Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: [hreg] Can you say "Huh?" in Mandarin? [1 Attachment]

Expand Messages
  • kevin conlin
    It may be a collector’s item someday, Ariel , I’d hang on to it! Happy Holidays! Kevin Heliosolar Design, Inc. Kevin Conlin PH: 281-202-9629
    Message 1 of 8 , Dec 17, 2010
    • 0 Attachment

      It may be a collector’s item someday, Ariel , I’d hang on to it!

       

      Happy Holidays!

       

      Kevin

       

      Heliosolar Design, Inc.

      Kevin Conlin

      PH: 281-202-9629

      kevin@...

       

      From: hreg@yahoogroups.com [mailto:hreg@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Ariel Thomann
      Sent: Friday, December 17, 2010 8:44 PM
      To: hreg; Houston-Climate
      Subject: [hreg] Can you say "Huh?" in Mandarin? [1 Attachment]

       

       

      [Attachment(s) from Ariel Thomann included below]

      This morning I had two newspapers at my door.  The Chronicle, and... the first Houston edition of China Daily.
      So, now I know "the truth" about what came out of Cancún.  I've scanned it into PDF and am attaching it, although I expect it will be "stripped" by Yahoo.  If anyone out there wants it, I'll be glad to send it to you.
      Peace
      Ariel

      - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

    • Robert Johnston
      I can’t imagine accepting as “the truth” the editorial opinions of the official English language mouthpiece of the Communist Party government of China.
      Message 2 of 8 , Dec 17, 2010
      • 0 Attachment

        I can’t imagine accepting as “the truth” the editorial opinions of the official English language mouthpiece of the Communist Party government of China.  Frankly, I thought it was a bunch of propaganda, especially the last few paragraphs.  The sins of the Chinese government—both environmental and humanitarian—have been plain to see.  China is hugely inefficient and wasteful of resources.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environment_of_China   Look at 1.3 million displaced persons from the large dam recently created.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Gorges_Dam   Look at the vast pollution.  Look at the contaminated foods, drugs, and toys (just for example) sold for domestic consumption and exported as well.  The list can go on.  For every U.S. lie and manipulation revealed by Wiki-leaks, I’m sure China has more in spades.  Do you really think their support of the government in Darfur—done so they can extract resources—or North Korea—which keeps a large population living under starvation and misery while stripping every plant from the countryside—is helpful to either the planet or its population?  China’s opposition to climate regulations that limit its uncontrolled and resource-wasteful growth is motivation enough for the kind of finger-pointing engaged in by the editorial writer. 

         

        The Red Army controls much of Chinese industry, and they are engaged in capitalism too, though of a bastardized state-enterprise variety.  They are ramping up production of eco-products (already they are the world’s largest producer of wind turbines and solar panels) just as “evil profit-motivated capitalist corporations” (my paraphrase) in the West are.  Why China should decry Western corporations for responding to a crisis is beyond me, unless China wants to dominate the market and build their industry by competing against a western industry with one arm tied behind its back, taxed to death to pay for the “private” contribution to the development fund that enables China to make more products cheaper and to sell them subsidized to the West and to the rest of the developing world.  This would work much like the arrangement in Afghanistan, where we send our troops to stabilize the government and then protect the Chinese while they set up mining camps, mine the resources and ship them home.  In other words, use our resources to help the Chinese compete better with our own industries, so that our industries fail (or get bought out by the Chinese) and we have to buy more from China.  It is a path to national ruin for the West.  That would seem to align rather nicely with goals of this newspaper.

         

        Again, just to make the point clear, read the following paragraph from the paper and ask yourself if China and its army/state-run industries aren’t doing the same in spades? 

        “Billions of people across the world have been cajoled into believing in the ‘eco-friendly’ activities of multinationals and big industries, which in fact have caused, and are causing, the greatest harm to planet Earth.  Corporate houses know the advantages of ‘going green’.  A ‘green tag’ helps them to fool the people into believing they are the saviors of the environment and continue to make more profits.”

         

        Why, if profit is so bad, are the Chinese raking them in?  How can it be that the US is now so much in debt to China?  They must be making a dime of profit somewhere in the deal. 

