Many problems in human experience are the result of false
and inaccurate definitions of humankind premised in man-
made religions and humanistic philosophies.

Consider:
The way we define 'human' determines our view of self,
others, relationships, institutions, life, and future.
Important? Only the Creator who made us in His own image
is qualified to define us accurately. Choose wisely...
there are results.

The HUMAN PARADIGM

Man is earth's Choicemaker. Psalm 25:12 He is by nature
and nature's God a creature of Choice - and of Criteria.
Psalm 119:30,173 His unique and definitive characteristic
is, and of Right ought to be, the natural foundation of
his environments, institutions, and respectful relations
to his fellow-man. Thus, he is oriented to a Freedom
whose roots are in the Order of the universe.

See the complete article at Homesite:
"Human Defined: Earth's Choicemaker"
http://www.choicemaker.net/

Nope, Bug Me Not did NOT work, but nice try....

Unless Sullivan's even more of a diva than we thought, I think you have an extra digit of some kind in that premium ad price.

You can check at his site - those are the correct numbers. Makes me think maybe I should start taking ads...

Before, your post said $32000, didn't it? I know that reading you correctly isn't my strong suit this week, but it gave me a double-take, and I counted. :) If it's corrected, then fine. Sullivan's doing quite enough to warrant criticism lately without having his fees inflated by a factor of 10.

There was a typo in the draft, but I thought I had edited it before posting. Perhaps not. Either way it's a lot of money.

I used to read Sully every day, but soon became disenchanted with his Kerryesque evolution. You get what you pay for and I'm sure a lot of the Democratic support loved seeing a rightie swing left.

I’m actually scratching my head to see what all the fuss is about. The only people who loose out in this deal are the American military and US arms manufacturers.

The EU is not stupid; China already possesses all of the weapons that it needs for internal repression. There is nothing that you can sell China for oppressing Xingjian and Tibet that it can’t already make for its self, and the EU isn’t going to be selling China long range ballistic missile that could target Taiwan or Japan.

The EU would be allowing China to have access to weapons and devices that would level the playing field between the US and China, redressing the technological imbalance between the two countries.

If China had French anti shipping missiles the US would think twice about sending a carrier to support Taiwan, and if they had Germany radar equipment then it would make US air support more risky, throw into this electronic warfare equipment and anti aircraft missiles and you’ve got the Pentagon by the short and curlies. This would actually make the world safer; China isn’t going to attack anybody without provocation, it’s just too risky for its economy, and having a better equipped China would make the US less lightly in the Pacific.

Balance creates stability, imbalance, like we saw in Iraq, allows one nation to impose its will over another.

What the US is worried about is that a war with China might suddenly become more costly in terms of hardware and service personnel, and that EU arms manufacturers would find a new source of income that America couldn’t tap in to.

China already has Russian fighters and Israeli drone aircraft and probably night vision systems as well; it’s not as if the EU is doing anything that other countries don’t already do.

ACB, that's the point. Removing the embargo is more symbolic than anything else. It's an attempt to put commercial interests ahead of values such as human rights. Ironically that's what Europe pretends to stand for, while the Americans are have the principled approach this time.

I don't agree re Taiwan. Given China access to better technology will only upset the status quo. Rather than ease tensions they will increase if China thinks it is a better match for American forces.

Let me get this straight, its offensive to China if a US advertiser shows a basketball player dueling with a Chinese dragon, but it's OK to have pictures of dragons on your underpants.

As long as it's not a five toed dragon. Only the Emperor is allowed to use a five toed dragon as his symbol. It used to be the death penalty for somebody to display the Imperial Ddragon without the permsssion of the Emperor.

Good grief I just gave an unladylike snort of laughter on your response, Simon.

Well done.

Dear Simon,

Thanks for the links and kind words for WOW. Some of these students are bravely hanging their butts out in the open knowing full well that there could be consequences. There is some real courage on display; for that reason alone they deserve to be read.

Again, thanks a million.

All the best,

Joseph

alas, the real barrier is not technological in nature; it is their perception that blogging has no material significance with respect to changing things in the real world at this moment in time. to put it bluntly, blogging is a just a small circular jerk-off that will not affect public opinion or government policy significantly. and I am afraid that they are right -- at this moment in time. we will have to wait to see what the future brings.

and it isn't even just about blogging either; they don't bother writing to newspapers or calling radio talk show programs either, because that too is a waste of time when there is a government too timid to act on anything because they are afraid of volatile citizens.

if this was the united states, they might have form a lobby group of factory owners, donate tons of money to re-elect senators and congressmen and then get their preferred legislation passed. here, they don't have the time to deal that mind of stuff.

they are economic opportunists. they will take whatever is out there, and go with it. that is why they are talking about moving to macau; and if they have to move to cambodia, they would too.

yes, we can just write them off because they don't bother to engage. but if we are talking about hong kong's prosperity and competitiveness, then these are the key people who are available for the taking. why send them away?

professionally, i am known to have an elephantine memory.

i will lead you back to a comment of yours in july 2004 about a post of mine on the Hong Kong Legco functional constituency positions.

let me ask you now: given what was said about my dinner with the factory owners at the dinner, do you think that they would be fairly represented in a completely directly elected Legco? or would they need a functional constituency representative?

incidentally, i suspect that they don't care one way or the other, because they will simply accept what happens and look for the best opportunity.

this question is really from the perspective of what is best for Hong Kong as a whole.

I remember that comment. My position hasn't changed. Those factory owners should not have a disproportionate representation via functional constituencies. The main principle of a democracy is "one person, one vote". Factory owners don't deserve, even if they don't care, to have a disproportionate share of the vote. If there was universal suffrage, everyone would be fairly represented. I suppose it depends upon what you classify as "best for HK". Churchill said democracy is the worst system of government we have except for all the others.

One other point. The apathy of these people, for mine, means they forfeit any rights to complain. I understand your point. Instead of doing something about it they just go to where the next opportunity is. To me that seems almost cowardly. Clearly they have, in the past, been good for HK. But if they have such a mercanary attitude, then HK will be the better for their decision. It has the added bonus of forcing HK to become more competitive to retain their interest as well. It's just that our unrepresentative Government is doing an appalling job of it. On that we can all agree.

it is odd that i find myself sometimes speaking on their behalf. my values could not be more different from their 'amoral individualism.' yet it saddens to me to see these opportunities for Hong Kong slip away so quietly.