. Mercure 160: Mars is well reputed for its oxygen atmosphere **** SouthAmerica: I was just being sarcastic about the new source of air. .
I have been fortunate to have lived for short times in India and China. The success (or failure) of these countries will depend on capital availability. China cannot possibly fail because it is accumulating equity by imputing low-cost labor into the larger, higher priced world economy, at good profit. But there isn't much farmland in China. India, loaded with fertile land and normally trustworthy weather has a culture of small farms. It is unusual for a coop to have enough joint land to buy huge, labor saving pieces of equipment to reduce labor costs and up efficiency. Thus most Indian farmers are hardly better than subsistence farmers on hereditary land, odten splintered by excessive offspring. Can India "fail?" It's an open question. [ If the climate turns off cool like Landscheidt & separately Negi predict ( http://www.observerindia.com/news/200101/22/commentary05.htm) Lanscheidt, various, http://www.john-daly.com/press/press-01a.htm then a billion people are in real trouble.] Oxygen? Don't forget the oceans. Some say the oceans provide as much photsynthesis as the total Amazon basin. Negi Article Abstract: "World to Cool Substantially by 2030? (12 Mar 2001) This is the controversial claim by Janardhan Negi, a geophysicist and emeritus scientist at the National Geophysical Research Institute (NGRI) in India. The reason, according to Negi, is the variability of the sun. Using a combination of statistical analyses of past temperatures, evidence from sediments over the last 3,500 years, and analysis of solar cycle data, he concluded that the 20th century warming was merely a recovery to `normal' from the Little Ice Age, most of this occurring before 1940. Negi says that `solar activity and not human activity is contributing to the observed temperature variations'. For a more detailed report on these findings from India, see the Indian `Sunday Observer' article here
. "Foreign media has âhit a brick wallâ in China" By Aline van Duyn and Joshua Chaffin in New York Published: September 17 2005 Financial Times of London Rupert Murdoch, chairman and chief executive of News Corp, said his media group had âhit a brick wallâ in China and that Chinese authorities were no longer opening up to international media companies, reversing their stance from a year ago. Mr Murdoch, who was speaking at a conference in New York organised by former US President Bill Clinton, said the Chinese authorities âwere quite paranoid about what gets throughâ. ******** SouthAmerica: What Rupert Murdoch does not realize is that the people who watch his empire of news spins and misinformation - Fox News for example - gets neurotic and paranoid in no time. (Instead of âFair and Balancedâ they should say something more appropriate for their daily news spins such as: âThe boogieman is coming to get youâ). The Chinese are not stupid, and they have enough problems on their plate as it is, and they donât need Rupert Murdoch to spin everything out of control. I guess the Chinese are just using common sense that is lacking here in the US today. I believe in the freedom of the press, but Rupert Murdoch does not deserve neither our trust or be in a position to influence what people think, when the media describe him as a Media Manipulator, INTIMIDATOR, Shady Wheeler-Dealer - From union busting to tax evading, Rupert Murdoch has established a shady business record that raises serious questions about his corporate ethics. ********* Rupert Murdoch's war on journalism. "Outfoxed" examines how media empires, led by Rupert Murdoch's Fox News, have been running a "race to the bottom" in television news. This film provides an in-depth look at Fox News and the dangers of ever-enlarging corporations taking control of the public's right to know. The film explores Murdoch's burgeoning kingdom and the impact on society when a broad swath of media is controlled by one person. Media experts, including Jeff Cohen (FAIR) Bob McChesney (Free Press), Chellie Pingree (Common Cause), Jeff Chester (Center for Digital Democracy) and David Brock (Media Matters) provide context and guidance for the story of Fox News and its effect on society. This documentary also reveals the secrets of Former Fox news producers, reporters, bookers and writers who expose what it's like to work for Fox News. These former Fox employees talk about how they were forced to push a "right-wing" point of view or risk their jobs. Some have even chosen to remain anonymous in order to protect their current livelihoods. As one employee said "There's no sense of integrity as far as having a line that can't be crossed." .
