"todd" wrote in message
...
Well, there is a very large LVL beam sitting in my driveway right now.
It's 3 1/2" thick, 14" deep, and about 19 feet long waiting to start
holding the second floor of my home addition so it doesn't become part
of the first floor.

WHOA! That's alt.building.construction!

--
"New Wave" Dave In Houston

On Wed, 01 Feb 2006 05:04:48 GMT, Joe Barta wrote:

Dave Balderstone wrote:

Boycott Google for their support of communist censorship and
repression!

I have a different take... I think it's a matter of a little something
being better than all of nothing. I'm happy to see Google in China...
getting the foot in the door so to speak. If I'm not mistaken, there
will be a notice on the search results page stating that certain items
have been blocked due to censorship. Google wants access to China's
market and I think that was a fair compromise for now. Plus, most
certainly some of that awful content like "democracy" and "freedom"
will make it through... and I'd say that can only be good.

Joe Barta
I agree completely. The fall of the iron curtain in Europe was
largely due to the access to uncensored information to its population.
This is a huge crack in China's wall...
TWS

Mark & Juanita wrote:
On 31 Jan 2006 20:21:53 -0800, wrote:

...


There is an old adage "Silence implies consent". That I daresay, is
why Mr Blanchard and I contribute to off-topic threads, to prove that
we do not consent to whatever it is that Pat Robertson has told
them to post about this week.


Is that the current put-down that Mr Soros is telling you to use this
month for any comments that don't fit into his worldview?

I don't recall any correspondence from any Mr Soros.

My guess is you mean George Soros:

My apologies,...

No problem, I just wanted to be sure we were talking
about the same person. I had thought it was James
Carville who was responsible for much of the Democratic
Party Platform in the recent past and Howard Dean today.

On the surface it looks like George Soros provides more
funding than policy--quite a contrast with Pat Robertson
who dictates much of the Republican policy. However
maybe Mr Soros is just more subtle.

Of course, "Silence implies consent." is not a
put-down.


--

FF

In article , TWS
wrote:

I agree completely. The fall of the iron curtain in Europe was
largely due to the access to uncensored information to its population.
This is a huge crack in China's wall...

Google cooperating with the communist regime in China is actually
subverting the communist regime in China?

Wow! Who knew?

Thanks for enlightening me! I will go forthwith and see if I can
participate with censorsing information in other repressive regimes so
I can subvert them while making fistfulls of cash!

Black is white.

War is peace.

I love Big Brother.

--
Boycott Google for their support of communist censorship and repression!

Dave Balderstone wrote:

In article , TWS
wrote:


I agree completely. The fall of the iron curtain in Europe was
largely due to the access to uncensored information to its population.
This is a huge crack in China's wall...


Google cooperating with the communist regime in China is actually
subverting the communist regime in China?

Wow! Who knew?

Thanks for enlightening me! I will go forthwith and see if I can
participate with censorsing information in other repressive regimes so
I can subvert them while making fistfulls of cash!

Black is white.

War is peace.

I love Big Brother.


Sigh OK, so what is *your* answer to getting the repressive policies
of the Chinese abated. More cultural exchanges? Folk dancing? Asking
them "pretty please"? Cutting off trade?

We have two very good lab experiments going on in post-Communist
societies, Russia and China. In Russia, ideological "Freedom" was
declared by the stroke of a pen without regards to any of the other
economic, cultural, and historic realities. (Kind of like listening to a
speech by Ted Kennedy, actually.) In China, ideological Communism
remains the official position of the state, but Capitalism has been
allowed to flourish. Now, let's review what we've learned. Russia is
sliding back into the totalitarian abyss because it could not "afford"
its freedom. China is incrementally inching away from being a
totalitarian state towards something more closely resembling a
democracy. In the long haul, Communism in China is doomed as long as
they practice Capitalist economics. No middle-class person (of which
China has more and more with tons more on the way) can be oppressed
politically - they have too much to lose. The point is that political
freedom is a "luxury" that can only be enjoyed by people with sufficient
wealth, and wealth is produced by Capitalists.

