They're Selling Uranium to Hu?

Chinese President Hu Jintao's visit to Washington yesterday reminded me of a deal Australia struck earlier this month to open up its vast uranium supply to Chinese consumption. Even though the full impact of the deal won't be felt for at least another few years, Aussies have jumped right into a fierce debate over nuclear energy.

Some think Australia should give in and hop aboard the nuclear energy bandwagon. Others wonder whether they'd be best off following the example of New Zealand -- a country whose anti-nuclear policy is so hardcore that it once banned U.S. vessels with nuclear cargo from transiting through its waters.

Specifically because of the China-uranium deal, Australians are facing conflicts between state and federal interests and arguing over just how far their dealings with non-democratic countries should go. But just as U.S. concerns over human rights violations in China tend not to stand in the way of trade, Australia's similar reservations are not blocking this uranium deal.

The nuclear waste issue has also not managed to convince the Australian government to reconsider, nor has the possibility that this would free up uranium mined in China for use in something other than civilian energy production. Besides, some experts point out, if the Chinese doesn't get uranium from Australia, they'll just get it from somewhere else.

The same can be said of nuclear technologies -- and it's a dilemma for the United States. Is it wise for the United States to provide technologies to developing countries that want to pursue civilian nuclear power generation? Such an approach could help ensure that Americans have vital knowledge of those emerging energy programs.

On the other hand, proliferation, waste and many of the other drawbacks we've discussed this week must be considered. Should U.S. policy be to refuse to provide nuclear technologies, even though that runs the risk that developing nations will procure them from other countries instead, potentially leaving Americans in the dark about those new capabilities?

If you think such decisions should be made on a case-by-case basis, what criteria should be used to decide who gets technological help and who doesn't?

By Emily Messner |  April 21, 2006; 5:37 AM ET  | Category:  International , U.S. Foreign Policy
Previous: Nuclear Waste Disasters and a Pollution Solution? | Next: Take It From the Soviets: Safety First


Please email us to report offensive comments.

Australia didnot sell the same uranium to DEMOCRATIC INDIA because India has been honest enough to say it will not sign the discriminatory NPT.NPT is designed to bringin soley India within the NSG guidelines which suited the chinese who get Nuclearplants from US and uranium from australia and also russia!!Iran and NorthKorea signed the NPT but they didnot follow the obligations associated with it.India a proud democracy of one billion people will not be cowed by the US congress which is trying to impose NPT obligations on India without the attendant benefits which the P 5 enjoy including china.US has always been using the pliant leadership or bureacracy of democratic nations to impose its will and when the attendant baclash happens it cannot face facts like the Palestinian imbroglio.Hamas came to represent the palestenians not because of its suicide bombers because the palestinians felt the FATAH leadership is corrupted by the Isrealies and USA>.same thing can happen in India.

Posted by: captainjohann | April 21, 2006 09:38 AM

I hate to keep bringing this up but at one time the United States turned out the best trained engineers and scientists in the world. After WWII there were basically 2 countries that had the capability and expertise to develop nuclear technology and also weapons. Now there is a dozen or so countries with this technology and a couple of them with people who are not necessarily sane in control of this technology. So who do we have to blame?

Nuclear technology for peaceful purposes is a good thing, but in the hands of countries such as N.Korea, Iran, Packistan, etc. who either have extremeists in charge, or who support extremeists with the belief that even if they die, that killing their sworn enemy must be done at all costs ought to worry not only us but the rest of the world. Radioactive fallout just like biological weapons know no man made boundries. Every country on this planet needs to in one way or another to reign in these cowboy type extremeists. There needs to be an international co-operation of all countries that have nuclear technology to come together on an agreement that:

1. Stand firm against any further development of nuclear weapons. There is only so many countries that have Uranium Ore in any significant amounts and the technology to turn raw ore into enriched Uranium gas thus make the next step into weapons grade U 238 or the means to make a warhead, bomb, or missle technology.

2. All countries that now possess this technology must agree to no longer permit the sale of enrichment technology to any other country for whatever purpose, but agree to supply any country reactor grade fuel to any country wishing it under conditions made clear to the country that wishes nuclear reactors for the generation of electrical power. That the countries that now have the technology, will physically provide the plans for the reactor, Review the site selection, oversee the construction to avoid sub-standard materials or workmanship, and oversee the operation of each reactor. These monitors would also oversee the shipment of the fuel to and from the reactors and account for every gram of that fuel subject to audits.

3. Build into the reactor plans for a failsafe. It is to be designed to where it is controlled from one centrally located facillity operated by the technology controlling countries, should a rogue leadership take over the country that posesses the reactors and refuse inspections and audits, that the failsafe device could then be activated and the reactor would become in-operable and the nuclear fuel either become in-cased or some other way be destroyed so no-one could gain access to the nuclear material.

4. Make violating this agreement have extremely severe penalties as to assure that no country would dare to violate this agreement. There are still only 3 so-called super powers in the world, China, Russia, and us, and I am sure that an agreement could be reached fairly easily between the three to ensure this is carried out. 100% embargo's on inports and exports, joint military strikes on infrastructure targets up to and including hostile take-over of a country's resources such as Iran's oil fields. In one way or another one, two or all three powers has influence over or with almost every country on this earth, and if the big three stood together, no-one would be in a position to resist, and nuclear energy would be available to whomever wished it.

If something is not done to reign in this technology, I'm afraid that we could possibly looking at the end of mankind and civilization as we know it!!!

Posted by: Lab Rat | April 21, 2006 11:26 AM

Australia has helpfully pointed out that the initial clucks of disapproval from the US on it's selling China uranium follow on the heels of America's agreement to work with nuclear NPT bypasser India. And of course, Australia notes the long-standing "Special Relationship" the US has had with covert nuclear weapons stockpiler Israel.

So what the US thinks of it's long-time ally Australia really doesn't matter when the US has long pursued "exceptionalism" in regard to aid and technical assistance to NPT violators Israel, Pakistan, and India. Australia is at least dealing with China in accordance to international law.

If there is an issue in Australia it is Rising China beginning to dominate Asia and Australia's apparant role in the Big Scheme of Things as being China's natural resource repository. China wants trade with Australia, but not for it's finished goods....but it's iron ore, coal, uranium, gold, wood. Rising China already takes all the coal and iron the island continent can provide, and is looking into "helping" Australia double it's uranium mining production.

Similar to what China is doing in Latin America, Africa, Canada, Iran - "We will fill your versions of WalMarts with cheap high and low tech Chinese goods as we appropriate other nations technology. In return, we will buy up rights to your oilfields, strategic minerals, wood, concrete - and in low tech countries, we have churned out millions of surplus Chinese engineers, technicians standing at the ready to help you get those resources ready for shipment to China."

China does appear to be following a strategy of going into countries America traditionally got resources from and using the hundreds of billions of American WalMart dollars they get to replace the American access to reserves. Oil is #1, of course. Rising China has announced deals to oil reserves in Canada, Sudan, Iran, Kuwait, KSA, Venezuela, gas reserves in Bolivia, Iran, Myanmar,Indonesia.

Why is oil price going up? Evil oil companies? No, they just profit off the investments, speculation, 40% increase in global demand of total demand in the last 10 years that surround the Rise and economic Dominance of Communist China. Bush doesn't care - his oil buddies and Ruling Class middlemen are getting rich off China's trade dominance and oil craving...and only Iraq matters....

Posted by: Chris Ford | April 21, 2006 11:34 AM

Lab rat, everything you say sounds good but the reality is the US will a blind eye whenever is convenient, how come now China is welcomed as "friend" ($$$$ included), how come India was given green light for his nuclear program?, what about Israel?, the latest, Condi shaking hands with her new friend Equatorial Guinea's bloddy dictator. C'mon!, we talk about N. Korea, Iran or any other rogue state in pursue of nuclear capabilities but we bend ourselves over if there is a lucrative objective in between, pure hypocrisy. Then all the grandiloquent discourse about democracy, human rights are just 100 % pure Bravo Sierra. Our government doesn't care.

