V. Fox

Here's the link.

This quote was at the top of the artical: "The xenophobics, the racists, those who feel they are a superior race ... they are deciding the future of this nation," he said, without naming names, in an interview with The Associated Press.

Ummm.... NO! Certainly there are people who hate Mexicans for raciest reasons, but they are of a small number consisting of people to tend to hate everybody. The vast majority of the immigration debate focuses on SECURITY, safety, cultural integration, jobs, and sovereignty.

Sovereignty should be an obvious one. If we can't control our border then how sovereign are we?

Job's should also be obvious. Immigrants dominate farm, landscaping, and other difficult, dirty jobs because most Americans won't do them for the low wages Mexicans will work for. Fox made a comment a few years ago to the effect of 'Black won't do these jobs but Mexicans will...they are harder working' I will have to find the quote. I will admit that there are some people who need a kick in the pants, but that if the worker were offered a decent wage they might consider doing it. This leads to two offshoots of the jobs issue: benefits and economic. There is little debate that cities with large illegal immigrant populations they are a major drain on hospitals an other services. There are some who want to extend social security and other benefits to them and that is patently INSANE for (what should be) obvious reasons. Additionally, often illegals don't contribute to the local economy as much as others. They do spend money on necessities, but on little else. Many of them send the money they earn back to Mexico to support families and friends there.


Integration is another major issue. Duel language forms are a new out side the State Department, the INS, etc. The only other points of comparison I have were I live are Russians and Indians. The major difference that I see with those two groups is that they put down roots. They open businesses, buy homes and start families. Most importantly they learn English! I'm not saying that there aren't any Latinos that do this just in much smaller numbers.


Safety is a growing concern. Stories about MS13 and other more violent gangs are cropping up more often. Cocaine is becoming a problem again in areas due to our inability to control the border. Most recently the issue has been the NAFTA Highway through Texas and the safety of Mexican trucks and drivers. Canadian drivers, the only point of comparison, are bonded before they enter the US. Additionally this will make inspection of vehicles more difficult for the Border Patrol and Customs.

All of this culminates in security. If millions of people enter this country illegally across our southern border who's to say they are all good. If we can't stop migrent workers how can we stop drugs, criminals and terrorist?

No one is pushing a moratorium on legal immigration - In fact quite the opposite is being lobbied. This is a nation of immigrants. This is a nation with strong, though at times strained, immigrant traditions. The major differences between other groups and a large number of Latinos is the desire to to become Americans and adopt our language, laws, and customs while integrating their own. Perhaps I am being xenophobic on some of these points - it is perfectly natural to fear change and the unknown - but the safety, security, and sovereignty issues are objective and quantifiable to any reasonable person.

Look at Europe to see what unchecked immigration has brought them.

However, the differences between the US and Europe are worth note. First, is the availability of work and the industrious nature of many of the migrants. Second, is Socialism - more specifically socialized programs with limited status requirements. Illegals here have limited access to emergency medicine and other benefits here vs. many European countries which try to to provide for your every need stressing those systems. (The attempt to buy potential votes by offering a simpler path to citizenship and all of the socialized government benefits quite loathsome and dispicable.) I'm to entirely sure what the percentage of legal to illegal immigration in the EU is. Third, is the demographic and religious make-up of those new immigrants. Europe (especially France and the UK) has had a major problem in the last few years trying to integrate what are as a majority North African Muslims with their very different cultures and traditions (note here to women) that have been documented in the (foreign) press and as such I will not detail them here.

The News of the Day

Who says the surge isn't working?

Shouldn't this be the main focus? I agree with arresting and deporting as many as possible, but felony criminals should get a ticket on the 'A' bus back where they came from. I take great offense to cities such as LA and SF that bar the police from telling the INS when they've arrested a person and discovered that they are in the country illegally.


WTF!?!? This shouldn't be that hard.


The truth is in actions. I never have and probably never will have a reasonable belief that Congress with the President will ever reasonably limit any increase in spending, let alone cutting it!


