0x815 @ 0x815 @feddit.org

Posts

1,526

Comments

401

Joined

1 yr. ago

There are even reports in Chinese state-media fyi, but I didn't want to link to these sources.

This is maybe a devastating example why centralization and central planning is a bad and dehumanizing act for individuals in a society. There is a good documentary about China's so-called "Ghost Children". These are those who were born as younger siblings during China's One Child policy.

The documentary was made in 2014. It shows how quickly things can change, and how people suffer now and then due to bad politics.

It's really worth your time.

China's Ghost Children -- (video, 36 min)

Second or third children born illegally during China’s One Child Policy - implemented between 1979 and 2015 to curb the country's population growth by restricting many families to a single child - are banned from marrying, having children or simply boarding a train. Condemned to a non-life, these ghost children do not officially exist according to the Chinese state. ARTE Reportage goes in search of these ‘Haihaizi’, those children who should not have been born.

[Edit typo.]

This is maybe a devastating example why centralization and central planning is a bad and dehumanizing act for individuals in a society. There is a good documentary about China's so-called "Ghost Children". These are those who were born as younger siblings during China's One Child policy.

The documentary was made in 2014. It shows how quickly things can change, and how people suffer now and then due to bad politics.

It's really worth your time.

China's Ghost Children -- (video, 36 min)

Second or third children born illegally during China’s One Child Policy - implemented between 1979 and 2015 to curb the country's population growth by restricting many families to a single child - are banned from marrying, having children or simply boarding a train. Condemned to a non-life, these ghost children do not officially exist according to the Chinese state. ARTE Reportage goes in search of these ‘Haihaizi’, those children who should not have been born.

[Edit typo.]

This is maybe a devastating example why centralization and central planning is a bad and dehumanizing act for individuals in a society. There is a good documentary about China's so-called "Ghost Children". These are those who were born as younger siblings during China's One Child policy.

The documentary was made in 2014. It shows how quick things can change, and how people suffer now and then due to bad politics.

It's really worth your time.

China's Ghost Children -- (video, 36 min)

Second or third children born illegally during China’s One Child Policy - implemented between 1979 and 2015 to curb the country's population growth by restricting many families to a single child - are banned from marrying, having children or simply boarding a train. Condemned to a non-life, these ghost children do not officially exist according to the Chinese state. ARTE Reportage goes in search of these ‘Haihaizi’, those children who should not have been born.

When science showed in the 1970s that gas stoves produced harmful indoor air pollution, the industry reached for tobacco’s PR playbook -- (November 2023)

In 1976, beloved chef, cookbook author and television personality Julia Child returned to WGBH-TV’s studios in Boston for a new cooking show, “Julia Child & Company,” following her hit series “The French Chef.” Viewers probably didn’t know that Child’s new and improved kitchen studio, outfitted with gas stoves, was paid for by the American Gas Association.

While this may seem like any corporate sponsorship, we now know it was a part of a calculated campaign by gas industry executives to increase use of gas stoves across the United States. And stoves weren’t the only objective. The gas industry wanted to grow its residential market, and homes that used gas for cooking were likely also to use it for heat and hot water.

[...] The gas industry relied on Hill & Knowlton, the same public relations company that masterminded the tobacco industry’s playbook for responding to research linking smoking to lung cancer. Hill & Knowlton’s tactics included sponsoring research that would counter findings about gas stoves published in the scientific literature, emphasizing uncertainty in these findings to construct artificial controversy and engaging in aggressive public relations efforts.

The OSCE report (pdf) says:

Election day was generally procedurally well-organized and administered in an orderly manner but marked by a tense environment and several incidents of physical altercations and widespread intimidation of voters, as well as citizen observers. Voter identification (VID) and vote-counting devices (VCDs) were mostly operational, but the majority of voters in observed polling stations had difficulties operating the VCDs. Further, vote secrecy was potentially compromised in 24 per cent of observations, due to the manner of ballot insertion into VCDs or inadequate polling station layout. IEOM observers frequently reported indications of pressure on voters and overcrowding, and procedural inconsistencies.

In many cases, party representatives recorded the voting process and tracked voters, raising concerns about potential intimidation. While the presence of citizen and party observers contributed to transparency, many citizen observers appeared to act on behalf of contestants. During counting, procedural omissions included the improper handling of unused ballots, not announcing votes aloud and the IEOM noted inconsistencies in the determination of the validity of ballots. Tabulation was positively assessed, but the completeness and accuracy of results protocols was not consistently checked, with DECs citing that official results are finalized at the national level.

