Write to us at letters@atimes.com

Please provide your name or a pen name, and your country of residence. Lengthy letters run the risk of being cut.

January 2004

I think what makes Europeans and Americans avoid Bali is not the visa [Visa changes darken Bali's happy holiday recovery, Jan 17], but the news and their government's policies. Ten or 25 dollars is nothing for Europeans and Americans if they want to go to Bali. I think it is fair for the Indonesian government to have such policies. I think the Indonesian government treats foreigners much better than the European or American governments treat Indonesians. At least Indonesia does not require tourists to [be fingerprinted or photographed].
Aal
Singapore (Jan 20, '04)

I enjoyed M Shahid Alam's article The semantics of Empire  [Jan 17) on Speaking Freely. It has been a recurring pattern in the West to demonize a victim, take the moral high ground, and then start killing. I've often wondered why crimes people (soon to be victims) are alleged to have committed against their own are particularly emphasized in this process. The Spanish conquistadors justified their genocide of the Aztecs and Incas, a process which left over 90 percent dead and which included the burning of Indians alive, on their witnessing of human sacrifice at religious ceremonies. Saddam [Hussein] and the Taliban were vilified by [President George W] Bush for "killing their own people", even though he sent many to the execution chambers of Texas - and never mind how many Iraqi civilians were killed in order to bring Saddam to justice ("we don't do body counts"). However, the most extreme example of this logic I encountered was from a co-worker, who in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq repeatedly expressed outrage that Saddam had "tried to kill his own son". I don't know if Saddam tried to do this or not. But I do know the American occupation force eventually did kill Saddam's sons, a fact greeted with much satisfaction by the same individual. We live in a very strange world. Keep up the interesting articles.
Francis
Quebec, Canada (Jan 20, '04)


Just finished reading the Pepe Escobar article about the two French journalists in Pakistan [Rough justice in Pakistan, Jan 17]. The gist of the article appears to be that the reader should understand that Pakistan is a bad country for journalists and that the Pakistani journalist, who was a good man [who] worked for Western media previously, is being persecuted. I believe there is another interpretation the writer overlooked. The first thing to note is the name of the French reporter, Marc Epstein. It is quite possible that this reporter is an Israeli agent, working out of France. The other reporter could also be an Israeli agent; his name remains of French extraction. If this was true, then the Pakistani journalist who has disappeared is not an investigative journalist but a collaborator with foreign spies, a traitor to Pakistan, for Israel. If this is the case, does it not seem right that the Pakistani intelligence service has incarcerated the traitor? In the United States, the government incarcerated a US military interpreter because it thought he was a spy for Syria. Aren't the two incidents similar?
Skeptical (Jan 20, '04)


I am appalled by the degree of self-delusional wishful thinking that is so clearly evident in [Daniel] McCarthy's piece on the "myths" about the China-Taiwan relationship [Myths about China-Taiwan reunification, Jan 16]. Suffice to say he will receive many, many rebuttals concerning his efforts. I would just like to add one more issue, and that is the issue of national sovereignly. The question of "what type of governments" aside, the whole point is indeed about national sovereignty. Whether the people in Taiwan indeed "yearn" to be "free" is up for debate (but it sounds so good for the Western media). But the real issue is China's own national sovereignty and integrity. If Taiwan is allowed to go independent, how [would] Beijing, whether it is democratic or authoritarian, be able to keep all the other 20-some-odd provinces, autonomous regions and such in line and under one central government? So Taiwan's independence is really an issue of life and death for the idea of a cohesive China as we know it. And if one looks at history, this ideal of national cohesion, or unity if you will, [has] existed since 221 BC when the Prince of Qin united all of Zhong Yaun and Tain Xia under his rule. Whether one sympathizes with the quaint desire of Taiwanese independence or not, the war that China will be fighting will be a war for the survival of its very identity; in essence, the Chinese will be fighting for the very existence of China as they know it. Hence if the union can commence a civil war against the secessionist states in the confederacy, really for the purpose of preserving the union, why can't the Chinese, both inside and outside of China, also demand the same? On this one issue, I am convinced that the vast majority of Chinese and overseas Chinese, along with the people of Chinese ancestry, will solidly side with Beijing. I wonder if a referendum can be made on the question of Taiwanese independence for the people of the mainland.
David (Jan 20, '04)