What's the saying? "Lawyers, politicians, insurance companies... will bring about the end of the world." Something else that some Ins. Co.s do is simply write a check to the customer for the initial estimate and hope that he doesn't get it fixed. This can at times make getting a supplement done a real bear. Normally the Ins. Co. will write a check to the cust. and the shop doing the work. In the case of Allstate, which owns a chain of body shops, it is all handled internally. I have no problem with Ins. Co.s making a profit, especially since that is were claims are paid from, but not at the expense of their customers.

Great! I don't have mine any more. It figures that it useful after all.

Pay with cash when ever possible!

Here's a reason for nukes.

I for one welcome our new crow overlords!

Smoking

I read in two separate articles (USAToday, UK Independent) explaining plans in CA to ban smoking in apartments. That's right - no smoking in YOUR HOME! Now, I'm a non-smoker (except for the occasional cigar), yet I fully support a person's God given right to kill him self over the course of 40+ years with tobacco. The government has no right to regulate what goes on in your privet space - so long as it does not put others at risk or is the sight of some felonious activity. You can smoke whatever you want, drink your self stupid, have an orgy, hang your self, etc.; so long as it doesn't endanger anyone (especially kids), or pose a major nuisance - It isn't any of my or anyone else's business!

Update 10 OCT:

They did it! This is Communism!

Did a liberal get it?

Here is the EDITORIAL:

http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2007/...lame.html#more

A liberal's lament: The NRA might be right after all
By Jonathan Turley

This term, the Supreme Court may finally take up the Voldemort Amendment, the part of the Bill of Rights that shall not be named by liberals. For more than 200 years, progressives and polite people have avoided acknowledging that following the rights of free speech, free exercise of religion and free assembly, there is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms." Of course, the very idea of finding a new individual right after more than two centuries is like discovering an eighth continent in constitutional law, but it is hardly the cause of celebration among civil liberties groups.

Like many academics, I was happy to blissfully ignore the Second Amendment. It did not fit neatly into my socially liberal agenda. Yet, two related cases could now force liberals into a crisis of conscience. The Supreme Court is expected to accept review of District of Columbia v. Heller and Parker v. District of Columbia, involving constitutional challenges to the gun-control laws in Washington.

The D.C. law effectively bars the ownership of handguns for most citizens and places restrictions on other firearms. The District's decision to file these appeals after losing in the D.C. appellate court was driven more by political than legal priorities. By taking the appeal, D.C. politicians have put gun-control laws across the country at risk with a court more likely to uphold the rulings than to reverse them. It has also put the rest of us in the uncomfortable position of giving the right to gun ownership the same fair reading as more favored rights of free press or free speech.

The Framers' intent

Principle is a terrible thing, because it demands not what is convenient but what is right. It is hard to read the Second Amendment and not honestly conclude that the Framers intended gun ownership to be an individual right. It is true that the amendment begins with a reference to militias: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Accordingly, it is argued, this amendment protects the right of the militia to bear arms, not the individual.

Yet, if true, the Second Amendment would be effectively declared a defunct provision. The National Guard is not a true militia in the sense of the Second Amendment and, since the District and others believe governments can ban guns entirely, the Second Amendment would be read out of existence.

Another individual right

More important, the mere reference to a purpose of the Second Amendment does not alter the fact that an individual right is created. The right of the people to keep and bear arms is stated in the same way as the right to free speech or free press. The statement of a purpose was intended to reaffirm the power of the states and the people against the central government. At the time, many feared the federal government and its national army. Gun ownership was viewed as a deterrent against abuse by the government, which would be less likely to mess with a well-armed populace.

Considering the Framers and their own traditions of hunting and self-defense, it is clear that they would have viewed such ownership as an individual right — consistent with the plain meaning of the amendment.

None of this is easy for someone raised to believe that the Second Amendment was the dividing line between the enlightenment and the dark ages of American culture. Yet, it is time to honestly reconsider this amendment and admit that ... here's the really hard part ... the NRA may have been right. This does not mean that Charlton Heston is the new Rosa Parks or that no restrictions can be placed on gun ownership. But it does appear that gun ownership was made a protected right by the Framers and, while we might not celebrate it, it is time that we recognize it.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University and a member of USA TODAY's board of contributors.
--

Just remember there is still the UN to worry about.

