Asia Times Online

Letters

Please provide your name or a pen name, and your country of residence. Lengthy letters run the risk of being cut.

Please note: This Letters page is intended primarily for readers to comment on ATol articles or related issues. It should not be used as a forum for readers to debate with each other. The Edge is the place for that. The editors do not mind publishing one or two responses to a reader's letter, but will, at their discretion, direct debaters away from the Letters page.

[Re What's eating Thai Tesco?, May 3] I have just read your fascinating and detailed article on the Tesco Lotus story. At English PEN [According to the organization's websate: English PEN is the founding center of International PEN, a membership association with 144 branches in more than 100 countries, providing a supportive community for writers and readers around the world], we are among the free speech groups you cite who are opposed to Tesco Lotus' use of intimidating lawsuits to silence opposition. Our campaign is a result of our opposition to criminal defamation laws, which are universally criticized by human rights watchdogs from the UN to the EU, including the Asian Human Rights Commission, which has called on the Thai government to repeal this archaic law. It worries us enormously that a British-based corporation is using, and thereby endorsing, the threat of imprisonment against critics. This endorsement may have a knock-on effect, strengthening other regimes which violate the free speech rights of their citizens. However, we share Tesco's belief that free speech is not an absolute right. We would take very seriously any information which linked [names withheld] to the violent incidents against Tesco Lotus which you note in your opening paragraphs. I would also be interested to hear any evidence which shows that they are simply protecting the vested interests of powerful trading groups, as you intimate. In the absence of any such evidence, we have to conclude that Tesco is acting against mere criticism, using local laws to silence critics who would be free to speak out in the USA, UK and other European states. This disproportionate approach is severely out of step with their own stated commitment to human rights, and, as you conclude, risks damaging their long-term interests in the region.
Jonathan Heawood (May 9, '08)
Director, English PEN

I keep hearing Western media and other ATol contributors and bloggers claim that there was a Chinese "crackdown" on Tibet on March 14. What I saw in the pictures in the periodicals and TV programs were the scenes where Tibetans monks and civilians were kicking down stores (most likely owned by Han or other Chinese), setting vehicles and buildings on fire and beating up people. Can any of you tell me why the term "crackdown" was used and what was the rationale? "Crackdown" means the unproportioned use of force and I only saw much restraint on the part of Chinese police and paramilitary. I personally felt that the Chinese police and paramilitary were too soft on the rioters. If I were the commander, I would have used the same degree of riot control as practiced in Nepal and India during that period of disturbance by the Tibetans.
Wendy Cai USA (May 9, '08)

I think the article Democrats do have a nominee by Muhammad Cohen [May 6] was oversimplistic at best, and biased at worst. As an Indian studying in the US here is what I have observed from the relentless election coverage on all TV channels that is impossible to escape: When Obama says something vague and fluffy, lacking any substance, the media portrays it as a message of hope, and a better tomorrow. When [Hillary] Clinton says something nearly identical we are told that that she is all talk, just a politician, more of the same, old wine in a new bottle, etc. In particular, the conservative sections of the media have attacked Clinton 10 times harder than Obama. I get the feeling that they consider her a far more credible threat, and want to knock her out as quickly as possible. They seem to be quietly confident in their ability to shred Obama to pieces once the real contest begins - and that really worries me. It's pretty much certain now that Obama will be the democratic nominee, and I just hope that he doesn't end up victimized like Al Gore or John Kerry. The last few elections have been pretty much gifted to the Republicans by the media through completely biased reporting. I just hope Obama is not a lamb being fattened for slaughter - so far the media have given him a fairy tale ride (it seems too good to be true for a Democrat), but then the real nastiness of the real election is yet to begin - and that's where the Republicans shine! In the worst case, we may be looking at four or eight years of McCain - and he'll want to make Americans forget the Iraq war by starting another one in Iran!
Amit Sharma
Cincinnati, Ohio (May 9, '08)