Google's entre' into China involves an uncomfortable compromise, but to
the extent they can further Capitalism and a *more* free exchange of
information, they will effectively be accelerating the demise of the
totalitarian Communists. Is the pace fast enough? No. Would we all like
to see more human rights sensibilities. Of course. But the world
operates as it is, not as we wish it did. Incremental improvement is
better than *no* improvement.

P.S. If the West really wants to see democracy flourish in the
Middle East, one of the many pressures that ought to be brought
to bear there is an emphasis on free economics and an elimination
of the Thugocracies that keep the wealth all to themselves. One
of the noteable *failures* of the Bush administration has been to
not put massive pressure on the Saudis in this regard, for example.


--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Dave Balderstone wrote:

Thanks for enlightening me! I will go forthwith and see if I can
participate with censorsing information in other repressive
regimes so I can subvert them while making fistfulls of cash!

You are looking at this through the most narrow of viewports.

Try to see that the world is a messy place and the ideal is not always
possible. Also try to see how the Google-China compromise, while not
exactly what we would like, is as good as we can get FOR NOW... and it
can be a step in a good direction.

Joe Barta

todd wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

todd wrote:

...

So I'm on topic about 50% of the time. Tim's on topic about 5% of the
time.

I wanted to make sure I wasn't being unfair in adding him to my
killfile :-).

If Tim's posts make you uncomfortable, there's no need to come up with a
public justification. Just killfile him and move on. Why the need to
call
attention to yourself?


There is an old adage "Silence implies consent".

I doubt it's very applicable to a USENET newsgroup, where dozens of topics
are being discussed at a any particular time. Does this mean that I can go
back in the rec.ww archives and if I find a thread you have not posted in I
can assume you consent to the content?

IMHO no, but *I* do not ascribe to the
adage, though I do note that many others
do.

Howver, suppose you find a two threads
that I did participate in. I exited one with
a 'plonk' and the plonked party followed
up with a number of statements that did
not previously appear in the thread.

In the other thread, I simply went away.

In the second case, it is unclear is I assented
to what was written after my exit. In the first
case it appears probable that I never read
the comments.


That I daresay, is
why Mr Blanchard and I contribute to off-topic threads, to prove that
we do not consent to whatever it is that Pat Robertson has told
them to post about this week.

I have no problem with people posting to off-topic threads. What I do have
a problem with is hyprocrites. Here's another old adage: "And why do you
look at the splinter in your brother's eye, and not notice the beam which is
in your own eye?"

Irrelevent.

The distinction between starting off-topic
threads and replying in them is like the
distinction between punching somebody
in the nose and punching somebody in
the nose after he hits you first.

Some of us regard that to be a distinction
without a difference, some of us do not.


Posting a 'plonk' announcement creates a UseNet record that the
author's silence, in the future should not be considered indicative
of consent.

Riiiight. Good thing everyone keeps track of who has plonked whom, just so
we can keep the score up to date. No one cares that someone has been
plonked.


Well I didn't think that up all by myself.
That is basicly what I remember from the
UseNet FAQ. Yes, at one time there was
only one.

--

FF

In article , Joe Barta
wrote:

Also try to see how the Google-China compromise, while not
exactly what we would like, is as good as we can get FOR NOW... and it
can be a step in a good direction.

Bull****. Google could have told the Chinese government to go ****
themselves.

They decided to suck tit rather than stand up to the principles the
company was founded on.

--
Boycott Google for their support of communist censorship and repression!

In article , Tim Daneliuk
wrote:

Sigh OK, so what is *your* answer to getting the repressive policies
of the Chinese abated. More cultural exchanges? Folk dancing? Asking
them "pretty please"? Cutting off trade?


Cutting off trade.

--
Boycott Google for their support of communist censorship and repression!

In article , Tim Daneliuk
wrote:

One of the noteable *failures* of the Bush administration has been to
not put massive pressure on the Saudis in this regard, for example.


I agree with this, as long as you add the Clinton, Bush 1, and Carter
administrations to the list of failures. And add Egypt to the list of
countries.

djb

--
Boycott Google for their support of communist censorship and repression!

In article .com,
wrote:

In the second case, it is unclear is I assented
to what was written after my exit. In the first
case it appears probable that I never read
the comments.