. SouthAmerica: If you believe in âDemocracyâ and on âFair and Balancedâ news reporting and points of view, then anything that has to do with Rupert Murdochâs media empire - is not for you. I found this information in the web that gives a good summary of Rupert Murdoch and his global media empire. After reading this information you will understand why the Chinese government doesn't want Rupert Murdoch and his companies around. *** Who is Rupert Murdoch? How one right-wing billionaire uses his business and media empire to pursue a partisan agenda at the expense of democracy July 16, 2004 In recent years, Australian-born billionaire Rupert Murdoch has used the U.S. government's increasingly lax media regulations to consolidate his hold over the media and wider political debate in America. Consider Murdoch's empire: According to Businessweek, "his satellites deliver TV programs in five continents, all but dominating Britain, Italy, and wide swaths of Asia and the Middle East. He publishes 175 newspapers, including the New York Post and The Times of London. In the U.S., he owns the Twentieth Century Fox Studio, Fox Network, and 35 TV stations that reach more than 40% of the country...His cable channels include fast-growing Fox News, and 19 regional sports channels. In all, as many as one in five American homes at any given time will be tuned into a show News Corp. either produced or delivered." But who is the real Rupert Murdoch? As this report shows, he is a far-right partisan who has used his empire explicitly to pull American political debate to the right. He is also an enabler of the oppressive tactics employed by dictatorial regimes, and a man who admits to having hidden money in tax havens. In short, there more to Rupert Murdoch than meets the eye. Media Manipulator In 2003, Rupert Murdoch told a congressional panel that his use of "political influence in our newspapers or television" is "nonsense." But a close look at the record shows Murdoch has imparted his far-right agenda throughout his media empire. MURDOCH THE WAR MONGER: Just after the Iraq invasion, the New York Times reported, "The war has illuminated anew the exceptional power in the hands of Murdoch, 72, the chairman of News Corp⦠In the last several months, the editorial policies of almost all his English-language news organizations have hewn very closely to Murdoch's own stridently hawkish political views, making his voice among the loudest in the Anglophone world in the international debate over the American-led war with Iraq." The Guardian reported before the war Murdoch gave "his full backing to war, praising George Bush as acting 'morally' and 'correctly' and describing Tony Blair as 'full of guts'" for his support of the war. Murdoch said just before the war, "We can't back down now â I think Bush is acting very morally, very correctly." [New York Times, 4/9/03; Guardian, 2/12/03] MURDOCH THE NEOCONSERVATIVE: Murdoch owns the Weekly Standard, the neoconservative journal that employed key figures who pushed for war in Iraq. As the American Journalism Review noted, the circulation of Murdoch's Weekly Standard "hovers at only around 65,000. But its voice is much louder than those numbers suggest." Editor Bill Kristol "is particularly adept at steering Washington policy debates by inserting himself and his views into the discussion." In the early weeks of the War on Terror, Kristol "shepherded a letter to President Bush, signed by 40 D.C. opinion-makers, urging a wider military engagement." [Source: AJR, 12/01] MURDOCH THE OIL IMPERIALIST: Murdoch has acknowledged his major rationale for supporting the Iraq invasion: oil. While both American and British politicians strenuously deny the significance of oil in the war, the Guardian of London notes, "Murdoch wasn't so reticent. He believes that deposing the Iraqi leader would lead to cheaper oil." Murdoch said before the war, "The greatest thing to come out of this for the world economy...would be $20 a barrel for oil. That's bigger than any tax cut in any country." He buttressed this statement when he later said, "Once [Iraq] is behind us, the whole world will benefit from cheaper oil which will be a bigger stimulus than anything else." [Guardian, 2/17/03] MURDOCH THE INTIMIDATOR: According to Agence France-Press, "Rupert Murdoch's Fox News Channel threatened to sue the makers of 'The Simpsons' over a parody of the channel's right-wing political stanceâ¦In an interview this week with National Public Radio, Matt Groening recalled how the news channel had considered legal action, despite the fact that 'The Simpsons' is broadcast on sister network, Fox Entertainment. According to Groening, Fox took exception took a Simpsons' version of the Fox News rolling news ticker which parodied the channel's anti-Democrat stance with headlines like 'Do Democrats Cause Cancer?'" [Source: Agence France-Press, 10/29/03] MURDOCH THE NEWS EDITOR: Far-Right