Posted by: Jimbo | April 21, 2006 11:39 AM

Chris I totally am in 100% agreement with what you just posted.

Posted by: Lab Rat | April 21, 2006 11:39 AM

I was just making a wishful statement as to what really needs to happen in order to make the world a safe place. Will it happen I don't think so!!!

Posted by: Lab Rat | April 21, 2006 11:42 AM

My question is why do the Bushies hate America so?

First, by saying India's nuke program was ok, they gave the go ahead to other nations violating the bans.

Then, by pardoning the architect of exporting nuclear weapons technology from Pakistan to four terrorist nations, they signalled that it's ok to use nukes against America and we'll give you a pass if you pretend to be our ally.

And now?

They're either really incompetent or they just hate America a lot in the White House, is all I can surmise.

Posted by: Will in Seattle | April 21, 2006 11:46 AM

As a stickler for English grammer, I was as nearly appalled by the phrase, "if the Chinese DOESN'T get it..." as I was by the article itself, which once more brings home the fact that the world and its government leaders have, indeed, apparently all gone mad.
Considering that Ms. Messner has undoubtedly a degree in journalism and is paid to write, this faux pas in grammer is glaring.

Posted by: Paulette Robinson | April 21, 2006 11:58 AM

One cannot blame Australia for wanting to export one of it's products. This is nothing to do with hate, as one of your debaters indicates, more in the way of extending their trading.
On the subject of 'waste isotopes' why not dump them on the Moon? We have the technology to transport it so why don't we use it?

Posted by: Brian Moore (Rhyl,UK) | April 21, 2006 12:01 PM

Ms. Robinson: Your spelling of 'grammar' as 'grammer' strikes me as midly comical.

Posted by: Emilio | April 21, 2006 12:24 PM

Ah, common. Cut her a break. She's just outta j-school. They don't teach "grammar" there, just political slant.

Posted by: | April 21, 2006 12:26 PM

Canberra ought to be ashamed of itself.

Posted by: Emilio | April 21, 2006 12:29 PM

Chris Ford, on the other hand, is a supreme example of erudition. All with you, bro.

Lab Rat sounds pretty cool as well.

Posted by: Emilio | April 21, 2006 12:38 PM

Will asked "My question is why do the Bushies hate America so?"

The Bushies do not hate America. India is now our friend because American corporations rely on them to oursource jobs. China is our friend because American corporations rely on them for cheap factory labor. Security, human rights, American values, American laws and the constitution are all secondary to what is best for America's corporations. The Bushies do not hate America, they just don't care about America when it comes to advancing their corporate buddies.

Posted by: Sully | April 21, 2006 12:39 PM

Sully needs to learn the meaning of the word 'sarcasm'. Am I not right, fellows?
Otherwise she's got the point.

Posted by: Emilio | April 21, 2006 12:46 PM

they don't, they're simply put _ignorant_ of their effect.

they don't care about you or their eefects on the world.

because you're not real to them, they haven't encountered some centuries. Do you think bush was feeling for the men and women dying in Vietnam? How could he, no one in his class was _over there_....Rummy Cheyney?

in a certain sense it is "business as usual,"


are old fashioned rulers.

They rule by ruleset, not by understanding what is happening.

Their words, and actions reflect a lack of appreciation or deeper understanding of what the world is going a whole.

The prattling about democracy for Iraq as Africa is busy going up in flames and aids, and we sell them arms to further inflame their tribal wars....

the thoughtlessness, is evident in that they didn't realize that what the administration was saying was an _obvious_ lie, in light of what was going on in the rest of the world.

The mindset that they have and use is _inherited_.

It's olde European manipulation of wealth by the wealthy...they're not even American in a way...they are Stuarts...royalty. Bush Sr's uncle was part of the West Indies Spice company, which is multiple centuries old and why Poppy was involved with CIA in trying to depose the early 50' business...not United States.

Rupert Murdoch is of the same molde even if he's newly rich...Austrailian owner of the media who attempted to monopolize it about 10 years ago...all he got was FOX and some others but not controlling interest in World media...they stopped that in California, as he tried to buy up several newspapers and some newscasting agencies.

Newer minds, unfettered by class belief, can see the effects that deals have on "the people," because in an enclosed that has reached it's borders, we affect each other.

For the olde rich, the inherited,

part of the mindset is _they_ "the people" are not of our class and we are not affected by _them_ "the people."

ANY engineer can tell you that all parts of a ecological system affect each other.

Hell Heisenbergs uncertainy principle, tells you that.


Posted by: why do bushies hate america so? | April 21, 2006 12:49 PM

It's so hard to meet guys these days.

Posted by: Chris Ford | April 21, 2006 01:25 PM

If China and Iran are cosying up together .. and if Australia will sell uranium ore to China, will they just act as middlemen, and pass along some to Iran for influence and profit?

China need Australian uranium for domestic use?

Posted by: Mill_of_Mn | April 21, 2006 01:27 PM

Whatever it is, Mill, there's something fishy going on down there.

Posted by: Emilio | April 21, 2006 01:31 PM

that's not nice...

Posted by: charlie.. | April 21, 2006 01:33 PM

you're forgetting that Saddam and gomer Bin Laden were both supported by the United States on some levels before they fell out...

it's a lot easier to monitor if you're part of the team delivering the supplies...right...

and the kings still get their share of the pie before the plug is pulled.

money is "of course" the object, even for the have a whole country subjugated there for the benefit of a few...the world leaders _understand_ each other...

it's you, that don't understand their transparency.


Posted by: what's going on is that profiteering takes many forms.. | April 21, 2006 01:37 PM

Re. the above, if you still eschew "conspiracy theory" is is hard to put it together. If you see that, as Sully has aptly pointed out, it serves larger super-national corporate and financial interests, you get a lead on the right answers. This fits nearly all the topics we have discussed here since November. Proles aren't supposed to know what is happening, nor to care as long as they can get NASCAR, beer, and processed food.

Outer Party members rely on the "system" to keep them nominally above the Proles. Inner Party members rake in the benefits, the power, the gratification of having everyone else jump through the hoops. So now East Asia is the ally and Eurasia is the enemy. Read your Nineteen Eighty-Four again if you need to figure out the players.

Posted by: Jazzman | April 21, 2006 02:03 PM

Oh, did I forget about the country music? What do those lyrics mean, anyway?

Posted by: Jazzman | April 21, 2006 02:04 PM

Oh please, desist
It's overwhelming
Your wild words
are drive one insane
with the desires subjugated
so ovewhelmingly transparent...

Posted by: Chris | April 21, 2006 02:04 PM

Beer, NASCAR and processed food. Of course! now if we was all sophisticated, you know, mineral water, brioche, a fundamental knowledge of the intricate artistry of balinese finger puppetry, we'd understand the CONSPIRACY.

Posted by: xavier | April 21, 2006 02:20 PM

feel my pain in your geepers...

Posted by: closely to me listen... | April 21, 2006 02:21 PM

if I was to tell you that hefting my half pounder was in your best interests you'd probably do that wouldn't you?

Posted by: it's all in the framing.. | April 21, 2006 02:23 PM

To whoever's posting under Ford's name, stop it. Its ridiculous.

I'm not a big fan of Ford. I disagree with a lot of what he says. But using his name to post stupid things does nothing except validate his arguments, at least in his mind and some others. If the only response to a person you disagree with is to resort to stealing his name, it means you have no argument against what he's saying and or for what you believe.

If you don't agree with him, then argue with him. If you don't like him, then just say so. But have the courage to actually take ownership of your opinions.

I honestly hope that you are some non-political fool. Because if you and I are aligned politically, then you are exactly the reason why I have so much disdain for many democrats and liberals.

Posted by: Freedom | April 21, 2006 02:30 PM

boy, you're wound tight to day aren't you mr freedom...

and as far as democrats and liberals...

I have disdain for people that are too stupid to let their conversations speak for themselves without labeling...

yah know?


Posted by: he's joking charlie... | April 21, 2006 02:35 PM

what makes you think it's not chris? because he can't think outside the boxe?
he's easily identified by his predictability?