Many Westerners continue to bash China in the guise of bashing the CCP [Chinese Communist Party], all for their national interests. This has become common knowledge to the Chinese. The fact is Chinese Internet users in terms of quantity are second only to Americans. One can imagine they are as well informed as their American counterparts, and they will not be influenced by propaganda of the CCP. Obviously, Myths about China-Taiwan reunification, Jan 16] is Western propaganda and is meant for Western readers, who mostly will not have knowledge of Chinese or China and will easily believe the propaganda.
K Wong
Canada (Jan 20, '04)


I cannot express enough my disappointment to learn that Asia Times Online, a supposedly unbiased newspaper, has lumped its news on Taiwan under the heading of "China". I think this implies a political judgment that your newspaper is in no position to make. Newspapers like the Washington Post have a separate section for Taiwan on their websites - as well they should, since Taiwan's political and economic system are almost opposite that of China. To designate Taiwan as simply a "subset" of China is both erroneous and irresponsible journalism, for it supports the Chinese Communist Party's shameful attempts at propaganda. Your newspaper would do well to listen to one of the columnists you featured this week, Daniel McCarthy, who argues that the one-China policy in its current form is a myth and one that deserves to be contradicted [Myths about China-Taiwan reunification, Jan 16]. I hope that Asia Times will change its website policy and set its standards higher in the future.
Catherine Chou
Co-president
Princeton University Taiwanese American Students Association (Jan 20, '04)


Having digested Ehsan Arari's decrying that President [George W] Bush had plans to invade Iraq before September 11 [2001] has not been received as a fast-breaking bulletin here in the USA, Foible or fable? You decide, Jan 13]. Prior to even becoming president, Bush followed in the same direction as [former] president Bill Clinton, who has documented his distrust of the Iraqi regime by forming contingency plans in case weapons of mass destruction were found to be more than rumor. He was not alone: most of the vocal Democrats now joining the chorus of naysayers also have documented statements to their credit in the archives of government and news-gathering collectors. It is only fashionable to be for or against our leadership when it suits one's political bent. Now that the battle has been joined, and a political jousting begins prior to elections in November, many have flip-flopped on their earlier assumptions of Iraq's weapons program but were concerned when many believed there was valid activity on the part of [Saddam] Hussein's government. How quickly they forget their earlier stand against the very things now denied as credible.
J Dale Russell
USA (Jan 20, '04)


Forgive me for commenting on a somewhat old article [What is American culture?, Nov 18, '03]. As an American who left the US a number of years ago I can sympathize with much of what Spengler describes - driving slow in the fast lane for openers - but his superiority (diminishing the achievement of [Herman] Melville is a good example) makes him rather as guilty as those he critiques. American culture consists in everything from Johnny Cash and the Carter family to John Coltrane and Melville and film noir and Raymond Chandler. The reality is that it has been so commodified and trivialized in recent decades that all one gets is Matrix and Madonna. Marketing has destroyed American culture ... and marketing is now engulfing politics as well, though that's been going on for a while now. Spengler needs to be careful about his assumptions - taste is always fluid - and while he prefers [Mark] Twain to Melville, this is hardly writ in stone, and culture in Europe these days is eroding just as fast as in the US. There is truth in the criticism of US culture as empty and venal, as shallow and simplistic, but then one is generalizing in a way that does disservice to the likes of [Ezra] Pound and [Ernest] Hemingway, to jazz and blues, and that seems unfortunate. American culture is unique and has great merit. It's the grotesque nature of its political leaders that needs further analysis.
John Steppling (Jan 20, '04)