        Why do we want to punish corporations for going green?  Even if they are doing it for a profit motive.  Even if they aren’t doing it to the same level of ideological purity and intensity as a green activist might, isn’t it something to be welcomed that they are moving in the right direction?  Furthermore, can we expect corporations to move that much faster than the population (their customers) at large?  This isn’t just corporations; this is all of us and our lifestyles and choices.

         

        I think we should read China Daily with a very skeptical eye if we want to have a future worth experiencing.

         

        Robert

         

        From: hreg@yahoogroups.com [mailto:hreg@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Ariel Thomann
        Sent: Friday, December 17, 2010 8:44 PM
        To: hreg; Houston-Climate
        Subject: [hreg] Can you say "Huh?" in Mandarin? [1 Attachment]

         

         

        [Attachment(s) from Ariel Thomann included below]

        This morning I had two newspapers at my door.  The Chronicle, and... the first Houston edition of China Daily.
        So, now I know "the truth" about what came out of Cancún.  I've scanned it into PDF and am attaching it, although I expect it will be "stripped" by Yahoo.  If anyone out there wants it, I'll be glad to send it to you.
        Peace
        Ariel

        - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

      • Tyra Rankin
        Robert: Great comments and analysis! Could you elaborate and provide more detail on your statement: “by competing against a western industry with one arm
        Message 3 of 8 , Dec 18, 2010
        • 0 Attachment

          Robert:

           

          Great comments and analysis!  Could you elaborate and provide more detail on your statement: “by competing against a western industry with one arm tied behind its back, taxed to death to pay for the “private” contribution to the development fund that enables China to make more products cheaper and to sell them subsidized to the West and to the rest of the developing world. “

           

          What development fund are you referencing?

           

          Regards,

          Tyra

           


          From: hreg@yahoogroups.com [mailto: hreg@yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of Robert Johnston
          Sent: Friday, December 17, 2010 10:50 PM
          To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: RE: [hreg] Can you say "Huh?" in Mandarin?

           

           

          I can’t imagine accepting as “the truth” the editorial opinions of the official English language mouthpiece of the Communist Party government of China .  Frankly, I thought it was a bunch of propaganda, especially the last few paragraphs.  The sins of the Chinese government—both environmental and humanitarian—have been plain to see.  China is hugely inefficient and wasteful of resources.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environment_of_China   Look at 1.3 million displaced persons from the large dam recently created.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Gorges_Dam   Look at the vast pollution.  Look at the contaminated foods, drugs, and toys (just for example) sold for domestic consumption and exported as well.  The list can go on.  For every U.S. lie and manipulation revealed by Wiki-leaks, I’m sure China has more in spades.  Do you really think their support of the government in Darfur—done so they can extract resources—or North Korea—which keeps a large population living under starvation and misery while stripping every plant from the countryside—is helpful to either the planet or its population?  China ’s opposition to climate regulations that limit its uncontrolled and resource-wasteful growth is motivation enough for the kind of finger-pointing engaged in by the editorial writer. 

           

          The Red Army controls much of Chinese industry, and they are engaged in capitalism too, though of a bastardized state-enterprise variety.  They are ramping up production of eco-products (already they are the world’s largest producer of wind turbines and solar panels) just as “evil profit-motivated capitalist corporations” (my paraphrase) in the West are.  Why China should decry Western corporations for responding to a crisis is beyond me, unless China wants to dominate the market and build their industry by competing against a western industry with one arm tied behind its back, taxed to death to pay for the “private” contribution to the development fund that enables China to make more products cheaper and to sell them subsidized to the West and to the rest of the developing world.  This would work much like the arrangement in Afghanistan , where we send our troops to stabilize the government and then protect the Chinese while they set up mining camps, mine the resources and ship them home.  In other words, use our resources to help the Chinese compete better with our own industries, so that our industries fail (or get bought out by the Chinese) and we have to buy more from China .  It is a path to national ruin for the West.  That would seem to align rather nicely with goals of this newspaper.

           

          Again, just to make the point clear, read the following paragraph from the paper and ask yourself if China and its army/state-run industries aren’t doing the same in spades? 

          “Billions of people across the world have been cajoled into believing in the ‘eco-friendly’ activities of multinationals and big industries, which in fact have caused, and are causing, the greatest harm to planet Earth.  Corporate houses know the advantages of ‘going green’.  A ‘green tag’ helps them to fool the people into believing they are the saviors of the environment and continue to make more profits.”