Partisan Just as Fox claims to be "fair and balanced," Rupert Murdoch claims to stay out of partisan politics. But he has made his views quite clear â and used his media empire to implement his wishes. As a former News Corp. executive told Fortune Magazine, Murdoch "hungered for the kind of influence in the United States that he had in England and Australia" and that meant "part of our political strategy [in the U.S.] was the New York Post and the creation of Fox News and the Weekly Standard." MURDOCH THE BUSH SUPPORTER: Murdoch told Newsweek before the war, Bush "will either go down in history as a very great president or he'll crash and burn. I'm optimistic it will be the former by a ratio of 2 to 1â¦One senses he is a man of great character and deep humility." [Newsweek, 2/17/03] MURDOCH THE BUSH FAMILY EMPLOYER: As Slate reports, Murdoch "put George W. Bush cousin John Ellis in charge of [Fox's] Election Night vote-counting operation: Ellis made Fox the first network to declare Bush the victor" even as the New Yorker reported that Ellis spent the evening discussing the election with George W. and Jeb Bush. After the election, Fox bragged that it attracted 6.8 million viewers on Election Night, meaning Ellis was in a key position to tilt the election for President Bush. [Source: Slate, 11/22/00; New Yorker, 11/20/00] MURDOCH THE NEW YORK CITY POLITICAL BOSS: The Columbia Journalism Review reported that during New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani's first term "News Corp. received a $20.7 million tax break for the mid-Manhattan office building that houses the Post, Fox News Channel, TV Guide and other operations. During Giuliani's 1997 reelection campaign, News Corp. was also angling for hefty city tax breaks and other incentives to set up a new printing plant in New York City. Most dramatically, Giuliani jumped in to aggressively champion News Corp. when it battled Time Warner over a slot for the Fox News Channel on Time Warner's local cable systemâ¦Three years into Giuliani's first term, veteran Village Voice political reporter Wayne Barrett asked Post editorial page editor Eric Breindel if the paper had run a single editorial critical of the administration; Breindel, he says, admitted it had not. According to Barrett, the paper pulled off a perfect four-year streak" of not one critical editorial. [Columbia Journalism Review, 6/98] Apologist for Repressive Regimes Rupert Murdoch thinks of himself as a staunch anti-communist. But a look at the record shows that when his own profits are on the line, he is willing to do favors for the most repressive regimes on the planet. MURDOCH THE PROPAGANDIST FOR DICTATORS: While Murdoch justifies his global media empire as a threat to "totalitarian regimes everywhere," according to Time Magazine, Murdoch actually pays the salary of a top TV consultant working to improve the Chinese government's communist state-run television CCTV. As Time notes, "nowadays, News Corp. and CCTV International are partners of sorts," exchanging agreements to air each other's content, even though CCTV is "a key propaganda arm of the Communist Party." [Source: Time Magazine, 7/6/04] MURDOCH THE ENABLER OF HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATORS: According to the LA Times, Murdoch had his son James, now in charge of News Corp.'s China initiative, attack the Falun Gong, the spiritual movement banned by the Chinese government after 10,000 of its followers protested in Tiananmen Square. With Rupert in attendance, James Murdoch called the movement a "dangerous" and "apocalyptic cult" and lambasted the Western press for its negative portrayal of China's awful human rights record. Murdoch "startled even China's supporters with his zealous defense of that government's harsh crackdown on Falun Gong and criticism of Hong Kong democracy supporters." Murdoch also "said Hong Kong democracy advocates should accept the reality of life under a strong-willed 'absolutist' government." It "appeared to some to be a blatant effort to curry favor" with the China's repressive government. [LA Times, 3/23/01] Shady Wheeler-Dealer From union busting to tax evading, Rupert Murdoch has established a shady business record that raises serious questions about his corporate ethics. MURDOCH THE UNION BUSTER: The Economist reported that in 1986 Murdoch "helped smash the British print unions by transferring the production of his newspapers to a non-union plant at Wapping in East London." The move "proved to be a turning-point in Britain's dreadful industrial relations." AP reported Murdoch specifically "slashed employment levels" at the union plant and said he would "dismiss the 6,000 striking workers" who were trying to force concessions out of the media baron. The London Evening Standard called the tactics "the biggest union-busting operation in history." [Sources: The Economist, 4/18/98; AP, 1/27/86; Evening Standard, 11/12/98] .
