22 votes

This photo pretty much sums up the current situation

We don't care if we're choking to death, as long as we got sum TEEVEE!!

Welcome to the Matrix.

(image via The Mail Online)

Submitted by Tyler Durden on 01/17/2014

You know it's bad when...The smog has become so thick in Beijing that the city's natural light-starved masses have begun flocking to huge digital commercial television screens across the city to observe virtual sunrises. Following this week's practical shutdown of the city of "beyond index" levels of pollution, as The Mail Online reports, residents donned air masks and left their homes to watch the only place where the sun would hail over the horizon that morning...

Virtual sunlight: The LED screen shows the rising sun in Tiananmen Square which is shrouded with heavy smog on January 16, 2014 in Beijing, China. Beijing Municipal Government issued a yellow smog alert this morning+5


Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

I'm gonna talk the whole TV obsession...

Anybody offended by the TV's in the dentist's office while you are being worked on? And the dental assistant watching the TV instead of attending to your needs - like sucking the pooled water out of your mouth as it drips down your chin?

I tell them to turn it off - after a fit of apoplexy, they comply.

The law cannot make a wicked person virtuous…God’s grace alone can accomplish such a thing.
Ron Paul - The Revolution

Setting a good example is a far better way to spread ideals than through force of arms. Ron Paul


Not to address the politics of the situation, but concerning the particulars of the place Beijing, from what I understand the following two aspects are relevant:

1. Apparently the low visibility is partially due to sandstorms that blow in from the desert.

2. Another main contributor is that the largest steel plant in China was built in the near suburbs (West, Northwest I think). I don't think it was built that long ago. Why it doesn't have better control of the polution it produces, I don't know.

Of interest is that automobile polution is supposedly somewhat less of a contributor. For example, they have something on the order of 35 million people in an area roughly comparable to Atlanta (6 million)---maybe greater Beijing is a little bigger---and about half the number of vehicles.

They should build some wind farms to blow all that smog


Defeat the panda-industrial complex

I am dusk icon. anagram me.

what is a wind farm?

I really don't know...

see this...


Defeat the panda-industrial complex

I am dusk icon. anagram me.


Chris, you know none of these devices make wind, so they can't be used to blow anything.
Creative thinking none the less.

or this...


Defeat the panda-industrial complex

I am dusk icon. anagram me.

Is this a result of over regulation?

Seriously. There are many who say that free markets fix this kind of thing. We know that China is no more a free market than the good ole US. So is this a result of clean air regulation or the lack of it? If it is the lack of it then why is it so polluted? If it is because of regulation then why doesn't every city in the US look the same?

It's an honest observation and question.

The man on the street

under their legal system, the average joe does not have the ability to bring a claim in court to stop this nonsense.

The USA has similar rules where the EPA determines X amount of pollution is acceptable and therefor one may not sue the polluter. This is done to protect "progress" from the rigors of a free market.

It's a perfect example of how the government believes the free market is TOO restrictive and it must grant limited liability protection so that business...ahem progress can flourish.

Get it? Fascism.

Without the government granting limited liability protections, one who is harmed by the pollution can bring an action in court against the polluters to stop the polluting and restore the harmed parties.= Free market.

With government granting limited liability protections (to its favorite campaign contributors, investment firms, etc al...) No One can bring an action in court to stop the polluting= Fascism...fascism is the combination of government and corporate power.

In a "free market" which really means free individuals, the individual is empowered.

Please respond with your thoughts, i would like to know if i made a dent.

Tis true

Many here say that if we only have a free market and less regulation then these trespasses can be handled in the courts but I say hog wash. The courts are just as much part of the corrupt problem as the legislative and executive branches of our government.

The courts are the ones who uphold corrupt legislation such as the aca mandate. The courts uphold the legitimacy of corporations. The courts have their fingers in every bit of corrupt legislation.

Ending corrupt regulation would accomplish nothing as long as the courts are corrupt and politically motivated. You see it is not regulation that is bad but the corrupt entities that make and enforce regulation.

As long as those in power are not held accountable it will continue no matter how you structure it.

in the current system

the courts are not independent of the legislature.

Judges are bound to uphold the will of the legislature and have a duty to find ways to construe legislation as constitutional. This is not speculation or hyperbole.

They are not independent nor are they neutral, they are an extension to the legislature.

With a neutral and independent judiciary, the judge would not be able to bar litigation and a jury of 12 would decide the controversy.

These regulations protect business by legalizing harm.

They prevent an individual from bringing claims against offending companies.

The judge is bound to uphold these rules unless a litigant can find some provision of fundamental of law that the legislation violates.

That is not a corrupt court, that is fascism...a corrupt system.

What do you think? Thanks for the above response btw.

I still think that as long as their are no real

consequences to corruption then it will continue. We all saw how the supreme court handled the ACA Mandate. Why they went the way they did is obvious. The court is corrupted. Whether it is corrupted by fascism or bribery or anything else is moot as long as they can get away with it without fear of repercussion.

If you got rid of all government and only had a court it would not free you from corruption. They will still be an extension of whom ever is in control, mainly big money. It would only serve to eliminate some of the middle men.

