Americans Legislate the Same Dichotomy

Update: I reread this post after a Nathan from To the People commented. I achieved a full-on SnarkFail. To be clear, I agree with Nathan in every point he makes. I clarify how in my response in the comments. I need to remember that sometimes saying “Jackie Chan is a moron” would be more effective than a more subtle approach. So, to clarify: Jackie Chan is a moron.

Nathan at To the People mocks Jackie Chan for comments he recently made (Story here):

“I’m not sure if it’s good to have freedom or not,” Chan said. “I’m really confused now. If you’re too free, you’re like the way Hong Kong is now. It’s very chaotic. Taiwan is also chaotic.”

Chan added: “I’m gradually beginning to feel that we Chinese need to be controlled. If we’re not being controlled, we’ll just do what we want.”

The Communist Party leaders who control the Chinese who “need” to be controlled are not controlled. Are they just doing what they want?


Nathan states this in response to the real-world outcome exhibited in another of Mr. Chan’s comments, that Mr. Chan would buy a Japanese TV if he needed one because a Chinese TV might explode:

Hmm… “If we’re not being controlled, we’ll just do what we want,” huh? Like build a TV that won’t explode, for example? Heaven forbid.

That reminds me of this video:

I’m sure the Chinese who drive that car would be happier with something to control their engines rather than having it barrel into their torsos. Alas, no such “luck” with political controllers.

2 thoughts on “Americans Legislate the Same Dichotomy”

  1. I appreciate the comment, but come on, it’s a stretch and a half to read this as a call for regulation of business.
    If he wanted more regulation of industry in China, he could have said so. But he said “I’m gradually beginning to feel that we Chinese need to be controlled.” Not Chinese industry, Chinese people.
    How would you take it if you were a Chinese citizen and being told by someone who fled such control that you need to be controlled? This applies especially when you consider who’s doing the “controlling.”

  2. Nathan,
    I’m sorry, I wasn’t clear enough. I was attempting to mock Chan’s call in the same way you did. My point was that if someone is controlling the Chinese people who “need” to be controlled, it’s a silly call because the controllers are the same type of people – those who “need” to be controlled. It’s an endless cycle of searching for new controllers.
    Reading my entry over again, I agree that didn’t make my point clear enough. My snark doesn’t always produce a winning outcome. I agree completely with your view of Chan’s statements, on all points.
    Also, I wasn’t trying to suggest that industry needs to be controlled. I was trying to show that a Chinese car made by the controllers is terrible. The passenger compartment collapses. It’s even worse than a Chinese TV exploding. I don’t think control and regulation fixes this because control causes it. To paraphrase Chan, if I need a car, I’d rather buy a Japanese car than a Chinese car because another car won’t end up sharing space in my chest cavity.

Comments are closed.