Here's some additional reading.

Most people keep arms for the defense of the their life and property and sport. Sometimes you don't even need to shoot the bugler. Though, shooting the car might be a bit much.

This guy is in the right.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57960

...If not for any reason other than flying the flag in that manner is illegal and offensive. (and it take a lot to really offend me) Imagen if this happened any place else... some countries the person would have been shot for showing such a preference for another nations banner. I'm actually surprised that anything did anything about it beyond bitching.

In other news it appears the terrorists do agree with liberals. It is probably a smart move on her part not to go considering the Muslim view and (apparently typical extremist) reaction to her lifestyle.

This is mildly amusing...Because the last time this happened things went so well.

And of course the Phillies lost to the Rockies 4-2. It is a five game series so I'm not scared yet.

Revolution

This is just wrong and Stallone agrees! The pictures alone make me mad and sad.

For a comparison; tomorrow is the anniversary of the Battle of Gonzales. I don't expect the monks to take up arms, but the general population seems like a place for a little un-official CIA assistance.
--

In other new the AFL-CIO is pandering to illegals. I can only assume that this is to encourage them to join unions and fill their dwindling rolls. Of course this is in San Fransisco so they will probably get their way.

SF is the city that gives the middle finger to the military every chance they get yet allow public gay (not that there is anything wrong with that) pride that borders on soft core porn. I say this never having been to that festival but after seeing two guys in bondage gear whipping each other and doing... other things on a public street on two different news channels. I support the right to do that; just not were a 4 year old can see it. At least in NY they call it what it is.

Some one should tell those hippies that illegals are bad for the environment!
--

I don't see the problem requiring this like most other employers.
--

Is the two party system in trouble? Probably not, since, as a general rule, people vote for a third party that siphons votes for the party that they would otherwise vote for (if at all) leading to that party's failure in a general election. That failure often brings about unwelcome changes that forces those voting for the third party to rethink voting for them in the next election. Just look at the effect the Reform party had in'92 and the Greens in 2000 and 'o4. To be fair G.w. Bush had lost the aura of Regan by the end of his term and the the Dems had pretty sad candidates in the last two. I should write more on this...
--

I'm not sure if this is funny, sad, or scary. It shows some real pie-in-the-sky naïveté about the world around us and the people in it! As an interesting side note the NY Times wort in the linked article: "approach of the fifth anniversary of the Congressional vote authorizing military action in Iraq" Does this mean that they've stopped mentioning that the war in Iraq wasn't authorized?
--

I don't know enough about Russian politics or government to properly comment on this, but it seems unusual for a head of state to step immediately on to the office of head of government after his term ends.
--

If you need further proof that Bloomberg is a commie look here and here. Welcome to 1984 New York.
--


I have some mixed feelings on this, but not many.
--

This is called testing you enemy's defenses and response times or simply playing a game of 'I don't give a damn'. This may also turn into a an elaborate 'the boy who cried wolf' scenario...
--

If I have to explain why this is bad you still would not get it.
--

This is funny...
--

Normal people use a .357 magnum for bears not a sword! It's not news... It's Fark
--

The Israeli raid on Syria apparently has had unintended consequences. It looks like a lot of countries will be stuck with their old Soviet-era crap limiting the ability of those countries to upgrade to newer (though not necessarily better) equipment from Russia, China, Iran and N. Korea.

And as a bonus...
--

The surge is working, imagine that!
--

This is fascinating.
--

This is just wrong.
--

I'm sure this is going to work as well as Clinton's agreement in the '90s. If your kid is being bad do you bribe him ice cream and then continue to not pay attention?
--

The death of languages isn't a bad thing think the Tower of Babel
--

I read this on Madogre.com:

This was posted on 29 Sept 07

“The following is a series of impressions and thoughts written right before and after I left China. I did not feel comfortable keeping a diary of these thoughts while I had much time left in the country. No significant attempt has been made to make the ideas logically flow and while I have tried to write it well, it is not well written. I did not have a particular audience in mind when I wrote this. I just wanted to get down my impressions so I could share them with others. I don't know what I will think in the future but what follows is a pretty good representation of what I thought in July of 2007. It is not exhaustive (I figured five pages was long enough) but it is reasonably complete.