In the second case, nobody noticed nor cared.

--
Boycott Google for their support of communist censorship and repression!

In article ,
says...
Dave Balderstone wrote:

In article , Tim Daneliuk
wrote:

Sigh OK, so what is *your* answer to getting the repressive
policies of the Chinese abated. More cultural exchanges? Folk
dancing? Asking them "pretty please"? Cutting off trade?


Cutting off trade.

Gee, now there's a workable idea. I say GWB just pulls his head out of
his ass and cuts off all trade with China until they behave the way
we'd like. Such a simple solution. I wish I had your grasp of the
situation and your talent for problem solving.

Well, it's worked before in . . . uh . . . let's see . . . . well,
somewhere . . . I think . . . . ?

;-)

Rick

Dave Balderstone wrote:

In article , Joe
Barta wrote:

Also try to see how the Google-China compromise, while not
exactly what we would like, is as good as we can get FOR NOW...
and it can be a step in a good direction.

Bull****. Google could have told the Chinese government to go ****
themselves.

Of course they could. Then people start getting fired and replaced
with other people that WILL seek to expand and tap the Chinese market
in the best way possible at this time.

You suffer from unrealistic and impractical idealism.

They decided to suck tit rather than stand up to the principles
the company was founded on.

Suck tit? Not sure what that means. At any rate, Google is a
corporation. They are in business to make money and making money is
good. Also, keep in mind that decisions are rarely between that which
is good and that which is bad. It's usually a little more complicated
than that and given all considerations the folks making the decisions
make the best one they can.

It's simple to say that Google should just tell the Chinese to go ****
themselves... but then what do you have? Nothing.

Joe Barta

Dave Balderstone wrote:

In article , Tim Daneliuk
wrote:

Sigh OK, so what is *your* answer to getting the repressive
policies of the Chinese abated. More cultural exchanges? Folk
dancing? Asking them "pretty please"? Cutting off trade?


Cutting off trade.

Gee, now there's a workable idea. I say GWB just pulls his head out of
his ass and cuts off all trade with China until they behave the way
we'd like. Such a simple solution. I wish I had your grasp of the
situation and your talent for problem solving.

Joe Barta

In article .com, "entfillet" wrote:
"LOL -- you've been caught pretending to knowledge you do not possess.
Perhaps
you should have talked to a *real* chess player before you tried to
impersonate one, so that you'd have half a chance of succeeding."


I'm sorry that you did not see the humor in my characterizing Mr. D's
arguments as a series of lame and/or impossible moves. I would have
thought that the use of the outdated notation form would have given it
away. I would have thought that not being able to castle due to
"insufficent pieces" would have been the final straw but...apparently
not. I will try to be even less subtle in the future.

You missed the point entirely -- which was that the notation you used is
completely incorrect. Rather than "KP-KP3", for example, it should be "P-K3".
There is no such square as "KP3". A real chess player would have known that.

BTW - I let my USCF membership lapse a few years ago and so am
technically not rated any longer but, if you would like to stop by for
a game some time, that would be fine.

Uh-huh. And what was your last rating?

Bring money.

I'm not worried.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

In article , Joe Barta
wrote:

Gee, now there's a workable idea. I say GWB just pulls his head out of
his ass and cuts off all trade with China until they behave the way
we'd like. Such a simple solution. I wish I had your grasp of the
situation and your talent for problem solving.

It worked with South Africa. But it was our Prime Minister at the time,
not your President, leading the boycott.

--
Boycott Google for their support of communist censorship and repression!

Dave Balderstone wrote:

In article , Tim Daneliuk
wrote:


One of the noteable *failures* of the Bush administration has been to
not put massive pressure on the Saudis in this regard, for example.



I agree with this, as long as you add the Clinton, Bush 1, and Carter
administrations to the list of failures. And add Egypt to the list of
countries.

djb


OK

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

In article ,
says...

It's simple to say that Google should just tell the Chinese to go ****
themselves... but then what do you have? Nothing.

Or perhaps Google ripoffs emerging in China, with no protection for
Google's IP?