Posted by: as to this.. | April 21, 2006 02:36 PM

This blog is deteriorating.

Eliminate Random Thoughts Poster and anyone who steals names. The latter is poor etiquette. The former relentlessly bombards us with nonsense garbage posts. I have no problem ignoring the words, but he/she always finds a way to rant for pages and pages on virtually nothing.

Posted by: Will | April 21, 2006 03:00 PM

What makes me think its not Chris?

Well aside form the uncharacteristic, "It's so hard to meet guys these days," theres the fact that Ford's posts are rarely less than a few paragraphs long or off topic unless in response to someone elses off topic post.

And please explain this:
"I have disdain for people that are too stupid to let their conversations speak for themselves without labeling..."

So you don't like labels? Well I can go in depth about everything if you really like. The fact is, I choose to use labels because they are apart of language for a reason. Labels, schemas, and stereotypes are all useful parts of language (in moderation) because they save time thinking and explaining concepts to others. Without them, nothing would ever get done because the world as we know it is too complex to explain everything without using labels time and time again.
You yourself use labels in this blog several times:

"are old fashioned rulers"
-What do you mean by old fashioned? What about rulers?

You also use catchy phrases to incorporate different meanings, similar to the use of label. The phrase, "the kings still get their share of the pie before the plug is pulled" is only understood when one understands it for the labels that are used. It refers to a concept not explicitly invoked by the words, but rather it is invoked culturally. Are you too stupid to let your conversation speak for itself without resorting to catch phrases and labels as well? Do you disdain yourself? Probably not, based on the general superiority you tend to exude in this blog.

Please, learn how the language and human mind works.

Posted by: Freedom | April 21, 2006 03:08 PM

is coloring within the lines?

sorry if you can't think, even the comment about "the bushies don't hate us"

contains a bit more than your lack of thought process...wouldn't you say?

Posted by: and your contribution | April 21, 2006 03:09 PM

that I don't confine myself to your ruleset.

predictability to a certain degree, requires that people traverse the same surfaces that they always traverse...

being rule based means that you adhere to a given societal ruleset..

you don't find me doing that do you?


Posted by: how to use language means | April 21, 2006 03:12 PM

Ha. Of course you do. Otherwise you'd be incomprehensible in your posts. Well, moreso than you already are. You follow basic rules of language. You use labels, which you so disdain. Those are following language rule sets. Us even having this conversatoins is proof that you confine yourself to the english language ruleset for the purposes of carrying on this dialogue. Thank you for proving my point.

Language is governed by rules. It has to be. Otherwise no one would ever understand another. Its possible for these rules to change, but that takes time and consent of the masses. Currently, language rulesets allow for labels so that dialogue can be concise and time efficient. Labels do not always fit however, hence the reason that the labels you took offense to in my post had the term many instead of all in reference to them. In case you need a refresher on this one too, it means that Ive referenced a certain social group and stated that those that fit the criteria implied by my post regarding the fake poster (no argument except for personal attacks through impersonation) have my disdain.

Posted by: Freedom | April 21, 2006 03:20 PM

If it were "labels" that so offended you, Random Poster, then you wouldn't call someone a "korean" "slant eye" like you did Apr 19, 2006 11:15:42 PM in The Facts: Nuclear Energy.

Give me a break, guy, and get off the blog. You are unwelcome. I (incorrectly) assumed that if you were ignored long enough you would just go away. No such luck. You have an inexhaustible need to make a fool of yourself.

Posted by: Will | April 21, 2006 03:24 PM

have some "rigidity issues,"

as well as stupidity issues...

are you intimidated or just innundated with old ideas about the way things should be?

let's see you actually contribute something besides sheep issues, eh?

Posted by: sounds like you | April 21, 2006 03:27 PM

interpreted with the current usage as well as accepted usage...

rules have to do with



and mores.

you're embedded in the western world with certain mores embedded in your culture as deeply as those of supposedly _backwards_ cultures and to a certain degree as easily manipulated because of your predictability..

Posted by: each dictionary is | April 21, 2006 03:30 PM

Will states:
"Give me a break, guy, and get off the blog. You are unwelcome. I (incorrectly) assumed that if you were ignored long enough you would just go away. No such luck. You have an inexhaustible need to make a fool of yourself."

In my opinion he has the right to say what he wants. At least he's on topic most of the time as opposed to Che. I do agree that is makes a fool of himself though. Everytime I read his posts, I'm reminded of a burntout stoner that thinks they're being prophetic when all they are being is pathetic.

Posted by: Freedom | April 21, 2006 03:30 PM

but if you actually want to have an effect that's different you don't want to borrow it from someone who's trying to lead you...

you feeling defensive?

Posted by: every body has a right to an opinion.. | April 21, 2006 03:33 PM

actually contribute right?

Posted by: I mean it's more important to agree than to | April 21, 2006 03:34 PM

Ok random poster, if you don't follow rules and don't think the should be applied, please communicate with me in such a way that does not follow them. Of course, you can't use english, or even the alphabet, as those are considered rules of the english language. You can't really type, as that has its own ruleset in creating a post and conveying youre meaning. And you can't really submit the post because you are following the general ruleset regarding this forum: ie, read, think, type post, press post, repeat.
Sheep issues? Please provide examples and how you don't contribute to them all. (No fair uses the predicted method of explaining why you don't follow and aren't a sheep (see your ruleset post above) without explaining how I am. You make the accusation, you have the burden of proof.

And finally, ye who hates labels. You have labeled me with this post:
"you're embedded in the western world with certain mores embedded in your culture as deeply as those of supposedly _backwards_ cultures and to a certain degree as easily manipulated because of your predictability"

Sure you explain it, but associated with it is an idea that you have no right to bestow on me. All you can do is read what I write and make assumptions based on them. You assume I'm a westerner. You assume I follow a certain set of ideals. These are all implicit labels you've applied to me, without actually stating them.

Can you make one post without being a hypocrite?

Posted by: Freedom | April 21, 2006 03:37 PM

Sorry, can't say that I understand what your last posts are referencing. Are you starting to try that whole, don't follow the English language ruleste thing?

Posted by: Freedom | April 21, 2006 03:39 PM

taunting is it for you?

and labeling as a way of thinking is not the same thing as being a knee jerk labeler..

what do you know about language or cognition?

Posted by: oh, I see... | April 21, 2006 03:43 PM

it's personal experience..

each word is associated with a set of experiences...

an enculturation, familial and societal, to some extent classwise as well.

Posted by: language is something unseen too | April 21, 2006 03:46 PM

What do I know about language and cognition?

Apparently more than you.

And how am I a knee jerk labeler? There is a sect of democrats and liberals that have no real argument other than their emotion. They do what they can to bring down oppostion. And I have disdain for them. This isn't to say that the right doesn't have their own. The left's is just more apparent. Theres a reason why I specified many instead of all. Please see the above posts and actually read the explanation. You label me with no true basis. I label with qualifiers to convey my true intent and specify intentions.

Finally, many of your posts are taunts. I have used taunts in the past. Please do not attempt to take the moral highground. One merely has to look at the immigration debates to see how much taunting you are capable of.

Posted by: Freedom | April 21, 2006 03:47 PM

not a static thing,

it varies for each individual.

Posted by: language is evokative... | April 21, 2006 03:48 PM

high ground, a taunt is useful in it's effective tool.

but trying to _prove_ without involvement in what is being said,

because you're in projection,

or in other words, because you're in an emotional not useful...

it prevents understanding, because you're reacting to internal issues.

I would surmise.

Posted by: I'm not taking the moral | April 21, 2006 03:51 PM

Yes, language can be a personal experience. Thats refered to as personal communication. The second that anyone else can understand it in your meaning, its call 'interperrsonal' communication. Say it with me now. Interpersonal. Its how groups of people understand each other. For one to understand another ina group of people, one must follow a set of rules specific to the group (regardless of size; two people, 10 people, 10 million people, etc). This includes things like visual cues, group dynamics, etc. In the case of verbal communication, it contains things like introductions, speech patterns, schemas, lenses and interpretations, pauses, etc. And written communication has its own set as well.