China is not our friend nor are its people. Individual citizens of China may love individual citizens from the US but they will not be friends of the US until their government tells them that the US is the friend of China and the friend of China's people. I have never heard anything genuinely positive about the US from anyone, anywhere in my whole time here. Additionally they are being unfriendly as evidenced by the discovery of Chinese weapons in Afghanistan.

The lack of critical thinking skills amongst the university students is striking.

Isn't it interesting that everyone is mad at Starbucks for being in the forbidden city and nobody is talking about the managers of the Forbidden city who were the ones who allowed and may have even asked (I'm not sure) them to be there. This is a small example of the prevalent idea of the west imposing or bullying China or the east.

There is this mania for never coming to a conclusion which dictates action. “Both sides have good points. This is a complex issue and we will need to continue talking about it.”

It feels to me like there has been a long and concerted effort to improve the world's view of China. Factual errors like the great wall being the only man-made structure that can be seen un-aided from outer space. The sudden influx of Chinese movies. I am hearing a lot about China in pod-casts for everything from news programs to cooking shows. I am always hearing positive things or almost always. Occasionally I hear about exploited workers and the fiasco of the Three Gorges Dam but I never hear about the brutally suppressed farmers who are starving and disenfranchised. I hear polite references to the PRC government's denial and revision of the Tiananmen Square Massacre. It feels to me like there is almost some sort of psy-ops against the American people (and perhaps the world) so that they will not so readily support military conflict with mainland China.

The PRC is building it's Army. Why? Attributing motivations to actions is fraught with peril, even when it is your actions, but I think I can put forward some reasonable possibilities. In fact I would go so far as to say that they are likelihoods.

To begin with a sane person does not acquire something without intending to use it. Therefore I will treat the PRC's intent to use the military as a certainty. This begs the question of what this use will be. Two possibilities immediately present themselves. The first use is the suppression of uprisings, particularly from the farmers and peasants. The second use is imperial expansion. I know that in current times imperial expansion sounds antiquated but I will substantiate this.

The suppression of uprisings is clearly an intended use for the military. There are reports of using the military to put down revolts of farmers in recent years. We are well aware of the Tiananmen Square Massacre. It is reasonable to believe that the military will continue to be used for this purpose in the future. However, this does not account for the military buildup. I am not educated in these matters but it seems to me all you need to suppress uprisings of peasants is infantry.

From my understanding of Chinese history I see thousands of years of imperialism. I don't mean dynasties and monarchies. I mean that each dynasty went out and conquered as much territory as it could. The present government is no different. With the possible exception of the Qing dynasty (the most recent), the current boundaries of mainland China bear little resemblance to any of the previous dynasties and its claimed boundaries are that much more different.

However, just the habit of imperialism does not mean that imperial expansion is going to happen. There needs to be land available to take. Without doing any research beyond listening to the news and looking at a map I am aware of several different areas available for armed conflict*. Aksai Chin at the north of India is claimed by India but controlled by the PRC. Most of India's state Arunchai Pradesh is claimed by the PRC. The Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands are administered by Japan but claimed by the PRC. Finally Taiwan and its associated Islands are controlled by the ROC but claimed by the PRC. I watched the president of the PRC speak about Taiwan and heard the translation of his comments while in China. Words like “rogue” and “renegade” were used. The PRC wants the ROC.

A couple of my more “liberal” friends have said that military actions on a large scale are a thing of the past because it would mean one country invading a part of its own economy. They say that it will not be a military takeover (i.e. Taiwan) but a willing coalition from the business men. I hear what they are saying and I think that there is some truth in these statements. However, I see a flaw in that thinking. Those statements are built on the idea that things change, but things don't change. It has been powerful people with armies since the beginning and it will continue to be so. To add to this, The PRC president's language was clearly military minded and mentioned nothing of a proposed business alliance and can only be described as barely stopping short of threatening (or not stopping short).