Barry Herman's suggestion [in G7 loses grip on global policy, May 9] to the Outreach 5 has merit, but, like all good intentions, it won't bring order to an incoherent and anarchic world economic climate. The subprime virus has spread widely, and with each passing day it is tilting events towards the catastrophic, be it in rising fuel prices or hikes in basic food prices which can and will threaten the stability of nations. According to US Secretary of the Treasury Hank Paulson the light is at the end of the tunnel of economic turbulence. He makes this pronouncement with a straight face, but economic and market forces turn it into a joke. A forum won't solve matters for the simple and plain reason that the strong will dominate the weak, and the G8 is loathe to cede authority to the oil-producing countries nor to wealthy Southeast Asia and China which are not immune to whimsy of finance capital. Unless there is determined political will and steel resolve to coordinate policy and regulations, little if any good can come out of a laborious process which Herman is envisioning. Or, to put it less finely, a catastrophic worldwide depression obtains.
Nakamura Junzo
Guam (May 9, '08)

In response to letter writer Tang's question of why "a country that is more than 80% Christian loves to invade other countries", I’d like to direct his (her) attention to one Niccolo Machiavelli, who once stated, "He who has once begun to live by rapine always finds reasons for taking what is not his." People reared in an environment of comfort and luxury will not voluntarily give up that lifestyle, a point also observed by Julian Delasantellis in Fuel tax cut running on empty [May 7]. As such, they are more than willing to get behind a government that kills and plunders in order to maintain the easy way of life. No amount of religious teaching will ever be sufficient to make these people see otherwise. (Yes, the majority of Americans are now against the Iraq War, but that's only because it is not going well. The Vatican, on the other hand, has been sternly opposed to the US invasion from day one.) In the end, a bouleversement in American attitudes and behaviors can be affected only when the cost of sustaining profligacy outstrips the "utility" derived from wasteful habits. That cost, however, is rising fast.
John Chen
USA (May 8, '08)

Cinco de Mayo has come and gone, but like many Americans I raised a glass (or two, or was it three?) of Mexican fire water to honor those brave patriots who routed French invaders in 1862. Part of my fascination with stories like this involves that adage "History doesn't always repeat itself, but it usually rhymes." The story of this dreary attempt at empire can be summarized by the following stages:
1. A popular leader of a rich and powerful nation invents a flimsy excuse to invade a weaker country, racked by civil unrest and dissent.
2. The invading nation's eager populace is told that its conquering heroes will be greeted as liberators.
3. The invaders find native collaborators who help set up a puppet government to welcome the occupiers.
4. Most of the natives, however, violently resist the invasion, and a massive guerilla insurrection begins.
5. The invaded country's largest neighbor is opposed to the unwarranted aggression, but "officially" stays neutral, all the while offering clandestine assistance to the insurgents.
6. The war drags on, consuming more blood and treasure from the invader, whose populace becomes increasingly opposed to this (now deemed ) "reckless adventure".
7. The invader's leader, weary of the political and financial costs, abandons his stooge puppet by withdrawing all troops.
8. The puppet's weak army falls apart, and their leader is executed by the victorious insurgency.
9. A few years later, the invader's leader is captured in a war he once again foolishly precipitated without cause. He is forced to abdicate, and his country experiences a revolution. His empire is finished, and his name disgraced forever.
Of course, the invader in this case was France, its leader the buffoonish Emperor Napoleon III, the puppet was Maximilian of Austria, Mexico the invaded country, and the USA of Abe Lincoln its supportive neighbor. But as my thinly disguised attempt at analogy hopefully demonstrated, there are remarkable similarities with more recent attempts at ill-advised imperialism. That criminal enterprise is now at Stage 6, with the cowboy version of Napoleon ready to turn his stupidity over to his unlucky successor, who will have to agonize over Stage 7 and 8. History will record whether some variant of Stage 9 is avoided. If only our Crawford Emperor could have had his Sedan.
Hardy Campbell
Houston, Texas (May 8, '08)