Rick

"Following is a sampling of ways of giving the move N-KB3 ( Nf3 in
algebraic) in descriptive notation, taken from books of different years
to illustrate the slow evolution of that notation system. Notice the
subtle changes that creep in virtually one letter at a time; apparently
too much change could not be tolerated all at once!

1614: The white king commands his owne knight into the third house
before his owne bishop. 1750: K. knight to His Bishop's 3d. 1837: K.Kt.
to B.third sq. 1848: K.Kt. to B's 3rd. 1859: K. Kt. to B. 3d. 1874: K
Kt to B3 1889: KKt -B3 1904: Kt-KB3 1946: N-KB3"

The History of Chess Notation

by Robert John McCrary

You might also want to look into Staunton's original style of notation.
Then too, Koch and Kieseritzky have their own styles, with Koch still
being used in international correspondence competition. Jaenisch is
worth a look.

Then again, you could simply sit there and taste your foot.

In article t, Java
Man wrote:

Or perhaps Google ripoffs emerging in China, with no protection for
Google's IP?

What IP? Google isn't doing anything proprietary in its web and usenet
aggregating. You or I could start doing it tomorrow.

All Google has that you don't is a head start, a supoena to appear
before the US Congress, and $19 billion less share value than they had
a couple of days ago.

--
Boycott Google for their support of communist censorship and repression!

Java Man wrote:

In article ,
says...

It's simple to say that Google should just tell the Chinese to go
**** themselves... but then what do you have? Nothing.

Or perhaps Google ripoffs emerging in China, with no protection
for Google's IP?

Not sure I understand what you mean. Could you explain it further?

Joe Barta

In article , wrote:
In article , Joe Barta
wrote:

Also try to see how the Google-China compromise, while not
exactly what we would like, is as good as we can get FOR NOW... and it
can be a step in a good direction.

Bull****. Google could have told the Chinese government to go ****
themselves.

Yes, and then the Chinese government would have blocked access to Google
altogether. I don't see that as an improvement.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

In article . com, "entfillet" wrote:
"Following is a sampling of ways of giving the move N-KB3 ( Nf3 in
algebraic) in descriptive notation, taken from books of different years
to illustrate the slow evolution of that notation system. Notice the
subtle changes that creep in virtually one letter at a time; apparently
too much change could not be tolerated all at once!

1614: The white king commands his owne knight into the third house
before his owne bishop. 1750: K. knight to His Bishop's 3d. 1837: K.Kt.
to B.third sq. 1848: K.Kt. to B's 3rd. 1859: K. Kt. to B. 3d. 1874: K
Kt to B3 1889: KKt -B3 1904: Kt-KB3 1946: N-KB3"

The History of Chess Notation

by Robert John McCrary

You might also want to look into Staunton's original style of notation.
Then too, Koch and Kieseritzky have their own styles, with Koch still
being used in international correspondence competition. Jaenisch is
worth a look.

Well, congratulations. You've demonstrated that you can use Google, and also
that you are unable to properly understand what you found. I repeat: if you
knew anything about chess, you would know that there is no such square as
"KP3". Certainly there is such a square as KB3, as shown in the paragraph you
quoted above. And also KN3 (or KKt3) and KR3. But no "KP3".

Then again, you could simply sit there and taste your foot.

Let me give you a little clue: when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.
You've been caught out, pretending to knowledge in an area where you're
clearly ignorant, and your attempts at recovery are only making matters worse.


BTW, I noticed you didn't reply to my question: what was your last USCF
rating?

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

Joe Barta wrote:
Dave Balderstone wrote:


In article , Joe
Barta wrote:


Also try to see how the Google-China compromise, while not
exactly what we would like, is as good as we can get FOR NOW...
and it can be a step in a good direction.

Bull****. Google could have told the Chinese government to go ****
themselves.


Of course they could. Then people start getting fired and replaced
with other people that WILL seek to expand and tap the Chinese market
in the best way possible at this time.

You suffer from unrealistic and impractical idealism.


They decided to suck tit rather than stand up to the principles
the company was founded on.


Suck tit? Not sure what that means. At any rate, Google is a
corporation. They are in business to make money and making money is
good. Also, keep in mind that decisions are rarely between that which
is good and that which is bad. It's usually a little more complicated
than that and given all considerations the folks making the decisions
make the best one they can.

