer whether it's an agreement or not.Over looked is that the Japanese lost WWII. The constitution was forced on them by the victors. The old Samurai & Court elite had died off or faced war crime trials. Their culture had failed and it was becoming clear that the Emperor was not a God. The defeated Japanese did what their culture supported. They followed the victor. Lucky for the Japanese those who wrote the constitution and picked the leaders for the next 8 years added in details to protect personal freedom that they felt were missing from ours. The main problems encountered have been related to prohibitions on a military. (We regreted this one during the Vietnam war)
It hasn't all gone smooth. Anyone remember Mishima Yukio or the Sekigun? Oh yes, we also prohibited war time leaders from serving in the new post war government.
Korea didn't get Democracy until a college elite arose and curruption toppled Park.
I did mention Japan had their democracy forced on them, so I didn't overlook it, really. I concede that. I'm not so sure "follow the victor" had so much precident, as Japan had always been the conqueror, not the conquered. But you sound like you know a lot about Japan, so I'll accept your opinion on that and assume you know something I don't.
But despite how they were formed, they are persistant, sustainable, and for the most part the systems co-exist with traditional culture. Also, they are all very strong economies, modern, and posessing good health care systems and high quality of life.
My main question though is how if these societies (Japan, South Korea, Hong Kong, Taiwan) can have democracy coexist with similar philosophical, cultural, and historical backgrounds as China, that the idea China feasably could have a democracy at some point is considered so laughable and ludicrous on philosophical, cultural, and historical grounds?
-
Here is what Confucius predicted (he is not considered a prophet, but it applies here): A country which lives by a rule of law will produce criminals. A country ruled by law will produce citizens.
Consider this (and this is my own theory):
- Rule of law is meant to prevent people from being exploited by the government. (western approach); thus, people are surrounded by laws which directs what they can and cannot do.
- Rule by law is meant to prevent people from being exploited by other people. (eastern approach); thus, people are surrounded by guiding principles of how to treat each other.
Only enough brain energy left to address this part tonight.
Confucius's prediction is both true and false, and can only be both true and false, never just one or the other. One could suggest that makes it negate itself... it says nothing. Because the reality is a country which lives by rule of law produces citizens and criminals. A country ruled by law will also produce criminals and citizens. I see the core point it seeks to convey, but it idealizes one example to perfection, and denegrates the other into complete corruption. Hyperbole.
From my western standpoint, I would say "ruled by law" produces subjects, not citizens... but that's admittedly a western viewpoint, so I will only mention it as an aside.
For your offered definitions, you have the core purpose correct in spirit, but some important nuances slip away in the oversimplification.
In your (western approach) "rule of law", the majority of the laws that choke the US system aren't those designed to protect people from the government, but the ones designed to protect people from other people, which is the law system you are contrasting to it. So one could say it's not truly a characteristic of the rule of law idea, but rather of our (the west's) own implementation of it.
In your (eastern approach) "rule by law", protecting people from other people, neglects that the government is not an alien entity, but also comprised of an elite group of the people, and thus is prone to devising laws self serving to those people, and actually being more forgiving of the non-government people hurting each other. Yet, there are still no shortage of laws which surround people (less perhaps, but far from the point of standing in direct contrast to the other system), as the jails never stand empty.
Still by and large, in spirit you have a good grip on it. The rub, I think is in the fact that while philosophy influences reality, reality tends to defy it openly pretty darn often.
Maybe this part belongs in a seperate post, but I am curious of your opinion if you have one (and god forgive me for mentioning Japan on this board). But Japan, and Korea both have very ancient cultures and histories, closely tied to China's through politics, philosophy, religion, language, writing, art for millenia. The Koreans and Japanese have (in their traditional culture) extremely similar ethics and worldview. It was theorized in the past that both countries would have been model communist countries for mostly the same reasons as China(and North Korea seems to confirm this idea). Yet both Japan and South Korea are vibrant solid democracies. Their peoples have found some way to honor both their traditional cultures, and yet at the same time have a democratic government in no danger of collapse. How is this so? Not to mention Hong Kong and Taiwan... both Chinese, both currently democratic. Despite having nearly identical roots, are mainland so deeply rooted and ingrained in one way of thinking that the very suggestion a democracy is possible there is ridiculous and laughable, while for their cousins and brothers it was possible? If so, what is the intrinsic difference?
I realize that Japan and Hong Kong pretty much had their systems forced on them... but why is it that there isn't constant culture clash, and asians running around with their heads exploding from living in what some suggest are magnetically opposed ethical and philosophical realities? Why??
I don't... repeat don't... REPEAT DON'T mean to suggest those countries systems are "better", "should be a model for China", or any such asinine thing!!! Really!! I am only bringing it up as an example that I think complicates the opinion that democracy and chinese thought are a square peg in a round hole. I think it's not as extreme as it is being made out to be. True, Mainland China is "different", but HOW different, and HOW much does it really influence?