In reference to "Myanmar courts political disaster by Brian McCartan [May 8]. The Burmese military junta is unconcerned with the sufferings of the people and if it were not for the 120-mph Cyclone Nargis that devastated the country, it would have been the military regime's unending brutal action that lays waste to hundreds of villages every year, creating homeless and displacing people in thousands. These military rulers are ruthless, cruel, incompetent and an irrational lot who because of their lust for power have never made any contingency plan in the event of this kind of havoc and emergency. Even now they are hindering the relief work, refusing or delaying to grant visas to relief agencies, restricting journalists access to affected areas and medical aid reaching [those] stranded in the remotest places. This brutal junta considers this disaster as a serious threat to their rule and their prime concern is probably how to crush any political dissent that lay in awaiting. This brutal regime's self-imposed isolation, later abetted by Western sanctions, has hurt the regime and in consequence the poor people. But it never concerned the military's brutal rulers for the last forty six years. [The] only thing, they are good at is killing innocent Burmese and not providing them with relief work in dire emergencies like this; nor employment or food in normal times. At least, President G W Bush managed to respond after three days of long sleep when hurricane Katrina struck, but these generals faltering response was despicable. They prefer isolation and are more concerned with monks protests, [and the] political consequence of the constitutional referendum - not with the dire humanitarian crisis affecting the poor Burmese living in open skies without food, water, medicine or shelter. If the military rulers have a little compassion, they can come out from their self-inflicted crippling isolationist shell and show a gesture of reconciliation with the people.
Saqib Khan
UK (May 8, '08)

[Re Bait and switch in Russia?, May 8] Why would ATol publish US government propaganda - and it's a domain of public knowledge that Chloe Arnold's employer is merely a State Department and Pentagon mouthpiece - is beyond me. In fact, the whole article is nothing more than a "bait and switch" in itself. The premise of the article was first pioneered eons ago by professional Russophobes, regurgitated by Western media countless times since then, and finally, when everyone else moved on, is getting stove-piped by a US-financed Cold War outlet that should have died along with the Berlin Wall, but didn't. The technique of these writings is also extremely primitive. So primitive, in fact, that Chloe Arnold's being in Moscow is clearly a waste of US taxpayer's money. One can make this stuff up without leaving Topeka, Kansas, or Chattanooga, Tennessee. Just come up with some easily understood anti-Russian idea, then dial the number of two Muscovites on the US payroll - Aleksei Malashenko from the Carnegie Center, and Yevgeny Volk from the Heritage Foundation - and you've got a perfect echo chamber, well suitable for all of your propagandistic needs. The contact data of Malashenko and Volk - and few other "Russian opinions for hire" purveyors - are on every Russia-hater's rolodex. They know exactly what Americans want to hear, and they'll say it every time, without fail. The information value of this article is a big round zero. Even as propaganda it's not all that good anymore. It's too tired. There is no spunk, no oomph, no joy of lying. Only a number of words to be invoiced to US Congress.
Oleg Beliakovich
Seattle (May 8, '08)

Regarding Beijing treads a Tibetan tightrope [May 8] by Fong Tak-ho, I told you the Dalai Lama would switch sides (my letter, April 1). The riots were a predictable success in garnering Western support, but not where it counts most, in Tibet. The "peaceful protests" became violent after the militants failed to rally the common public, and then the Dalai Lama had no choice but to disentangle himself, threatening to "resign". This threat to resign is precisely the message the Chinese authorities wanted to hear, and it is completely ignored in Fong's article. He does mention however (but without elaboration), that the Dalai Lama's envoys, Lodi Gyari and Kelsang Gyaltsen, are regarded as "traitors" by the militants. Why again? Because they don't yet dare call His Holiness himself a traitor, of course. Tibet is for China far more important than the Olympics. Any boycott will be blamed by the Chinese public on the West(ern media), not on their government. That's the weak point in the whole scheme. Karma always boomerangs, they say. Impressive letter by Reverend Vincent Zankin, May 7, by the way.
Migrant Worker Tiemujin
Luxembourg (May 8, '08)