And here is another report.

Addition for the report by Transparency International Georgia

The election day took place in the context of serious and substantial violations. At the end of the day, it became clear that the various problems identified during the monitoring of the election process during the day were part of a larger scheme, the purpose of which was to subvert the final result of the election [...] unprecedented pressure was exerted on the representatives of the monitoring organizations. There were physical attacks, verbal abuse, intimidation, expulsion from the electoral precincts without reason. In most cases, it was impossible to observe the voting process. In some cases, it was even necessary to evacuate the observers [...] there was a concentration of unauthorized persons in the polling stations and their surrounding areas, who were particularly aggressive towards both voters and observers. As always, this time too, in order to pressure and intimidate the voters, the ruling party used criminal groups [...] neither the election administration nor the law enforcement bodies reacted to the gross facts of the violation of the law. There was a clear impression that the persons involved in rigging the elections had guarantees that no one would raise the question of their responsibility, even though they committed crimes [...]

Yes, I too find that irritating. Maybe what he means is that Microsoft was innovative in the very beginning of the company's history, before PCs were part of everyone's household. But Gates' Microsoft soon started to pursue a very monopolistic policy. And it has been doing so to this day. (I can't compare that to Carlos Slim's conglomerate, though, due to a lack of knowledge about that.)

@socsa@piefed.social

I absolutely agree with that.

Income equality is just one of many other factors to assess a just society as we know. But as many focus on China's GDP growth in its recent history, here are just numbers:

Between 2014 and 2022, in China the share of the bottom-50% income group (pre-tax) in the national income fell from 14.4% to 13.7%. In the same period, the shares of the top-1% and top-10% income groups rose from 13.7% and 41.5% to 15.7% and 43.4%, respectively. In a nutshell: the Chinese rich got richer, the poor got poorer.

For Western-style democracies, the numbers are diverse:

In European democracies like Germany and especially Norway, top income groups lost while the bottom-50% gained, while in countries like Finland all three mentioned groups gained, suggesting that the 'middle class' paid the bill. In other countries like Sweden, Denmark, and the U.S., the numbers show gains for the top at the cost of the bottom half.

And in Australia, top income groups lost significantly more than the bottom-50% gained, suggesting the middle class benefited, while in countries like Canada and Japan there appear to be only slight or even no significant changes in the period between 2014-2022.

But as I said, we must also focus on other factors that make a good society (the four freedoms come to my mind: freedom of speech and expression, freedom of worship, freedom from want, freedom from fear). Given the fact that some in this thread cite China's growth of GDP and national wealth as a factor of societal success, it is clear that this argument does not hold, though.

[Edit typo.]

In a piece published in November 2022, Nobel Economist Daron Acemoglu argues that China’s economy is rotting from the head.

For a while, [China's leader] Xi, his entourage, and even many outside experts believed that the economy could still flourish under conditions of tightening central control, censorship, indoctrination, and repression [after Xi secured an unprecedented third term (with no future term limits in sight), and stacked the all-powerful Politburo Standing Committee with loyal supporters]. Again, many looked to AI as an unprecedentedly powerful tool for monitoring and controlling society.

Yet there is mounting evidence to suggest that Xi and advisers misread the situation, and that China is poised to pay a hefty economic price for the regime’s intensifying control. Following sweeping regulatory crackdowns on Alibaba, Tencent, and others in 2021, Chinese companies are increasingly focused on remaining in the political authorities’ good graces, rather than on innovating.

The inefficiencies and other problems created by the politically motivated allocation of credit are also piling up, and state-led innovation is starting to reach its limits. Despite a large increase in government support since 2013, the quality of Chinese academic research is improving only slowly.

[...] The top-down control in Chinese academia is distorting the direction of research, too. Many faculty members are choosing their research areas to curry favor with heads of departments or deans, who have considerable power over their careers. As they shift their priorities, the evidence suggests that the overall quality of research is suffering.

Xi’s tightening grip over science and the economy means that these problems will intensify. And as is true in all autocracies, no independent experts or domestic media will speak up about the train wreck he has set in motion [...]

In a piece published in November 2022, Nobel Economist Daron Acemoglu argues that China’s economy is rotting from the head.