To think that you can communicate with others without following a group specific set of rules is absurd.

Posted by: Freedom | April 21, 2006 03:52 PM

Yes, emotion can be a problem. That does not take anything away from any of the points I've made. If you can address what I say and counterargue it and I still don't change my stance irrationally, then that is a sign of how emotions are interfereing with my mental capability.

The sad fact is, you have not really argued against any of my points. If anything, you seem to be stuck more upon your own emotions than anything else. You think you are special with your own set of rules that we all seem to be able to understand, coincidentally enough. You think there is something different when you use a label or imply one than when someone else does. I've been responding to the majority of the points you attempt to make. You cannot say the same and instead ignore them. Who is speaking based on emotions?

Posted by: Freedom | April 21, 2006 03:55 PM

you can call me a burn out or an ahole, slanteyes, propaganda monkey, whatever you want to...

as a way of being,

I don't care,

I still listen to what you have to say and see if it makes sense...

emotionalism is a useful tool for the playground and to a certain extent is useful in dessiminating information...

everything has a purpose, but it's not always the same...unless your internal evoking processes refer to the same incidents........

being fairly non-reactive allows you to have a choice, that's based upon not being in reaction...replaying a tape.

in buddhism, it's called "having little dust,"

in aikido it means to "be present and wait"

be nuetral...

responding to cliches, hate pandering, stereotypes is not useful _for me_

if I'm trying to break a _normal_ way of thinking about something...

I interject a bit of "what the..."

it's called interrupting the flow of same old same old...

Posted by: look, you need to get this.. | April 21, 2006 04:00 PM

Yuo state:
"I still listen to what you have to say and see if it makes sense...

emotionalism is a useful tool for the playground and to a certain extent is useful in dessiminating information...

everything has a purpose, but it's not always the same...unless your internal evoking processes refer to the same incidents........"

Really? You listen to what I have to say? Because it doesn't seem like it. You attackme for attacking someone that has no argument other than stealing someones name to attempt to mock them. An act that is in itself an emotional one. In my comment, I note that I have disdain for democrats that do this through implication. I actually analyze it as to why it is a bad way of thinking and acting. Meanwhile, you attack me and accuse me of using a label without going into the specifics. I thought I was being specific. You carry on this debate with me without actually analyzing what I say. You state things as you think they should mean and go off on tangents in an attempt to prove yourself right. The whole while you seem to not be listening. Hence disregarding large portions of my posts to nitpick what you can. If you weren't nitpicking, you'd actually explain most of your arguments and why they are superior to mine, rather than simply asserting that your concepts are.

Posted by: Freedom | April 21, 2006 04:06 PM

your cognitive interpretation is based upon personal experience...

there is a certain shared basis for interpreting words in general...

family based, children from the same family show the same speech patterns, regional patterns...

in general, that's not always true.

what is true specifically for everyone is that an abstraction is put in place that philosophers call:

the map,

it is the individuals interpretation, internally of what is going on, out there in the world...right?

the ruleset....the internal ruleset.

someone watching, can figure out the general shape of the personality...

like standing in a rowboat and poking a pole down into the bottom of a fairly shallow pond the shape of the unseen bottom...

by having a certain number of interactions and mapping it out verbally, or in written form...

and speak to that, abstract process...

and the person whose abstract process that is being spoken to would feel 100 percent certain that you were on the same page with them...that you understood them, that you agreed with them, that you held the same world view...

Posted by: language is a personal experience... | April 21, 2006 04:07 PM

framework of the world as you see it, I'm talking about that.

Posted by: you want me to interpret within the | April 21, 2006 04:09 PM

I'd just like to posit the following general tenet for nuclear proliferation during the next 30-50 years. With the exponential advancement of technology in the third world, and the free-flow of information due to the internet, in 20 years or any nation that wants to will be able to develop nuclear weapons, and very likely keep them secret until they are operable.

If you accept that, then the obvious thing we should be working on - to help assure that they are never used - is that good old fashioned squishy thing called "peace and goodwill between peoples". During the last five years our government has been working overtime to alienate most of our old friends, and to fuel growing hatred for us in countries that were not so friendly. By several independent analyses, for instance, the premeditated invasion of Iraq on what turned out to be completely bogus pretenses, has been a major boon to terrorist recruitment.

Nuclear-armed Pakistan is a powderkeg of anti-American hate. We may well be just one coup away from a confrontation on the order of October 1962 - only this time with George W. Bush in the Oval Office trying to negotiate.

Meanwhile we have the redneck half of America stoking the flames of hate with their ignorant "kill the towelheads/stamp out Islam" comments. And tacit or active approval of torturing the "terrorist" captives (even if 90% of them turn out to be Iraqi taxi drivers). Then pictures of same inflame more wounded pride into violence from young Muslim men.

This is not a good social recipe for our survival. This macho belligerance is directly encouraging our demise. People need to see that.

Posted by: b2o | April 21, 2006 04:09 PM

the interaction without understanding anything different than you already do...imho

Posted by: you want to "solve" | April 21, 2006 04:10 PM

"in general, that's not always true.

what is true specifically for everyone is that an abstraction is put in place that philosophers call:

the map,"

Please source this information because there are many Social Cognition Psychologists that would love this groundbreaking work. Not to mention, many rhetoricians and theorists regarding interpersonal communication.

Language is something learned. Its based off of personal experiences. At least, the language that most everyone uses. Its possible to have your own and its possible to express yourself in uniqueways. But for others to understand them, that requires a ruleset. As the frequently discussed possible egyptian experiment goes, isolated children did not inherantly learn Egyptian. They had no language. To communicate with someone such as this, it is necessary to develop rulesets that both can comprehend. This develops over gesturing and association.

Your argument is flawed with this statement:
"it is the individuals interpretation, internally of what is going on, out there in the world...right?"

You assume this internal ruleset is formed internally, with no outside influence. This simply isn't the case. Internal values upon which interpretation is based is for the most part, something that is learned. That isn't to say some things are inherrant. Most studies have yet to conclude anything that is truley inherrant, though.
In terms of our discussion on language rulesets, the internal interpretations that you speak of are not inherrant. They are learned from those around them.

Posted by: Freedom | April 21, 2006 04:22 PM

It's not that I don't want to understand anything different. Quite the opposite in fact, as I believe I do understand you, at least so far as you've communicated using the ruleset we are both using. The point is, in both the realm of psychology and teh realm of communications, studies exist that completely through your theories to the wind. The whole idea of communication is that it is the passing of information between two different beings. Without a ruleset governing this, it is impossible to do. If both don't follow the same interpretation, neither will communicate with the other. Some, small differences that are a result of nurture are possible but anything that goes against core values does not work. In the realm of psychology, shemas, labels and stereotypes are lauded as things necessary to think and communicate. Without them, thought patterns would be too slow as the simple act of data prcoessing would take to long.

Posted by: Freedom | April 21, 2006 04:26 PM

it has a loser and winner..

I don't consider you the winner or the loser...

fault finding is not my mission, clarity within me is, and it's not achieved by adhering to a smaller understanding of "what is going on" as if it were the truth.

if someone is labeled _this_ or _that_


that was "all you needed to know,"

all the "manipulators" have to do is call whatever _they_ are doing "this" or "that" and you've given up your right/need/ability to preceive what is in front of you...

cognition, perception

always has to work it's way through the

personal filter before it gets "heard," unless you don't have one..

that's the point.

Posted by: ps. I'm not really into debate.. | April 21, 2006 04:31 PM

you're looking for is

"don't mistake the map for the territory."


see yah, I'll reread it later.

Posted by: the phrase | April 21, 2006 04:39 PM

If you're not into debate, it seems foolish to actively participate on a site labeled "The Debate."

That said, you use labels as well. Please don't act like you don't. They are a useful part of the language that is necessary to a large extent.

This argument here:
"all the "manipulators" have to do is call whatever _they_ are doing "this" or "that" and you've given up your right/need/ability to preceive what is in front of you...

cognition, perception

always has to work it's way through the

personal filter before it gets "heard," unless you don't have one..

that's the point."