Tsenam [letters, May 7] is parroting the Western media's line that demonstrations by Chinese are orchestrated by the Chinese government. This view is completely false. Demonstration regarding the deliberate bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade, the one against the constant visitation of [former Japanese prime minister Junichiro] Koizumi to the war shrine, and the protests in front of the Carrefore stores should all but tell you that Chinese protests are spontaneous. By continuing to turn a blind eye, Western media fail to see that China is surely showing it is giving its people the rights to speech, assembly and religious beliefs.
Wendy Cai
USA (May 8, '08)

[Re Beijing treads a Tibetan tightrope, May 8] China's decision to meet with emissaries of the Dalai Lama in Shenzen is an act of desperation. Cloaked in the wooden language of Beijing bureaucrats as step towards contact and consultation, it won't lead to anything of consequence. China wants to save its reputation and not open the 2008 Summer Olympic Games in Beijing with egg on its face. And so to spare China from world opprobrium for its colonial policy in Tibet, Beijing chose to swallow hard and mount a dog-and-pony show of its sincerity in wanting to put the Tibetan devil it has created behind it. You'd have thought that such a decision to meet the Tibetans would be guided by caution and a closed mouth. Well, you guessed wrong, for at the very moment that such talks are in progress China's president Hu Jintao who's on a state visit of kissing and making up with Japan, is tarring and feathering with the brush of splittism the Dalai Lama. Which, coming from on high of the Chinese Communist Party's nomenklatura, is a sure sign that Beijing lacks any meaningful desire to deal with the Tibetans. It is pure smoke and blue mirrors to take the heat off Beijing. Japanese Prime Minister Fukuda saw through this ploy for he did criticize to Mr Hu's face China's brutality in Tibet. Like Cain, Mr Hu's China will bear for all to see the Tibetan brand on its reputation.
Mel Cooper
Singapore (May 8, '08)

[Re The heart has its own unreason, May 6] Spengler suggests Iran is desperately searching for allies in his critique on the joint declaration signed by the Vatican and a group of Iranian clerics attesting to the benefits of reason. However, the other side of the coin is that this declaration does not mean the Vatican has no grand designs of its own. In his 2006 address in Regensburg, Pope Benedict XVI made reference to a dialogue on the subject of Christianity and Islam between the "erudite" Byzantine emperor, Manuel II Paleogus, and an "educated Persian". After explaining how the emperor had reasoned that spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable, the pope then seized on the fact that the emperor, who was "shaped" by Greek philosophy, used the word "logos" when referring to reason. From a Christian standpoint, "logos" is a doubly charged theological term. The pope refers to its usage in the opening verse of the Gospel of John, which states: "In the beginning was the word ["logos"], and the word was with God and the word was God." This verse marks the high point of Christian theology in its polemic against Judaism, whereby the "logos", which is later identified as Jesus Christ, is affirmed as being none other than divine and co-eternal with God (the Father). It is therefore highly presumptuous of the pope to agree with the Iranian clerics that both faith and reason are "gifts to humanity", since human reason is honored by Christians only by virtue of it having as its divine embodiment the second person of the Trinity (deduced retrospectively from the doctrine of the incarnation). It is also why St Paul writes to believers that "we have the mind of Christ". Of course, this is all anathema to the strict monotheism of Islam. But what Spengler and his co-apologists for Christendom's intrinsic superiority want us to believe is that nothing will stand in the way of Iran's eventual obliteration.
Reverend Dr Vincent Zankin
Canberra (May 7, '08)

The current crises in Tibet has given Chinese people a fleeting opportunity to fight for their own freedom. The Chinese government has allowed Chinese people to organize, mobilize and in some cases even supported (if not incited) them to demonstrate their frustration. I believe Chinese people should use this opportunity to fight for their own freedom of press, religious freedom, human rights and transparency. These calls in the short run may embarrass China but in the long run it will only strengthen the country. Today, Chinese people in the continual spirit of nationalism have the best chance of being heard. Once the Olympic Games are over and the dust settles it will be again near impossible for the ordinary Chinese person's voice to be heard.
Tsenam (May 7, '08)

