About your second point about Lind's characterization of Vietnam and Domino Theory. Mr. Lind is saying that Domino Theory was right...but that was the theory which everyone believed in at the time. The theory was not 100% wrong either. Anyway, you say "putting aside the not-insignificant fact that a victoriously reunified Vietnam did NOT embark upon a campaign of conquest which transformed all of southeast Asia into a bastion of communism. " However, shortly after winning the "American war", Vietnam invaded and occupied Cambodia. It then commited ethnic cleansing against its Chinese population. So... you are somewhat wrong here. It DID embark upon a campaign of conquest.

No one is saying that Vietnam is a threat now. The point was about how it was viewed at the time of McNamara and how that view had some validity.

I feel the article was too general. I am interested in pollution and waste in China. My interest is more personal though. The factory behind my last apartment here in Suzhou sometimes spewed noxious smelling gas. But I would like to get a more comprehensive picture of the problem.

On the other hand, letter writers got it wrong too.

There is income in-equality. However, the Poor in China, for the most part, are far better off than poor people in the United States. They have cheaper health-care (but not good health-care IMHO). They have families for support. They don't have crime like we have in the US. The don't have isolation. And the rural poor can grow their own food. Hunger is rare in China. And the government tries very hard to mitigate and decrease the income gap. However, for various reasons, so far the government is failing.

Another thing, 2ndGenerationPilot said:"nearly everything that can be recycled in China is." Almost. Should say anything that can be recycled for a profit in China is recycled. Plastic (non-PET plastic that is) and paper are not recycled to my knowledge.

Leftistgadfly wrote (in response to me):"It is true that the US has more social inequality than China. But this is overstating the case to the point of absurdity. A simple experiment: Offer a Chinese peasant a US immigrant visa, and offer an American welfare recipient a Chinese visa. Does anyone doubt which party would accept the offer, being fully informed of what their circumstances would be?"

Your hypothetical test does not make sense. A Chinese peasant, by definition, lives in the countryside and farms. They would not have any applicable skills in a US City. Most welfare recipients probably don't know how to farm, or do anything else in China. For this matter, most Chinese peasants don't know what they can do in a Chinese city.

Other comparisons. In Chinese towns, there is little crime, no drugs, cheap food (or self-grown food), cheap/ free housing. Poor peasants are not marginalized to the edges of society because their whole society is made up of poor peasants. Would poor Americans like the Chinese peasant lifestyle? Probably not. Would poor Chinese peasants like to be poor in America. Well...they think that no one is poor in America. But most likely they would have a much more difficult time being poor in an American city.

2ndGenerationPilot. OK. I guess maybe I'm wrong. But...no one separates paper from other garbage here. People come by and pick up bottles and cans. But never paper. Individual residents don't recycle anything here accept bottles.

"China recycles _so much_ paper that 1st world paper mills struggle to compete with China buying up all the scrap it can get its hands on."

I do not consider industrial - by-product recycling to be the same as residential wast recycling. Do you? If you are talking about this, then you are including scrap-metal recycling, residue plastic recycling (from injection molding shops) etc. China buys up all the scrap silicon from wafer cutting operations, to be re-melted down and made into solar-cells. China recycles this because there is profit in it. BUT, the government does not promote recycling through tax incentives...my point stands; recycling in China takes place only where there is money to be made. It does not take place for environmental reasons. The newspapers and scrap paper that people through-out here are not collected. Card-board boxes are collected.

1. I'm in China. Chinese people where slippers everywhere, as long as the slipper / sandal has a back-strap. Chinese people with money are buying Crocs like crazy. There are retail stores everywhere. Fake Crocs are everywhere. At least, everywhere in South of the Yangzi, on the coast (Shanghai, Suzhou, Xiamen, Guangzhou). Why? I think because, as the article said, its waterproof and quick-drying (in the South of China it rains and is humid). Also, Chinese people care alot about their feet. So, what I'm getting at is that whether or not the fad has ended in the US, sales are going strong in other nations.

2. They are far from indestructable. The sole wears out quick. Yes...the top part does not wear...which is good. But the bottom part gets worn down on my feet in about 4 months.

3. They are expensive. But only when compared to throw-away sandals.

4. I do not think they are ugly at all. BUT, they don't feel right for many people and are not performance shoes.

I'm not knowledgeable about this. But I thought that:

1. It still requires a hospitalization- not an out-patient medication- thus very expensive in America. Correct or no?

2. Is it not widely used in China?

Symbian has (almost) out-sold all the phones you mentioned...combined. The chant is always about iphone or Andriod. What about the facts?