Is a large concept in theories regarding interpersonal communication, specifically, the idea of lenses and filters. Lenses apply to what you think of someone's intentions in communication while filters are how you percieve it. The concept of lenses and filters is something that is seen as a personal one, agreed. However, while these are personal, they are a result of interpersonal actions. Ie, Jacob takes quick offense at fat jokes because as an overweight child, he was mocked by his peers. Thats an easy, broad example, but it can be much more subconcious and hard to pinpoint. Thats not to say its inherrant; merely supressed or hidden.

Posted by: Freedom | April 21, 2006 04:40 PM

Pass the bottle, the joint, the pills, LSD and/or whatever else keeps you going, variable name guy. Must be fun, but doing it every day is not good for the brain. Your must come down sooner or later, get a job, and join the rest of us.

Posted by: | April 21, 2006 04:51 PM

If one is going to pose as Chris Ford, they should at least throw in the words 'leftie', 'Islamoid', and 'Jewish ACLU lawyer' to their bogus posts. Obsessing over dead ideologies such as Marxism helps to. I mean, try to have SOME authenticity when posing as reactionary nutcase Chris Ford. His level of stupidity is not easily feigned.

Posted by: ErrinF | April 21, 2006 04:55 PM

Hold your horses, ErrinF. Isn't it unfair to judge when we don't know the man's circumstances?.. Although 'leftie', 'islamoid' do sound lame, I admit.

Posted by: Emilio | April 21, 2006 05:03 PM

Freedom, you are quite a chatterbox today.

Posted by: Emilio | April 21, 2006 05:06 PM

The Random Poster's postings defy easy categorization, not to mention conventional techniques of debating complicated issues. Far out.

Posted by: Emilio | April 21, 2006 05:12 PM

I openly admit that I'm not well versed in the real topic of debate. I'm content to sit back and learn. I felt the need to speak up about the stolen name and then got sidetracked. What can I say? It's friday, near closing time, and I'm bored out of my mind.

Posted by: Freedom | April 21, 2006 05:13 PM

Well, you could always smoke some of what Random Poster/Variable name guy's been smoking.....might make the time pass a bit more interestingly...

Posted by: D. | April 21, 2006 05:20 PM

Chris Ford is judged by his actions, not his circumstances. I suggest you interact with him further before you consider my description of him as 'unfair'. Perhaps if Chris Ford EVER gave a damn about fairness himself I might actually give a damn about fairly judging him.
Anyway, my point was not so much that Chris Ford is a wacked-out loser as that one must do a better job if they are going to try to pull off impersonating crazy extremists such as him. Beyond that, I don't think there's much more to discuss about the matter, as it is already putting me to sleep at this point. Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Posted by: ErrinF | April 21, 2006 05:20 PM

Yo Erin, you wanna go buy some lipstick and go to the movies?

Posted by: Chris | April 21, 2006 05:26 PM


I wish. Can't do anything that will jeopordize getting security clearnace next year though

Posted by: Freedom | April 21, 2006 05:28 PM

Speaking of what to smoke, the FDA just officially concluded that marijuana has no medicinal value whatsoever. Problem is, we all know marijuana does have medicinal value, and that it's the social taboo aspect of it that makes it controversial, not whether it is medicinal or not. Being that medical marijuana is pretty much a state issue at this point anyway, it seems that this recent move by the FDA accomplishes nothing except to reinforce the idea that the FDA's opinions are bought and sold for, that ideology has taken hold in an agency that's supposed to be about science and empiricism.
The FDA also misses one fundamental fact: Medicine or not, marijuana is for all purposes legal in modern America. Even if it's not legal on the books, it's readily available almost everywhere and the pot laws are not enforced because there are much more serious drugs for law enforcement to deal with. The FDA can issue whatever opinion it likes on medical marijuana... it's not going to cut into marijuana use in America one bit.
Here's a link to an appropriate article:

Posted by: ErrinF | April 21, 2006 05:39 PM

Chris Ford would never say 'Yo!', let alone aim a post at me that didn't include equating me with some sort of Marxist Mancusian anti-Christ figure. Try again. Think more stupid next time, and try to act a little more irrational and pathetic. A little paranoia wouldn't hurt either.

Posted by: ErrinF | April 21, 2006 05:44 PM

Oh, ya, and don't forget the simmering undercurrent of anti-Semitism when you post as Chris Ford. Gotta have that if you're ever going to accurately portray that hate-filled wacko.

Posted by: ErrinF | April 21, 2006 05:46 PM

Well, as Freedom said, we disagree frequently, but when we do, it's a real debate, and typically on topic.

What Freedom said to "nameless psuedo-poster" is correct, but I will add a few other factors that bear on him/her as much as "Che".

1. The Washington Post puts up the Blogs. They spend money on bandwith and put several of their employees on topics - also an expense. A significant one. Anyone who has seen Emily's openers can see she takes her job seriously and works hard at learning part of her topic matter and what links she finds that are relevant to debaters. So respect her and the Post by doing what they ask - debate on topic. What they hope for will be a lively and well-attended forum. Some papers have done that, and the WP wishes to be in that company.

2. Other Blogs that once started out promising and open to the public have had to curtail access because of abuse. Of the host. Or by writing off topic. Or by folks using them like chat rooms or personal graffitti boards. When access is restricted it is by banning certain posters or by restricting access to all, by registering a valid name and (confidential or open to all) email address. I've seen noted bloggers close down their boards because of abuse, and online Forums like Salon and Atlantic Magazine have to curtail what once were great blog when a few posters made it a pain in the ass or trying turning a Blog into their own partisan camp and tried to silence others by threats or sralking. It isn't pretty and I'd hate to see the WP shut open posting down like other Sites have.

3. Sometimes the only effect solution IS to ban a poster who regularly abuses the Host's rules and suggestions. Some blogs ban on 1st offense. Other Blogs will ban people that to not fit their ideological blinders. So far, I've found the WP is open to disparate views, which is good. But, slow to caution and discipline posters engaged in repeated abuse of the rules, which is not so good. They will have a better Forum if they set firm rules and stick by them, like the NYTimes journalist-hosted Blogs do.


Now back on topic:

Oh, wait, ErrinF is back after a time off. Busy at those 4th Internationale events, Errin? See Che there?


OK, on topic, a quote:

"If China and Iran are cosying up together .. and if Australia will sell uranium ore to China, will they just act as middlemen, and pass along some to Iran for influence and profit? China need Australian uranium for domestic use?

Posted by: Mill_of_Mn"

Mill, Iran is stuffed with uranium deposits. Highest background radiation levels in the world are in sections of Iran due to uranium and thorium deposits. What Iran does want from the ChiCommies is nice weapon systems the Russians won't sell them and, cheap goods, & China technology. What China wants is oil and an ally that will keep the US fixated on the ME while China Rises.

China has only modest uranium deposits, and get a lot of what they need from NORK mines and mines near N.Korea's border that uses NORK labor. Going nuclear will mean China can look forward to begin cleaning up the coal fume filled air in it's cities, the most polluted in the world. And Australia has lots of uranium...

(Brazils getting excited too, as they have whole beaches down there made up partially of Thorium sands...and China has already been there inquiring about getting those resources with their WalMart bucks for Gen V reactors that will run on thorium-uranium-plutonium fuel mixes.)

Posted by: Chris Ford | April 21, 2006 06:27 PM

it's nice to see that you're incapable of finishing anything that you're tasked with.

have you been using my name again?

I suggest that you quit that, or I'm going to have Emily take you off...

okay sweet wad?


Posted by: hey chris, | April 21, 2006 08:15 PM

verbage, and "appeal to emotion,"

a popular use of propagandaists is to appeal to


emotion: mom, apple pie, patriotism, your penis...or theirs, virtuism_against_someone_orideal

pointing to an_ideal that they expouse but don't emulate

such as(family_values, while expressing interest in pedagoguery as a method of winning votes), and

a linking to what they consider unpopular _whatevers_...which is still "appeal to emotion," but a simpler version...

thuggery original

piece of cake, I'll be eating.