It's simple to say that Google should just tell the Chinese to go ****
themselves... but then what do you have? Nothing.

IIRC, a couple of years(?) ago when this all started, China was blocking
google altogether, but bowed to internal pressure. Then they tried
blocking the google cache. That meant the user was confronted with
broken links. Google had only to put a notice up saying "hacked by PRC"
or whatever and they could have called it good.

So this deal doesn't remove Google from a ban list or otherwise stop
google from making money in china. It is a convenience to the PRC that
a nice government friendly airbrush is being applied to the world,
courtesy of Google.

er
--
email not valid

In article ,
says...
Java Man wrote:

In article ,
says...

It's simple to say that Google should just tell the Chinese to go
**** themselves... but then what do you have? Nothing.

Or perhaps Google ripoffs emerging in China, with no protection
for Google's IP?

Not sure I understand what you mean. Could you explain it further?

China is famous for ripping off intellectual property of many kinds --
patents, copyrights, etc. Google has a competitive advantage in the
search engine business. It says it wants to "organize the world's
information". If it didn't comply with China's request, I can think of a
few negative consequences for Google.

If it wants to include China's information, it has to submit to China's
conditions. They may have included either submitting to censorship or
granting access to records far beyond what the Bush administration is
seeking. I don't know whether there's a quid-pro-quo for agreeing to
censorship, but it's possible that China may have agreed to enforce any
intellectual property rights Google may use to protect its competitive
advantage. I don't know the world of search engines, and for all I
know, there may be no IP to protect? Another possibility is that
agreeing to China's conditions allows Google access to the Chinese
market, thus helping to forestall (or even prevent) a Chinese competitor
from establishing a foothold in the Market. Yes, Google has a big lead,
but only a fool thinks a big lead is insurmountable. Ask GM.

Rick

Doug Miller wrote:
In article , wrote:

In article , Joe Barta
wrote:


Also try to see how the Google-China compromise, while not
exactly what we would like, is as good as we can get FOR NOW... and it
can be a step in a good direction.

Bull****. Google could have told the Chinese government to go ****
themselves.


Yes, and then the Chinese government would have blocked access to Google
altogether. I don't see that as an improvement.

No.

er
--
email not valid

Doug Miller wrote:

Yes, and then the Chinese government would have blocked access to Google
altogether. I don't see that as an improvement.

Oops... I meant to say, "No, the Chinese govt. would not have done that."

They tried once, and had to open it up again. Instead they blocked
items in the cache.

er
--
email not valid

In article , Doug Miller
wrote:

Yes, and then the Chinese government would have blocked access to Google
altogether.

Oh. Then it's far, far, better that a US company participate in the
censorship and profit by doing so.

Thanks for clearing that up, Doug.

--
Boycott Google for their support of communist censorship and repression!

On Wed, 01 Feb 2006 01:17:52 -0500, Robatoy wrote:

In article ,
Mark & Juanita wrote:

Heard part of it on the way home, so I didn't get to see the facial
expressions. Bet the swimmer just about burst a blood vessel with the
comment indicating that while debate and criticism are valid exercises in
our system, second guessing and application of hindsight are not.

Post SOTU, a few of the media's talking heads even ventured out and said
that W "may have some credibility issues with some viewers."

*wiping monitor*

Interesting spin. Take a few members of congress acting rudely and it is
Bush's fault, Bush has a credibility problem. Kind of hard to hold that
ground when the other party deigned to use Ted Kennedy to act as head
inquisitor of Judge Allito on the subject of ethics. You just can't make
this stuff up.



+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

In article , Mark & Juanita
wrote:

Interesting spin. Take a few members of congress acting rudely and it is
Bush's fault, Bush has a credibility problem. Kind of hard to hold that
ground when the other party deigned to use Ted Kennedy to act as head
inquisitor of Judge Allito on the subject of ethics. You just can't make
this stuff up.

The latest leftoid conspiracy theory that has made my top 5 is that the
*lack* of Christian right-wing protest against Brokeback Mountain is a
vast Christian right-wing conspiracy to negatively affect the box
office returns of what's just a mediocre movie by NOT protesting it.

