More on the China Earthquake

[Wolfman]

Below is one of the most balanced reports (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080520.wchinanalysis0520/BNStory/International/home) I've seen on the earthquake in China, looking at both the good and the bad. Some excerpts:
Within hours of the quake, China was able to mobilize its vast human resources and target them at a massive disaster in a remote and forbidding region. More than 100,000 troops, police, medical workers and volunteers of every kind were astonishingly quick to reach the worst-hit cities, to search for survivors, offer relief, and evacuate the homeless to sports stadiums and tents.

China provided a deluge of information about the disaster, including a wave of detailed coverage on television, radio, websites and newspapers. Beijing also allowed foreign journalists to travel freely to the quake zone.
Not everything, of course, has been positive. The earthquake has also exposed some of China's worst flaws. It revealed, for example, shoddily built schools that collapsed into rubble as soon as the quake hit, killing hundreds of children. In some towns, the schools collapsed even when neighbouring buildings (and government offices) survived with barely a scratch. Local corruption is believed to be one reason for the poor construction.
And while China has been relatively open to foreign journalists in the quake zone so far, it was slow to accept offers from foreign rescue teams - even though the foreign teams had equipment and expertise that could have saved lives.
I agreed with pretty much everything this article said, and thought it was both intelligent and informed...and therefore was very disappointed when I reached the final sentence:
It was a sign that China still gives top priority to the commands of its authoritarian leaders, even during the worst disaster in more than three decades.This is in reference to not letting foreign rescue workers in to the damaged areas at first. What is this "China still gives top priority to the commands of its authoritarian leaders" crap? What do they mean when they say "China"? Do they mean its leaders? If so, then they are expressing rather moronic credulity that China's leaders listen to themselves. Do they mean the Chinese people? Well, I've got news for the author...the Chinese people have no say whatsoever as to who can enter the country, and who can't. It wouldn't matter if they "gave priority" to the authoritarian leaders or not, they still would not be able to do anything. A brilliant report, ruined by a rather asinine conclusion.

[GodMark2]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that the final sentence refers to the paragraphs right above it. You know, the ones you left out.

Apparently fearing a loss of face if it relied too heavily on foreign rescue teams, China stalled for several days before accepting any foreign rescuers. Even then, it accepted offers from only five countries. By the time rescuers arrived in the quake zone, it was too late for them to provide much help.

Chinese rescue workers readily admitted that their efforts were hobbled by a severe shortage of life-detecting equipment and sniffer dogs, which the foreign teams would have provided. Yet the Chinese government allowed its political needs to interfere with the offers of help.

It was a sign that China still gives top priority to the commands of its authoritarian leaders, even during the worst disaster in more than three decades.

Workers admitted foreign aid could help, while the government wouldn't allow foreigners to help. The "China" in the last paragraph seems, to me, to refer to the government (of which the leaders are only a small part). It is lamenting that the government would rather "save face" for their leaders than accept needed foreign aid.

Eventually, though the aid was accepted. And personally, I see no loss of "face" for that decision.

[Wolfman]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that the final sentence refers to the paragraphs right above it. You know, the ones you left out.



Workers admitted foreign aid could help, while the government wouldn't allow foreigners to help. The "China" in the last paragraph seems, to me, to refer to the government (of which the leaders are only a small part). It is lamenting that the government would rather "save face" for their leaders than accept needed foreign aid.

Eventually, though the aid was accepted. And personally, I see no loss of "face" for that decision.
Mark, that was pretty much my point :) I agree that "China" most likely means "the government", so essentially they are saying that, "the government still gives top priority to its own commands". Its just stupid. How many countries are there where the government does not give top priority to the commands of its leaders? If the U.S. gov't decided not to let people in, would we consider it unreasonable that the gov't listened to itself?

I agree that the decision not to let people in was wrong and short-sighted; but that final sentence is just stupid.

[plumjam]

Having not obsessively read/viewed much about the Chinese earthquake even so it still strikes me that the Chinese response was hugely better than the USA response to the New Orleans hurricane and flooding.

Probably due to a difference in political philosophies.

1. Chinese socialism/communism, in which the default view is that the state bears a responsibility to provide care for citizens, particularly during times of emergency.