. SouthAmerica: On September 15, 2005 The Financial Times of London published a very good article about "China" by Martin Wolf - (In my opinion, Mr. Wolf is one of the best economists writing on economic matters for the major newspapers today). Here I am quoting a small part of his article as follows: âThough precedents are ominous, China's rise to greatness need not bring conflict Prospects for peace and prosperity between China and the USâ By Martin Wolf Financial Times of London - September 15 2005 Ours is the second era of economic globalisation since the dawn of the industrial revolution. The first began in the second half of the 19th century and ended with a series of political and economic disasters in the first half of the 20th. If such calamities are to be avoided this time, much will depend on relations between the US and a rising China. These two very different countries will have to co-operate closely in the decades, indeed centuries, to come. What are the chances of co-operative and harmonious relations, as pledged this week by their presidents? A start to the answer is that their similarities make the two powers natural rivals, while their differences make mutual understanding hard. Both are nationalistic and both have either fought (or are prepared to fight) to prevent secession. Historically, China was as proud of its cultural supremacy as the US is today. Their differences are less striking: the US is a creature of the European enlightenment; contemporary China emerges from an ancient agrarian empire. US government is constitutional; Chinaâs is autocratic. Americans have rights; the Chinese have duties. Americans worship freedom; the Chinese cherish stability. American governments are accountable to the people; Chinese governments are responsible for them⦠****** SouthAmerica: I usually enjoy reading most of his articles. Mr. Wolfâs article was very interesting, and if you can get hold of the entire article it will be worth reading it. .
. October 19, 2005 SouthAmerica: Please give me a break. China is preparing for war â Another Boogiemen bedtime story by Rummy. âToday Rumsfeld said China is raising global suspicion about its military intentionsâ Is he kidding or what? Letâs check the facts: The US Defense spending for 2005 is estimated to be around $ 520 Billion dollars. Since George W. Bush took office in Jan 2001, year after year the US defense spending has gone up. During the first five years of a Bush Administration the US has wasted over $ 2.1 Trillion dollars in defense spending. During that same period it is estimated that China spent $ 235 billion dollars in defense spending. Actual Defense Spending Four-year (4) period â January 2001 to December 2004: United States = $ 1.7 Trillion dollars China = $ 235 Billion dollars For the Year 2004 Only: United States = $ 475 Billion dollars China = $ 47 Billion dollars Note: The United States military spending for year 2004 represents over 50 percent of military spending worldwide. The United States is spending 10 times per year in military spending than the Chinese â just look at the actual figures for the year 2004. The United States government is doing this massive spending on credit. (Estimated US federal government annual budget deficit for 2005: $500 billion) Year 2004 US military budget for 2004 was $400 billion dollars plus another $ 75 billion related to Iraq and Afghanistan. This represents over 50% of military spending worldwide. By comparison, China spends around $ 47 billion in military spending for 2004. ********** AP â Associated Press â October 19, 2005 Rumsfeld: China Sending 'Mixed Signals' Rumsfeld Complains of `mixed Signals' From China, Lectures on Lessons of Democracy By ROBERT BURNS AP Military Writer BEIJING Oct 19, 2005 â Complaining of "mixed signals" from China, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said Wednesday the communist government must demonstrate more clearly its interest in improving U.S.-China relations. He also lectured party officials on the lessons of democracy and free speech. Rumsfeld cited a "rapid, non-transparent" buildup of the Chinese military and said this makes other countries, including the United States, wonder whether Beijing will hold to a peaceful path. On his first visit to China as defense secretary, Rumsfeld delivered an address to the Central Party School and fielded questions from several students and faculty members. The school is a key training ground for people the Communist Party considers its rising stars and future leaders. When one professor told Rumsfeld that China hears "different voices," or conflicting messages, from U.S. officials, Rumsfeld replied, "I hadn't noticed that." He went on to say that it is China, not the United States, that has sent conflicting signals about its future intentions. "So we see mixed signals and we seek clarification," Rumsfeld said. Chinese officials required U.S. reporters to leave the room after the initial exchange, as planned. Later, Rumsfeld was meeting with President Hu Jintao, a previous president of the Central Party School. In his prepared opening remarks, Rumsfeld said China is raising global suspicion about its military intentions by failing to acknowledge the true size of recent increases in its defense spending. Later, at a joint news conference at the Ministry of Defense, Rumsfeld's counterpart, Gen. Cao Gangchuan, said U.S.-China relations are strong, although he noted that it had been five years since an American secretary of defense visited China. He called Rumsfeld's visit a "big event." Asked about the Pentagon's assertion in a report to Congress last July that China has vastly understated its defense spending, Cao said it would be "simply impossible" to increase the budget on the scale cited by the Pentagon because China is focusing its resources on fighting domestic poverty. .