I do not know what the PRC's grand strategy is but I guarantee they have one and that we have seen the preliminary steps being implemented. I cannot say exactly why I thought this but my gut seemed to think, after spending 11 months there and listening to the people and watching what was going on, that the ultimate goal of the PRC is world domination and I don't think it cares in what way, military, economic it doesn't care. I am aware that this sounds a little kooky and I am not going to defend it. That was my sense of things, do what you will with it.

There is no question though that the PRC's ambition is to be a super power. I'm not sure how one would define a “super power” but what ever it is Mainland China wants to be one. I believe that they will do ANYTHING to accomplish this.

In China, right and wrong, and good and evil are far from absolutes except as it pertains to family. It is my sense after listening to my students speak (and has been confirmed after talking with other foreign teachers) that if something is good for the family you do it and if it is bad for the family you stop and this is without reference to the well being of anyone who is not your friend or your family. I do not believe that the government of mainland China cares about the wellbeing of anyone else at all. This is supported by its cruel treatment of its own people.

China's weakness is energy, in particular oil. But if you can put a kink in the energy supply line you can significantly interfere with almost every part of China.

I had a great experience in China. I would heartily recommend anyone who can walk two or three miles at a time to go there. We met some wonderful people, both Chinese and ex-pats. With everything that I know now I would do it all over again in a heartbeat. It is a different culture and as you begin to understand parts of it you begin to see your own beliefs and culture from a new perspective. You find that things you thought were givens and reasonable certainties are actually wildly ranging variables.

That being said. . .don't believe the hype. China is not a land of wonder and mystery. It is a land of pollution and ignorance. It is a land where most of the people don't know that plastic bags are not biodegradable and so dump their garbage in ditches by the road and railroad tracks, and in waterways. It is a place were nearly all of the trains' toilettes dump their waste directly on the railroad tracks (you are not allowed to use the bathroom while the train is stopped at a station). The people do not know about germ theory. I have a friend who works at a cheese factory there. They are having a very hard time getting the workers to wash their hands at all and to get them to do it well and every time after using the bathroom is almost impossible.

It is a land where the national hero killed MILLIONS of it's own people yet his portrait is hung from Tiananmen and his mausoleum is located in Tiananmen square. It is a country that censors the Internet. It is a country that distorts it's facts. It is my understanding that government agencies routinely inflate or deflate figures and statistics to make them more favorable. (As a result if the figure passes though many different agencies it is often inflated or deflated beyond any semblance of reality.) This is a country that is built on lies.

They are a people without dignity or a sense of fair play. Just observe any bottleneck. Buses are great examples. Everyone mobs the door. They push and shove. There is no dignity. This was driven home when I was in Xian on a bus coming back from the terracotta warriors. The whole bus wanted to get off but we couldn't at first because of the mob pressing up against the door. When we finally got off, and had pressed our way through the crowd, I looked back and saw people pushing and shoving and, since you would buy your ticket after the bus was under way, people were climbing in through the windows. It is not about right and wrong, it is about what you can and cannot do.

As a general principle we need to not do business with immoral and corrupt governments. There are obvious moral reasons for this. However, there is a purely practical aspect and this practical side is extremely significant with China. If you support the immoral government, do business with them, establish a relationship with them. You keep them in power and give them no reason to change. Then there will come a point (or even many situations) where the corrupt government will, for lack of a better expression, be corrupt to you.

We are engaging in trade relations with a government that essentially denies the Tiananmen Square “Incident.” We are engaging in trade relations with a government that is afraid to give the public uncensored news. A government that regularly puts down revolts using the military. A government that is supporting the government of Sudan and thereby NOT helping to end the genocide in Darfur. A government that is selling weapons with full knowledge that these weapons will be used against us in Iraq and Afghanistan. This government is not our friend. Its people are not our friend.

I wish I could explain it better but I didn't have this clear realization until I had been in country for several months. There is this constant “buzz” of propaganda. A few big things, like constant hashing and rehashing of Japan's invasion and occupation. Continual coverage of “The Rape of Nanking” and so on. However, it is this constant. . .pressure. It is almost like background radiation. No clear incident but this ubiquitous force of over-statements, under-statements, lies, ethnocentrism, nationalism and so forth. At first I attributed this to a natural and reasonable pride in their country which does have a great history. However, I began to realize that it was something more.