I would like to congratulate Asia Times Online on becoming the mouthpiece and an instrument of Indian and Hindu propaganda machine against Muslims, Islam and Pakistan as well as other Muslim countries. It am disgusted to see how much hate and poison your online editions are spitting out. You are doing an excellent job in the yellow journalism. Keep up the good work and Hitler will be very proud of you. Shame on your publication which has become an official RAW (Indian terrorist sponsoring organization) agent and spreads nothing but hatred against minorities.
Alifzee (Jan 20, '04)


Your articles on Pakistan are so biased and derogatory that they make me sick. You lose any partiality, and thereby discredit your own [website] by always painting a one-sided view on Pakistan and Pakistanis.
Rizwan Chaudhry (Jan 20, '04)


Imagine you are president of the United States for one week, and are able to define our nation's No 1 priority for the coming decade. Even though our government is heading towards bankruptcy, there are still enough resources for one huge project - if it is truly a strategic necessity. Which priority would you choose for America? a) Make an all-out effort to develop new energy resources and eliminate our dependency on Middle Eastern oil, or b) Attempt to colonize Mars. But first pay Halliburton to develop water-drilling technology (this according to Dr Geoffrey Briggs, director of the Center for Mars Exploration at NASA [National Aeronautics and Space Administration]).
Jim Burke
Bisbee, Arizona (Jan 20, '04)


You can itemize as many myths as you please in your Myths about China-Taiwan reunification [Jan 16]. Reclaiming or just grabbing Taiwan is in China's strategic interest. Here is the corollary: splitting China, East Asia, and the Middle East whilst unifying Europe is in the interest of the West. Abraham Lincoln crushed the southern American states attempting to secede. Europe is using diplomacy to unite after two wars failed. China got back its Hong Kong and wants to get Taiwan (which was once a part of it) by either means. As you advise, Taiwan's democratic leadership may even rule a unified China. In reality, your article is about a battle of wills: Western will to divide and conquer versus Asia's will to unite and be unconquerable. It is not about your myths.
Roy
US (Jan 16, '04)


Your article [Myths about China-Taiwan reunification, Jan 16] shows many common misunderstandings on the Taiwan issue. For myth No 1, you have to remember the People's Republic of China (PRC) and the Republic of China (ROC) are technically at civil war - until today (just like North and South Korea). Hence both of them claim they are representing the whole China (mainland and Taiwan) even though they do not physically control the whole of China. Now the ROC is moving towards Taiwan's Independence, so it is gradually removing its claim of a whole China from its policy and laws. But that does not make the PRC's claim illegitimate. So the one-China policy means that Taiwan is part of China and the PRC wants it to be part of the PRC and the ROC of course has it as part of ROC. Nothing wrong with that. The only dispute is who represents China. This issue can be resolved in either peaceful negotiation or war between the PRC and the ROC. For myth No 2, it means the PRC is willing to go to the war to prevent Taiwan from independence. That does not mean it will take any action (such as free election at all levels) that it considers will cost its ruling of mainland. For myth No 3, it is not myth at all. I will fully expect the PRC to state that only it can rule/manage China. Whether you agree with it or not is a different issue.
QZ (Jan 16, '04)


Daniel McCarthy knows how to play word games [Myths about China-Taiwan reunification , Jan 16], but has many illusions. China, PRC, ROC, 5,000-year-old China, 50-year-old China, part of China, part of PRC, however you play the word game, the bottom line is that Taiwan is not allowed to claim independence. Independence means war, period. Yeah, it's not going to be an easy war and the Chinese might not be able to figure out a way to send out 1 million soldiers (Mr McCarthy sounded like an expert here). If it were an easy war, the war would have been over already. The difficulty won't stop a war should independence be declared. [US President] George Bush understands that! You think you are smarter than him? Well, think again. At least he knows more than you. As a student who was in Tiananmen Square on that dark night in 1989, I can't wait to see the CCP [Chinese Communist Party] go away. I can't help, though, pointing out that these days more foreigners than Chinese hate the CCP so much. Might be a national interest here?
Will Do
California (Jan 16, '04)