. December 20, 2005 SouthAmerica: The estimated size of Chinaâs economy has been revised up by 17 percent, but some economists expected that the revision would be between 20 to 25 percent. The question is: what these revised figures mean to companies that already sells to China a massive amount of natural resources? By any measure, the China economic transformation is a great story. It must be a lot of fun to work as an economist participating on this kind of massive scale of economic development. ********** The Financial Times - UK China revises size of economy up by 17% By Financial Times reporters Published: December 20, 2005 China on Tuesday announced that its economy was significantly larger than previous official measures following a national economic census that showed its thriving and mainly private service sector had been underestimated. The National Bureau of Statistics (NBS) raised the estimate for gross domestic product in 2004 to Rmb15,987bn (US$1,930bn), 16.8 per cent higher than the previous calculation of Rmb13,688bn. Of the increase of Rmb2,299bn, Rmb2,130bn had came from the tertiary sector, the bureau said, with services making up 40.7 per cent of GDP. The NBS said Chinaâs aggregate economy surpassed the size of Italyâs last year, making it the worldâs sixth-largest economy. The revision also showed that the economy was less reliant on investment and more driven by consumption than had been assumed, trends Chinese leaders have been trying to encourage. Among the reasons given for the revision, the NBS referred to the countryâs increasingly diverse âeconomic constituentsâ and specifically, the growing role of the private sector in the transport, storage, telecommunications, wholesale, retail, trade, food and beverage industries. The bureau said it would gradually revise GDP figures published since 1993 based on the new methodology used for last yearâs figures. The revision was in line with market expectation but Song Guoqing, a professor at Peking University, said earlier that a revision of up to 20 per cent would still be insufficient to capture the size of the economy. Private companies may continue to understate the size of their business in order to escape tax,â he said. .
Economists are glad for this new China. It is providing them with a new toy instead of competing with meteorologist for forecast accuracy (and losing most of the time).
In the 1980's I was working for the US government and worked with many native Chinese scientists. They were quite frank and open about Chinas plans, and how the country would develop over the next 20 years. When I discussed these topics with US government leaders they disregarded the threat and had no plan to respond to these initiatives. When I would bring up the topic of exporting information to a hungry competitor to US corporate leaders they were also, unconcerned and inactive on these topics. The china plan was simple: (1) China has the largest potential workforce in the world and the largest potential consumer / customer base in the world. Everyone will eventually need to do business in China and it will be on Chinas terms. (2) Once other firms established bases of employment in China there was no question that the country would simply emulate the technology as a base for their own technological and manufacturing expansion, and in a relatively short timeframe, they would displace the foreign companies with China owned enterprises. (3) China would use their economic and scientific development to develop their military and weapons programs and would be the worlds dominant player both commercialy and militarily. Well, we have seen great prograss on (1) and (2) and even on (3). I'm not sure that anyone in the US goverment or corporate america has concerns for all this beyond ensuring that they personally benefit from the current situation - often at the expense of current US jobs and future employement.
Now add to that the fact that Sun Tzu was a Chinese. It is known that the 5 point star means the 5 continents. The big 5 point star is surrounded (revered?) by the remaining 4 smaller stars. But, do not tremble, not yet. They also built the Great Wall. And all Chinese scholars will tell you that TO BE is more important than TO HAVE.