There is nothing wrong with China! It is perfect! Everything that is wrong with it is being addressed in the best way possible! (yes the sentences contradict) However, everything that is wrong or could be wrong with other countries, the US in particular, amounts to their sum total.

I realized while I was there that I could not classify the government or its economy. So I decided to ask my classes. They said it was socialist. Since I couldn't see a single socialist thing about mainland China I asked them how it could be socialist when there was nothing socialist about it. This was about halfway into the second term so my students knew me and knew that I wasn't attacking them or the country and really wanted to know. One class in particular got rather excited and eloquent. (The following are not true quotes but they are close. I should have written then down at the time.) “No, China is not socialist now but it will be. This is just a step towards a wonderful dream. Maybe you don't believe in this dream but we do. No one will have to work if they don't want to. Everyone will get paid for what they do. Everyone will work for himself.” I think they also said something about everyone being equal (which obviously implies that people currently, in China, are not). I asked them how you could not need to work when you don't want to, get paid for what you do, AND work for yourself. They were so enamored with the “beauty” of their “dream” that I got no real answers. What was striking was the unity in the class on this idea. Sometimes I got the feeling that students were saying what they knew they were supposed to say. This was not the case with their “beautiful dream.” Their enthusiasm was clearly genuine.

This reminds be of another interesting thing. In the textbooks for Intro to the US and Intro to the UK classes. When the cold war came up it was never Democracy vs Communism, it was Capitalism vs Socialism. I thought that was an interesting distinction to make considering that the UK was socialist for some time and that much of Europe was/is based on some degree or flavor of socialism. I also discovered that they do not view the PRC or the USSR as communist but as socialist.

I had a class where I would bring in contemporary articles in English and we would read them. Not wanting to stir up feelings I was careful to not select articles that were at odds with the Chinese government's policies. North Korea had just detonated a nuclear device. This was a historic situation. Not because there was now possibly a new nuclear power but because the PRC and Japan were on the same side working together. I brought in an article that discussed the situation and how the East Asian countries were working together. I broke them up into groups and told them to give me a summary and write about there opinions of the article's contents. Every single group returned papers discussing the unfair treatment of North Korea by the west and how the US needed to stop bullying North Korea and said nothing about the cooperation between the PRC and Japan. I found these results particularly interesting in light of the fact that the only reference to the west and the US was that it was a US government agency that had confirmed it was a nuclear device and not a conventional one.

The people seem to be carefully taught all the negatives and problems

With few exceptions, perhaps 5%, no one in China can think. They are carefully trained, very effective recording and play back devices. Students are regularly incapable of admitting that there is another point of view much less conceding it has any points worth considering. A fact all the more disturbing when you consider that these are the educated people who will be running the government in the future.

I had a class where I showed movies. It was up to me to select and purchase the movies. I showed the movie “Spy Game” with Robert Redford and Brad Pitt. I selected it because it had a lot of dialogue. It had completely slipped my mind that the PRC was an antagonist in the movie. While most of the movie takes place in other parts of the world the beginning and end take place in China. When the movie was over I asked them how they liked it. You could feel that they were not entirely happy. I said, “Did you like it?”

They said, “No.”

I said, “Why not?” expecting them to say that they thought China was shown in a bad light or something like that.

A student said, “They break our laws!”

I was surprised at that reason.

“This is a movie about spies! That is what spies do! They break other countries laws. Do you not think there are Chinese spies in America right now trying to steal American secrets?”

This seemed to unsettle them a bit. There was a pause and the student who spoke before said somewhat hesitantly, “We don't know.”

My initial interpretation of this response was that they were afraid that by admitting to the existence of Chinese spies in America, they would be divulging state secrets. Upon reflection I found that there may be another explanation. The students, or at least that student, felt that to acknowledge the existence of Chines spies would somehow make them loose face. Clearly to acknowledge their existence would diminish the absolute evil of spies breaking Chinese laws. That said I am not entirely confident the students were capable of this level of reasoning.

