MonteZuma

Yes. Iraq truly didn't have WMDs and yet they went to war against Iraq. Even if they believed Iraq had WMDs, the fact is they were wrong. A blunder of that order of magnitude should be enough to get them kicked out of office. At the very least it should convince people that they need to question their government more often. Maybe they wanted a page in the history books? maybe they thought a swift victory over a tyrant would win them votes? Maybe they were so blinded by certain issues that they couldn't see the big picture? Politicians make mistakes. How do you know? The soviet empire was toppled without any significant US casualties. The thing that annoys me the most are politicians that mislead the public.

Maybe. But sometimes they can't check out their source. I'm uneasy about the backlash from this story. Whistleblowers are sometimes useful at uncovering abuses and corruption. To ignore them because their claims can't be verified is dangerous. Our governments and public servants need to get the emssage that they are being watched and any abuse of public trust/sensibility will be punished. I have no problem at all with the media reporting something from an anonymous source. So long as it is reported as such. In any case, abuse of the koran has been reported before. This is not some unimaginable science fiction story. Cesnsorship subterfuge?

Perhaps. But for the sake of discussion... It isn't strictly correct that the greater half of America wanted GWB. At the last US election there was a 60% voter turnout, so only about 30% of eligible US voters chose Bush. I think a large proportion of those that didn't vote probably don't like either of the major parties. Whatever the reason, the usual low voter turnout means that GWB has the support of considerably less than 50% of the US population. The body in charge of elections in the US should work harder to get a bigger voter turnout.

I know nothing of the Quran/toilet story. Got links? I think it is quite normal for the en!@#$%^&*bant leader to cop more scrutiny than the opposition. After all, they are the ones that make the decisions that can make or break things that affect our futures and our daily lives. Most of this opposition is likely to come from people that have an opposing political viewpoint. There is nothing wrong with media bias and media subjectivity - so long as it is ultimately balanced and clear to the viewer/reader when we are being presented fact and when we are being presented opinion. I believe the best journalism comes from investigative journalists who are passionate about the issues they are reporting. It is probably impossible to be passionate and unbiased. I agree that there is no place for liars in journalism (or politics for that matter), but I guess sometimes people say things that turn out not to be true. That isn't always lying (if it was, GWB wouldn't have a leg to stand on). Fwiw, I doubt that Al Qaida members pay very much attention to what is said on Newsweek. I think the bloody pictures of civilian casualties they get from Al Jazeera is all that an Al Qaida or insurgent recruiter needs to garner support.

I think the take-over has already begun....

Unfortunately this is not the case in Australia. The pro-Bush Liberal government in Australia won even more seats at the last election and has a majority in both houses of parliament.

I think democracy works. If Bush, Blair or Howard lied about tax cuts, petrol prices or inappropriate sexual conduct with their secretary there'd be rioting in the streets and the governments would have been turfed out. Unfortunately they only lied about their plans to breach international law and place our soldiers lives on the line for some hair-brained scheme to overthrow some hair-brained dictator in some backward middle-eastern nation. Most people in the US and the UK and other tag-along countries like Australia just don't seem to care about Iraq and the world-wide problems that the conflict there has caused. Most people are shallow. The people are being represented perfectly - with equally shallow leaders. Fortunately though, much of continental Europe and other places like Canada and New Zealand have leaders that are a little more compassionate and forward-thinking insofar as the concept of world peace is concerned.

Hmmm. Removal of tuition fees seems like a good idea to me too, but is it? In Australia, university costs were (and maybe still are?) shared by government and students (50/50). Students could pay their half up front, for a discount, or ac!@#$%^&*ulate a debt that was at first interest free, but is now indexed to inflation. Graduates repay their debt through the tax system. The amount that they repay depends on their income level. Low income earners don't have to repay anything until they earn more money. Although this bugs me, because I prefer the idea of free education for all, and I think it is unfair to dump big debts on young people that will, on balance, contribute to society more than average, I think it is probably the best system. Anything that is totally free will be abused. That means resources are used inneficiently and I suspect the overall standard of service that is delivered will fall. The same thing applies to any government benefit....medicine, transport, education, the arts, etc, etc, etc.

I resisted replying to this thread because the election wasn't getting much publicity, but I'm starting to hear more about it now...so here begins my 2 pence worth (+ VAT) Is there something wrong with a taxation system that taxes the wealthy more highly than the the sick and unemployed? If you don't want some loser to pinch your new plasma screen, you oughta support a system that tries to help drug addicts. Based on what little I know about UK politics, I think I'd vote libdem too. Tony Blair and Labour seemed ok, but Blair's dishonesty over Iraq has spoiled his reputation. Based on Wikipedia, these guys aren't isolationists. Their issue is with membership of the EU. Apparantly they support free trade agreements with the EU and other regions, but they just don't wanna be in the EU.