Newly elected South Korean President Lee Myung-bak is either a savvy or a foolhardy leader of his nation. He is willing to brave public outcry at his decisions. His agreement with US President George W Bush to allow the resumption of US beef imports to Korea as of May 15 tips the scales one way or the other depending on one's political optic. Donald Kirk's article [South Korean beef overcooked, May 6] does test the waters of public opinion. The issue of mad cow disease is but a smokescreen for the latent, but close to the surface, anti-Americanism that pulsates through South Korea's history.
Mel Cooper
Singapore (May 7, '08)

[Re South Korea's Sunshine policy strikes back, May 7] The Lee Myung-bak government, Sunny Lee reports, stands on the principles of reciprocity and pragmatism in South-North Korean discussions. To Lee's understanding, the Sunshine policy established 10 years ago by the then president Kim Dae-jung has been more pragmatic and much less than reciprocal. He intends to even the score. By doing so he has shunted the Sunshine policy from its appointed route. He may soon have to downplay his hard-nosed approach, it seems. Mr Lee is very well aware of the slow but fruitful steps the province of South Gangwon has made in opening, thanks to the Sunshine policy, with North Gangwon province. Outsiders do not know that half of that province lies in the South, the other in the North. The much overused phrase "confidence-building measures" applies with a renewed freshness in looking at the relationship of South and North Gangwon provinces in the bright daylight of the momentarily halted Sunshine policy. This meeting of the minds of the split province is based on transparency, mutual benefit, and mutual trust. It is grounded firmly in pragmatism, and has found a reciprocal echo from North Gangwon. In fact, the two provincial governors have met in the North, and have agreed on programs of salmon fisheries, control of forest pests and cultural exchanges. The Gangwon province may ... serve Mr Lee with a template for re-engaging Pyongyang. Sooner or later, he is going to have to reverse gears and talk with Kim Jong-il pragmatically, but with words that will approximate his own motto of reciprocity and pragmatism.
Nakamura Junzo
Guam (May 7, '08)

Dennis O'Connell's most recent letter commenting on Da Wei's article China's pride versus Western prejudice [May 2] ends on a catchy line, but it is unfortunately rigidly ideological and simplistic in its approach to the issue. First, about Tibet itself. Just what is so "fake" about China's choice for the Panchen Lama? The central government of China has had a strong say in picking who is the Panchen Lama and the Dalai Lama for centuries. After all, these were both political as well as religious positions. They have been imposed and deposed by victorious armies several times throughout their history. Mr O'Connell's writes that China seeks not a partner but a vassal in the Dalai Lama. Of course, China is not going to share sovereignty over Tibet with the so-called "government-in exile". If the Dalai Lama was only interested in the preservation of Tibetan tradition in the face of relentless modernization (an issue that the rest of China also has to deal with), he would drop the whole "government-in exile" business and negotiate solely from his religious position as the most important leader of Tibetan Buddhism, as the Papacy did with the young Italian state. Like many Western intellectuals, Mr O'Connell hangs far too much on the word "democracy" as some magical incantation to dispel evil. Maybe he is not afraid of the Indian state because it has a parliamentary democracy, but apparently sizable numbers of Muslim Kashmiris, Assamese, and the poor farmers and tribals joining the Naxalites seem to believe that they have a great deal to fear from that state, democracy or not. Any Latin American 100 years ago who proclaimed that his people should have nothing to fear from the US because it has democracy, or an Arab or Iranian saying the same thing 50 years ago, would by now have been proven tragically mistaken. The truth of the matter is that what the US has had since the end of World War II is not "democracy" as in "rule by the majority" (the closest modern example being Switzerland), but a mixture of democracy, plutocracy, and militarism with the balance favoring the latter two. Yes, the US generally respects religious freedom, though when the religious get too uppity, as was the case with the early Mormons and the Branch Dravidians, the great "democracy" is no longer so generous. The US has long since changed from the limited union of republican states of its birth to the greedy worldwide military/financial empire that is growing more hated by its restless subjects by the day. The US has an admirable constitution, but words on paper are only meaningful if the power relations of the day still allow them to be meaningful. Mr O'Connell, that day for the US has long since passed into history. Ironically, it is China's foreign policy that hews much more closely to George Washington's warning to seek commerce with all but enmity with none. Mr O'Connell's words remind me of the stereotype of the over-intellectualized Confucian scholar of the past, pining about how the Emperor rules by virtue because that is what the classics teach, while in fact the people groan under oppression. The world has much more to fear from the US than it does from China.
Jonathan X (May 7, '08)