Posted by: one way to tell whether a poster seeks to inform or sway is to watch the use of | April 21, 2006 08:22 PM

And it came to pass that they began the building of a great tower in the land of Babel; and the building thereof was an affront unto the mightiest, who smote the tower and sent assunder all those who strove to erect it there. And they fell to speaking in tongues so that they might not ken one another.

I don't know just how it goes, but if we respond to the inane, we shall quickly go off course and those whose desire is to disrupt and misdirect us from the needs at hand will hold sway. We have a nation beginning to spiral out of control in free-fall and only a few awake enough to put on the brakes and move the rudder. We've got a lot to do and no time to argue with the ignorant, perverse, or psychotic. Let's get back to serious discussion, at least.

Posted by: Jazzman | April 21, 2006 09:10 PM

I read your link to MIT, there's a lot of information.

I'm not seeing anything definitive.

I'd like to see some backing for the CERN project, the Energy Amplifier...particle acelerator, at the least as a possible destroyer of fission by-products...

I don't think anyone is against nuclear energy that is safe, containable, and that we have a way of removing by-products from...

personally, I feel that multiple thrusts away from...

oil addiction are necessary, if for no other reason than to be able to yank the reins out of the hands of

monied interests...

all the leveraging, positioning, goes to zero...

if the cover is blown off...

ITER gets fully funded, ecology becomes an issue again, middle class reappears, factories move back into the country...people begin working 40 hour weeks with benefits....

lots of things need to change simultaneously....

and the people need to understand _why_ the changes need to be put in place.

again, there is such a thing as human ecology,

it has a physical,

a mental,

a social,

a business,

and business has a relationship to humans...

not just a single human, retiring with $380 Million dollars, Exxon's CEO

that worked out well didn't it, secret meetings with Cheyney, rise in prices last year...rumours about shortfalls in natural gas, just before winter...testifying before congress_not...

if we could just get the CIA, NSA or the look at that, maybe swear in the Attorney General...or just arrest him for obstruction of justice....for a couple of years...declare him a terrorist and ship him to know do unto him as he would have done unto you route.


Posted by: well, | April 22, 2006 01:22 AM

Seig Heil !!!!

Arbieten mach frei.............

Posted by: Eva Braun | April 22, 2006 03:48 AM

Emily asked:

"Should U.S. policy be to refuse to provide nuclear technologies . . .?"

It's necessary to dinstinguish between weapons and power-production technologies. Assuming the question relates to power, it's easy to conclude that what the U.S. does or doesn't do isn't that commercially important to a potential importer.

We gave up technical/engineering leadership in the field decades ago. If you are shopping for a nuclear power plant, we've got nothing to sell except undemonstrated concepts. Plus, our present low point in corporate and public governance suggests we lack the disciplined leadership and management principles to do it right and safely, and would likely cut corners to make it more profitable but risky.

Frankly, the Chinese as a totalitarian state with intellectual and technical resources to command, and controlled state-owned enterprises, is probably in a better position to make and deliver a large, reliable, uncompromised, and lower-cost power-plant product to an importer (for instance, in South America). If they combined experiences and technical talents with the Russians, they most certainly would be top choice. Competing alone, the Chinese would be up against the French (using a similar state-run enterprise as their business model).

Exporting nuclear-power technology from the U.S. would be like attempting to export democracy to Iraq. Sad, but we must withdraw from global arenas where we are conspicuously incompetent, or continue to slump strategically with all its dire domestic consequences.

Posted by: On the plantation | April 22, 2006 11:47 AM

An interesting angle that Plantation has. Sad but true. If China says they will build a nuke plant or develop an oilfield, they will. Same with them saying "we will have 12 LNG Terminals ready to take your additional gas production."

No maybes, as with the US, no regulatory hurdles, no risk of litigation or biennial re-elections tying things up for years or quashing a deal.

The decision has been made by China's leadership. Done.

So the Chinese are the reliable ones and the US the erratic ones when foreign countries choose who to deal with.

America has devolved from a nation that could once export and dominate in business and technology (until the late 70s) and a nation that could make fast, final decisions to an over-bureaucratized "process-driven" nation (by the mid-80s) where our government and companies are no longer fast or decisive because litigants, politics, and special interest groups have control over "process".

At least in China who must be bribed to grease the skids is well-known and usually up to the Politburo chain of command. In the US, you have to hire a millionaire lobbyist just to know what politicians, lawyers, special interest groups need to get a cut of the "process" before a deal can happen. Or to tell you that X number of special interest groups are aligned against you, can't be bought off a la Jesse Jackson, and will tie you up in court for it's best to bow out of trying to compete with France, Japan, or China in developing a Peruvian gas field and cut your losses.

A sign America becoming a declining, Ottoman Empire style nation where all commerce depended on navigating a complex (byzantine is the word) system of bribes for layers of permissions done when a bureaucrat felt like it as Allah willed, threading past sources of opposition and competing political factions in the Imperial City of Istanbul.

Posted by: Chris Ford | April 22, 2006 01:05 PM

In a way, it seems we are asking the wrong questions. Looking forward, what would be in the best interests of the emerging commercial power interests of China? We have little idea of the current and longer term goals of that country, and we are therefore only speculating. Based on the historical differences in that land's political alignment, we may suppose that the objectives are not necessarily in line with ours. (On the other hand, what ours appear to be may not be altogether what the general public understands.)

Clearly, China needs to develop its domestic economy to begin developing "muscle mass" that supports its size in area and population. In the effort to "bulk up", it is seeking sources of energy that are affordable, reliable, and - perhaps - even "green" to some extent. Nuclear energy fits the bill. China, by its potential in commerce, its population, and its military capability doesn't really need to court international alliances. Its emerging economic strength does that quite effectively. It is rather unlikely that China would seek to gain leverage with other nations or non-national political entitities by selling or giving away nuclear technoloy, materials, or devices.

Now this is just me musing. If a vast but developing economy seeks nuclear fuel to feed its energy needs, what is the risk of selling a resource? There is some, to be sure. At any time, any resource - aluminum tubing, jet engines, computers, high-strength steel or concrete - might be turned to some insidious use, say weapons or weapon production. We live in a world of risk. In this world, trade generates power.

As much as some suspect the power of treaties, what else have we got? The agreements that nations pledge to have over history been abridged and violated. Yes some have been honored for considerable lengths of time. What we'd like to happen, of course, would be that more and more nations and peoples come to regard treaties as necessary AND sacrosanct. And that means that these agreements must clearly show advantage to all parties who are asked to enter into them. Maybe its time to invite everyone back to the table to review, redraft if necessary, and resign terms of nuclear energy and materials usage.

Posted by: Jazzman | April 22, 2006 02:15 PM

Chris Ford wrote:

"America has devolved . . ."


How vividly I remember, as a once young and scrappy technologist inside a big slothful company, the power of "old fools" to affect major key decisions and strategic direction. Observing their repeated bad strategies and their denial of conspicuous facts, I had the urge to study the problem of old fools, including professional psychologists' descriptions of the mental pattern.

Pushing all the fine points aside, the one key point I determined is that an old fool essentially is the individual who rises to a high-middle-level position on the basis of some long-distant single key success. They might was hired as a clerk the guy who becomes COO, or indepdendently decided not to do business with a supplier three months in advance of the supplier going bankrupt. (Actual examples, BTW.) Then this becomes their validating reputation for 20 more years regardless of any subsequent disasterous decisions.

Politically, and policy-wise, America is now run by bunches of old fools rapidly in their decline and irrelevance. The thing about old fools is that they truly know who they are. This makes them especially venomous and dangerous as they age in their incompetence, and when challenged in any form in open fair field of competition or in behind the scenes politics. We have dangerous Narcissists in charge of too much in this society. However, in autocratic totalitarian societies, some modified form of meritocracy seems to be in operation. The best quick cure I can generally visualize here, is to install more women in positions of authority, as they are less likely to have been so deeply infected.

