backtop


Print 90 comment(s) - last by masher2.. on Oct 23 at 9:45 PM

Communist China is thinking of creating a Communist party space branch

Chinese astronauts are considering the creation of a space branch of the Communist Party of China (CPC). Even though the growing space nation is not a participating member of the International Space Station (ISS) project, the country hopes to be able to one day create its own permanent space station.

The Chinese astronaut corp now has 14 members -- all communist party members -- and the Communist party only requires three members for a government application.

"If China has its own space station, the taikonauts on mission will carry out the regular activities of a CPC branch in space in the way we do on Earth, such as learning the Party's policies and exchanging opinions on the Party's decisions," said Yang Liwei, China's first astronaut. "If we establish a Party branch in space, it would also be the 'highest' of its kind in the world.”

Yang, current deputy director of the China Astronaut Research Training Center, became the world's first taikonaut aboard the Shenzhou V spacecraft in 2003. During a mission two years later, two more Chinese astronauts were successfully sent to space aboard the Shenzhou VI spacecraft. Only the United States and Russia have successfully launched astronauts into space before China.

China plans another manned launch in mid-2008, this time with a three-man crew.

It will be a long time before an official party can be established, especially since the party branch must need a permanent space residence – a feat China will likely not be able to complete soon.

"Like foreign astronauts having their beliefs, we believe in Communism, which is also a spiritual power," closed Yang in a statement to Chinese media.


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: Designed to infame Americans
By Rav3n on 10/20/2007 12:36:38 PM , Rating: 3
Infuriate Americans, or spur discussion? The purpose of a headline is to draw in readers while giving some clue as to the contents of the article. Clearly, this one did. Is it a misleading headline as some have already suggested? Well, maybe it isn't the greatest piece of literature in the world.

As for the Airbus article, unless you are an American LOOKING to get pissed off, and LOOKING for a fight, there is no need to get offended. Nowhere did the article say Europeans are better than Americans, or Americans are incompetent/lazy/etc.

Besides, every publication is allowed to lean in a political direction, or take a stance. Whether this publication has taken an anti-American stance (and I don't think it has) shouldn't be up for debate due to 2 headlines.


RE: Designed to infame Americans
By Ringold on 10/20/2007 5:59:20 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Whether this publication has taken an anti-American stance (and I don't think it has)


I don't either, and I got get the OP's point. Sounds like a typical leftist making something out of nothing about the other side that he doesn't understand.

AirBus thing: It'll never happen, who cares?
Space Painted Red thing: Is this even a surprise? Again, who cares?

Both interesting news items, worthy of some discussion and of DT's attention in posting, but not something that would rile the right.

Now if DT dared to point out the recent news item about socialized Canadian medicine forcing Canadian mothers in to give birth to their premature babies in America because Canada, in a natural result of government intervention, has insufficient facilities to handle them all then that would really rile the left-wing. They're much easier to fire up. :) But these things? Not a big deal.


RE: Designed to infame Americans
By Felofasofa on 10/20/2007 8:02:01 PM , Rating: 1
You wouldn't be trying to espouse the virtues of the American health system would you? A health system in which 40 million people are without insurance. Those with insurance totally abuse it by never costing any health services, so Doctors and clinics charge what ever they want. Drug companies that charge outrageous amounts for pills, to fund their "research." My Father 82 who lives in Australia, was diagnosed with stenosis of the aortic valve. So he needed a new valve, it took less than 4 months from diagnosis for him to have surgery (successful). He has no health insurance and he didn't have to front up with any cash. Wouldn't happen in America. We all pay 1.5% of our income to fund our system, those with private health insurance pay less. It works way better than your supply and demand system which is in crisis.


RE: Designed to infame Americans
By Pirks on 10/21/2007 12:21:45 AM , Rating: 1
American healthcare system is a wonderful thing compared to Canadian one with its long waiting lists, where you can die while waiting for your doctor's appointment. I've been waiting for nine months for my appointment in Edmonton, luckily it was not a critical case. Nice "free" healthcare where everybody is "free" to die waiting. Screw you, Canadian Commie Government, for making private healthcare illegal.


RE: Designed to infame Americans
By Ringold on 10/21/2007 5:58:17 AM , Rating: 2
And you've got a top marginal tax bracket of 40-50% to go along with that wait time.

Of course, if you're in the top marginal bracket, could probably afford to get real health care and drive south of the border..

India also has a booming business privately treating health care refugees from the developed world.


RE: Designed to infame Americans
By Ringold on 10/21/2007 5:53:36 AM , Rating: 2
Lol, you proved my point; Communism is space? Conservatives don't care. The mere mention of a failing of a government agency? Someone comes out of the woodworks quacking about the glories of rationed medicine.