Also consider that the courts are one of the biggest reasons for stupid and intrusive regulation in the first place apart from any legislative actions. Many, if not most, regulations did not originate in the legislature but from personal and class action law suits against business.

I understand what you are saying though. It is all intertwined now and it is hard to separate any good aspects of legislation from the quagmire of fascism, democracy, corporatism, communism, and everything else that our government is. All three branches.

I still say we should not through out the baby with the bath water.

I agree

currently the lawmakers cannot be held responsible for the harm a law causes.

No one may bring an action against a lawmaker who passed a harmful law, or any of their employees who uphold that law: executive, judicial branches.

Currently, if one is harmed by a law, the harmed may not bring an action against the lawmaker or any of their employees.
Can you give an example of this please: "Many, if not most, regulations did not originate in the legislature but from personal and class action law suits against business."

And also in this statement:"If you got rid of all government and only had a court it would not free you from corruption. They will still be an extension of whom ever is in control, mainly big money."
-How do you suppose "big money" would go about corrupting the 12 jurors? I would like to know your thoughts.

It's the result of concious decisions to ignore property

Courts in the U.S. made similar decisions to disregard the property rights of people who where downstream or downwind of polluters during the 1800's. The result was the idea that somehow the air and the water are owned 'in common', and therefore you cannot claim damages from someone's pollution.

Free markets require very clear a precise rules of ownership. Without that, you'll get invasive pollution or invasive regulation.

I perceive that something similar is happening with GMO's. The courts are ruling that GMO pollen that drifts into a non-GMO farmer's field is a problem for the non-GMO farmer, not the GMO polluter.

prove up the claim

do you have the cases?
Ownership "in common" grants standing for court actions that would prevent polluters.

It is a very precise legal concept that all have a legal claim to the property we own in common.

I believe Limited liability is the legal bulwark you are referring to. As in, the EPA has determined X amount of pollution is acceptable and therefor one may not sue until that threshold of pollution has been crossed.

No, I don't have the cases

I'm repeating something I had read many years ago in some libertarian screed.

I know just enough of the law to be wrong half of the time.

All in the name of faux progress

and the almighty dollar. We can't ignore the roll of mans appetite for useless and mass produced crap which is the root cause of the symptoms.



Is it smog or chem trail

Is it smog or chem trail activity as seen here in Ontario that is continuously blocking us from the sun calling it 'climate change'.

Good question

Do you have any similar pics of Ontario. Also is the pic above normal or a rare occurrence?

I think it's more a lack of an appellate court system

If it's impossible to sue or hold companies responsible for the damage they cause, it's going to be bad, regulation or not. I also think beijing has a unique geography that captures the smog like what happens in Los Angeles and between my sheds.

Thanks Mike.

Good response. Is it because the government runs everything that those companies can't be sued or is it just the lack of adequate courts? Wouldn't that be almost like our own government being run by the corporations in reverse but with the same outcome?

Also makes me wonder about the geography you mention. Does California suffer from the same geographical problem? I've never been their but I understand they have some pretty bad pollution which is supposed to be the reason for their stringent environmental laws.

In the end I think no amount of regulation will help. As long as mankind desires the things that create these environmental problems. In other words we keep trying to treat the symptoms instead of rooting out the underlying illness.

Why would regulation

Why would regulation necessarily solve or create this problem? If you own a factory that dumps tons of pollutants into the air, then you are the cause of this. Look no further than the mirror. When business owners start running their businesses with a conscience instead of just pure profit/greed, this type of thing will take care of itself.
Regulation is just words on paper. Regulations pick winners and losers, as the biggest companies with deep pockets get exemptions from regulations since it would hurt their bottom line. I'm not saying regulations never solved any problem, but are they the only method of solving this type of problem?

"When," you say?

You said, "When business owners start running their businesses with a conscience instead of just pure profit/greed this type of thing will take care of itself." Is there some reason you are expecting that to happen? The founders (and not just John Adams) understood that America could only last if we remained a moral nation. "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams

We didn't.

When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the Universe.
~ John Muir


But you miss the point. Non regulation is no better than bad regulation. Proper uncorrupted regulation could curb it but as you say money is more important than environment in the world.

"Only evil comes from the root of money lust" 1Ti_6:10

But don't you dare tell us that our precious fossil fuels

are causing any problems that we might not want. We definitely don't want to curb their use because it might inconvenience us a little.


cold fusion is decades away if it's not impossible, wind power is hilariously useless, solar is impossibly wasteful on any kind of large scale, hydro-electric, while promising, is limited to large rivers and for some reason people hate it anyway, and natural gas is only marginally cleaner than fossil fuels and is more expensive to boot.

And apparently, according to the majority on the DP, nuclear power is also out of the picture because the Russians suck at building design and the Japanese have no sense of risky locations.

So what do we have? I am ALL EARS - I would LOVE to transition away from fossil fuels, but thus far nobody can seem to come up with an acceptable solution. The ones suggesting nuclear always get shouted down as shills, so it's kind of hard to determine if that would work or not, and none of the others make sense at all on a large scale.



That's one reason the rich

That's one reason the rich Chinese are fleeing to America. Clean Air.