Nice post! Replies to your questions... + I have not formed an opinion either way as to whether or not Japan should have a seat on the Security Council, but membership should not be based on financial contribution alone. The citizens of the world should decide. + Yes, they should pay. + China, like every country, should be held accountable for human rights violations. They should come clean to the world and the Chinese people. But no matter what abuses the Chinese have perpetrated, they do not negate Japanese attrocities. Two wrongs (or Wongs) don't make a right.

Humpf. The fact that Germany lost the war does not mean that Goering was incompetent, Take a look at his bio. He was obviously a smart man. Heh. He was one of the architects of the Nazi party, so it is no surprise that he stayed onside with Hitler. If the Japanese are giving their kids a distorted view of Sino-Japanese history then it is China's business as well. The Potsdam Declaration kinda made things interesting too. Any modern history student knows that the constraints placed on Germany following their defeat in WW1 coupled with the great depression sowed the seeds nazi extremism. The nazis exploited the breeding ground. Social conditioning en masse. Indeed. Individuals need to be held accountable for their actions, even if their actions were influenced by social conditioning. If we didn't hold individuals accountable for their actions we would have anarchy. I agree. I hope the Iraqi democracy does grow stronger. But at the same time, the Iraq invasion created a focal point for Arab anti-Americanism and terrorism. Wasn't this supposed to be a war against terror? Perhaps it never was? Perhaps it was always a war against regimes we don't like? But Iraq was no threat to the US. The weapons inspectors demonstrated that. Hindsight demonstrates that even more clearly. Public support for the attack on Iraq was largely based on US government !@#$%^&*ertions that they were a threat. It doesn't matter whether the threat was real or not. That fits very neatly with Goering's statement. As for Vietnam...I don't think Americans or any of the other peoples whose military faught in Vietnam were whipped into a frenzy, but it is quite clear that the motivation for Vietnam in the US, Australia and elsewhere was fear of the spread of communism - the yellow peril. That threat was not real either. I thought I was using the experience of Vietnam and Iraq as examples that supported the quote?

Nanjing is a scar than runs very deep. That is like saying the jews just use the holocaust as an excuse to oppose anti-semitism. The protests had little if anything to do with the UN. You are confusing 2 different issues. There is a very big difference between Germany and Japan. Germany has worked very hard to come to terms with nazism and the German role in WW2. Japan has not. This is getting repetative, but if today's German government downplayed the holocaust and referred to it as an unsubstantiated incident then I'd have a bone to pick with them too. It is very important that German kids know what their grandparents allowed to happen. It is also important that Japanese kids get the same insights. You know nothing about the Chinese people. Erm. I don't think so. Imo the Chinese government made a mistake backing the students. At the national level, they have encouraged student protests and violence. In the long run, that can threaten communist rule, just as the Tiananmen protests were considered a threat. At the international level, they have supported a violent act against innocent foreigners. The last thing the Chinese need is to deter foreign investment and tourism by promoting that kind of impression in the west. But when it all boils down, the protests were very small. I was in Nanjing when this blew up, and in Shanghai shortly after, and didn't notice a thing. The electronics shops were still full of Japanese brand products, most of which are made in China. I don't think the protests are part of a grand plan at all. The Japanese and Chinese coexist peacefully, but with some obvious differences of opinion.

The Chinese aren't holding today's Japanese responsible for the Nanjing massacre. They are holding them responsible for denying their history and not teaching their children about the massacre. Just as you have a problem with people ignoring or disregarding Goering's nazi background when quoting his words, the Chinese have a problem with the Japanese ignoring or downplaying their infamous WW2 history. I'm not sure that it is simple or irrefutable, but that is exactly what the Chinese want the Japanese to do. Semantics. You are conservative american all the way. Your heritage might be continental European, but your thinking isn't. I wouldn't say you are racist. But I would say that you find it much easier to relate to white, western, english speaking cultures than any other cultures. That isn't surprising. That is herd instinct. I think you have a culture-bias. We all do. That is an oversimplification. Judging by actions alone can highlight a culture-bias. My opposition to soup-slurpers highlights my culture-bias. Yes. Adolph Hitler wasn't much different to me or you when he was born. How exactly does an Aryan German baby that ended up as an adult nazi commander differ from a Jewish German baby that grows up to be a holocaust victim? The answer of course is that there is no difference. The difference develops because both grow up in different cultures and are subject to different socially conditioning. I'll try and forget you wrote that. Now you are overcomplicating things. Goering said that the people don't want war, but will allow themselves to be dragged into a war if they feel their country is threatened. That seems pretty universal to me. That is the excuse that the US government used to sucker the American people into the wars in Vietnam and Iraq (for example). Now that is illogical. Goering was very intelligent and knew more about war and manipulation of people than you or I ever will. He was an expert on the subject. He is worth listening to, even if it is just to understand how people can be manipulated to perpetrate awful deeds.

Agreed. When it boils down, the Chinese government should denounce any kind of violence against Japanese individuals or corporations. Agreed. But you never know. China is changing so fast that anything could happen. I'm divided on this. On the one hand, I feel that the Taiwanese should have the right to self determination, but on the other, I understand mainland China's claim to the island. There is no right or wrong in this matter. "One country, three systems" seems like a fair compromise to me.