2. Dubya F-U capitalism, in which the default view is that the state (ordinary hard-working taxpayers) bears a heavy responsibility to provide care for the citizens at the top of the state/corporate pyramid, who, during times of emergency, conveniently and self-servingly invoke laissez-faire Darwinist survival of the fittest, f*** you, help-yourself-cos-I'm-ok "philosophy".


What I found incredibly telling is that in all the news coverage I've seen so far the state authorities in China entered the disaster area in a completely non-aggressive manner.
Almost all the news coverage I saw from New Orleans was of the state intervening via gun-toting National Guard or police.. who were (huh?) seemingly prioritising the prevention of looting, rather than the rescue/evacuation/disposal of people/corpses.

Come on you yanks, maybe you can recognise that as a culture you have a far too aggressive/suspicious/combative/violent/winner-loser attitude to life.

[Wolfman]

Having not obsessively read/viewed much about the Chinese earthquake even so it still strikes me that the Chinese response was hugely better to the USA response to the New Orleans hurricane and flooding.

Probably due to a difference in political philosophies.

1. Chinese socialism/communism, in which the default view is that the state bears a responsibility to provide care for citizens, particularly during times of emergency.

2. Dubya F-U capitalism, in which the default view is that the state (ordinary hard-working taxpayers) bears a heavy responsibility to provide care for the citizens at the top of the state/corporate pyramid, and during times of emergency to invoke laissez-faire Darwinist survival of the fittest, f*** you, help-yourself-cos-I'm-ok "philosophy".


What I found incredibly telling is that in all the news coverage I've seen so far the state authorities in China entered the disaster area in a completely non-aggressive manner.
Almost all the news coverage I saw from New Orleans was of the state intervening via gun-toting National Guard or police.. who were (huh?) seemingly prioritising the prevention of looting, rather than the rescue/evacuation/disposal of people/corpses.

Come on you yanks, maybe you can recognise that as a culture you have a far too aggressive/suspicious/combative/violent/winner-loser attitude to life.Another very notable difference that a lot of people are commenting on is the complete lack of looting in China, as opposed to what happened in New Orleans. There was plenty of opportunity (and very, very little chance of getting caught), yet it was virtually non-existent.

And yeah, having an autocratic government can have its advantages. No need to get permission, or deal with different special interest groups, or run things through congress, etc. You simply say "do it!", and it is done.

[plumjam]

Another very notable difference that a lot of people are commenting on is the complete lack of looting in China, as opposed to what happened in New Orleans. There was plenty of opportunity (and very, very little chance of getting caught), yet it was virtually non-existent.

And yeah, having an autocratic government can have its advantages. No need to get permission, or deal with different special interest groups, or run things through congress, etc. You simply say "do it!", and it is done.

yeah, it's interesting.
It reminds me of Britain during the second world war. It was implicitly recognised during that national emergency that the most effective response was (whisper this) socialism. So vital industries were nationalised, Britain became a coaition one-party state, total war effort measures were introduced, rationing... etc..
What does this tell us really?
To me (at least) it tells us that the most effective society is a socialist society, in which common effort for one's neighbours has a high social/moral value.

In F-U greedy self-obsessed capitalism the system is more or less set up to set neighbours against each other via competitive consumerism. So it's essentially divisive. And it's divisive because that way the people at the top of the pyramid have the best chance of convincing the people at mid-lower pyramid to sell themselves via 2 or 3 jobs at minimum wage + usurous 30% per annum credit cards in order to "keep up with the Jones's"

Anyway, now I'm ranting ;)

[SoBitter]

Getting back to the original article, I took that last sentence as the writer's negative opinion of the Chinese response to the earthquake, as indicated by the sentence before that last one. It's all in how you phrase the sentence in your head, I think.

As for capitalism being divisive, I think people succumb to the pressure of "looking good" or whatever, but at the end of the day, they know what they are doing. People realize that they are in a mound of debt and that they can't afford the things they are buying, they just enjoy it too much. It's like compulsive gambling. You lose your house and you still think you just need one good run at the casino to get it back. I don't know if socialism would take away an American's desire to have the biggest flatscreen TV that their credit card will allow them to charge. It would take a generation at least to lose that mentality.

[plumjam]

As for capitalism being divisive, I think people succumb to the pressure of "looking good" or whatever, but at the end of the day, they know what they are doing. People realize that they are in a mound of debt and that they can't afford the things they are buying, they just enjoy it too much. It's like compulsive gambling. You lose your house and you still think you just need one good run at the casino to get it back. I don't know if socialism would take away an American's desire to have the biggest flatscreen TV that their credit card will allow them to charge. It would take a generation at least to lose that mentality.