Posted by: On the plantation | April 22, 2006 02:27 PM

The decision has been made by China's leadership. Done.
So the Chinese are the reliable ones and the US the erratic ones when foreign countries choose who to deal with.
America has devolved from a nation that could once export and dominate in business and technology (until the late 70s) and a nation that could make fast, final decisions to an over-bureaucratized "process-driven" nation (by the mid-80s) where our government and companies are no longer fast or decisive because litigants, politics, and special interest groups have control over "process".
Posted by: Chris Ford | Apr 22, 2006 1:05:22 PM

Then why don't you move to China, you commie-symp? You obviously hate America, Chris Ford. Our country is better off without unpatriotic subversives such as yourself.

Posted by: ErrinF | April 22, 2006 03:25 PM


The patriots are those who observe and communicate things as they are, with individual dedication within their limited lifetime to make a constructive difference, and to be open about their thoughts.

The "subversives" are those insisting upon failed strategies and habits of the past, serving the narrow purposes of wealth and power, and imagining their illusions will keep them safe.

Posted by: On the plantation | April 22, 2006 04:24 PM

On-the-Plantation is right. We are served by truth and dis-served by falsehood, regardless of the purported "intent" of the latter. It has come to light, numerous times (with respect to Iraq, to the 2000 election, to the effect of gross tax reductions for the wealthy, to the significance of gay marriage to our society, to the Valerie Plame identification leak, to the effort to aid the people of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas after last year's storms, to the prices of petrolium products, for a few) that the present administration has lied or misled or been conveniently misinformed. But the word is that this is a highly patriotic administration, that conservatives are more patriotic than progressives, and that all that's being done is for the good of the nation (and that if you can't see that, you're against American values). The American public is yet too smart for that nonsense, and the tide of disinformation is turning at last.

Posted by: Jazzman | April 22, 2006 05:20 PM


It is so significant that Newt stood up so recently to admire Hillary. Republican conservatives (as very well reported by WP) are splitting away from Rockefeller religion (Rotary Club, compulsive wealth-and-power justifiers), especially on the decisively dividing issue of protecting borders, and not tolerating or encouraging illegal immigration.

Newt was the author and creator of present-day popularist Republicanism. Now, he actually sees an affinity with popular Democrats.

It's a slow flow, but truth prevails. The center of the bell curve still rules in America, that is, so long as a fair elective process is not subverted by technology creeps.

Posted by: On the plantation | April 22, 2006 05:46 PM

I think Plantation was hinting at bigger things than your narrow partisan grievances, Jazzman. Things that America faces that haven't been resolved no matter which "Party" is nominally power - because true power rests with the Power Elites that have only continued the same adverse trends through Democratic and Republican Administrations.

Concentration of wealth in the hands of a few is a 30 year trend. The gutting of American factories and outsourcing was going on under Clinton. The ignorance of American youth is demonstrated with tests that show we continue to slip under both Parties in school performance relative to the rest of the world. The inability of Americans to pick up after a disaster like Muslims, Indians, and Japanese did in recent disasters made NOLA a disgrace of our society, not of the outside people coming in to help. Mass immigration was welcomed by the Power Elites.

The Islamoids, Chinese don't care who is in office in America. They were happy to approve 9/11 Go-Ahead in 1998 and would have done it no matter who was around in 2001. The Chinese began to dominate global trade under Clinton. Their continuous growth of 10% over the last 18 years is independent of what we do with gay marriage here...or if a "strict constructionist" appears in our Supreme Decision Council.

We have big internal dysfunctions in America and formidable enemies rising and are on the edge of energy, financing, trade crisises.

We may be headed to relabel the Unchecked Mass immigration into an Invasion that threatens our sovereignity.

Pat Buchanan is a clear thinker on some big issues, like Gingrich and Lamm....His view of Rising China and nukes and ther things:

Posted by: Chris Ford | April 22, 2006 06:08 PM

Alas, I must admit that I have little interest in 'The Debate' beyond mocking Chris Ford these days. Accusing others of hating America and being commie-symps is par for the course for Chris Ford. Although, I should say, the OLD Chris Ford as this new Chris Ford has obviously been liberalized by his experiences here. Glad to see you've been properly neutered, Ford. I will now go report to my Marxist Mancusian masters that you are now one of us. : )

Posted by: ErrinF | April 22, 2006 06:17 PM

ErrinF to Chris Ford at 3:25 PM:

". . .why don't you move to China, you commie-symp?"

ErrinF to Chris Ford at 6:17 PM:

"Accusing others of hating America and being commie-symps is par for the course for Chris Ford."

Can we all pronounce "cognitive dissonance?"

Posted by: On the plantation | April 22, 2006 07:11 PM

" The American public is yet too smart for that nonsense, and the tide of disinformation is turning at last."

You sure about that?

Posted by: Not Sure | April 22, 2006 07:27 PM

On the plantation, any debater that's been here for a while would know me well enough and know Chris Ford well enough that my calling him a commie-symp and telling him he hates America is me giving Chris Ford a taste of his own medicine, NOT me actually being serious. I even said 'MOCKING' in one of my posts. Nice try, otp, but try doing some research before jumping into a discussion that doesn't involve you.

Posted by: ErrinF | April 22, 2006 08:04 PM

Better yet, try asking Chris Ford what he thinks about Senator Joe McCarthy. Perhaps that will enlighten you plantation types.

Posted by: ErrinF | April 22, 2006 08:07 PM

ErrinF wrote:

"Nice try, otp, but try doing some research . . ."


Not a try, ErrinF, just a center hit on your own words posted in rapid succession.

When you have something critical to say, be intelligent, and then just say it in clear American language.

Have some self respect; don't make yourself less intelligent than you are. To your possible surprise, the world does not center its time and attention around dissecting your life history and previous chains of communication.

Put aside your customized and stipulated nuances requiring archival respondent research to reveal the meaning of your inconsequential parlor talk. Unerstand the basics; it is not credible to state things in a debate that represent contradictory personal attacks on deliberate and sincere people.

Posted by: On the plantation | April 22, 2006 09:28 PM

History does not repeat itself: it merely looks that way because the same patterns of idiocy recur throughout human history.
Before World War II Australia sold scrap metal to the Japanese, thus earning its prime minister Robert Menzies, the title "Pig Iron Bob". That scrap metal came back to Australia with Value Added in the form of bombs, bullets and mini submarines (one of which was given pride of place on Sydney's harbor shore with a message praising the Japanese submariners who had torpedoed allied ships near that spot - for which we thank another Aussie prime minister Robert Hawke).
While it is unlikely that there will be sufficient of the scenery remaining to house similar congratulatory messages when the Value Added Uranium is returned to its country of origin it is certain that the Chinese will have invented an appropriate title for their weapons grade resource provider. "Little Aussie Idiot" comes to mind.
However, in the meantime, be assured that history does not repeat itself - even if only for the reason that there may not be any more history to permit any repeats.
And oh yes, I nearly forgot: Australia is not necessarily a great role model for resource rich nations with aspirations to long term peace and prosperity. Or anything at all long term, come to that.

Posted by: Rick Clarke | April 22, 2006 09:32 PM

ErrinF commented:

". . . plantation types."

If you have the capacity to process two thoughts concurrently, or, even as many as two thoughts serially after a sufficient pause, you might edify us by defining what your might mean by "types."

Posted by: On the plantation | April 22, 2006 09:36 PM

China is doing to Australia what it did to other nations. The ChiCom message?

"Your place is to provide China natural resorce goods and markets for our finished goods. We do not want any products made by your skilled labor. That is our job. Give us your technology so we can do the skilled labor part instead. Or else, you may piss us you better.."

Emily asks: "Should U.S. policy be to refuse to provide nuclear technologies, even though that runs the risk that developing nations will procure them from other countries instead.."

The days are long gone when the US dominated technology. Our dominance no longer exists, outside a few narrow fields.

China has ready alternatives and if it really, really wants to buy top US defense missilery technology, defense communications (two of the few fields we still are the best in) a few phone calls to Israel and they are in business, anyways getting US secrets.

Posted by: Chris Ford | April 22, 2006 09:50 PM

his fingers in a lot of pies.

there's a lot that goes on that looks like it's government that is actually

wealthy families helping each other out...

in a sense.