Thanks to the Internet there are plenty of alternative news sources and viewpoints. I know that Chinese English language TV (CCTV-9) was saying nothing about UN membership when the protests were happening. But they were saying lots about Japanese denial of the Nanjing massacre.

It is interesting that you use this kind of language in reference to the blitz (40,000 civilian deaths over 36 weeks), but when it comes to Chinese anger about the Nanjing massacre (200,000 civilian deaths over 6 weeks) you blow it off and say that the Chinese viewpoint "is, was, and always will be a crock of crap". Perhaps that is because you are part of the white anglo herd?

We're social animals. Most of us have a herd mentality. I'd argue that you are just following a different herd. I like to think that I make up my own mind, but I am open-minded enough to realise that my views on many topics are influenced by the views, words and actions of others. A trivial example: I think it is rude to slurp soup because everyone around me thinks that it is rude to slurp soup. No other reason. Herd mentality. Sometimes there is no truth. Sometimes there is only a perspective. There are so many !@#$%^&*umptions in that analogy that it becomes meaningless. For example, perhaps the robber was the most needy of all the three people in your story? Perhaps he was the most desperate? The only difference between the nazis, the jews and everbody else is social conditioning. The clearest window comes from looking at social conditioning.

Hardly. Perhaps the Japanese are gettin all 1930s again? BTW...in relation to other posts...I don't think the protests had much (if anything) to do with the UN and UN membership at all.

The scale of the attrocities committed by the Japanese in China before and during WW2 were mind-boggling. Nothing that communist China has ever done since the Chinese civil war is remotely comparable. One of the worst incidences was the Nanjing massacre (200,000 civilians killed, ,000 raped), but there are many, many more. 8.5 million Chinese civilians were killed by Japanese aggressors. Setting aside the rapes and murders, an untold amount of Chinese heritage was destroyed by the Japanese. Despite this, the Japanese have effectively written this episode out of their text books. The reaction in China is similar to the reaction that the jewish community would have if the Germans decided to call the death of the jews at the hands of the nazis an 'unfortunate incident' and wrote it out of their history. The Chinese obviously are far from perfect in respect to their human rights record, but they have every right to be royally pissed off.

We don't have to trust our governments. Extremely stupid things happen everywhere. I have no doubt that your father is a very professional man that understands the facts and believes in what he does. But clever people that have the same sets of facts can always interpret them differently. Or.... people with the same facts can have a different at!@#$%^&*ude to risk and risk management. What people define as an acceptable risk is not based just on science. The example that I always use is the weather forecast. If the best scientifi minds tell you that the chance of rain is 50%, it is up to you to decide whether or not it is worthwhile taking an umbrella. Doctor's stuffed up with x-rays back then too. The difference between the shoe salesman and the doctor or scientist isn't all that great. Scientists get things wrong all the time - and the consequences of their errors can be huge. There is no reason why anybody should think that they will not make mistakes again and again and again. Having said all of that, I agree that 12 x-rays isn't a great amount of exposure over the course of a lifetime. My real concern with nuclear energy is this risk of worse disasters, the effects of uranium mining and the intractable waste that the industry generates. Not to mention the geopolitical issues !@#$%^&*ociated with the proliferation of the technology.

nice.

I agree. In the first instance, the feeding tube was necessary. There was hope that she could recover. No. Over time, her cerebral cortex (about 75% of the brain, including the bits that give us thoughts and feelings) was destroyed. Her head was full of spinal fluid. The term 'awake' normally implies that she had some consiousness. She didn't. Her condition was worse than being in a coma. Nobody hasa ever recovered from the state that she was in. Her brain would need to spontaneously reconstruct itself. She wasn't conscious. The real issue is the stete of her brain. Nobody has ever recovered from a PVS after more than 3 months. Never ever. Umm. The scans showed that her brain had turned to mush. All of her senses were fine except that she could not think or feel anything. And she would never, ever be able to think and feel anything. Every movement and action she exhibited was an involuntary reflex. Ummm. We know quite a bit. Most importantly, we know that when your cerebral cortex is replaced with spinal fluid you are screwed. Period. What information? Actually, you don't.

In many ways it is like cutting the power to a house. Her consciousness had left her. All that was left was the s!@#$%^&* of a human. The house. She didn't suffer because she was unable to feel anything. No pain. No emotion. Nothing. She didn't feel pain or emotion, so the starvation was only an issue for onlookers. She didn't need any form of pain relief, because she couldn't feel anything. But yes, if she was a dog, she would have been put down 15 years ago. For some reason (which you answer quite well in the next paragraph) our society demands that we put animals out of their misery, but won't let us do it for humans. However, in this case, there was no misery for the victim. She was just a corpse with a heartbeat. All of the misery was felt by the friends and family. Good point. But she didn't suffer.

Have they found an energy efficient way of making the fuel for hydrogen powered cars?

That !@#$%^&*umes that advances in scientific achievement are linear path. I'd say they are exponential. Change and scientific advancement is happening faster and faster.