The commentary's main thrust [How charity begins in Saudi Arabia, Jan 16] leaves one with the impression that whatever is being preached "in general" in the so-called madrassas is directed against, and abets terroristic acts against, non-Muslims and that the US is involved in some manner in redirecting what the so-called madrassas profess to teach its students. This is neither to defend or condone what is at present the curriculum of these madrassas. What is interesting to note is that the constitution of the US addresses very specifically the issue of the separation of church and state. And according to [Syed Saleem] Shahzad's commentary, the US is now involved in issues of church and state in several countries. It is also interesting to note that several fundamental religious groups in the US propagate such notions that "for a Muslim to go to heaven (rather than hell) he/she must kill a gentile". Such statements have even become part of the lexicon of several comedians. Religious beliefs have been used and in some cases unfortunately abused throughout history. Whether they will ever be resolved in a humane and equal manner, given man's past history, is a moot point. A solution that, at least to this writer, is logical and fair is for the United Nations to undertake educational conferences on a regional basis and invite leading spokespeople from major representative religious groups. Hopefully such an assemblage on a one-to-one basis might jump-start an understanding and respect for all religions. Having one or two countries comply with changing/modifying their religious curricula is symptomatic that they are the only troublesome ones.
ADeL
USA (Jan 16, '04)


I always enjoy articles on your site and appreciate as informative and even exciting. Although Victor Fic's article Japanese right manipulates abduction issue [Jan 15] contains some interesting points even for Japanese, it holds too many flaws as well. First, his article remains just an introduction of Eric Johnston's discourses. It does not necessarily mean introduction of others' say is always worthless. However, his is totally Eric Johnston's. I wonder if it is a book review for Johnston's recent book. Second, the article has so many factual mistakes, which can be avoided if he conducts easy research. For example, he mentions "the shadow shogun or kuromachi". The term of kuromachi means a "black town" in Japanese, not a fixer behind the scene. But the most fundamental [flaw] is that the distinction between "right" and "left" does not make sense. Do you really know any country where such a distinction can stand in this post-Cold War era? What is a definition of "the right", which he gives no clues? If there is the right wing in Japan and if the right manipulates the issue with evil intent, are politicians always doing their business in such ways in any place on the globe? What if the majority of Japanese people fit "the right" like he contends, which means "the right-wing politicians" are worth being appreciated democratic? He never answers such easy questions he might be able to ask himself when writing.
OTA
Makoto, Japan (Jan 16, '04)


Spengler's article [Electoral politics as mass suicide: Howard Dean, Jan 13] was entertaining as usual, but with all due respect I think he would do well to actually engage in some research of his own before penning his next composition. I would happily overlook the fact that he seems to rest his entire case on a single puff piece from the Gray Lady, but for the fact that this particular analysis is remarkably shallow, particularly in a publication noted for its perspicacity. To begin with, it's worth mentioning that comparisons between allegedly suicidal organizations and failed dotcoms are rather old-hat on the Internet. Too, it appears that Spengler has mistaken an article about a particular office full of people for a representative description of Dean supporters as a whole. It appears not to have occurred to him that it's not merely failed dotcoms that look like that, but most any modern network operations center. If the presence of pale, high-strung youngsters fiddling with computers and spouting jargon in rooms full of fan hum is his measure of a suicidal organization, I suggest that he withdraw his money from the bank immediately, because he'd find plenty of them there as well. If Spengler had had any contact with the people who actually comprise the foot soldiers of the Dean campaign, he would have rather a different view of both their demographics and their prospects. If Asia Times Online's new idea of incisive analysis is to have its writers read a single New York Times article and use it to draw a conclusion so facile that it undoubtedly already has its own corollary to Godwin's Law, I shall be very disappointed.
DA (Jan 16, '04)