I'm pretty specifically addressing this to David, or to anyone who has deep insight into Chinese and other East Asian culture. I'd prefer (but of course can't truly request B)) that anyone who answers that part treat it respectfully and try to give a real answer other than "Jerpan ain't China and China ain't Jerpan, ya lobotomy candidate!". Because I'm seriously interested in an answer whether it's an agreement or not.
-
This is what my husband explained to me: the vegetable or fruits here are organic. It sounds that organic food needs not to be washed. But i wash everything before I cook it. Another phenomenon, when I just arrived here, I was so not used to drinking the water directly from the tap. In China at least where I come from, you either drink the water from the purified water or cook the water before you drink. We are taught drinking the water directly from the tap will make you sick.
Drinking tap water is fine here in the USA, but organic or not, it's still advisable to wash all veggies before eating. Even if they were free of dirt and pesticides, who's to say that a little kid didn't sneeze on them 5 minutes before you bought them, or 50 people haven't handled them, dropped them, etc. Washing is good.
-
There's a difference between opining on a messageboard, and jamming something down someone's throat.
If I muse in private, or discuss with a friend over whether or not Sally should lose some weight it is not the same as me walking up to sally and saying "Hey tubby, why doncha drop a ton or two?"
And Jesse, your silly talk example only holds water as far as facts go. To apply that to Roger's points would be to first make the assumption that you are right and he is wrong - period. Can you be SO sure of yourself as to literally make that a given?
-
Every country has some form of corruption in government, and China is no exception. Roger's attempt to suggest that the Rule of Law as practiced in the US or any other country claiming to be a part of it, would work in China, is silly talk.
It's not silly talk. "Snozzlefrazzle Snizzlefritz Goblamdapoop" is silly talk. You disagree with him. You have reasons, so does he. So do many people who have taken up the argument, both Non-Chinese and Chinese. I don't really find either side of the argument to be silly.
-
Wow, you guys are AMAZING. I posted a simple definition of rule of law... one person says "sounds good but..." and starts talking about DEMOCRACY... then tyranny of the majority comes in... then Bush/Cheney...
egads I say!
Rule of law is rule of law, just like rice is rice, beans are beans, and rocks is rocks (oops).
It is a simple, concrete definition of a concept, no politics implied or intended, and is independant of any government system in the strictest sence.
It was a term being thrown around in the discussion, in many cases wrongly, and I just wanted to be sure people knew what it actually meant. That's all.
Jason, not to worry. I am familiar with the rule of law as it's practiced in the US, which is directly attached to democracy. If you look at the history of the "Rule of Law," and how it came to the US, you will see the parallel I was attempting to illustrate with regard to the US founding fathers; especially Thomas Jefferson, who is credited with actually "penning" the declaration of independence, and a good deal of the constitution.
Nearly all of the founding fathers were educated with a healthy dose of philosophy that included Plato and Socrates. If you look back to Plato, you will find that several of the components of the Rule of Law are rooted in his philosophies. Along with his observations, he expressed what he thought to be the strong points and weak points of it. Both Plato and the founding fathers agreed that the Rule of Law is dangerous in the hands of the uneducated, and they should be shielded and protected by the state.
Again, the Rule of Law as described by Thomas Jefferson, Paine, Benjamin Franklin, and so on, is no longer practiced in the US, where you see just as the early philosophers predict, that corruption always takes over.
Every country has some form of corruption in government, and China is no exception. Roger's attempt to suggest that the Rule of Law as practiced in the US or any other country claiming to be a part of it, would work in China, is silly talk.
Yes, Plato didn't think much of direct democracy. Neither did some of the founding fathers. But I reacted because I was simply defining what the term "rule of law" meant, because I saw it being misused and expected it would confuse the argument quite a bit. Since your reply on the merits of democracy quoted that post of mine, then it ran off into a tangent based on your post, I felt my meaning was being twisted.
I was not (in that post anyway) arguing for or against democracy, Facism, Platonic thought, Confuscinism, or those who choose to venerate Sam the great boar who makes the sun rise. Merely pointing out that the rule of law by definition means the law is above the rulers. Not any particular implementation of it, no caveat of "how it is practiced in the US" - just defining for purpose of further discussion. That rule of law doesn't simply mean "there are laws" because if you look back, some people have misconstrued it as such.
-
Wow, you guys are AMAZING. I posted a simple definition of rule of law... one person says "sounds good but..." and starts talking about DEMOCRACY... then tyranny of the majority comes in... then Bush/Cheney...
egads I say!
Rule of law is rule of law, just like rice is rice, beans are beans, and rocks is rocks (oops).