For a while, [China's leader] Xi, his entourage, and even many outside experts believed that the economy could still flourish under conditions of tightening central control, censorship, indoctrination, and repression [after Xi secured an unprecedented third term (with no future term limits in sight), and stacked the all-powerful Politburo Standing Committee with loyal supporters]. Again, many looked to AI as an unprecedentedly powerful tool for monitoring and controlling society.

Yet there is mounting evidence to suggest that Xi and advisers misread the situation, and that China is poised to pay a hefty economic price for the regime’s intensifying control. Following sweeping regulatory crackdowns on Alibaba, Tencent, and others in 2021, Chinese companies are increasingly focused on remaining in the political authorities’ good graces, rather than on innovating.

The inefficiencies and other problems created by the politically motivated allocation of credit are also piling up, and state-led innovation is starting to reach its limits. Despite a large increase in government support since 2013, the quality of Chinese academic research is improving only slowly.

[...] The top-down control in Chinese academia is distorting the direction of research, too. Many faculty members are choosing their research areas to curry favor with heads of departments or deans, who have considerable power over their careers. As they shift their priorities, the evidence suggests that the overall quality of research is suffering.

Xi’s tightening grip over science and the economy means that these problems will intensify. And as is true in all autocracies, no independent experts or domestic media will speak up about the train wreck he has set in motion [...]

In a piece published in November 2022, Nobel Economist Daron Acemoglu argues that China’s economy is rotting from the head.

For a while, [China's leader] Xi, his entourage, and even many outside experts believed that the economy could still flourish under conditions of tightening central control, censorship, indoctrination, and repression [after Xi secured an unprecedented third term (with no future term limits in sight), and stacked the all-powerful Politburo Standing Committee with loyal supporters]. Again, many looked to AI as an unprecedentedly powerful tool for monitoring and controlling society.

Yet there is mounting evidence to suggest that Xi and advisers misread the situation, and that China is poised to pay a hefty economic price for the regime’s intensifying control. Following sweeping regulatory crackdowns on Alibaba, Tencent, and others in 2021, Chinese companies are increasingly focused on remaining in the political authorities’ good graces, rather than on innovating.

The inefficiencies and other problems created by the politically motivated allocation of credit are also piling up, and state-led innovation is starting to reach its limits. Despite a large increase in government support since 2013, the quality of Chinese academic research is improving only slowly.

[...] The top-down control in Chinese academia is distorting the direction of research, too. Many faculty members are choosing their research areas to curry favor with heads of departments or deans, who have considerable power over their careers. As they shift their priorities, the evidence suggests that the overall quality of research is suffering.

Xi’s tightening grip over science and the economy means that these problems will intensify. And as is true in all autocracies, no independent experts or domestic media will speak up about the train wreck he has set in motion [...]

This is another small timid step, but at least we are heading in the right direction.

China is trying to distort history and international law in Taiwan, MEPs warn

[The European] Parliament condemns China's continued military provocations against Taiwan and firmly rejects any unilateral change to the status-quo in the Taiwan Strait.

These attempts, particularly by means of force or coercion, will not be accepted and will incur a decisive and firm reaction, warn MEPs. In a resolution adopted [...] on Thursday, they condemn China’s unwarranted military exercises of 14 October and continued military provocations against Taiwan, stressing that the military build-up changes the power balance in the Indo-Pacific.

Parliament strongly rejects China’s attempts to distort history and international rules and underlines that UN resolution 2758 does not take a position on Taiwan. It opposes China’s constant efforts to block Taiwan’s participation in multilateral organisations and calls on the EU and its member states to support Taiwan’s meaningful participation in international organisations such as the World Health Organization, the International Civil Aviation Organization, the International Criminal Police Organization (Interpol), and the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. MEPs also urge the UN to grant Taiwanese nationals and journalists the right to access its premises.

I am not a fan of Ms. Merkel -and, even less so, of Ms. Thatcher who "topped a poll of Britain’s best post-war leaders"-, but this article is just an empty rant without any substance. Except from the defense spending, there is not a single number, no source cited that would foster the authors' argument.

Just a few points: There is a lot of reason why you could criticize the former German chancellor, but Ms. Merke's "call to turn off Germany’s remaining nuclear power plants" isn't likely one of them (the mistake here wasn't the end of nuclear power but the failure of establishing a German renewable energy industry that was thriving in the 2000s).