On the bright side, finally we have a western where the good guys get
it in the end...

--
Boycott Google for their support of communist censorship and repression!

On Wed, 01 Feb 2006 21:55:05 -0600, Dave Balderstone
wrote:

In article , Mark & Juanita
wrote:

Interesting spin. Take a few members of congress acting rudely and it is
Bush's fault, Bush has a credibility problem. Kind of hard to hold that
ground when the other party deigned to use Ted Kennedy to act as head
inquisitor of Judge Allito on the subject of ethics. You just can't make
this stuff up.

The latest leftoid conspiracy theory that has made my top 5 is that the
*lack* of Christian right-wing protest against Brokeback Mountain is a
vast Christian right-wing conspiracy to negatively affect the box
office returns of what's just a mediocre movie by NOT protesting it.

On the bright side, finally we have a western where the good guys get
it in the end...

aaargh :-)


... or as one person was heard to say, "well, that's one range where the
sheep *aren't* nervous"







+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

"Dave Balderstone" wrote in message
...
In article , Joe Barta
wrote:

Gee, now there's a workable idea. I say GWB just pulls his head out of
his ass and cuts off all trade with China until they behave the way
we'd like. Such a simple solution. I wish I had your grasp of the
situation and your talent for problem solving.

It worked with South Africa. But it was our Prime Minister at the time,
not your President, leading the boycott.

Well, if it worked for South Africa, it's bound to work for China. I mean,
South Africa has an economy nearly 7% the size of China's, so it's the
perfect model. I tell you what, let's do the same for the middle east and
just boycott Iran and Saudi Arabia while we're at it.

todd

"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 01 Feb 2006 01:17:52 -0500, Robatoy
wrote:

In article ,
Mark & Juanita wrote:

Heard part of it on the way home, so I didn't get to see the facial
expressions. Bet the swimmer just about burst a blood vessel with the
comment indicating that while debate and criticism are valid exercises
in
our system, second guessing and application of hindsight are not.

Post SOTU, a few of the media's talking heads even ventured out and said
that W "may have some credibility issues with some viewers."

*wiping monitor*

Interesting spin. Take a few members of congress acting rudely and it is
Bush's fault, Bush has a credibility problem. Kind of hard to hold that
ground when the other party deigned to use Ted Kennedy to act as head
inquisitor of Judge Allito on the subject of ethics. You just can't make
this stuff up.

One of the many reasons why I will never be nominated for anything that
would require Senate review is that I don't think I could physically sit in
a chair and have The Swimmer question me on my ethics.

todd

wrote in message
oups.com...
No problem, I just wanted to be sure we were talking
about the same person. I had thought it was James
Carville who was responsible for much of the Democratic
Party Platform in the recent past and Howard Dean today.

On the surface it looks like George Soros provides more
funding than policy--quite a contrast with Pat Robertson
who dictates much of the Republican policy. However
maybe Mr Soros is just more subtle.

Do you actually know who Pat Robertson is? Or did you just hear his name on
Air America (assuming it hasn't gone off the air in your area)? I wouldn't
necessarily put Pat in the neighborhood of kook fringe, but he certainly
doesn't dictate policy for the Republican party.

todd

Dave Balderstone wrote:

In article , Tim Daneliuk
wrote:


Sigh OK, so what is *your* answer to getting the repressive policies
of the Chinese abated. More cultural exchanges? Folk dancing? Asking
them "pretty please"? Cutting off trade?



Cutting off trade.


It won't work the way you want it to. The "luxury" of freedom requires
that the society be able to afford it. A broke society cannot afford the
niceties of democracy because they are always one step ahead of
starvation (Think: Modern Russia).

Note that desparately poor people are not usually first in line to fight
for democratic revolution, or if they are it is largely ineffective -
they're too busy trying to just survive and don't have the wealth and
tools required to overthrow the established system. (Think: The French
Revolution "by the people" that was unnecessarily violent, ended badly,
and led to the establishment of something arguably worse than the
monarchy). Rich people typically are too few in number to make much of a
difference one way or the other though they can try and buy some
improvement (which typically just leads to official corruption). It
takes a critical mass of middle-class people to force issues of
democracy and freedom in most cases. (Think: The American Revolution
populated by farmers, merchants, traders, and wealthy aristocrats that
tore off the shackles of one of the most powerful nations of its time.)