It is a simple, concrete definition of a concept, no politics implied or intended, and is independant of any government system in the strictest sence.
It was a term being thrown around in the discussion, in many cases wrongly, and I just wanted to be sure people knew what it actually meant. That's all.
-
One of the flaws in the arguments here is to talk about rule of law. Every country on earth, that I am aware of, has a rule of law. Their rule of law may differ from ours, or the country next door. But every dictatorship, democracy, etc. has laws for its citizens to follow. How just any law is can be debated ad infinitum.
Most of your post was quite good, actually... but I wanted to point out for anyone confused what rule of law means.
Rule of law doesn't simply mean having laws. Rule of law means the law is the ultimate rule... not the government or ruler. If a country has laws, but the rulers are above them, then that country does not have rule of law. So by very definition, a dictatorship (for example) cannot have rule of law because the dictator is the ultimate power.
The 'rule of law', in its most basic form, is the principle that no one is above the law. Thomas Paine stated in his pamphlet Common Sense (1776): "For as in absolute governments the king is law, so in free countries the law ought to be king; and there ought to be no other." -
Jason you make some good points and this topic has drifted but IMO naturally so. The topic also includes
"turn toward a system of liberties, democracy, and rule of law...,Comments on how China or the US for that matter enforce rule of law falls on topic IMO. Example, we regard the US as a country with rules of law yet in virtually every natural disaster there is looting. Obviously we don't always hold up to rule of law.
Agreed, but while I do have a certain love for the country of my birth, and where my family has lived for over 350 years, I would not suggest that the USA is the standard against which China should be judged. I don't necessarily see democratization as equal to Americanization, or vice versa.
Meaning when a comment is made regrading how China may benefit from moving more towards rule of law, liberties, or democracy... I don't see a counter about how the USA has a failing here or there is relevant anymore than a similar comment about Italy or Canada would be. The USA is not China's opposite, and it is not necessary to use it as a foil in order to express an opinion about China.
This Us vs them mentality, takes a subject that was never an Us vs Them issue, and devolves it into senseless and pointless tit for tat, that stays only on the periphery of the actual issue, and gets people up on soapboxes or under security blankets.
-
Credit cards or rhetoric vs generations of experience? huh??
This thread is becoming f'ng ridiculous. What does an earthquake in Sichuan or a Hurricane in Louisiana have to do with Charter '08?
Why does it have to be: China is better! Nuh-uh America is better! Is not! Is too!!! Neener-Neener... GAG!
I will say that some people respond to even very general criticism or even speculative non-critical musings about their own countries like spoiled 8 year olds, and yet without hesitation jab back with even less eloquence or relavence to the subject being discussed.
I dare say 99% of the posters here love both China AND the USA, albeit at varying degrees, and after their own fashions.
For people who supposedly love across national and cultural borders, and have an open mind to each other's backgrounds, some of us sure like to spit and fling poo at each other, huh?
-
China seems like a relatively free country as long as:
A. You shut up and do as you are told
B. Your interests never come at odds with those of the government
It's interesting just how many Westerners actually believe that the Chinese government is milling about snatching people off the street after they fail to follow governmental directions.
Interesting yes, but not my belief per say, nor my intended point. Perhaps I didn't express myself well.
My point is for the "average Joe" who follows laws and directions, goes to work comes home, etc etc and who doesn't find themself through unfortunate circumstance with their interests coming at odds with those of the government, one would notice very little difference in the "freedoms" of their daily lives in the USA or in China.
However when this isn't the case, the differences will be revealed. In other words for a typical person under normal circumstances life isn't much different.
I would contrast that with say, North Korea for example, where infringement of rights, brainwashing, and a dismal quality of life is a daily reality, and is reinforced by a totalitarian regime and propaganda of the boldest and most intense sort.
No, people in China aren't in danger of being kidnapped by the police for making an offhand comment, or that sort of thing. But an old Chinese lady trying to sell canned drinks out of a cooler where she shouldn't IS in danger of having her skull cracked on the street by a "peace officer". Someone who's house is in the wrong place IS in danger of being turned out of it with no compensation or ridiculously insufficient compensation with no legal means of challenging it. Someone who protests a corrupt administration in certain small government areas IS in danger of being committed to an insane asylum so their words never reach higher government or the public at large...
Things are better, and a for a middle class person it may even be to the point that they could live their whole life and never feel at a loss for personal freedoms at all. But it's more through reasonable assurance than legal gaurantee.
Is that a bit more clear, and seem less extremist? I hope so. I can understand someone arguing against my point by degrees, how necessary such freedoms are, etc... but to deny it all together... well another poster mentioned someone is giving out lobotomies.
-
China had a democracy from 1911 to 1949. Sun-Yat-Sen founded it and is considered the Father of democracy in China. Chiang took democracy with him to Taiwan which is still practiced there today after he was defeated by Mao.