Responding to Democrats do have a nominee [May 6], Mr Cohen suggests that "Clinton's attacks have boosted Obama's unfavorable ratings". This is misleading. Obama has been hurt by his own gaffe, his comment made about voters clinging to guns, religion, people different from themselves, and anti-trade sentiment. Obama has been hurt by Reverend Wright's videos, and his assertion that AIDS was manufactured by the US government to destroy African-Americans. The media is gunning for Obama, and it has little to do with Clinton. In my opinion, Clinton's attacks usually founder, and it probably hurt her ... Mr Cohen is also quite certain that Clinton's continued run is hurting the party. It is true, the math is heavily against her. But over 1 million new Democrats have registered in the last seven primaries. Moreover, we cannot be certain whether the animosity some Clinton supporters hold against Obama will survive until the November general election. Mr Cohen states: "The Clintons and their campaign will mount a convention floor fight to seat [Florida and Michigan's] delegations and count their votes." In my opinion, that is very unlikely. Indeed, only the most anti-Clinton Obama supporters hold such views here. Moreover, Howard Dean recently told Jon Stewart that Florida and Michigan were going to be represented at the convention, but it's only a matter of how the delegates would be tallied.
Big Brown
Louisville, Kentucky, USA (May 6, '08)

Regarding Dennis O'Connell's letter on May 5: "Granted, what China is doing is less immoral than what the United States did to the American Indians; however, those actions where over 120 years ago, not last week ... " wrote O'Connell. Not so, O'Connell! The single most impoverished county in the USA, with a life-expectancy of around 40, is the Pine Ridge Sioux Indian Reservation, in South Dakota. Activists there recently declared independence, by the way. (See http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/12/21/5946/) I'll be interested to see how much support they get from US Tibetophiles.
Lester Ness (May 6, '08)

Responding to China's pride versus Western prejudice by Da Wei [May 2], the views of Dennis O'Connell [letters, May 5] appear to be far more simplistic. So, it is the "international norm" to ride a car round and round on public streets to eavesdrop and photograph a certain private house? But the main point of discussion concerns Tibet. The latter used to be governed by a religious-political system headed by the Dalai Lama who was chosen when still a child by some mysterious process as the reincarnation of Buddha. That explains the historical volumes of events of murder and premature deaths in the imperial palace of Lhasa due to intrigue and plotting. The system of serfdom, when the Dalai Lama ruled, is more feudalistic than the caste system in old India. Mr O'Connell is correct on one point: China does intend to rule Tibet just as another province. China intends to assimilate Tibetans like 50-odd other minorities within the country. Historically, so much political and cultural assimilation has been achieved in so many countries that cannot be reversed and is no longer called for. Right now the Dalai Lama's government-in-exile is being supported by the West and plans to toe the middle road for initial limited autonomy. He is being challenged by the Tibetan Youth Congress which is much more eager to attain power quickly by whatever means, including violence and armed revolt, and which is being cheered on by you know whom.
Seung Li (May 6, '08)

Dennis O'Connell's letter [May 5] makes me laugh. The US killed the Indians, but because it happened a long time ago, it's OK and let's forget the whole thing. When he says there is a new morality now, does he mean the morality the US used to invade Iraq for its oil and then one million Iraqis died? And why didn't China have the right to check the US spy plane to see what spy information was collected by the plane? I don't understand one thing, how come a country that is more than 80% Christian loves to invade other countries and kill people? What do Americans like Dennis O'Connell say to their god on Sunday? Please give me the bravery to bring democracy to other people and take their natural resources. [And] if they don’t listen, let me kill them to save their soul. I don't know a lot about things like "do onto others as you would have them do unto you", but I know what goes around comes around, and on Judgment Day, God doesn't play favorites.
Tang (May 6, '08)