Being a Brit, things aren't great here, but spending 4 months living in the USA, the amount of ads I was exposed to (in-other-words having no alternative but to have their content put into my brain) which are obviously pushing every person possible into an attitude of wanting to accept some kind of exploitative debt... well.. I don't really accept that it's just what most people want. Most people don't want to be in debt.
The people with the most property and money, at the top.. of course, they certainly want as many people as possible beneath them in society to be tied and thus in some way kept down by the debt/interest/credit/usury/exploitation system. This works best by doing your best to 'brain-wash' the middle/poor into believing that they can't find fulfilment without signing the contracts of the upper exploitative section of society.
And so it goes.
The people at the top need some legal way (force) to keep their "inferiors" under control and working to enrich them.

Time to sing the Internationale. ;)

[Travis]

Having not obsessively read/viewed much about the Chinese earthquake even so it still strikes me that the Chinese response was hugely better than the USA response to the New Orleans hurricane and flooding.

Completely different types of disasters, sort like comparing apples and socket wrenches.

Probably due to a difference in political philosophies.

1. Chinese socialism/communism, in which the default view is that the state bears a responsibility to provide care for citizens, particularly during times of emergency.

...and kill a few million whenever a "great leap forward" is needed or a "Cultural Revolution" to get rid of that pesky intellectual elite.

2. Dubya F-U capitalism, in which the default view is that the state (ordinary hard-working taxpayers) bears a heavy responsibility to provide care for the citizens at the top of the state/corporate pyramid, who, during times of emergency, conveniently and self-servingly invoke laissez-faire Darwinist survival of the fittest, f*** you, help-yourself-cos-I'm-ok "philosophy".

How many ambulances were prepositioned before the hurricane struck? How many MASH units were prepositioned? How much whole blood was prepositioned. How much food and medicine was prepositioned? How many rescue units were mobilized and en-route to the New Orleans area before the hurricane hit?

Research those questions Plumjam and come back and try do defend what you just wrote above.

ETA You could start here: http://www.katrina.house.gov/full_katrina_report.htm

What I found incredibly telling is that in all the news coverage I've seen so far the state authorities in China entered the disaster area in a completely non-aggressive manner.
Almost all the news coverage I saw from New Orleans was of the state intervening via gun-toting National Guard or police.. who were (huh?) seemingly prioritising the prevention of looting, rather than the rescue/evacuation/disposal of people/corpses.

They were guntoting only because the media were making up reports of people shooting at rescue workers (not to mention lies about massacres and rapes in the superdome). Therefore they decided to neutralize that threat first to allow for a safe environment to rescue people.

Come on you yanks, maybe you can recognise that as a culture you have a far too aggressive/suspicious/combative/violent/winner-loser attitude to life.

ultimately 1,836 people died in Katrina. How high will the deathtoll be in this earthquake that you think was handled so much better.

[Wolfman]

...and kill a few million whenever a "great leap forward" is needed or a "Cultural Revolution" to get rid of that pesky intellectual elite.I'd point out that the leaders in China today are entirely different than the leaders who launched the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution...and that both were quite a few years ago. I might as well make comments about the American gov't supporting slavery; while it is true that the U.S. gov't did once support slavery, the people who are in charge now had no part in making or enforcing those policies.
How many ambulances were prepositioned before the hurricane struck? How many MASH units were prepositioned? How much whole blood was prepositioned. How much food and medicine was prepositioned? How many rescue units were mobilized and en-route to the New Orleans area before the hurricane hit?I'm not quite sure of your point here...the U.S. was unprepared, and China was unprepared. But China had a hell of a lot more manpower (the largest standing army in the world) at hand to take immediate action once a disaster happened. Not saying this is better or worse...only that reaction time was, by any standard, significantly faster.
They were guntoting only because the media were making up reports of people shooting at rescue workers (not to mention lies about massacres and rapes in the superdome). Therefore they decided to neutralize that threat first to allow for a safe environment to rescue people. Which would seem to make an argument, if not about the government, at least about the two different cultures...the fact that in America, rescue workers had to protect themselves from violent attack before they could help people, while in China no such measures were necessary.
ultimately 1,836 people died in Katrina. How high will the deathtoll be in this earthquake that you think was handled so much better.Man, you talked about "apples and oranges" at the beginning, but then you went and made an argument that is more like "watermelons and bananas".