For more reader comments on this article, please click here . - ATol

Amir Butler, fancy bit of writing there, mate [Leave revolution to the Saudis, Jan 15]. Perhaps we should review history using your logic. Let's take the American Civil War. I'm sure the South would have liberalized at its own pace, ending slavery. Maybe even to World War II. I'm sure [Adolf] Hitler, Hirohito and [Benito] Mussolini would have reformed, just like [Muammar] Gaddafi, [Bashar] Assad and [Ayatollah Ali] Khamenei, given enough time. Let me get this straight: Saddam [Hussein] was a bad man because he was godless, and married a non-Muslim girl. If you read the articles on [Asia Times Online], I'm sure you read the one about the royal holiday in Spain where they hired dozens of prostitutes and drank themselves silly [What, Saudis worry? Pass the caviar, Sep 3, 2002]. Wait - that's not a "haram", as they're avowed Muslims. So that must make them good.
Mr Contradiction
Sydney, Australia (Jan 15, '04)


I am afraid Spengler has been over-awed by the loose lady from New York who has just eviscerated her editorial staff to cover up her part in the Bill Clinton scandal [Electoral politics as mass suicide: Howard Dean, Jan 13]. The old cliches were trotted out about the dot-com bust and the [youth's] over-hyped approach to the Internet bruited about by a member of the five aliases of old money: the ultra-rich, the corporations, the financial markets, the media and the Republican/conservative/libertarian [parties]. Spengler's review of Spenglerian and Nietzschean nihilism and applying it with sophisticated arrogance to the American scene goes back to a superstitious, less populated time with a great deal less wealth in terms of technology. What we are seeing today in the US is a relatively ignorant group of corporate executives who are conniving to take over the government without any real understanding about what technology has done to the world they are operating in. They have sufficiently concerned the people at the levels of real power that Warren Christopher and Robert Reuben, to name two, have stepped forward to try to head off a catastrophic debt crisis. Something that Spengler misses is that this is an age of information that we are all adjusting to and too much of what he says is too facile and not well enough researched. It is too easy to dismiss the American yokels with a lot of their unsophisticated blather and call that a representative discussion. As with other writers, I include Spengler's writing with a lot of other information I get on the Internet where previously I was limited to the paucity of news by highly biased media.
William Bishop, Sr
Oregon, USA (Jan 15, '04)

For more reader comments on this article, please click here . - ATol


As usual, Laurence Eyton has written a thought-provoking and cogent analysis of Taiwanese politics [Taiwan's pan-blues sing the blues, Jan 13]. While he does a great service in providing readers with insight into Taiwan, I must respectfully disagree with some of his views. He is very correct at pointing out that the election was always closer than many and he is equally correct at pointing out that the pan-blue strategy before the fall was lackluster. This allowed the pan-greens to campaign on a platform which associated Taiwan independence with political reform and cast the pan-blues as out of touch, anti-reform traitorous cave men. However, Mr Eyton is incorrect in portraying the pan-blue response to the pan-green's strategy as blunders. Put simply, the pan-blues were forced to choose between a bad option and a fatal one. Had the pan-blues not done a flip-flop, they would have been faced not with the bad situation of an even stalemate, but with the fatal situation of certain defeat. The referendum and constitutional-reform issues have been neutralized by the pan-blues: pushing the national-identity issue will incur Washington's wrath, and the economy is still a weak issue for them. This leaves the issue of the KMT [Kuomintang] and Lien [Chan]'s finances. Here, I think that Mr Eyton overestimates the possibility that this issue will change the outcome of the election. It is true that Lien and the KMT have poor reputations for political cleanliness, but this actually limits the effectiveness of this issue. Accusing Lien and [People First Party chairman James] Soong of shady dealings is like accusing Bill Clinton of loose morals or accusing Arnold Schwarzenegger of being crude toward women. Much more ominous for the pan-greens, Beijing no longer seems to be worried about the outcome of the election. While it is true that anything can happen in electoral politics, as the clock ticks down there are fewer and fewer cards to play, and I believe that the pan-blues are not quite as incompetent, nor is the current situation as dire for them, as Mr Eyton suggests.
JW (Jan 15, '04)