[Re How under-the-gun Iran plays it cool, May 3] As ever, Pepe Escobar writes with a degree of knowledge and intellectual curiosity which puts most commentators in the shade. If I might be bold enough to add a few points: In the case of Iran, the Iranian psyche was deeply scarred by the US and its support for every autocrat who preceded the Ayatollah. The average Iranian (and I don't count those in the US who are agitating for the return of the Peacock Throne) is deeply skeptical of the US. It is entirely debatable as to whose feet are being held to the fire and at whose whim - the US in Iraq or the Iranians by US encirclement? An exasperated Winston Churchill, who had taken over the mantle of Britain's colonial policies in the Middle East, was to tell the British government that it was spending millions for the privilege of sitting atop a volcano. Lamenting on the British experience in Iraq, the "last lion" was to write, "At first, the steps were wide and shallow, covered with a carpet, but in the end the very stones crumbled under their feet." Sure, we go bomb Iran a few times and it will look good on the 6 o'clock news and President Bush gets a "Mission Accomplished" sticker and, heck, then its the next president's problem.
Aly-Khan Satchu (May 6, '08)

I saw "Iron Man" last week and joined millions in enjoying the pyrotechnics and CGI wizardry. But I wonder how many Americans appreciated the symbolism inherent in the storyline. An American tycoon, Tony Stark, has made billions in manufacturing and exporting all kinds of non-nuclear weapons. One of his sobriquets is "Merchant of Death," a title he does not eschew. When he arrives in Afghanistan to demonstrate yet another example of American techno-know-how, his reputation as a playboy and cynical military-industrialist has made him a household icon of US profligacy and arrogance. So, when he is captured by non-Taliban, non-al-Qaeda freebooting thugs (curious why Hollywood avoided using extant villains), he is faced with a choice: build a missile in a cave or die. Once again, he shows how resourceful Americans are even in dire circumstances in conjuring up effective anti-bad-guy inventions with hardly more than a hammer and barbecue pit. However, as a nod to America's needs for indigenous assistance, he is provided a Western-educated Afghan assistant, who conveniently knows open-heart surgery, six languages and is pretty handy with electronics. When Stark completes his Iron Man armor, his brave and loyal aide sacrifices himself in order for the man who helped wreck his country to escape. Arriving back in America, Stark reveals, to Wall Street's chagrin, that he is a changed man. He has seen the destructive fruits of his labors and is determined to change his errant ways. While his company's stock plummets, Tony suspends all weapons manufacturing. But the nefarious Obadiah, who helped Tony's father create the Stark empire, has other plans, all of which involve a dead Tony Stark. So the movie concludes with twin Iron Men battling it out, and no one wins any prizes for guessing who wins. It would be too much of a stretch to suggest that Tony Stark represents a repentant Bush or Cheney, eager to correct their foolish and heartless belligerence. But Stark does allow us to see how the results of our indifference to the suffering caused by reckless American actions. He sees it up close and personal (though I might add that even this film sanitizes war and mayhem to that of Saturday morning cartoonery.) And in the image of an "educated" native Muslim giving up his life for Tony, we see the forlorn hope that the Western democratic culture is worth sacrificing for. The least Tony can do is come back in his impressive red-and-gold suit to kick bad guy booty and save the natives who so desperately need a white man's assistance. And herein lies the bankruptcy of Stark's redemption; his solution to redeeming a lifetime of creating instruments of violent death is creating yet another instrument of violence. Perhaps in an unintended ironic comment on the dilemma of being a superpower, Tony cannot envision a world where the alternative to fighting violence is non-violence. What's the use of having all this money and power if you can't use it? Obadiah's treachery is a stark (excuse the pun, I couldn't resist) reminder that capitalism has no morality and will resort to any means to preserve profits. But those means are essentially the same ones Stark employs in his Iron Man suit. The "bad' Iron Man housing Obadiah is bigger and darker than Stark's smaller and shinier "good" Iron Man. But they are both using the same American predilection for violent solutions. At the end, one is a winner, the other a loser, and that's all the morality most Americans need to see in their movies. And wars.
Hardy Campbell
Houston, Texas (May 6, '08)