Terminating trade with China, if effective, would primarily impoverish
their economy such that no effective liberal democratic reform would
ever happen. But by trading with them, we encourage the formation of
their emergent middle-class. Sooner or later, these people will throw
off the shackles of an oppressive government.

IOW: Capitalism Precedes Durable Democracy
(But the latter does not guarantee the former)

Sidebar

Democracy has to be earned by its participants - it cannot be bestowed
by a 3rd party (no matter what the Neocons think). The most a 3rd party
can ever do is create the environment in which Democracy can take hold -
i.e., Remove impediments like Sadaam and the Taliban. But even so, the
onus lies on the indigenous peoples to do this for themselves. The
greatest fear I have about today's hostilities is not that we ought not
to have done it (we did the right thing) but that our leadership (on
*both* sides of the polical spectrum) expect too much in the aftermath.
We've done the heavy lifting, now it time for the Afghans and Iraqis to
do what's needed for themselves.

My other fear is that Western politicans of all stripes expect too much
when they ask for "democracy" in the region. In the SOTN speech last
night Bush said we had to accept that democracy would "look different"
in the Middle East when accomplished. I agree, but I wonder just how
"different" a democracy he (and all the other politicians) are actually
willing to accept. The same holds true for China, Cuba, Mongolia, North
Korea and all of the other collectivist paradises around the world. As
they democratize, it will not necessarily be the Western model and we
may as well all get used to it.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

In article , todd
wrote:

I tell you what, let's do the same for the middle east and
just boycott Iran and Saudi Arabia while we're at it.

Works for me. Add Egypt and Syria to the list.

--
Boycott Google for their support of communist censorship and repression!

In article , Tim Daneliuk
wrote:

The most a 3rd party
can ever do is create the environment in which Democracy can take hold -
i.e., Remove impediments like Sadaam and the Taliban.

i.e. Remove a totalitarian regime, but not if they're Chinese and
there's a ****load of money to be made...

--
Boycott Google for their support of communist censorship and repression!

"Well, congratulations. You've demonstrated that you can use Google..."


Yes. You should see how many posts show up when a search is done for
posts to this newsgroup, using the search terms "Doug Miller" AND
"Asshole".

It seems I'm not the only one who has come to that conclusion.

In article .com, "entfillet" wrote:
"Well, congratulations. You've demonstrated that you can use Google..."

Interesting that youu snipped the part of my post that shows you're
mistaken...

Yes. You should see how many posts show up when a search is done for
posts to this newsgroup, using the search terms "Doug Miller" AND
"Asshole".

It seems I'm not the only one who has come to that conclusion.

Isn't that special. You're losing the argument, so you resort to personal
abuse. How mature of you.

Suck it up, admit you were wrong, apologize, and move on.

Of course, if you had actually *read* those posts that Google found, you'd
come to a different conclusion -- demonstrating once again that, while you're
able to run a search engine, you have difficulty understanding what you find.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

Dave Balderstone wrote:

In article , Tim Daneliuk
wrote:


The most a 3rd party
can ever do is create the environment in which Democracy can take hold -
i.e., Remove impediments like Sadaam and the Taliban.


i.e. Remove a totalitarian regime, but not if they're Chinese and
there's a ****load of money to be made...


Removing them by force may well be impossible. It's an enormous country
with considerable military resources. Moreover, unlike Iraq - where
there were consistent examples of aid to terrorist groups and/or
individuals - China has not thus far demonstrated any animus to the US
nor have they done anything significant to destabilize the planet. It
would be much harder to make the case for violent intervention there.

The Real World is always fraught with compromise. There is no way
the West can be in the Democracy business for each and every nation
that needs it. We have to pick and choose the greatest threats /
greatest opportunities. I think most people who've watched the
region agree that China is improving and there is light at the
end of that tunnel. They thus do not need any Western "attention"
at the moment. The path to Democracy has many paths, but China
appears to be on the most durable one - economic growth. I say
let it be for now and see what hapens.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/