And Ms. Merkel was not "inviting" over a million Syrians and others to Germany in 2015. The support Germany and some other states gave to refugees then fleeing a war was the right thing at the time. I can't say whether this sign of humanity has "helped fuel the rise of the hard right in Germany and elsewhere," but I am firmly convinced that if Ms. Merkel's successors in politics -in Germany and elsewhere- would show a more human stance towards our current democracies and human rights and against autocracies, voters would likely have a real alternative to "the hard right in Germany and elsewhere". (But, in the same article, the Economist criticizes Germany for "China [having] soaked up its exports, glad to face few questions over human rights, while Germany failed to worry about getting hooked on another autocratic regime". What, I wonder, do they say about the current transparency discussions, forced labour and other issues in Chinese supply chains?)

So I conclude that you could write a whole book on Ms. Merkel's economic policies, and not much of it may be positive. There is a lot to criticize. But this Economist article is another topic misconduct. To me reading this was a reminder why I unsubscribed to this magazine long time ago after having been a reader for many years.

I apologize for the long post.

@nentypaushessen@feddit.org

Und was die ukrainischen Zivilisten angeht die noch in den Regionen leben: Die sind sind doch mittlerweile größtenteils entweder pro Russland, tot, vertrieben oder nach Russland entführt.

Das ist wohl einer der widerlichsten Kommentare, die ich hier gelesen habe. Das ist absolut menschenverachtend.

... dass Russland die besetzten Gebiete behält ...

Abgesehen davon, dass man mit den besetzten Gebieten auch die Menschen, die dort leben, einem diktatorischen System preisgibt, wäre das auch sowas wie eine Bestätigung für Putin. Er würde weitermachen, dann eben in einem anderen Land.

Welcome to the club. I am banned there, too. 😜

Persecution of 10 Catholic bishops in China intensified after Vatican-China deal, report says

A new report sheds light on the repression faced by 10 Catholic bishops in China who have resisted the Chinese Communist Party’s attempt to exert control over religious matters since the 2018 China-Vatican agreement on the appointment of bishops.

The report, authored by Nina Shea for the Hudson Institute, documents the harrowing experiences of Vatican-approved bishops who have suffered detention without due process, surveillance, police investigations, and banishments from their dioceses for refusal to submit to the Chinese Patriotic Catholic Association (CPCA), a state-managed group controlled by the CCP’s United Front Work Department.

“This report shows that religious repression of the Catholic Church in China has intensified since the 2018 China-Vatican agreement on the appointment of bishops,” Shea said.

“Beijing targeted these 10 bishops after they opposed the Chinese Patriotic Catholic Association, which requires its members to pledge independence from the Holy See,” she added.

Desert Dumps (May 2024) -- [Archived]

Europe supports, finances and is directly involved in clandestine operations in North African countries to dump tens of thousands of Black people in the desert or remote areas each year to prevent them from coming to the EU.

[...] Europe knowingly funds, and in some instances is directly involved in systematic racial profiling detention and expulsion of Black communities across at least three North African countries [...] In Morocco, Mauritania and Tunisia, refugees and migrant workers, some of whom were on their way towards Europe, as well as people who had legal status and established livelihoods in these countries, are apprehended based on the colour of their skin, loaded onto buses and driven to the middle of nowhere, often arid desert areas.

How an EU-funded agency is working to keep migrants from reaching Europe (May 2023) -- [Archived]

In 2019, the EU inked a deal to provide nearly 20 million euros’ (about $21.4 million) worth of radar, undersea and airborne drones, radios and other technology, as well as training, to the government of Tunisia [...] Over the past decade, the EU has struck similar deals — exchanging hundreds of millions of euros worth of surveillance technology, other police equipment and accompanying training — with nearly every non-EU country that borders the bloc. At the center of these deals is the International Centre for Migration Policy Development, an innocuous-sounding international organization based in Vienna that has become one of the bloc’s go-to intermediaries for supplying surveillance equipment and training to police and coast guards in countries bordering the EU.

[...] “The EU is breaking its own rules and values with the border regime we have built up: They partner with autocratic regimes and provide them with technology to use in the Mediterranean to keep people out,” said Ozlem Demirel, a member of the European Parliament from Germany. Demirel pointed to the ICMPD as an example of efforts by the European Commission to carry out this work with as little scrutiny as possible.

These are just two investigation by external researchers. I would really be curious to read what the EU found. Did Ms. von der Leyen comment on why the Commission is hiding its findings?