The number of people who were immediately killed as a result of the quake would already out-strip the total number of people killed in Katrina. There is no way on earth that a higher death count is indicative of the effectiveness of rescue efforts. I might just as well turn around and point out that millions more people were saved by Chinese rescue workers than by American rescue workers...but that would be just as meaningless, since the total number of people affected by Katrina was far, far, far less than the number of people affected by this quake.

In regards to Plumjam's arguments, I disagree with using this as an example to 'prove' the superiority of a socialist system; it is an isolated event. Any real discussion of such things must look at the bigger picture. Yeah, the Chinese gov't's response in this situation was impressive and effective. But that same government has used its military not only to rescue people in trouble, but also to attack or kill people who dare to oppose government policy.

Personally, I favor a system that is a combination of capitalism and socialism; allowing enough individual freedom and opportunity to encourage individual effort; but preventing overpowering domination of any individual or corporation, and doing some degree of wealth re-distribution to help those in need.

However, as I said, this isolated instance in China can hardly be used as a conclusive argument for any pro or anti-socialist stance. One must look at the overall picture, not just cherry-pick the situations that happen to support your viewpoint.

[Travis]

I'd point out that the leaders in China today are entirely different than the leaders who launched the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution...and that both were quite a few years ago. I might as well make comments about the American gov't supporting slavery; while it is true that the U.S. gov't did once support slavery, the people who are in charge now had no part in making or enforcing those policies.

Fair enough.


I'm not quite sure of your point here...the U.S. was unprepared, and China was unprepared. But China had a hell of a lot more manpower (the largest standing army in the world) at hand to take immediate action once a disaster happened. Not saying this is better or worse...only that reaction time was, by any standard, significantly faster.

No my point was that the US did prepare quite extensively for Katrina, in fact more rescue personal and supplies were mobilized and in position than for any other natural disaster in US, or perhaps even world, history. IT was the miss-utilization of those methodically prepared assets that led to Katrina being a worse disaster than it needed to be. An example would be that hundreds of ambulances staffed with EMT and trauma surgeons spent a couple of days just sitting on Interstate 10 west of New Orleans because FEMA had "forgotten" they had been ordered to queue there and wait for instructions.

Bottom line is that the problems of Katrina were engineering (like the levees breaking) and major incompetence not, as Plumjam suggested, some laissez-faire "let everyone fend for themselves" policy of the federal government.


Which would seem to make an argument, if not about the government, at least about the two different cultures...the fact that in America, rescue workers had to protect themselves from violent attack before they could help people, while in China no such measures were necessary.

Well, the fact is that there was nothing to be scared of. It was the Journalists that just made the stuff up and the military and police that took those reports seriously. So what this really speaks of is a difference in media reporting and in this regard the China version at least didn't disseminate fantastic lies that scared people and delayed rescue efforts.

Man, you talked about "apples and oranges" at the beginning, but then you went and made an argument that is more like "watermelons and bananas".

I only went down the road of making the comparison because Plumjam did. I agree with you that the events are incomparable and using the death tolls to make any point is pointless.

[Wolfman]

The photos of the massive devastation in Sichuan are mindboggling...it is almost impossible to comprehend destruction on that scale.

But one picture in particular caught my attention...highlighting not only the tragedy, but also the massive power of such a quake.
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/14393483681d087105.jpg
These gigantic boulders were shaken loose from the surrounding mountains, and tore through this village. Incredible.

[Travis]

Spooky.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Wow, that rock picture is something else.

Just as a general impression, the news coverage here has been portraying China as a modern country with a passionate response. While I saw a couple articles on people taking advantage of the situation, the majority of reports were of communities pulling together and aid getting to people including police/fire/rescue type responses.

I imagine the Chinese people are going to take a hard look at building safety especially the schools. But then, that isn't being portrayed in the news here as some failing based on corruption, just lack of modernizing due to the natural progress of these kind of things. If it is corruption related, that is really sad.

It's heartbreaking though to see the people who have lost everyone or their kids or parents.

I'm glad you are alright WM. Though I did assume you were not in the area most affected.