After reading your article [US concocts a recipe for unrest, Jan 14] I found that you have been very much influenced by the Turks' anti-Kurdish policy, which is described by human-rights organizations as one of the worst regimes in violating human rights. I wonder, you as an Indian who is supposed to be neutral and see things from the human point of view rather than what you heard in the Turkish media (which I call a propaganda machine of racist Turks). Kurds have a legitimate right to govern themselves as any other nation in the world and Kurdish neighboring countries should be more open-minded and accept minorities instead. I think you should rather encourage Turks and Arabs and Iranians to be like Europeans and accept a smaller nation of Kurds (40 million people) to rule themselves. That would only lead to real peace in the Middle East - as you might know Kurds been fighting for their right in the countries like Iran, Iraq and Turkey that brought a negative consequence and "unrest" on both Kurds and these nations who are occupying Kurdistan. The same Turkish politicians who condemn Kurdistan as an ethnic entity can be heard insisting as vehemently that the Turks of Northern Cyprus should have maximum feasible territorial autonomy in a two-unit federation on Cyprus. They are often the same politicians who call for coercive assimilation of minorities into a Turkish ethos and ethnos. The Kurds of Kurdistan treat their ethnic Turks much better than Turkey treats its Kurds, isn't that true?
DR (Jan 14, '04)


I used to enjoy reading Spengler. He seems to have some knowledge of history, literature, and a wide range of other subjects. He sometimes has interesting, if weird, ideas. However, his latest article on Howard Dean convinces me that he's just "lost it" [Electoral politics as mass suicide: Howard Dean, Jan 13]. Spengler says, "The Democratic Party is engaged in a form of mass suicide reminiscent of Stone Age peoples." He speaks of "existential despair" in the same article as the Dean campaign. Does he have the slightest idea what he is talking about? Does he know what Dean is actually saying, what Dean stands for? Does he know why people support Dean? Does he live on the same planet as the rest of us? Dean is the only candidate who has new ideas, high intelligence, integrity, and the drive and enthusiasm to wake up all the people who have switched off from "politics as usual". He's a breath of fresh air in American politics gone stale. He has the ability to appeal to a wide spectrum of the United States population. He certainly has the ability to win the next election. He's the next Kennedy, the next Lincoln, the next Jefferson! Spengler, please do me a favor. Dust yourself off, get up and open the curtains, forget about that third pink gin, stop taking whatever it is you're taking, and realize that this is 2004, not 1954. When you've done that, go to Dean's website (that's a place on the Internet), and read what he actually has to say.
Mark Snegg
USA (Jan 14, '04)


In Spengler's Dean essay [Electoral politics as mass suicide: Howard Dean, Jan 13] I would like to know what "standard-bearers of American popular culture" are. In a previous article I thought you said we [Americans] had no popular culture ... I don't think that making an analogy of the traditions of the Internet and a 10,000-year-old tribe is significant. Do we now have cultural evolution and revolution every 20 years? Too much is made of the wish of cultures to [commit] suicide on Asia Times Online, from Germany and Europe suffering declining birthrates to this political-suicide article. The crux is that [US President] George W Bush has inspired and polarized the American electorate. Historically election turnout is less than 50 percent. Hopefully a politically inspiring and interesting runoff will inspire more people to vote. Dean could win if he inspires that 50 percent to vote. Plus he's better than Jewish [Senator Joe] Lieberman, war-rigid [Wesley] Clark, and other centrist candidates. By the way, Spengler, good articles, each seemingly designed to outrage my sensibilities more, excellent writing!
Brian
USA (Jan 14, '04)


Some comments on Sultan Shahin's [Tauhid - oneness of God, Jan 10]. The writer quoted verses from the Hindu Vedas/Upanishads/Bhagvad Gita and compared them with some verses from the Koran, to point out how both philosophies point to the "oneness of God". One thing I thought was worth pointing out - and this is perhaps one of the subtleties often overlooked - many of the Hindu verses Mr Shahin has quoted refer to Brahman, which in Hindu holy books has mostly been regarded as the impersonal, absolute truth, which I think differs somewhat from the idea of the "one God" that Islam espouses. Brahman is not only formless, invisible, and the basis of the entire cosmos, but - also equally importantly - it does not exhibit any specific personal or active behavior. Brahman is a little different [from] Lord Vishnu (the latter is regarded as a personal Savior). The concept of the "one God" in Islam thus in fact appears to be somewhere in between that of Lord Vishnu, who is worshipped in incarnations such as Sri Krishna and Sri Rama, and Brahman on the other hand that is supposed to be totally impersonal truth. Another point that seems to be missed by people like Mr Shahin is that Hindus don't believe that the idol of a deity is the deity itself. Hindu Gods and divinities are supposed to be invisible for the most part (except possibly at the times of heavenly interventions), residing in heaven. An idol or an image is thus merely regarded as a representation, a means to re-create the presence of a chosen god or divinity at a certain suitable spot, for prayer or meditation. Although Mr Shahin's intention behind his columns may be one of reiterating a harmonious set of common principles between Islam and Hinduism, perhaps a noble intention overall, still his comments on Hinduism come across as very much rooted in a dogma of a different religious tradition, and don't really seem to come from much of a secular research-oriented academic point of view.
Rakesh (Jan 14, '04)


Thank you again for publishing Spengler's inspired articles. I particularly enjoyed his piece Tolkien's Ring: When immortality is not enough [Jan 5]. It was a brilliant and erudite analysis if I ever saw one. I look forward to reading each of Spengler's articles, and I hope that he ignores the bile thrown back at him by all the ignorant and delusional socialists and nihilists trolling the web (who, for reasons known only to them, argue that barbarian invasions somehow promote language and culture).
Michael Mak
Republic of Korea (Jan 14, '04)


It has been about one week since I've become familiar with your good site. For me, as an international-politics student and researcher with an interest in East Asia, this website provides me with some useful and up-to-date information. So every time that I can connect to the web, I take the opportunity to look at your materials. Thanks.
Shirzad F Azad
Tokyo, Japan (Jan 14, '04)


I appreciate your detailed coverage of the situation in Kirkuk, Iraq, for personal reasons: a friend of our family is stationed there. The stories seem balanced and have details and insights that many of our mainstream and customary news sources do not. I fear for all children in this world. They are the most important beings. What are they learning? How will they ever reach peace in their lifetimes, for themselves and for us, especially those who are being used in, exposed to, or suffering great loss in active conflicts? Even the most secure (if such a word applies in this age) children are at terrible risk. Most of the people I know here have very downcast hearts about these continuing tragedies that do not stop, and governments that do not listen to, or provide, for their people. They spend much time looking for a thread of truth and compassion. May the new year bring a change.
C Reece
San Francisco, California (Jan 14, '04)


The very real phenomenon that Spengler fails to grasp in his article Electoral politics as mass suicide: Howard Dean [Jan 13] is that the Howard Dean campaign has amassed a lot of money through use of the Internet. The unfortunate truth is that money is very important to the current electoral process in the USA. Howard Dean and Senator [John] Kerry are the only viable Democratic Party oppositions to Republican President George W Bush, as they have refused US federal matching funds that would cap the amount of money that could be spent in any election against the very well