Hu, is china's bush, he has his own agenda, and it doesn't concern him what happens to his people.

Most CHINESE college students have never heard of the Tiananmen Square protest where one chinese student stood in the path of a tank........

no knowledge of an event 12 years ago,

that's media control.

the trouble with Chris is that he mixes truth in with spin....

that's tacky, actually reprehensible would be a better way of putting it.

reporting the truth isn't his forte', which is a shame, he might be useful

Posted by: Rupert Murdoch has | April 22, 2006 11:42 PM

when you ask other countries to "look the other way" at what you're doing, to

"get some,"

whether it's money, position, leverage, or whatever...

while you're the leader of a country...

they have a right to ask the same of you.

I'd like to take that out of the equation by having a couple of hundred years of leaders that didn't ask to "get some" as part of their leadership


to_steal from their people.

It would be nice if giving to the people were part of their priority and

if education were more important than propaganda...

If Ted Kennedy thinks money is the most important part of being a politician nowdays, well, he's probably telling the truth.

that is why I would recommend implenting the "Guilliani Effect" into Washington DC and removing the stain of corruption by starting with _all_ visible signs of it.


Posted by: I'd like to make a general point... | April 23, 2006 01:20 AM


Posted by: ErrinF | April 23, 2006 04:16 PM

Che, dear, you're off track. The one-source, one solution answer to human needs has been tried and found wanting. As soon as North Korea, China, and Cuba admit that it hasn't gone as planned, that's all she wrote. Of course, there are those who want to try it again, just in case they didn't get it right. The answer is a balance between socialism and raw capitalism. I have to grant that the neo-con version of capitalism as being expressed seems pretty fascististic, but I don't think the U. S. is really ready to fall over the brink. Some rationalism will probably be restored after the fall elections (though it's been pretty scary that an otherwise reasonable country can go so far afield).

But the thing is that people are smarter than "leaders" ever give them credit for and periodically, they'll get up on their hind legs to give a shove to excessively moronic government. The problem is more that the average Joe or Josephine doesn't want the governing job thing too much. A headache that only beasts for power or idealists vie for is how most of us see it. The thing is that leaders eventually assume that no one's really looking and they step too far beyond the acceptable bounds. They get taken down sooner or later.

What we are trying to do, really is to ensure that it's more often sooner in the United States than later. We waste resources, time (that in the case of certain issues we don't really have - and I'm specifically referring to global warming and others in general), and effort going down dead-end streets. Come to think of it, it's funny how people talk about efficiency but so much energy is expended toward stupid things; how many brands and colors of dish detergent are on the grocery shelves?

So it all points to looking out for what's needful and what makes sense for society. Vote for people who want to get a job done, not worry how profiteers can make more bucks. Keep your eyes on the ball - or as the African American reminder goes, keep your eyes on the prize (that was freedom and equality).

Posted by: Jazzman | April 23, 2006 05:42 PM

A topic.
This neat. The cherry blossom time lapse cam.

Posted by: Richard Katz | April 23, 2006 08:55 PM

Might I ask you why a cherry-blossom diversion, Richard? There's not enough on the table yet? Or the food too rich?

Posted by: Jazzman | April 23, 2006 09:47 PM

Why should we feel (much) better about China's expanding nuclear capability than Iran's?

While it's true that Hu hasn't told world media that there are thousands of Chinese willing to attack the US, there are many reasons that they should not be assisted with nuclear technology.

#1) Chernobyl, anyone? China has a very poor track record on industrial safety. In the US, less than 20 coal miners die and the nation is in an uproar (rightfully so). In China, hundreds die. There are no internal pressures for worker safety or environmental safety because dissent is not allowed.

#2) See #1. Given that we've got British kids with cancer from Chernobyl, we MUST realize that nuclear power, if not handled safely, can kill not only Chinese citizens but those in many other nations as well.

#3) Basically Western nations (US leading) has shown China that it is free to abuse human rights. Our companies turn over info to put dissidents in jail. The picture of a protestor at Hu's White House visit being taken away WITH HER MOUTH COVERED by a Secret Service agent says it all. If you protest in China, they kill you or throw you in jail to rot. No one even knows about it because the media is controlled. Most Chinese have no idea what happened in Tianemen Square. Those few who witnessed it without being killed or jailed dare not speak.
Now, you cannot protest in the USA either. The US was so solicitous of Hu's comfort that they placed a large white sheet in front of the White House to block his view of the protestors. A lone protestor who secured press credentials was muffled by US agents.
Is this what Americans want? We may want and need to cooperate with China economically. FDR said "it is permitted to walk with the Devil to cross the Bridge." I say, if you start BECOMING the Devil, it's time to push the Devil off the bridge and do things your way!

Posted by: Jenny | April 23, 2006 11:20 PM

and I'm okay with it is simply

putting in front of your face what a number of people are unwilling to look at...

to them, it's all, do we need to chose Hilary or Gore........


to put it bluntly, who's in office matters less than the hidden agendas.

one of the nice things about Washington DC is that there's a lot less pretentiousness there then in other high dollar cities

because who is in power today won't be there tomorrow....

but this $hit keeps happening...

and it's been happening since

well it's been awhile going on.

It isn't about the next election, it is about understanding what keeps

democracy from being put in place.

It' s not in place right now.

Bush could start another "war"/diversion tomorrow, that could eat up the rest of the century....

no alternative sources, no ITER funding, no ecology, WAL-MART is the only store on earth...

there are multiple things wrong.

what's your cure?

vote for the right person?

I drove around this afternoon looking at average people,

there's alot of them, and they need to be fed the truth if you want them to vote the right way...

you've got to lock up the people that are feeding them propaganda.


Posted by: I think what che is doing | April 23, 2006 11:27 PM

IF corruption is pandemic in Washington, it needs to be addressed

as a seperate issue than who to vote in to power...

why did they tie Clinton up for 8 years?

because of sex?

or they just wanted to tie him up?

how is it possible that you have a man raping Liberty daily,

and everyone just walks away....

remember how New York City was about 15 years ago?

people would keep walking if someone was getting murdered.

Do the Guilliani


Posted by: a synopsis... | April 23, 2006 11:31 PM

Freedom of speech

means that.

How China perceives us when we are so weak that we pander to them

that we silence our own people.

Sure let WAL-MART take over the world, or as I said earlier about why Bush is kissing up to HU:

wealthy families helping each other out...

in a sense.

Hu, is china's bush, he has his own agenda, and it doesn't concern him what happens to his people.

Most CHINESE college students have never heard of the Tiananmen Square protest where one chinese student stood in the path of a tank........

no knowledge of an event 12 years ago,

that's media control.

when you ask other countries to "look the other way" at what you're doing, to

"get some,"

whether it's money, position, leverage, or whatever...

while you're the leader of a country...

they have a right to ask the same of you.

I'd like to take that out of the equation by having a couple of hundred years of leaders that didn't ask to "get some" as part of their leadership


to_steal from their people.

Bush is trying to "get some" from HU,

and _you_ are at risk,

that protestor was one of us, muffled...

WWIII anyone?

Posted by: It's not an America that I want to bless.. | April 23, 2006 11:38 PM

Who cares

Paul Jones

sells fresh tabaca.

Posted by: Free to chew | April 24, 2006 01:12 PM

What a silly discussion. As though any of these wonderful observations make any difference to the future economic, cultural, political direction we will all be enslaved to follow.

May I suggest a toke off a good joint will assure a good nights sleep.

Now theres a subject thats worth considering.

Legalize home grown.

Posted by: Upchuck | April 24, 2006 01:22 PM

The Random Poster is back. The return of the Random Poster. The Random Poster revisits the debate. The debate revisited by te Random Poster. Que bueno.

Posted by: Emilio | April 24, 2006 01:31 PM

Pissaro...I shall fill your lunes with my dust...

beaware, fauntless.

Posted by: I am de grate | April 24, 2006 03:14 PM

remove incentives for the FDA to be used as a tool of the pharmaceutical/medical business to control your lives

for their pocket books, in the name of da gassman

Posted by: legalize thinking... | April 24, 2006 03:24 PM

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.