An excellent HTWW today, Andrew.

Some years ago, a short-term contract I was involved in basically entailed briefing a high-ranking executive of a Chinese telecoms-equipment firm to more effectively combat the "get with the global winners" campaign he would face in selling his company's products in the developing world.

Technically, the offerings from the 1st world equipment makers were no better than his own, but he had been taking a hiding at the closing stage, because the developing countries were being conditioned to believe that further aid might be in jeopardy if they didn't buy from the US/France/Germany/Japan, etc.

And so together we developed a "your choice is the past vs. the future" close, which, the very first time it was used, enabled his company to come from behind and make a sale.

A "Bejing Consensus" does appear to be forming along similar lines.

Beijing presents itself as the new up-and-comer making the running, focusing on its own development and the developent of its friends, and alludes that the US is tired, old, distracted, unfocused, and pissing the inheritance of its next several generations into the desert sands of Iraq.

True or not, one can see why it's an effective pitch.

Mark Harrison's Taiwan/China Theory/Future blog is, predictably, blocked in China.

>>Is the voice of mainstream, moderate Islam, or isn't it?

So wrote Goldenboy.

So, in the same spirit, I've a question for Goldenboy:

Have you stopped beating your wife?

You see, no matter how you answer that question, you're a wife-beater! Clever, eh? (Not!)

To move away from word-play, I will actually answer your question.

No, it isn't the voice of mainstream, moderate Islam, just as George Bush isn't the voice of mainstream, moderate America.

But wait a minute, your sophistry goes, isn't he the _leader_ of Islam in Australia? But wait a minute, I can only respond, isn't George Bush the _leader_ of America?

When leaders, in general, start to be the "voice" of their people, then your false dichotomy will make sense.

But that clearly isn't the case generally, and it's certainly not the case here.

There are Moslems in Australia who believe this nut, just as their are Jews in Australia who believe that women are "unclean" after their period and must be "purified", and just as their are Christians in Australia who believe that women shouldn't speak in church -- and, no doubt, athiests in Australia who believe that all "believers" should be diagnosed with a disease of the mind.

But to assign these whacko voices the role of "voice of their people" -- ignoring whatever political manouvering has led them to be temporarily in leadership positions, is just, well, whacko.

But you go ahead and enjoy word-play as a substitute for debate -- I'm sure you'll win more that way.

Is a $20 wine twice as good as a $10 generic?

Sure.

What about a $50 bottle -- twice as good as something in the $20 range?

Probably -- but not always.

At $100, will I taste twice the goodness of a $50 bottle?

Probably not. It will be "better" -- but not twice as good.

$200, twice as good as $100?

Certainly not. More like better nuances on the same theme.

More than $200?

Well, now you're in the territory of paying a whole lot more for very, very little extra.

Every engineer of every stripe, every scientist, surely every intelligent person on the planet knows this Law.

How is it that every wine article ever written uses three or more adjective-strewn pages explaining what can be summed up in a sentence?

I started reading this article dreading that the movie I'd enjoyed so much had come at some hideous cost, or was staged.

Everything in this article -- including the whiny television staffer who supposedly "lost her job" for not doing her job (duh!) -- simply bears out what a humane and brilliant comic genius Baron Cohen is, and what an enourmous amount of thought and effort went into the movie.

Not only is the film wickedly funny, but after reading the article it also appears no animals -- or people -- were unduly harmed making it.

I think I'll have to see it again!

>>A "Funkyzeit mit Bruno" movie, however, I'd stand in line for.

OH, ich auch! Ich auch for sure!

Here's Bruno talking with Pastor Quinn the "gay converter" -- possibly his finest moment:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jliqpVUkTco

-- the problem is people building houses too close to them.

That's what destroyed homes in Canberra -- in fact that's what destroys homes pretty much every summer in Australia -- and that's also what happened in California.

Poor planning is, sadly, everywhere.

That said, the eucalypt does have some pretty questionable "green" credentials for a plant.

You'd think any growing thing would automatically pass green muster, but with its root system poisoning the soil, and its agressive propagation, the mighty gum tree rather resembles, well, us.

Using 'em for biofuel? If the chemisty makes sense, sure! They grow fast, and as one of the sources you cited suggests, they grow in soil which is otherwise very poor.

Nice article, Andrew!