           

          Why, if profit is so bad, are the Chinese raking them in?  How can it be that the US is now so much in debt to China ?  They must be making a dime of profit somewhere in the deal. 

          Why do we want to punish corporations for going green?  Even if they are doing it for a profit motive.  Even if they aren’t doing it to the same level of ideological purity and intensity as a green activist might, isn’t it something to be welcomed that they are moving in the right direction?  Furthermore, can we expect corporations to move that much faster than the population (their customers) at large?  This isn’t just corporations; this is all of us and our lifestyles and choices.

           

          I think we should read China Daily with a very skeptical eye if we want to have a future worth experiencing.

           

          Robert

           

          From: hreg@yahoogroups.com [mailto: hreg@yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of Ariel Thomann
          Sent: Friday, December 17, 2010 8:44 PM
          To: hreg; Houston-Climate
          Subject: [hreg] Can you say "Huh?" in Mandarin? [1 Attachment]

           

           

          [Attachment(s) from Ariel Thomann included below]

          This morning I had two newspapers at my door.  The Chronicle, and... the first Houston edition of China Daily.
          So, now I know "the truth" about what came out of Cancún.  I've scanned it into PDF and am attaching it, although I expect it will be "stripped" by Yahoo.  If anyone out there wants it, I'll be glad to send it to you.
          Peace
          Ariel

          - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

        • Robert Johnston
          Tyra, I have no information other than the article Ariel attached to his post. In it is the following paragraph: “The $100-billion pledge has been hailed as
          Message 4 of 8 , Dec 18, 2010
          • 0 Attachment

            Tyra,

            I have no information other than the article Ariel attached to his post.  In it is the following paragraph:

            “The $100-billion pledge has been hailed as the best part of the Cancun deal, especially because developing countries under the auspices of the U.N., not the World Bank, will manage the fund.  But the promise is only ‘potential’ and comes with no specific pledge of cash.  So where will the cash come from, if it comes at all?  Well, as the US said, most of it would come from the ‘private sector’.”

            An earlier paragraph in the article said the fund was to be used to help the developing countries adapt to climate change.

            Since I haven’t read more about Cancun beyond the article, I don’t know what this entails, but past history suggests that a $100 billion fund raised from the private sector probably involves some kind of government imposed fee or tax, and these do add to the competitive disadvantage of Western corporations. 

            Robert

             

             

            From: hreg@yahoogroups.com [mailto:hreg@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Tyra Rankin
            Sent: Saturday, December 18, 2010 9:31 AM
            To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
            Subject: RE: [hreg] Can you say "Huh?" in Mandarin?

             

             

            Robert:

             

            Great comments and analysis!  Could you elaborate and provide more detail on your statement: “by competing against a western industry with one arm tied behind its back, taxed to death to pay for the “private” contribution to the development fund that enables China to make more products cheaper and to sell them subsidized to the West and to the rest of the developing world. “

             

            What development fund are you referencing?

             

            Regards,

            Tyra

             


            From: hreg@yahoogroups.com [mailto:hreg@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Robert Johnston
            Sent: Friday, December 17, 2010 10:50 PM
            To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
            Subject: RE: [hreg] Can you say "Huh?" in Mandarin?

             

             

            I can’t imagine accepting as “the truth” the editorial opinions of the official English language mouthpiece of the Communist Party government of China.  Frankly, I thought it was a bunch of propaganda, especially the last few paragraphs.  The sins of the Chinese government—both environmental and humanitarian—have been plain to see.  China is hugely inefficient and wasteful of resources.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environment_of_China   Look at 1.3 million displaced persons from the large dam recently created.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Gorges_Dam   Look at the vast pollution.  Look at the contaminated foods, drugs, and toys (just for example) sold for domestic consumption and exported as well.  The list can go on.  For every U.S. lie and manipulation revealed by Wiki-leaks, I’m sure China has more in spades.  Do you really think their support of the government in Darfur—done so they can extract resources—or North Korea—which keeps a large population living under starvation and misery while stripping every plant from the countryside—is helpful to either the planet or its population?  China’s opposition to climate regulations that limit its uncontrolled and resource-wasteful growth is motivation enough for the kind of finger-pointing engaged in by the editorial writer. 