Taiwan still believes that one day democrcy will return to China and they will be recognized as the true government of China. It has been nearly 60 years since their expulsion but they have never given up this goal.
I think to call what the Nationalists brought to Taiwan in 1949 a democracy is a tremendous stretch...More like MARTIAL LAW...
Most definately. But the original government as founded in 1911-12 was a democracy, and later returned to a democracy. As for myself, I definately don't mean to build up or compliment the kuomingtang, or Taiwan. Just to point out that when the Republic of China was founded on the mainland in 1912, it was Asia's first democracy. It quickly gave in to corruption and infighting, and 2 world wars and full scale civil war pretty much destroyed it... my point was just that it was established by Chinese, not crammed down their throat by the US. It was an attempt at least, and for a small time had a good deal of popular support.
-
China seems like a relatively free country as long as:
A. You shut up and do as you are told
B. Your interests never come at odds with those of the government
Since most ex-pats and visitors are always following A and B, and have the extra courtesy traditionally extended to foreigners, many are deluded into seeing some golden paradise, and wonder what all this fuss about democracy is all about.
How often does the average American use his freedoms? How often does the difference become apparent between our 2 systems outside of civics class and the 10 o' clock news? Truth is you don't need your freedoms... until you need them.
Suggesting China deserves freedom and democracy doesn't imply hatred for China. They were once Asia's 1st democracy you know.
Rose was never my color.
So when was this first Asian Democracy?
Roughly 1912-1916 before the first warlord era and the world wars, though technically from 1912-1949 when the Chinese civil war went to the commnists. Troubled yes, but was founded as a republic, and still exists on the island of Taiwan as a republic.
-
As far as I know, China does block something from other countries.
Experience the joy of surfing the web just as it is in the PRC...
60,000 internet watchdogs are watching YOU and working tirelessly to protect you from yourself... 
and we have US companies like Cisco, Microsoft and Yahoo more than happy to assist them in both infrastructure and monitoring.
BTW: In the almost cumulative 8 months I've been in China, I can't recall really having that much of an issue in web restriction... I usually bring my work... and I still have time to go to all the porn, free movies and chatrooms I attend
I just Googled Charter 08 and came up with about 80,000 hits. I'm in China and was able to access the ones I clicked on ... even the Wiki article. So much for censorship in China.
That said, yes, the government in China does censor stuff ... maybe even a lot of stuff. But who amongst our lobotomy candidates here will say that the US government doesn't hide stuff from their citizens?
If anybody here were smart enough to understand even a little about Chinese history, they'd know that one of the reasons development was slow during the thousands of years under various dynasties was because every few years there would be a revolution -- usually started by poor, uneducated farmers for little valid reason.
Part of the reason the government of 1.4+ billion people -- the vast majority of them poor, uneducated farmers -- maintains a tight control (though not as tight as before) is because they want little to incite another revolution. Even a lobotomy wouldn't help anybody here who thinks that China -- or the world even -- would be better off if China suffered a Soviet Union style collapse or fell victim to another revolution.
Welcome to Hyperbole land! Where lobotomies are free and everyone who doesn't see the light is a drooling tard!! More enlightenment please!! I feel my frontal lobe regenerating already!!! Yaaay!!!
But when you drool, have some Kleenex handy so you can wipe it up.
That would defeat the purpose. I think I'd look much more the part just letting it hang down like shoestrings until the nurse came in to feed me my mush.
-
4) you don't have to live in america for all the time your greencard is valid. The only concern is when you want to renew the green card (10 years from now) if you have spent less than 50% of your time in america, they might not renew the green card.
For you this isn't a big deal. So long as you come to america to live in the next few years, the 10 year renewal will be no problem.
so... just follow the process, get the 10 year green card, then pursue your life as you want.
This is incorrect. She absolutely cannot remain outside of the USA for more than 1 year with just a green card. And it is pushing it to be out for more than 6 months. Jun was out of the US for 10 months on a 10 year greencard, and they told her they would let her slide that one time, but anytime over 6 months again and her card would be gone.
Also it is largely subjective. If the agent "feels" with only the most minor proof that your trip to China constituted taking up domicile there, the GC can be revoked. This includes playing the "6-month game" of coming for a short visit every 6 months.
The re-entry permit you can apply for, is the only way to get to stay out of the USA for up to 2 years. But once given, you can't apply again until you have returned to the USA for at least 6 months. And in the application they ask for exact amounts of time you have been in-country and how often/long you have been out, and can turn it down if they feel it is illegitimate.
No harm in trying I guess, but be ready to have to file again when you decide to move stateside again, just in case.
Do I keep quiet or do I spill the beans?
in Culture & Language Discussion
Posted
THIS I agree with you completely on, Rob. It would indeed be red flag city for a VO.