Good point. Woodblock printing was invented much earlier in China but you can imagine how much more difficult it is to print in a language that uses thousands of pictograms than it is to print in Latin, which uses an alphabet.

Okay I understand what you are trying to say now. Thanks for the explanation. But really, just because other civilizations don't copy things from the rest of Asia doesn't mean that the rest of Asia stamped out the creativity gene. I honestly think the phenomenon you describe is just one of the effects from colonialism and globalization, which essentially generated a situation where Western things are viewed as better and more creative. And currently most people adopt Western ideas, institutions and technology to advance economically, not because their own cultures are not creative, but because of economic dependence on the West.

If you read my post you will see that I did notice you said Asian, not Chinese. So what are you saying? That all other Asian countries copied everything from China? And how does copying preclude creativity?

Thanks for this review, Andrew Leonard. I get the sense that you have a special affinity with Needham but are amused by his goals as well. Nobody can explain why China fell behind the, nobody can explain what a culture "did wrong". Whatever happened in history was too complex for us to even attempt to understand. And then there are those like David Sugarman who make sweeping statements about Asian music, art and architecture and declare that Asian culture has a "nail that sticks up is hammered down" phenomenon. Almost always, these are people who have minimal, if any, understanding of Asian culture. Brace yourself for the slew of racist and anti-Chinese comments that are going to surface.

Kathleen Parker is a columnist for the National Review.

Parker's archive:

http://author.nationalreview.com/?q=NDU0Nw==

Achilleselbow's comments implied they were deleted.

And yes, truly disgusting and heartbreaking columns by Parker.

Do yourself a favor and read Glenn Greenwald's column on the ruling:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/05/15/california/index.html

Marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman. It is arrogant and self serving for two people of common gender to expect a reinterpretation of a tradition - indeed, in some cultures, a "sacrament" - that is so inherently fundamental and pure.

Firstly, if tradition is so important to you, then do you want to strip women of the right to vote and re-establish slavery as well?

One must distinguish between religious and civil marriage. The California SC ruling specifically said that "limiting the designation of a marriage to a union 'between a man and a woman' is unconstitutional and must be stricken from the statute, and that the remaining statutory language must be understood as making the designation of marriage available to both opposite-sex and same-sex couples."

The question was whether or not this unequal treatment of opposite-sex and same-sex couples were constitutional. This has nothing to do with tradition or succumbing to bigots like you who maintain that homosexuality is "a perverse, unnatural act".

You know what's perverse? What's perverse is that any man and woman who don't love each other and marry for convenience, money, or just for the hell of it get the full legal rights that come with marriage, while two members of the same sex who love each other don't have access to those same legal rights because they're told they're second class citizens.

was what I mean, not quite!

Haha, okay, I'll keep quite. You see, being a nonexistent pipe and all, I got all caught up in the semantics of the term "enlightened", which to me can't be relative by definition.

Actually, no, we don't have enlightened government in Canada. Chretien left a long time ago. Long story short, we now have Harper and the Tories.

You know, the age of consent was changed by the federal government from 14 to 16 recently. That is, for heterosexual sex. For gay sex, it's 18, no exceptions, period.

http://www.slapupsidethehead.com/2008/05/age-of-consent-changed/

Not enlightened at all, I'm afraid.

Thank you for your posts on the Benny Morris interview. Have you read Akiva Eldar's reflection in The Nation?

The problem of mainstream politicians and journalists in Israel--including the Zionist left--is that for years, present day included, they have accepted the conversion of the occupation into an annexation process. Leaders of the Labor Party and even the left-liberal Meretz turned a blind eye while government ministries and the military helped settlers take control of more and more territory. The trend, which contravenes international law, did not stop even after the Oslo Accords were signed in September 1993. At that time there were 110,000 Jews living in the settlements. Today, almost 280,000 Jews live on the West Bank and more than 200,000 over the Green Line in Jerusalem. Now the government expects the Palestinians to give up substantial parts of these occupied lands and allow it to impose Israeli law on them. Is this the behavior of a country on its way out of the occupied territories?

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080526/eldar

I agree with you. Who said anything about freedom of speech and democracy? Typical red herring arguments fundies use to shame you into letting them teach creationism. What, so free democratic countries will let creationism be taught in science classes and oppressive societies only let you teach evolution? Science is science. Leave politics out of it. It shouldn't matter what type of religious, political or moral values you attach to creationism; I expect that a student in America will learn the same scientific skills and knowledge that a student anywhere else is learning.