I was also surprised that the response about the movie was based on the breaking of Chinese laws when the rest of the movie was rather damning of the US intelligence service. However, their language skills may not have permitted them to follow the movie very well. Additionally, there may have been other cultural factors I am not aware of influencing or directing those responses.

I said, “Of course there are spies in the US! At least there had better be! Your government would not be doing its duty if there weren't.” This statement appeared to be a new way of thinking to them.

I was not able to get them to continue talking about this.

In my Introduction to the United States class I had a policy of requiring all the students to write questions (about anything) on slips of paper and giving them to me at the beginning of class. One day I had a slip of paper with the question, “Why does the west say that people were killed in Tiananmen square when all witnesses and historical documents prove that it was resolved peacefully?”

Feeling deportation was at hand but not wanting to lie (I had decided that I would do my best to always speak the truth) I spoke to the dynamic. The one thing that I soon started trying to teach was how to think. I said, “In a situation like this, where there are two such different accounts, one person is lieing and you need to decide which one to believe.”

I have been reading T.E. Lawrence's Seven Pillars of Wisdom. I think that China, its people, and its culture are just as different from the west as the Arabs he describes. The difference is that Lawrence's Arabs are riding around on camels and set on staying the way they are, whereas the Chinese are furiously emulating the West. As I trying to get more specific about this I see a lifetime of research and writing on this topic opening up before me so I will leave it there.

I could just keep going on. I didn't know what I wanted to say exactly when I started this and I didn't know who would be reading it. It is a mess but it is a reasonable collection of thoughts and impressions from 11 contiguous months and 15 months total.

• To add weight to the point I have included an excerpt from the world fact book on China based on principles drafted in 2005, China and India continue discussions to resolve all aspects of their extensive boundary and territorial disputes together with a security and foreign policy dialogue to consolidate discussions related to the boundary, regional nuclear proliferation, and other matters; recent talks and confidence-building measures have begun to defuse tensions over Kashmir, site of the world's largest and most militarized territorial dispute with portions under the de facto administration of China (Aksai Chin), India (Jammu and Kashmir), and Pakistan (Azad Kashmir and Northern Areas); India does not recognize Pakistan's ceding historic Kashmir lands to China in 1964; lacking any treaty describing the boundary, Bhutan and China continue negotiations to establish a boundary alignment to resolve substantial cartographic discrepancies, the largest of which lies in Bhutan's northwest; China asserts sovereignty over the Spratly Islands together with Malaysia, Philippines, Taiwan, Vietnam, and possibly Brunei; the 2002 "Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea" eased tensions in the Spratly's but is not the legally binding "code of conduct" sought by some parties; Vietnam and China continue to expand construction of facilities in the Spratly's and in March 2005, the national oil companies of China, the Philippines, and Vietnam signed a joint accord on marine seismic activities in the Spratly Islands; China occupies some of the Paracel Islands also claimed by Vietnam and Taiwan; China and Taiwan continue to reject both Japan's claims to the uninhabited islands of Senkaku-shoto (Diaoyu Tai) and Japan's unilaterally declared equidistance line in the East China Sea, the site of intensive hydrocarbon prospecting; certain islands in the Yalu and Tumen rivers are in dispute with North Korea; China seeks to stem illegal migration of North Koreans; China and Russia have demarcated the once disputed islands at the Amur and Ussuri confluence and in the Argun River in accordance with their 2004 Agreement; in 2006, China and Tajikistan pledged to commence demarcation of the revised boundary agreed to in the delimitation of 2002; demarcation of the China-Vietnam land boundary proceeds slowly and although the maritime boundary delimitation and fisheries agreements were ratified in June 2004, implementation remains stalled; in 2004, international environmentalist and political pressure from Burma and Thailand prompted China to halt construction of 13 dams on the Salween River.”

--
We have problems with this country. One of them is the fact that we don't apply the same standards to out trade "partners" and allies that we ( the Carter administration) demand of CIA informants. We should be more selective or, at least apply pressure or apply change.

Don't forget this:

Found here.