             

            The Red Army controls much of Chinese industry, and they are engaged in capitalism too, though of a bastardized state-enterprise variety.  They are ramping up production of eco-products (already they are the world’s largest producer of wind turbines and solar panels) just as “evil profit-motivated capitalist corporations” (my paraphrase) in the West are.  Why China should decry Western corporations for responding to a crisis is beyond me, unless China wants to dominate the market and build their industry by competing against a western industry with one arm tied behind its back, taxed to death to pay for the “private” contribution to the development fund that enables China to make more products cheaper and to sell them subsidized to the West and to the rest of the developing world.  This would work much like the arrangement in Afghanistan, where we send our troops to stabilize the government and then protect the Chinese while they set up mining camps, mine the resources and ship them home.  In other words, use our resources to help the Chinese compete better with our own industries, so that our industries fail (or get bought out by the Chinese) and we have to buy more from China.  It is a path to national ruin for the West.  That would seem to align rather nicely with goals of this newspaper.

             

            Again, just to make the point clear, read the following paragraph from the paper and ask yourself if China and its army/state-run industries aren’t doing the same in spades? 

            “Billions of people across the world have been cajoled into believing in the ‘eco-friendly’ activities of multinationals and big industries, which in fact have caused, and are causing, the greatest harm to planet Earth.  Corporate houses know the advantages of ‘going green’.  A ‘green tag’ helps them to fool the people into believing they are the saviors of the environment and continue to make more profits.”

             

            Why, if profit is so bad, are the Chinese raking them in?  How can it be that the US is now so much in debt to China?  They must be making a dime of profit somewhere in the deal. 

            Why do we want to punish corporations for going green?  Even if they are doing it for a profit motive.  Even if they aren’t doing it to the same level of ideological purity and intensity as a green activist might, isn’t it something to be welcomed that they are moving in the right direction?  Furthermore, can we expect corporations to move that much faster than the population (their customers) at large?  This isn’t just corporations; this is all of us and our lifestyles and choices.

             

            I think we should read China Daily with a very skeptical eye if we want to have a future worth experiencing.

             

            Robert

             

            From: hreg@yahoogroups.com [mailto:hreg@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Ariel Thomann
            Sent: Friday, December 17, 2010 8:44 PM
            To: hreg; Houston-Climate
            Subject: [hreg] Can you say "Huh?" in Mandarin? [1 Attachment]

             

             

            [Attachment(s) from Ariel Thomann included below]

            This morning I had two newspapers at my door.  The Chronicle, and... the first Houston edition of China Daily.
            So, now I know "the truth" about what came out of Cancún.  I've scanned it into PDF and am attaching it, although I expect it will be "stripped" by Yahoo.  If anyone out there wants it, I'll be glad to send it to you.
            Peace
            Ariel

            - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

          • Ariel Thomann
            Re: Can you say Huh? in Mandarin? -- Robert: You seemed quite indignant about my referring to the China Daily editorial(?) on Cancún as the truth . Please
            Message 5 of 8 , Dec 19, 2010
            • 0 Attachment

              Re: Can you say "Huh?" in Mandarin?

              -- Robert: You seemed quite indignant about my referring to the China Daily editorial(?) on Cancún as "the truth".  Please note that I had that in quotation marks in my original posting.  Perhaps I should have written "THEIR 'truth'" in order to more clearly indicate that my tongue was clearly (or so I thought) in my cheek.  Please rest assured that I too think they could do more regarding world climate problems. 

              -- By the way, their failure is no excuse for the US failure.  It's about time for us to do what's right, rather than continuing to hide our fossil-minded, profit-driven climate inactivity behind the non-excuse of what what others are failing to do.

              -- By the way, their printed article was pretty well limited to the climate question, although indeed they do poke in passing at some US policies in general.  It appears to me that your reaction went much further afield - certainly your privilege.  But please accept that in this forum I am just addressing the climate and renewable energy issues.
              --Peace
              Ariel


              - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
            • Robert Johnston
              Apologies. I read the quotes around the original “the truth” comment in your post as referring to THE truth as opposed to what US media reports.
              Message 6 of 8 , Dec 19, 2010
              • 0 Attachment

                Apologies.  I read the quotes around the original “the truth” comment in your post as referring to THE truth as opposed to what US media reports.  Completely misread your intent there!  Thanks for the clarification.