We can cite examples both ways all week. Fact is, those with insurance (ie, anybody who gives enough of a damn to work at someplace even as low as Starbucks) in the US get the best care a man can get. Those who dont have any can still manage anything short of disaster at low cost; god bless Walmart. Also worth pointing out the fact that where the free market reigns in the US, such as eye surgery and cosmetic procedures, costs have fallen and quality had gone remarkably up.

Pfizer also dropped its inhaleable insulin treatments last week, for a net loss of 3 billion USD. Think pharma would dare risk that kind of capital if every country in the world tried to squeeze it down to marginal cost pricing schemes?

And 1.5% of your income? Health spending in Canada is roughly 10% of GDP, so you're getting boned out of 10% if consumption power through one vehicle or another (direct taxation, imbedded taxes, reduced supply). Getting health costs down to 1.5% of income is pure fantasy for a modern society. I'd also point out that since doctors get paid peanuts in Canada, America has nearly 20% more per capita.. but again, we could go back and forth all day. I'll just the American system isn't a free market system; it's a bastardized system that has the worst elements of socialized (corporate provided) medicine and free market elements.


RE: Designed to infame Americans
By Felofasofa on 10/21/2007 9:26:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Fact is, those with insurance (ie, anybody who gives enough of a damn to work at someplace even as low as Starbucks) in the US get the best care a man can get.

That is absolute bollocks, why have 40 million people not got insurance? Your unemployment is not that high. You're telling me all those low paid Mexicans have adequate health cover? You've been smoking to much of the herb again my friend.
quote:
Getting health costs down to 1.5% of income is pure fantasy for a modern society.

It might be fantasy in your Country but it's fact in ours.
http://www.ato.gov.au/individuals/content.asp?doc=... Of course the very rich who have private health cover absolutely detest paying 1.5% of their taxable income toward the medicare levy, - my heart bleeds for them - truly.
Whether it's sustainable in the long term is debatable, but as of now the Australian Health System is considered the best in the world. Dare I say a country with Social Equity ;)


RE: Designed to infame Americans
By Ringold on 10/21/2007 11:40:24 PM , Rating: 2
A lot of those are people who are offered insurance at reduced rates but decide instead of paying when they're healthy to go uninsured. Which is, of course, exactly what you'd expect; those who don't need a product not buying it, while the more elderly or sick who do need it pony up. I don't have the statistics in front of me but I saw some very, very interesting figures on insurance coverage rates which essentially proves that thesis; we have close enough to full coverage among the older demographics.

Hell, I'm a prime example of that. I could get great coverage right now but I'm rolling the dice, as economic liberty demands that I be able to do, and choosing to invest that money elsewhere.

And sorry if I don't give a hoot about illegal low paid Mexicans mooching off of our ER services. And don't dare say anything -- what, with Australia's wonderful handling of its indigenous people, ya'll can really look down your noses at us,eh? At least our indigenous folk own all the casinos...

quote:
It might be fantasy in your Country but it's fact in ours.


No need for propaganda!
http://www.dfat.gov.au/facts/health_care.html

"It is funded, in part, through a taxation levy of 1.5 per cent of income."

All taxes go to general revenue at the end of the day; individual taxes are just government manipulation of the masses perception and the free market.

http://www.drs.org.au/new_doctor/75/fact_sheet_3.h...

Old data, but it proves your health care fantasy is wrong none the less. Even with a clear pro-medicare bias it manages to admit it costs around 8.5% of GDP in 2000

Here's a common sense approach.
http://australia.emigratenz.org/salaries-australia...
http://www.kff.org/insurance/snapshot/chcm010307ot...

I'll take data from the two, divide, and the average portion of income ate by health care in Australia by the average man (not woman) would be around 6% (backing out wage inflation from the wage number to 2003).

Long story short: You've listened to too many left-wing "free health care" stump speeches. Everything has costs.


RE: Designed to infame Americans
By Felofasofa on 10/22/2007 12:19:50 AM , Rating: 2
8.5% of GDP is not bad for good health cover. From the data you supplied you guys are paying 15% of your GDP. Those figures strongly suggest you are not getting value for money from every health dollar spent. Someones ripping your system. Americans are not twice as healthy as the rest of the OECD yet you are paying twice as much. If anything you guys are less healthy, highest obesity rates etc, then again you're spending so much I guess you can afford to be so unhealthy.


By Farfignewton on 10/22/2007 9:14:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Americans are not twice as healthy as the rest of the OECD yet you are paying twice as much. If anything you guys are less healthy, highest obesity rates etc


Hmmm... We're less healthy... and spending more on health care... I think... nope. Thought I was on to some type of correlation between the two, but clearly that's ridiculous. It must be the system. ;)


"Paying an extra $500 for a computer in this environment -- same piece of hardware -- paying $500 more to get a logo on it? I think that's a more challenging proposition for the average person than it used to be." -- Steve Ballmer

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki