|
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.
(Or join the The Edge, the
lightly moderated discussion board for our global
community.)
February 2005
My! My! One must be surprised by some sensible
policies coming from the present Indian government
(Open house in India [Feb 26] by
Kunal Kumar Kundu). This makes eminent sense and
one wonders why it took so long to do that. For
one, housing and construction industries are one
of the largest in the world and affect all parts
of economy, from the steel and cement industries
to consumer goods to labor markets. Furthermore,
it will allow for expansion of mortgage and
insurance markets. Finally, it will take some hot
money chasing the limited stocks the public (or
foreign funds) are allowed to buy on the stock
markets. In the absence of large-scale
privatizations of the government companies,
expansion of real estate will prove to be a real
liberalizer of the Indian economy.
AP (Feb 28,
'05)
In his article The global warming scam [Feb
25], Dr Derek Kelly raises the issue of previous
warming and cooling trends on the planet. The
process he describes is one of oscillation towards
a homeostatic mean global temperature. This
process is indeed natural as all systems tend
towards homeostasis (see Newton's Second Law of
Thermodynamics). However, what Dr Kelly overlooks
is the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics
that make systems dynamic rather than static. Dr
Kelly also ignores hypotheses regarding global
oscillations in temperature because, for the sake
of his argument, they would be inconvenient. As
scientists we all understand that correlation is
not causation. Yet in all of the instances of
warming and cooling cited by Dr Kelly there exist
correlational properties to the phenomenon of
global shifts in temperature that at the least
offer partial explanations. For every instance of
cooling one can find a significant volcanic
eruption or meteor impact that produced such
quantities of particulate matter into the
atmosphere that would affect the passage of
sunlight to the Earth's surface, for example. In
every instance the warming following such periods
seems to be adequately explained by the eventual
precipitation of that matter back on to he Earth's
surface. These are events that virtually all
scientists and a great number of lay persons are
familiar with from elementary school or the
Discovery Channel. Yet what marks the present
global warming trend as significant is its rate
and lack of correlation to other natural phenomena
aside from mankind's unintended intervention. Dr
Kelly forwards a proposition championed by a
number of prominent critics of technology: it is
not possible for us to deliberately control the
climate's mean temperature. Unfortunately he makes
the mistake of assuming we can't control our own
behavior when it inadvertently affects the
environment upon which we depend and within which
we evolved. He even takes the radical step of
suggesting we shouldn't even attempt to restrain
ourselves. He argues that life has always existed
regardless of what extreme existed on the Earth's
surface; but tends to favor the warmer one. It
might be adequate at this point to remind Dr Kelly
that he should discriminate between minor and
major fluctuations in the Earth's temperature and
note that during major fluctuations the dominant
life forms tended to disappear. At present that is
us. Certainly he is right in assuming life will
find a way. The outstanding question is, "Will we
continue to be a part of it?" It might also be
worth reminding those who are like-minded with Dr
Kelly and his radical prescriptions that the
responsibility for establishing a case for
continued activity that leads to warming lies in
their hands. It is often assumed by global-warming
skeptics that responsibility lie with those who
call for restraint. This position couldn't be more
backwards. What Dr Kelly and industrial-minded
people forget is that mankind's default setting
does not include "progress". Like the Earth and
its ecosystems, the true default is a trend
towards homeostasis. Deviations from that balance
must be explained and justified. When
contemplating behaviors that even may pose a risk
to our species it is incumbent upon us to err on
the side of caution. We have survived millions of
years with spears and animal skins. Unrestrained
technological activity is not a right - it is a
luxury. If that luxury cannot be pursued without
it detrimentally effecting our long-term prospects
as a species, then I can see no reason to continue
the risk. Industry's bottom line that there are
"acceptable" amounts of excess CO2 [carbon
dioxide] in the atmosphere is like a tobacco
company's saying there is an acceptable amount of
cigarettes one can smoke and still be able to
avoid the risk of cancer. In both cases neither
seem to know precisely the limit. I for one
wouldn't suggest we risk exceeding it when we are
perfectly capable of abstaining from the behavior
in the first place.
Kenneth McDonald
published researcher in behavioral
genetics (Feb 28,
'05)
The opinion piece by
[Derek] Kelly on climate change ([The global warming scam] Feb 25)
was sadly uninformed. A likely result of global
warming is, in fact, the triggering of an early
glacial period. The point behind the Kyoto
Protocol is that the Earth's climate is a
delicately balanced system. We are affecting that
system in large ways now and need to take
responsibility for its wise management. It is
unfortunate that Mr Kelly's flat-Earth mentality
is so prevalent. You would think that by the time
one achieved a doctorate in any field (even
computer science) one would have learned to clean
up after [oneself].
Sean
USA (Feb 28,
'05)
Derek Kelly's article on
global warming - he's in favor of it - has
numerous errors [The global warming scam, Feb
25]. Coming from a person with a PhD, I would
expect an article that had been tirelessly
researched and with a biography to back up his
thesis. For instance, Kelly's contention that
1816, the "year without a summer" in the US and
other parts of the world, was part of the Earth's
cycles of warming and cooling. [The cool weather
of] 1816, the year without a summer, was caused by
the 1815 eruption of the Tambora volcano complex
in Indonesia. It was a series of massive
explosions that sent enough dust into the
atmosphere that lingered well into the summer of
1816. This volcanic cloud was able to affect the
world's climate on a global scale. Kelly's whole
article reads like a paper submitted by
high-school junior [11th-grader], not someone with
a PhD. Or maybe Mr Kelly is in the pay of either
ExxonMobil or the Republican-controlled White
House and US media. The first two are in favor of
global warming and the large majority of the
latter are still snoozing. With the recent
revelations that the Bush White House pays
so-called journalists to spread their propaganda,
it would not be a surprise to learn Mr Kelly is
beholden to Karl Rove.
Greg
Bacon
Ava, Missouri (Feb 28, '05)
I think
that your publishing of Derek Kelly's deceptive
article [The global
warming scam, Feb 25] damages the
credibility of Asia Times [Online]. It is the
consensus of serious scientists who do research in
the area of climate change that global warming is
occurring and that it constitutes a clear danger
of our economies, our citizens' lives, and the
welfare of other species. Only the oil
corporations will profit since the melting of
polar ice caps will open new areas for oil
exploration. Yes, I know that there are people
like Derek Kelly who ignore the mountains of
scientific evidence which document that global
warming is occurring and will be harmful to many,
but I'm not surprised because there are still
people who claim that the world is flat. What
surprises me is that Asia Times Online would
publish such nonsense.
Paul Haemig,
PhD
Sweden (Feb 28,
'05)
There was a time when
scientists defended their theories by defending
their theories. The unfortunate modern tendency to
say "believe us because we have a mountain of
evidence, but don't ask us what it is because you
are too dumb to understand" is, perhaps, the
attitude that has permitted the world's greatest
polluter to snub the Kyoto Protocol and cavalierly
dismiss global-warming theory as so much hype.
Occasionally it behooves the scientific community
to climb down from its mountain of evidence and
offer sound scientific arguments refuting those of
Dr Kelly et al, in terms we dummies can
understand. - ATol
Derek
Kelly [The global warming scam, Feb 25]
is not getting his Rhodes Scholarship this
year.
Marty Blue
Maine, USA (Feb 28,
'05)
None of the followers of
the "human-induced global warming" scare nor the
scaremongers using the "ozone hole" can be
bothered to crack open a geology text nor, in the
case of the ozone hole, their high-school
chemistry texts. They are a perfect example of a
Chinese saying (oh, Frank from Seattle, you will
love this one): "One village dog barks at a
shadow. A thousand village dogs bark at the bark."
You are perfectly right, [Derek] Kelly [The global warming scam, Feb
25], there is not a single environmental activist
including our [Canada's] own David Suzuki who has
been able or willing to explain the cause of
massive global warming that started 15,000 years
ago and melted a circumpolar ice cap that covered
all of Canada and was 600 meters thick right here
in what is now Calgary. Nor are these bandwagon
scientists (and their mindless followers) ready to
explain the remains of temperate-climate tree
fossils on Axel Heiberg Island in the Canadian
Arctic. Sadly, "environmental science" is now an
oxymoron and is more correctly to be named
"politically correct environmental politics". Men
and women with PhDs who have families to raise and
mortgages to pay are scrambling to generate
research-project money. Unless they are wealthy,
they need to be aware of the bandwagon that gives
them the greatest chance of obtaining research
funding. And which PhD can afford to bite the hand
that feeds him/her? And who can deny that when I
piss in the Pacific Ocean that I contribute to
raising the sea level and that the mindless
multitudes would hysterically pronounce me guilty
of contributing to the flooding of Tuvalu? In the
current politically correct climate everyone gets
drowned out by the cacophony of the mindless
barking of the village dogs (with a bow to Frank
from Seattle).
AL
Canada (Feb 28,
'05)
Thanks to everyone who
responded [letters, Feb 25] to my perhaps overly
enthusiastic essay [The global warming scam, Feb
25]. Here is a more sober response to your
concerns. Doug: I did not call global warming a
scam; I said Kyoto is a scam. Let's assume global
warming is occurring as claimed and that its
causes are known. There surely can be (and is)
disagreement over how to respond, which is what
Kyoto is about. As far as the Arctic is concerned,
sea ice has been variable over the years. The
Arctic has not been continuously covered in ice
for 15 million years. It comes and goes. And, yes,
the poor polar bears would be affected, but then
the fabled "Northwest Passage" would be opened up.
But then again, poor Panama would lose all those
revenues from the Canal. Tom: Yes, there is
nothing wrong with wanting future generations to
have the best tools possible to control "short
term" swings in their environment. The thing is,
we don't have the tools now and we may not have
them in the future. No one knows how to control
the weather; no one knows how to control the
climate. Some models for possible control and
prediction have been developed, but none are
beyond question. Our climate is affected by at
least some or all of the following: sunspots
(solar variability), lunar effects, Earth's orbit
and inclination, ocean circulation and salinity,
volcanoes, water vapor, methane and many others.
Maybe some day we'll have a controllable climate,
but it's not going to be within our lifetimes.
Kaj: You say that the hothouse effects are
accelerating the melting of glaciers here and now,
and you ask if the polluters will pay the damages
to those who have to move to higher ground. But
again, glaciers, which contain a minute fraction
of the total supply of water on Earth, have melted
and grown for ages long before we came on the
scene - and they have negligible effects on sea
level rising. Suggesting that alleged polluters
should pay people to move to higher ground is as
ludicrous as having the cigarette companies pay me
for having gotten lung cancer from smoking.
Fabricio: You say that you don't think you can say
anything that will change my mind about the
reality of global warming, yet that is precisely
what I think about your "argument." Global
warming, caused by anthropogenic fossil-gas
emissions seems to be an article of faith,
something like the Virgin Birth, or the 72 virgins
of the jihadist, something that cannot be
questioned. Either you agree with the global
warmers or you are some sort of evil,
profit-making, polluting, numbskull from hell.
Only the infotainment media in the US, of which
you seem to have been watching and reading too
much, seems convinced of the certainty of global
warming. Every scientific item I read mentions
uncertainties, inadequacies of models, and the
need for more research and so on. For example, it
is by no means certain that the terrible
hurricanes of last year had anything to do with
global warming. If you look at the record of
hurricanes, you will see that the period of
1930-60s was very active, with many severe
hurricanes, followed by a lull, which is now being
reversed. I lived through many severe hurricanes
in some of those years (yes, I was born just a few
miles south of your beautiful Cuba). And I still
prefer the tropics to the mainland USA. Yes, I
feel terrible about the devastation of hurricanes,
or cyclones, or tornadoes, or volcanoes - but
these things have been going on long before the
infernal combustion machine. The implications of
global climate change are frightening and are of
great concern to everyone. The great mystery,
however, is whether the change is permanent or
transitory, and whether the role of humanity in
this change is central or peripheral.
Derek
Kelly (Feb 28,
'05)
David Isenberg, in Bush's 'priceless' war [Feb 25],
neglects to note the fact that the "Cato
Institute", when it must, describes itself
sometimes as a "conservative" "think-tank" and at
others as "Libertarian". Regardless how it
represents itself, its "thinking" is confined
solely to how to propagandize against "excessive"
regulation ("excessive" being any amount
whatsoever) and for "free market" economics. One
measure of the Cato Institute's "legitimacy" is
its aggressive advocacy for the National Rifle
Association's falsehood that the Second Amendment
to the US constitution protects an "individual"
right, which - characterized by US Supreme Court
Justice Berger as "a fraud on the American people"
- it flatly does not do. In a US with ...
objective, professional media, the Cato Institute
would be recognized for what it is: a well-funded
extreme fringe minority of anti-liberal cranks,
thus [it] would not be solicited for its opinion
on matters which concern the moderate majority. To
solicit their opinion imputes to them an
undeserved credibility. Daniel McCarthy writes:
"If any readers are unaware of ... China's
belligerence, they should consider ... China's
1979 invasion of Vietnam ..." It is clear that Mr
McCarthy has neither learned how to mind his own
business - the US invasion of and involvements in
Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia violated international
law, US treaties and founding principles, and
killed at least 1 million civilians - or how not
to be a groundlessly smug, chest-pounding and
prattling hypocrite.
Joseph J
Nagarya
Boston, Massachusetts (Feb 28,
'05)
In response to my letter of
February 24, ATol wrote, "A list of 'belligerent'
threats and actions at least as long as this one
could be compiled regarding the US. Guess you
won't object then if, say, Cuba 'sees the threat
and wishes to curb it'." Cuba is certainly free to
take any actions necessary to defend itself from
invasion or other interference. However,
notwithstanding Washington's periodic vitriol
toward Cuba, there has been no hostile action
taken against it, and no substantial preparations
for hostile action have been made. In fact,
Washington did not object at all when [then
Chinese president] Jiang Zemin wanted to fly
directly from the continental US to Cuba to hug
the very handsome Fidel Castro. How would China
react if [US President George W] Bush wanted to
fly from Beijing to Taipei to hug President Chen
[Shui-bian]?
Daniel McCarthy (Feb 28,
'05)
Hostility is in the
eyes of the beholder, but at the very least
China's attacks on Taiwan, unlike America's on
Iraq, Afghanistan, Panama, Grenada, Vietnam,
Cambodia, Laos etc etc, have so far been verbal
only. As for proxy wars and sponsored terrorism
against, for example, Nicaragua; assassination
campaigns and economic terrorism ("embargo", in US
parlance) against, for example, Cuba and the
former Soviet bloc; economic threats against
nations such as Canada and Venezuela who do not
kowtow to US foreign policy - well, no one wants
to get all warm and fuzzy about China, but it
becomes clearer that there aren't too many "hugs"
in this picture. - ATol
The obvious reason why Nepal has
traditionally bought arms from India is the
convenience factor [India hits Nepal where it hurts,
Feb 24]. [Since Nepal borders] India, India would
be the natural source to buy arms. Now that New
Delhi has stopped this process completely, New
Delhi will lose a very strategic instrument with
Kathmandu, since Nepal can easily buy arms from
dozens of arms-selling nations across the world
and her dependence on India may be irrevocable and
Nepal will gain greater autonomy in this key
sector. I believe it was a bad move by India. What
if Nepal turns to China to supply arms? What
leverage will India have over China? And what
influence will China gain in Nepal due to this
decision?
Chrysantha Wijeyasingha
New
Orleans, Louisiana (Feb
28, '05)
The article by Bashdar
Ismaeel, Democracy, act 1 (Feb 24), is an
interesting analysis on the latest developments in
Iraq. As a result of these elections there is
every likelihood that Dr Ibrahim Jaafari would be
the new prime minister of Iraq and that he and his
coalition could bring much desired stability in
that war-ravaged country. A lot of toil and effort
[are] to be concluded, as the election by itself
is not the ultimate answer. The political
structure of Iraq is to be put in place, through a
complicated scheme of compromise, accommodation
and appropriate representation to all the ethnic
and sectarian groups of Iraq. Most important of
all, the people of Iraq must feel that they are
sovereign in their homeland. In other words, the
question of legitimacy, for the Iraqi leadership
becomes vital. The United States needs an
honorable exit from Iraq. There is no other view
that only an acceptable and effective future Iraqi
government can provide that. This remains the only
pragmatic approach for the Iraqi riddle.
Professor Dr S Farooq
Hasnat
Columbia, Maryland (Feb 28,
'05)
While perusing this
publication on the Internet, I was greatly
disappointed by the vacuity and peevish nature of
the journalist Spengler, whom I will hereafter
refer to as Mr Spengler, presuming the title
solely for the purposes of respect and ease of
reference. In the article entitled Why America is losing the
intelligence war [Nov 11, '03], Mr Spengler
makes several excellent and entirely correct
points, not least among them the various errors of
America's abysmal foreign policy. However, this
journalist's laudable reputation is undercut and
rendered laughable by other articles, such as What is American culture? (Nov
18, '03), a piece which, one hopes, is intended to
be amusing and merely fails. Mr Spengler loses
credibility when his research skills are used to
impersonate the same jingoistic xenophobia that
created the villains of his "proper" Italy.
[Benito] Mussolini, I am sure, would love to read
a poorly written invective against the narrow
range of personal frustrations Mr Spengler, in
throes of self-importance bordering on psychosis,
seems to take as a culturewide endemic pattern -
an axis, if you will, of Western evil. How long
will this magazine have until Mr Spengler finds a
few choice physical characteristics to hate? How
long until he whips up prejudice against an entire
population based on his time in the USA (I would
not be surprised to find he himself is a citizen)
and a jaunt in Italy? How long will it be before
he is fired? I hope to God he isn't getting paid
for this tripe. Aside from this writer I find your
publication refreshing and enjoyable, as well as
excellently written. Please tender my apologies to
Mr Spengler's no-doubt-disappointed mother, and
consider continuing this enterprise without his
poor writing impeding your success.
Benjamin
Winter (Feb 28,
'05)
About Spengler's choice
of T S Eliot, here is a poem for Joseph Nagarya
that is obscure but I hope not overrated.
Brooding over the ills of the
world
Intrepidly pursuing truth
In a
labyrinth of torture, lies, fantasy and
conspirabunk
Like Sisyphus
Ceaselessly
rolling the boulder of the uninformed masses
Up
the mountain of ignorance, war crimes,
Neanderthals and sneaking suspicions
Only to
have it roll back down
Nobody gives a crap what
he thinks about
poetry.
Roostercockburn
Houston,
Texas (Feb 28,
'05)
You're right, Geoff
(letter, Feb 25), we will stick the subject of
Rafik Hariri assassination, though some of my
previous post mysteriously ended up on the
editor's cutting floor. I will restrain my desire
to post inflammatory remarks about US history. Two
major groups may have had their hand in the Rafik
Hariri assassination. I will not examine rogue
elements such as but not limited to Syrian or
Israeli intelligence agencies. Neither will I will
examine the possibility of Lebanese involvement
due to the fact that their political workings are
too Byzantine for even my subtle mind. I will
stick to national entities. The two groups of
course are the Syrians and the American-Israeli
(A-I) faction. With the benefit of hindsight, we
can see that Syria has suffered worldwide
condemnation and the current Lebanese prime
minister, a Syrian favorite, is threatening
resignation. Additionally the Bush administration
has pulled its ambassador, issued a stern
demarche and demanded the immediate
withdrawal of all Syrian troops and intelligence
operatives, omitting the Israeli troops in the
Sheba Farms area. The Americans have sufficient
air and sea power in the area to teach the Syrians
a lesson, if they are convinced of Syrian
involvement. Curiously, after several weeks of
this tragic affair, no military action has been
taken against Syria. Considering that [US
President George W] Bush never needed much
evidence for military action, this is the
strongest piece of evidence of non-Syrian
culpability or they do not have a clue.
Additionally, nations from the EU have called for
an international investigation, which leads me to
assume that the European intelligence agencies are
in doubt [as] to the perpetrators. The A-I faction
have gained the high moral ground in Lebanon and
stand to gain influence in Lebanon in the future.
If the removal of Syrian troops ever does occur,
the A-I faction influence will soar with economic,
political and military gains. This will tighten
the noose around Syria and force a possible regime
change and strengthen the American forces flank in
Iraq. Additionally, the Hezbollah will be weakened
in southern Lebanon to the benefit of Israel. This
will also weaken the new Iran-Syria connection. So
would you agree that the entire affair has been a
gain for the A-I faction and a loss for the Syrian
faction? Would the Syrian government not have
foreseen the consequences of the assassination?
They may have been able to pull this off during
the chaos of the '80s; but now, with direct US
military involvement in Iraq. Also notice the
recent Russian agreement to sell SAMs
[surface-to-air missiles] to Syria; the A-I
faction will use this affair to pressure the
Russians to limit if not eliminate their military
sales to Syria, another benefit to the A-I
faction. What did Syria gain? Nothing, nothing at
all. Would the future election of Rafik Hariri
reduce the influence of Syria in Lebanon after
over 30 years of direct involvement? Considering
the influence that Syria has with the Hezbollah, a
growing military and political power in Lebanon;
did the Syrians really lose any power over
Hariri's defection? Common sense eliminates the
Syrian government from involvement, unless you
insist that the Syrians are devoid of common
sense. Now the only way to eliminate the A-I
faction from the equation is to insist that they
stand on a higher moral platform and would never
use assassination to achieve their goals. History
shows otherwise, as my list in the previous letter
demonstrates. Therefore the A-I faction has a
higher probability of involvement in the Rafik
Hariri assassination. If neither the Syrians [nor]
the A-I faction [are] involved, it may point to an
[internal] Lebanese affair, which is another
matter that we may explore in future posts. I will
not again provoke editorial wrath by a long
letter. So please, Geoffrey, send us your analysis
of the two groups' involvement and we may continue
this encouraging exchange of views. And Geoffrey,
I am neither pro or con. I just don't want to see
a widened Middle East conflict based on a
misjudgment. If Syria's involvement is proved, I
will eat crow in this esteemed international
publication.
Ernie Lynch (Feb 28,
'05)
A reminder that debates of
this nature may be more appropriate for The
Edge, ATol's forum, where long arguments
and digressions are more likely to avoid our
"cutting-room floor". - ATol
I have
been following your Taiwan coverage for a while,
since I live in the region. It's a pity that such
a respected publication as yours almost solely
relies on sources close to the government or the
DPP [Democratic Progressive Party] for its
coverage. Surely you must be aware that the Taipei
Times belongs to the Liberty Times group, which is
rabidly pro-independence and anti-KMT
[Kuomintang]. The same line is followed in the
Taipei Times. You do your readers a disservice by
such lopsided reporting and it puts in question
your reporting on other topics. You owe it to your
readers who may not all be familiar with the
politics of Taiwan to explain a bit more where
your writers come from politically.
Alex
Shi (Feb 28,
'05)
While it is true that our
top contributor on Taiwan politics is Laurence
Eyton, deputy editor-in-chief of the Taipei Times,
and that his personal politics and therefore
the focus of his writing may lean a bit
further from the KMT line than you would prefer
(we at ATol, on the other hand, believe that his
reporting is fair and factually based), he has as
much right to a voice on Asia Times Online as
anyone else. By the same token, writers who
disagree with Eyton are just as welcome to
contribute, as long as their articles meet the
same standards of fairness and factual basis. -
ATol
I am a regular reader
of ATol articles. I ... appreciate the work being
done by all the writers. Even though I don't [have
many] skills of journalism, I feel like being part
of the team ... (Feb
28, '05)
Murali
The global warming scam [Feb 25]
by the enthusiastic and generous Derek Kelly (he's
now helping Chinese to speak English, gee! Frank,
you should do something about that) makes ... a
celebration of heat. In a style that [calls] for
exclamation marks (his article ends: "Let's hope
Antarctica and Greenland melt. Let's hope the sea
levels rise. All life glorifies warmth. Only death
prefers the icy fingers of endless winter." I just
love that part about the "icy fingers of death",
it's so wonderfully outdated, and if you like
descriptive prose you will enjoy his moving sketch
about Cretaceous), he insists that we should pay
to those generous men [who] fill the Earth's
atmosphere with CO2 [carbon dioxide] and ask the
Chinese to depend on coal (it doesn't matter that
coal is not a renewable resource) and forget those
Westernized, tech-savvy nuclear plants. Who need
them anyway? His strong argument is that climate
has never been stable, but I don't think that
anyone has ever said that, at least anyone
serious. What Derek "enthusiastic" Kelly seems to
miss is that there is a difference between natural
changes in climate and man-induced changes.
Anyway, I don't think I can say anything that will
change his mind; enthusiastic people must be
listened to for courtesy's sake and then just
ignored. I will just recommend him to move to
Florida, to the Atlantic shore. You see, I live in
a tropical country (Cuba), an island that is now
affected by a drought. It hasn't significantly
rained for more than a year in the eastern part of
the country; the central part is already affected
and the western part (where I live) is the next.
Global warming for me is a reality. In fact, last
year's summer was so hot that four hurricanes came
in a row during August and September, a period
when no hurricane usually comes to Cuba (in that
time of the year they usually go to the [Gulf of
Mexico] or pass north [of] the island).
Fortunately, the more powerful hurricanes spared
Cuba, or at least its more populated cities.
Florida wasn't so lucky and people living there
suffered the four hurricanes. And what did they do
the next November? They voted for [President
George W] Bush, the champion of global warming. If
Cuba were not in the middle, I would say they
deserved all the hurricanes of the world.
Unfortunately, we're in the middle and, thanks to
the irresponsible climate policy of the Bush
government and its consequences, we have to deal
with more hurricanes than what may be considered
"normal". Bush [did not invent] hurricanes, but
global warming is helping to make hurricanes far
more powerful than what they used to be (in August
of 2004 the Caribbean Sea was so hot that
hurricane Category 4 was not strange, but the
usual, and that's bad). Asian people, familiarized
with typhoons, will understand my plight. And
people like Derek, who seems to be a nice guy in
spite of his style, are asking for more heat and
celebrating global warming because "all life
glorifies warmth". No, Derek, not all life
(plankton, for instance, doesn't) glorifies in
warmth, and if you would live near shore in a
hurricane zone, well, neither will you glorify in
warmth. On the contrary, you will be asking for a
colder world.
Fabricio
Cuba (Feb 25,
'05)
Re The global warming scam [Feb 25]
by Derek Kelly, PhD: I am curious as to the source
of the information in his chronology of climate
change. At least one section seems to be strongly
contradicted by current research. He claims that
from 8,000 to 4,000 years ago the Arctic Ocean was
ice-free. Findings from a major study as reported
in the New York Times on November 30, 2004, show
this is not at all true. The article states, "The
preliminary analysis reveals that the Arctic Ocean
has been constantly icy for at least 15 million
years." An ice-free Arctic Ocean, as predicted by
2050 and due mostly to man-made greenhouse-gas
emissions, is a truly ominous event. Arctic
wildlife has come to depend on this ice for
millions of years, not thousands, and is seriously
threatened. Its impact on climate is unpredictable
and possibly catastrophic. To be so casual about
the impact of man-made atmospheric changes as to
call global warming a scam is to be in denial of a
huge body of scientific evidence for the sake of
shortsighted economic growth.
Doug Davis
(Feb 25,
'05)
Re The global warming
scam [Feb 25] by Derek Kelly: Those
who live a mere 10 meters above the present sea
level and still have enough oxygen to think
straight cannot be much consoled to know that over
millions of years sea levels have varied from 90
meters lower to more than 200 meters higher than
the present-day level. The hothouse effects are
accelerating the melting of glaciers here and now.
Will the polluters pay the damages to those who
have to move to higher ground?
Kaj Krinsmoe
(Feb 25,
'05)
I agree with Derek
Kelly's analysis of global warming, especially the
bikini part [The global warming scam, Feb
25]! Maybe not so much the two North Dakotas part.
But what is wrong with wanting future generations
to have the best tools possible to control "short
term" swings in their environment? Seems selfish
to assume they will not be able to use
both.
Tom Sullivan
Kauai,
Hawaii/Victoria, British Columbia (Feb 25,
'05)
It is quite obvious that Dr
Derek Kelly, an American, does not need to live in
the tropics when the Earth warms up. More
greenhouse gases will not affect him too badly [The global warming scam, Feb
25].
David Chiu (Feb 25, '05)
Re The remaking of al-Qaeda [Feb
25] by Syed Saleem Shahzad: I found your recent
piece on Asia Times [Online] very informative. I
have a few comments. I was profoundly upset by the
events of [September 11, 2001] and the US response
in the aftermath of these attacks. What has been
the result of this? We have been at war in
Afghanistan and Iraq for over two years. This
conflict has cost over $300 billion so far and
killed and maimed thousands of soldiers and many
more innocent civilians. From what I can see, the
US has made little if any progress in either of
these countries. Opium production has skyrocketed
in Afghanistan over the last two years,
strengthening the influence of warlords and
private militias. I have read that the US barely
controls Kabul. The situation in Iraq is equally
bleak. We have an expensive, deadly war that
appears to be rapidly progressing into a military,
political and economic disaster for the US and
Middle East. I cannot see any easy way out of Iraq
for the US. Next door, the situation in Pakistan
is unstable. Should General Pervez Musharraf be
overthrown, a very real possibility, we could well
end up with a government in that country that is
sympathetic to Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda, and
having control of nuclear weapons. It the world is
going to survive, I think that we have to start
addressing the root causes of problems giving rise
to conflicts in the Middle East and beyond. The US
needs to address its energy use head-on. We need
to stop supporting repressive governments in the
Middle East and provide a realistic framework for
a just and equitable settlement between Israel and
the Palestinians. If we cannot do this, then I
fear that the world is headed for an economic
crash and more devastating military conflicts.
Paul Billings
Swarthmore,
Pennsylvania (Feb 25,
'05)
David Isenberg's Bush's priceless war [Feb 25]
deserves a longer view. It is an open secret that
the Bush administration is straining at gnats in
pursuit of its domestic agenda and foreign policy.
It is waging war on both fronts. On February 22,
the central Bank of Korea announced that it might
switch [its] reserves out of dollars. This simple
statement unsettled world financial markets,
forcing the Dow Jones Average to lose 1.7%. The
markets have recovered, and the East Asian
exchanges have made formal announcements that they
[are] not going to remain uncommitted to a
weakening United States dollar. In spite of this,
the world markets are sustaining on a daily basis
US$2 billion to prop up the weak dollar and
America's ballooning debt. And this simple, stark
reality makes bankers very edgy, and strains taut
nerves. For the moment it reminds one of Lord
Keynes' aphorism, which runs more or less like
this: You owe the bank US$1 million, you are its
prisoner. You owe the bank US$100 million and the
bank is your prisoner. Yes, the world financial
markets are in chains to Washington's madcap war
spending. However, just [as in Ludwig van]
Beethoven's Fidelio, as the prisoners are
let out to the sunlight, they yearn and earn their
freedom. The European Union which [US President
George W] Bush has tried to make shoulder the
financial underpinning of his adventurous,
preemptive war in Iraq, is [champing] at the bit.
It will, contrary to Washington's warnings, open
military sales to China for hard currency to
offset the deleterious effect a weak dollar is
having on their exports. Asian central banks are
looking to diversify holdings, especially in
euros, to cushion any shock coming from the
American dollar zone. Although [US Federal Reserve
chairman] Alan Greenspan, in his convoluted
hocus-pocus, reminiscent of Dean Swift's alchemic
pursuit of scholars looking to turn human feces
into gold on the island of Laputa, may assure
markets that the American economy is on course, it
is becoming clearer to one and all that the United
States is chronically ailing. Mr Bush is doing
something unintended in his narrow pursuit of
bringing the bells of freedom within everyone's
hearing: abroad, he is loosening the binds that
tie countries to Washington's apron strings, and
domestically, he is preparing the ground for
political quietism and further impoverishment of
the middle and working classes. So to put it in a
context Mr Bush can understand, [while] straining
out gnats as [the Gospel According to St] Matthew
says, this sitting president has swallowed camels
whole, and has seriously hocked the future and
welfare of his own people and country.
Jakob
Cambria
USA (Feb
25, '05)
In China seethes at US-Japan
'meddling' [Feb 24], author Jing-dong Yuan
seems to miss to crucial points: (1) Japan has
finally awakened from her long slumber and is not
on the road to rearmament and transformation into
a global political power; (2) the reason for
Japan's awakening is 50 years of PRC [People's
Republic of China] belligerence culminating
recently in China's nationalistic hostility toward
Japan and submarine provocation; and (3) Japan and
the US have finally decided to draw the line at
Taiwan. The message is quite clear: China cannot
have Taiwan. If any readers are unaware of the 50
years of China's belligerence, they should
consider China's encouragement of Kim Il-sung's
invasion of South Korea in 1950 followed by
China's entry into the war, China's invasion of
Tibet in 1950 (no, Tibet was not already part of
China), China's creation of Taiwan Strait crises
in the 1950s and in 1996, China's 1962 invasion of
India as a ploy to establish a boundary line
favored by China, China's 1979 invasion of
Vietnam, China's outrageous claim to sovereignty
of the entire South China Sea, China's naval
clashes with Vietnam in the South China Sea,
China's express threats of war against Taiwan and
the US, intense Chinese hostility towards Japanese
including at sporting events even though the
Japanese at such events are not the people who
committed war atrocities against China during
World War II, China's attempt to claim sovereignty
over some of Japan's territorial waters, China's
provocative sending of a submarine into Japanese
waters, and China's use of North Korea as a
nuclear pit bull with which to threaten Japan,
South Korea and the US. Only a fool would fail to
see the threat and wish to curb it.
Daniel
McCarthy (Feb 25,
'05)
A list of "belligerent"
threats and actions at least as long as this one
could be compiled regarding the US. Guess you
won't object then if, say, Cuba "sees the threat
and wishes to curb it". -
ATol
Praful Bidwai's
comparison of India's economic [relationship] with
its small neighbors to that of North-South
dialogue is stupid [India talks down to its
neighbors, Feb 24]. Bidwai, when it comes to
trade within SAARC [the South Asian Association
for Regional Cooperation] everyone knows that
economics and commerce (and almost everything
else) always take a back seat and are foolishly
linked to political disputes. Otherwise, why does
Pakistan have to import tea all the way from Kenya
when it can get it from across the border at a
cheaper rate and faster? What is the economic
reason for Pakistan's unwillingness to grant
most-favored-nation (MFN) status to India even
when the latter has unilaterally accorded the same
to the former decades back? Why should these two
countries conduct their trade either through
peddlers or via Middle East? Can you explain the
logic to me? Bangladesh freely allows [use of] its
land to terrorists and fundamentalists (even
al-Qaeda) but is hesitant in allowing transit
routes for India. Now that quota restriction in
textiles trade is lifted, Pakistan and Bangladesh
(textiles constitute more than 70% of their
exports) will find it very hard to compete in an
open market. What is going to be the social
dimension of the economic fallout of these changes
in these two nations? [Are] Islamabad and Dhaka
equipped to handle the crisis? Bidwai, the
roadblocks to realizing SAARC's vision are not
economic but are political in nature. In
comparison to other regional forums SAARC remains
a mere talk shop and there is more emphasis on
empty theatrical gestures by the leaders. SAARC
will remain a useless body that drains precious
resources until it meets the urgent economic,
social, political needs of the people of the
region. The neighbors are not willing to be part
of one family even when the vast economic
potential stares at them. The ruling elites of
these small nations fear that they would soon be
marginalized if they relaxed the barriers. These
powerful coteries are in search of an identity to
define their nations. No wonder they have not been
able to do it even after decades. None of these
small nations have developed a peaceful mechanism
to resolve disputes arising from the differences
among them. Invariably, any dissent within their
borders meets the same response ...
Kannan
(Feb 25,
'05)
The article written by
[Bashdar] Ismaeel [Democracy, act 1, Feb 24] was
very informative and factual. I enjoyed reading
it. My take on the Iraqi election is a little
different. Being an American and being raised in
America I know what it has been like in America
since George W Bush was put into office by the
United States Supreme Court in 2000. Up until 2000
I had always believed that the elections in the
United States were honest even though the
political ads placed in the media were not. In the
year 2000 ... in the state of Florida, where
George Bush's brother was governor, the elections
were far from honest. People were sent to the
wrong polls, names were removed from the
registrar's list and everything possible [was]
done to assure that Bush would carry the state of
Florida. When the recount began Bush and his
political party went to the Supreme Court to have
the counting stopped. After Bush was installed in
the office of president numerous news
organizations paid with their own money to have
access to the votes in Florida, they counted all
of the legitimate votes not the ones in dispute.
After the count was completed it was discovered
that Al Gore won the election in Florida by
thousands of votes. Had Bush allowed the votes to
be counted he would not have been president the
last four years and it is doubtful that he would
have been elected in 2004. I believe in a
democracy where the majority wins. I believe in an
honest government where the leaders tell the
people the truth. I do not know how long the
leaders in the United states have been lying to
the people but I do know they were lied to about
the reasons for invading Iraq. I do not believe
that you have to invade a country and destroy huge
portions of it, kill over 100,000 of the country's
citizen's and torture prisoners the way the United
States and the other countries assisting in this
war have done to bring democracy to a country. I
believe it can be done by example and by bringing
all allies together to find a way to rid a country
of a leader who they think is a tyrant to the
people without going to war. Also just as I
believe that a house of straw cannot stand, I do
not believe that a war based on lies where the
reason for going to war changed every day will
ever come to fruition. The Iraqi people have shown
great courage and I wish them well but until the
foreign forces get out of their country there will
never be peace. I believe that the only reason
this war was ever started was because of the oil
beneath the Iraqi sands.
Valerie
Harrison
Greenville, Alabama (Feb 25,
'05)
Sergei Blagov (Russia torn [Feb 23]) as always
makes incisive and subtle observations. However,
one can't quite agree with his "warning" that
Russia might politically alienate the main market
for its oil and gas exports - the West. First of
all oil and gas [are] not the types of commodities
you'd want to slap import sanctions on, to put it
mildly. Second, it is the US, not Europe - whose
energy security is to a large degree as tied to
Russia as Russia's energy exports are tied to
Europe - that is pressuring and threatening Iran.
The latter's main exports are likely to continue
to go to Asia - India, China, and even Japan - so
Russia should not expect much competition to its
energy exports to Europe; even Libya is being
pressured by the US to direct a substantial part
of its exports across the Atlantic instead of
Europe. With the construction of the Russian
pipelines to the Pacific and to the Barents Sea,
Russia will be able to export oil to East Asia and
the US, in addition to Europe. And on a larger
scale, sovereign states - and today as in the
past, the most sovereign states are the Powers -
do not make it a practice to abandon their
strategic or tactical interests and relationships
with one side in order to achieve some incremental
improvement - and that's the most that can be
expected between Russia and the US - with another
power, albeit a superpower. If Russia abandons its
cooperation with Iran, the latter will lose some
measure of its ability to withstand US pressure,
which would only increase the chances that in the
end Russia's interest in a measure of strategic
balance in the region will come under a serious
threat, a goal she shares with China and a goal
which both states seem to be pursuing in Iran.
Leon Rozmarin
Hopedale,
Massachusetts (Feb 25,
'05)
Dear Spengler [The unmaking of the neo-conservative
mind, Feb 23]: Far from "fighting political
and cultural battles of a past generation which
neither were won nor lost, but merely became
irrelevant", the Jewish neo-conservatives in the
Bush administration are the 21st-century
equivalents of the European Court Jews of the 16th
to 19th centuries. These very bright men let
themselves be known to the robber barons (kings,
princes, electors) of small independent statelets,
then they were invited to manage the financial
affairs of the courts, and to arrange for the
purchase of supplies and weaponry. As an important
sideline, they arranged for safe houses for their
families in case of pogroms, and to arrange for
strong gates for the Jewish ghettos to be locked
at night and during Christian holy days to protect
their people from being savaged by "Christian"
hoodlums. The hard-working and exploited citizens
of these little kingdoms had absolutely no say in
the appointment of the Court Jews. I see a
parallel in the function and strategies of the
Jewish neo-conservatives of the Bush
administration. Using the wealth created by the
American meshuggene goyim, they are
protecting "The Realm", which is Israel. And
something strange has taken place there lately:
Israelis are busy creating their own ghetto with
its own security wall and protected gates because,
sadly, they have moved again into an area where
they are not wanted, this time by the Asian
citizens of western Asia. So you see, Spengler,
you can wipe out the entire third paragraph of
your latest essay.
AL
Canada (Feb 25,
'05)
Follow-up to Spengler [The unmaking of the neo-conservative
mind, Feb 23], who writes: "The obscurantism
of [T S] Eliot's poetry [has] eroded the popular
audience for modern poetry ..." The view of the US
publishing industry has long been and continues to
be that there is no market for poetry. If true, it
is at least in part a self-fulfilling prophecy:
because it "doesn't sell", they don't publish it,
and don't promote it, therefore it "doesn't sell".
However, though most bookstores provide only the
tried-and-true "classics", poetry does sell
sufficiently for bookstores to devote substantial
extremely valuable shelf space to it. As for
"obscurantism": as poetry need not "make sense" -
it is foremost a celebration of language - those
most responsible for the "obscurantism" have been
academics (and those usually formalists, which
would be Spengler's preference). Indeed, the
modernism in poetry against which Spengler
inveighs was in part a reaction against
"obscurantism" (and formalism) - thus the
ordinariness of language, and accessibility, of
such as William Carlos Williams, Marianne Moore,
and Denise Levertov. And, though my view is that
poetry is composed (of silence) by an individual
in solitude, so is therefore to be absorbed by an
individual in solitude (and silence), there is a
large number of enthusiastic young in the US who
attend what they call "poetry slams" - public
competitions of individuals spouting "poetry",
similar to "rappers" but without the rappers'
pretense to be "music". (I believe competition is
anathema to and the destruction of poetry.)
Moreover, the ... audience for popular poetry (a
whole other issue) - partly because of such
"slams" - may be larger than it has been
historically, as it has not had a large audience
for centuries (in large part because composed for
and read by those who could afford higher
education, and that thing called "leisure"). See
The Place of Poetry: Two Centuries of an Art in
Crisis (Lexington, Kentucky: The University
Press of Kentucky 1981), Christopher Clausen.
Joseph J Nagarya
Boston,
Massachusetts (Feb 25,
'05)
John Parker's assertion
that the US should restore nuclear weapons to
South Korea is both foolish and dangerous [Restore US nukes to South Korea,
Feb 23]. Does Parker think that redeploying
nuclear weapons will reduce the anti-US sentiment
in South Korea which he admits is "rampant"?
Parker states that he "enthusiastically supported"
the decision to withdraw tactical nuclear weapons
from South Korea in 1991 because these weapons
were "considered particularly risky". He fails
then to mention that the same reasons for not
deploying them now still hold true, ie, that
tactical nukes are difficult to store securely and
are also more likely to be used by frontline
commanders in the heat of battle without orders
from Washington. The Bush administration has
stated that it has war plans which include
targeting North Korea with nuclear weapons. The US
maintains more than 2,000 strategic nuclear
warheads on high-alert status, all of which can be
launched in a matter of minutes. A single Trident
sub cruising off the coast of North Korea could
hit almost 200 separate targets in less than three
minutes with close to as much firepower as was
used in all of World War II. North Korea knows
this. Sending nuclear weapons back to South Korea
would turn the clock back to 1951, not
1991.
Steven Starr
New Bloomfield,
Missouri (Feb 25,
'05)
James Chou got a little
emotional (letter, Feb 24) when he accused China
of "insisting on Taiwanese people kowtowing to its
stubborn and self-serving agenda". Kowtowing? What
agenda? It has been publicly stated, time and
again, that Taiwan could keep its government,
army, police, etc with no official coming from the
mainland to Taiwan, should unification occur. On
the other hand, Taiwan could send some people to
take up official positions in Beijing.
Negotiations will be open and every item can be
discussed. The overriding condition is that there
will be eventual unification. It is fruitless for
the diehards to spend billions of dollars to
purchase arms. It is equally ridiculous to believe
that Japan can make a real difference. All these
are just temporary noisy background which will
disappear in due course.
Li (Feb 25,
'05)
Re Ernie Lynch (letter,
Feb 24): The topic is the assassination of Rafik
Hariri and who stands to gain or lose from it, not
America's crimes in Vietnam, not Israel's in
Shatila. You are trying your darnedest to change
the subject to "Americans shouldn't comment on the
sins of others because America itself has sinned."
In my original letter I did not defend the war in
Iraq, or any other American policy. Yet you
assumed as much simply because I pointed out some
of the rhetorical tricks of the trade used by Pepe
Escobar. You tout "balance" and "scholarship"
while offering neither. Many consider themselves
"balanced" and "scholarly" after reading Howard
Zinn, Gore Vidal, or Noam Chomsky. They can
memorize a list of real and imagined American
crimes, as you do, while ignoring the other side
of the ledger. You mention Hariri's failure as
prime minister to rid Lebanon of Hezbollah, yet
ignore what could clearly be more relevant to the
motives of the murderers - his most recent public
statements, his switch to the opposition, and
significantly, his endorsement of demands
for a Syrian withdrawal from Lebanon. You should
learn to think more like the Syrians that you
claim to admire so much. If they are "coldly,
calculatable" (sic) people, as you say, their
attitude toward Hariri must have been - "What have
you done for me lately?"
Geoffrey
Sherwood
New Jersey, USA (Feb 25,
'05)
At first, I did not believe
ATol accepting articles from Xinhua. I thought you
hate Xinhua and Chinese communists. Did you obtain
the article legally? Then, I read it again. It
does sound like soft-landing propaganda. And there
is no mentioning of India or elephant. Now I
believe you. [I] apologize for mistakes. However,
I still doubt that India's cars can zip ahead
without freeways. Can you explain how they can do
that?