                I do get a bit defensive when people blast corporations for trying to improve their sustainability performance.  I wonder who besides corporations are going to have a big impact, and to attack them because you don’t like them or capitalism seems to be cutting off your nose to spite your face, if they are having a positive impact on the environment and CO2 emissions etc.  I’m not implying that you did that; the article did, though, and in China’s case it seems especially hypocritical, and that is what I was responding to.

                 

                Robert

                 

                 

                From: hreg@yahoogroups.com [mailto:hreg@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Ariel Thomann
                Sent: Sunday, December 19, 2010 10:54 AM
                To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
                Subject: [hreg] Re: Can you say "Huh?" in Mandarin?

                 

                Re: Can you say "Huh?" in Mandarin?

                -- Robert: You seemed quite indignant about my referring to the China Daily editorial(?) on Cancún as "the truth".  Please note that I had that in quotation marks in my original posting.  Perhaps I should have written "THEIR 'truth'" in order to more clearly indicate that my tongue was clearly (or so I thought) in my cheek.  Please rest assured that I too think they could do more regarding world climate problems. 

                -- By the way, their failure is no excuse for the US failure.  It's about time for us to do what's right, rather than continuing to hide our fossil-minded, profit-driven climate inactivity behind the non-excuse of what what others are failing to do.

                -- By the way, their printed article was pretty well limited to the climate question, although indeed they do poke in passing at some US policies in general.  It appears to me that your reaction went much further afield - certainly your privilege.  But please accept that in this forum I am just addressing the climate and renewable energy issues.
                --Peace
                Ariel

                - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

              • kevin conlin
                Thanks Robert! Okay everyone, now let’s get back to the holiday spirit, Festivus is just around the corner…….. Kevin Heliosolar Design, Inc. Kevin Conlin
                Message 7 of 8 , Dec 19, 2010
                • 0 Attachment

                  Thanks Robert!

                   

                  Okay everyone, now let’s get back to the holiday spirit, Festivus is just around the corner……..

                   

                  Kevin

                   

                  Heliosolar Design, Inc.

                  Kevin Conlin

                  PH: 281-202-9629

                  kevin@...

                   

                  From: hreg@yahoogroups.com [mailto:hreg@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Robert Johnston
                  Sent: Sunday, December 19, 2010 1:03 PM
                  To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
                  Subject: RE: [hreg] Re: Can you say "Huh?" in Mandarin?

                   

                   

                  Apologies.  I read the quotes around the original “the truth” comment in your post as referring to THE truth as opposed to what US media reports.  Completely misread your intent there!  Thanks for the clarification.

                  I do get a bit defensive when people blast corporations for trying to improve their sustainability performance.  I wonder who besides corporations are going to have a big impact, and to attack them because you don’t like them or capitalism seems to be cutting off your nose to spite your face, if they are having a positive impact on the environment and CO2 emissions etc.  I’m not implying that you did that; the article did, though, and in China’s case it seems especially hypocritical, and that is what I was responding to.

                   

                  Robert

                   

                   

                  From: hreg@yahoogroups.com [mailto:hreg@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Ariel Thomann
                  Sent: Sunday, December 19, 2010 10:54 AM
                  To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
                  Subject: [hreg] Re: Can you say "Huh?" in Mandarin?

                   

                  Re: Can you say "Huh?" in Mandarin?

                  -- Robert: You seemed quite indignant about my referring to the China Daily editorial(?) on Cancún as "the truth".  Please note that I had that in quotation marks in my original posting.  Perhaps I should have written "THEIR 'truth'" in order to more clearly indicate that my tongue was clearly (or so I thought) in my cheek.  Please rest assured that I too think they could do more regarding world climate problems. 

                  -- By the way, their failure is no excuse for the US failure.  It's about time for us to do what's right, rather than continuing to hide our fossil-minded, profit-driven climate inactivity behind the non-excuse of what what others are failing to do.

                  -- By the way, their printed article was pretty well limited to the climate question, although indeed they do poke in passing at some US policies in general.  It appears to me that your reaction went much further afield - certainly your privilege.  But please accept that in this forum I am just addressing the climate and renewable energy issues.
                  --Peace
                  Ariel

                  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.