Frank
Seattle, Washington (Feb 25,
'05)
As we suggested under your
letter of February 24, who needs freeways
when India can send Narain Karthikeyan to
Shanghai's state-of-the-art racetrack to compete
for the World Driving Championship? And we are
still waiting to hear whether you will be joining
ATol in the stands to cheer him on next October
or, more to the point, if you are buying the
Tsingtao. - ATol
Re China seethes at US-Japan
'meddling' [Feb 24] by Jing-dong Yuan: The
entire article paints a simple and rosy picture
that the so-called security architecture in Asia
can be easily achieved through collaborations and
bargainings among three major powers, namely the
US, China, and Japan. Everything else is
dispensable, let alone the well-being of the 23
million flesh and souls in Taiwan. Dr Yuan
emphasizes that China has pretty much resolved all
[its] historical and territorial disputes with
almost all its neighboring countries. We should
all congratulate the People's Republic of China
[for] such amicable achievements. But I am just
wondering, if China had such a willingness and
capacity to resolve them, then why [does it have]
no wisdom and willingness to resolve the disputes
with Taiwan on equal footing? After all, China
does not have to seethe at the US-Japan security
alliance or anyone else at all. The threat from
the US-Japan security alliance can be easily
overcome overnight should China find the courage
and wisdom to listen to the calls of Taiwanese
people of what their aspirations are. I bet you
that the US and Japan would find it a huge
nightmare should China and Taiwan find a way of
ending the hostility and move on toward cordial
ties economically, socially, culturally, and
politically regardless of the shape or form of
political affiliation. Why can't China do it? Why
did China insist on Taiwanese people kowtowing to
its stubborn and self-serving agenda? As an old
saying, you get what you pay for. Nobody else to
blame but yourself.
James
Chou
Vancouver, British Columbia (Feb 24,
'05)
Kosuke Takahashi has
offered a clever conceit in his dubbing Japan a
putative Britain of the Far East [Japan to become 'Britain of the Far
East', Feb 24]. Is the recent accord between
Washington and Tokyo for further strengthening
military ties and more coordination in regional
geopolitical matters, an avatar of the 1902
Anglo-Japanese military alliance, which had the
effect of raising Imperial Japan to the status of
world power, and of trying to checkmate Czarist
expansion in Central Asia and the Far East, in
what Rudyard Kipling's Kim called the great game,
this three years before the humiliating defeat of
Russian at the hands of the Japanese army at
Mukden, and the destruction of Russia's imperial
navy at Tsushima? Mr Takahashi buries in his
article the determining event which moved the
inertia of Japanese military and geopolitical
thinking: the launching of Pyongyang's rocket over
Japan. Grafted on to the leaps and bounds of North
Korea military technology came the question of the
Democratic People's Republic of Korea's (DPRK)
admission of having a nuclear arsenal. These are
serious developments indeed. But the shock and awe
which accelerated movement towards tighter
relations with the United States and gave more
urgency for a revision of the American-imposed
Peace Constitution, and the eventual raising of an
army, navy, and air force, was Chinese penetration
into Japan's territorial waters. Japan has a
strong, trained officer corps, otherwise known as
the Self-Defense Forces (SDF). A standing army
would, with minimum training, remind Tokyo's
neighbors [that] they have a formidable opponent
in a revived Nippon military. In the longer run,
tighter military coordination with Washington is a
signal to Beijing, the more especially since Tokyo
is committing itself to the defense of its former
colony, which China ceded after its defeat in the
1894 Sino-Japanese war fought on the Korean
Peninsula, and which we know as Taiwan. Junichiro
Koizumi is not playing to ultra-right-wing
galleries. He is realistically assessing Japan's
options in rapidly evolving and unstable
geopolitical realities. Confrontation with China
is possible since oil-poor Tokyo is intent in
offshore drilling [on] a continental shelf which
Beijing has staked out as belonging within its
territorial waters. Then there is the unleashing
of exasperated Chinese nationalism against Japan,
most notably in Japan's soccer teams of China's
team. In spite of intense investment in mainland
China, there are potential problems of trade
friction. Although there are other factors in the
equation, Tokyo's moves are more defensive than
offensive. It is dangerous to see in today's Japan
a looming shadow of past imperial behavior. Eyes
should look further west to the Northeast Asian
continent.
Jakob Cambria
USA (Feb 24,
'05)
Regarding the US-Japan
regional security declaration, one wonders if it
is brilliant US diplomacy or utter Japanese
stupidity or probably both that succeeds to
solidify a hostile relationship toward China and
Russia. Facing no prospect of expansion and
stiffening competition from other Asian countries
such as China, India and Korea, Japan is falling
into a trap like Taiwan, looking toward America as
its protector and savior. Sadly, the technological
success of [the] country has not produced
political leaders with foresight and
wisdom.
Li (Feb
24, '05)
From the article India zips ahead [Feb 24], we
can guess who is the author of China in reverse gear. Both
articles follow the same logic. The slight
reduction of automobile production indicates a
good, planned, soft landing of China's superheated
economy. India may have [had a] higher rate of
increase of automobile production last year. That
does not [mean] "India zips ahead". Indrajit Basu
proves my theory was right on the target. By
blowing a stream of hot air, India's automobiles
on their poorly paved roads zip ahead of the
Chinese cars on their new freeway system ranked
the second in the world. What an amazing mouth!
Indrajit Basu must be proud of his achievement.
NASCAR should hire him right away.
Frank
Seattle, Washington (Feb 24, '05)
The article
"China in reverse gear" was supplied by Xinhua. As
for the US National Association for Stock Car Auto
Racing, we doubt that it has much of a following
in India (or anywhere in Asia), but we are sure
you are thrilled that Narain Karthikeyan has been
selected to drive for Jordan in the upcoming
Formula One World Championship series, and that
you will tear yourself away from ESPN to be in
Shanghai on October 16 to cheer him on. -
ATol
Great to have you back,
Spengler [The unmaking of the neo-con
mind, Feb 23]. You were losing me for a while.
I agree that the ideas of the neo-cons are
irrelevant to thinkers, but they are not
irrelevant to Red America. While the big-money
elite Republicans don't agree with the neo-con
garbage, they cynically exploit it because it
helps the further their interests (securing and
expanding hegemony) and Red America believes it.
Red America hasn't had its faith shattered the way
Europe did in the early to mid-20th century. We
haven't seen the results yet of these neo-con
ideas, which are irrelevant in Europe and have
been for 50 years or more. After the US empire
implodes (which the neo-cons are greatly
accelerating, in my opinion) you might be writing
about why America doesn't believe in itself
anymore, like you do about Europe now. To Joseph J
Nagarya: I agree with everything you say in your
Dirty Dog letter [Feb 23]. I could be wrong, but I
get the impression that you are a Democrat. While
I agree with what you say about Republican
ideology, I don't understand how it is any
different than the Democrats'. During the
presidential election [Democratic candidate John]
Kerry simply said, "Vote for me, I will out-Bush
Bush." The Republicans could not have achieved
anything without Democratic complicity. [President
George W] Bush could have never passed the Patriot
Act or gone to war in Iraq without Democratic
support. They agree on pretty much everything save
how to sucker votes and they only disagree
marginally there. As far as your unproven "theory"
that the US doesn't have free elections (which I
agree with), what "objective standard" of
substantiated fact can you provide to support that
assertion? You should hold yourself to the same
standards [to which] you hold others. When will
you admit that you are just a guy standing on a
soapbox and yelling like the rest of us? There is
nothing wrong with that. That is what the Letters
section is for. If you would like to hold these
letters to the standard of research, I sugges |