[Re Al-Qaeda searches for unity in Iraq, May 2] Michael Scheurer needs to further explain how efforts to create a Sunni-Shi'ite civil war by al-Qaeda's former frontman in Iraq, the late Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, differ from Ayman al-Zawahiri's latest call for unity amongst Iraq's Sunni Arabs. Al-Qaeda's second in command, al-Zawahiri, is quoted as damning all Shi'ites as "Arab apostates" and deriding Muqtada al-Sadr as a "naive boy" who is being used by "Iranian intelligence ... as a puppet". Similarly, just days before his assassination, al-Zarqawi produced a four-hour-long audiotape in which he repeatedly cursed Shi'ites as apostates and as collaborators with the US-led occupiers. Scheurer's problem is his failure to recognize that what is happening in Iraq is part of a much wider picture, consisting of the fateful triangle: al-Qaeda, Iran and the US. All three corners of this triangle are strongly opposed to each other, and there will be no end in sight until there is some sort of strategic coalition forged between two of the parties. Clearly, the only option is for Iran and the US to form a strategic partnership in order to bring al-Qaeda's divisive influence in Iraq to an end. Such a partnership would also address the crises in Syria, Lebanon and the Palestinian territories, and it would help alleviate the need for the US to arm Sunni Arab states with nuclear weapons to counter Iran's current nuclear ambitions.
Reverend Dr Vincent Zankin
Canberra (May 5, '08)

[Re Iran moving into the big league, May 3] The much sought after pipeline that will run from Iran to the ports of Pakistan and India will have to be laid partly in Afghanistan, if my sense of geography is correct. Anyone knows that war is raging in that country, and what's more it is historically a patch-quilt of jealously guarded warrior fiefdoms regardless of ideology, not to speak of dagger-drawn ethnic minorities. The idea of a pipeline to the Indian subcontinent has a sugar plum flavor to it; to realize it, it would require not only the absence of war, but the suborning of tribal and religious warlords and leaders, and putting into place a modern viable infrastructure which on one hand would strengthen and extend the hand of the central government in Kabul to all parts of the country, and on the other hand, challenge the power of the tribes. The record level price of a barrel of oil which has fallen a few dollars shy of $115, favors running a pipeline from Iran to Pakistan and India. Yet the geopolitical facts on the ground say that it may very well turn out to be a pipe dream.
Nakamura Junzo
Guam (May 5, '08)

Regarding my letter of May 2, I knew my little puzzle would inspire you. Intellectuals love encryption. But instead of "racism", you should have more accurately referred to "apartheid", because the original meaning of "kaffer" (kafir) outside old Afrikaans is just "infidel". That's exactly the point: you can see a new global apartheid evolving, spearheaded by people like Cafferty and now with Chinese instead of blacks targeted.
Tiemujin G (May 5, '08)

[Re Grrrl power Asia, hear it growl, May 3]. The sexual liberation of [the feminist] revolution has in most cases harmed women in the West and globally more than men, and sexuality that has been freed benefits men more than women. In the West, she is a bare commodity for selling and buying not in the stock market but on every street corner, whorehouses and public places. Promiscuity has harmed women more than men as they are biologically and physiological different: women carry the burden of pregnancy ... while the male releases himself unaffected. When the USS Acadia returned from the Gulf War, a tenth of its female crew members had already returned to America because of pregnancy aboard what became known as the Love Boat. Another consequence of the sexual revolution has been an increase in infidelity, and a consequent rise in divorce and single parenthood. Again, it is women who have shouldered most of the burden. One in four British families in 2007 is headed by a single parent; in 1971, it was twelve, 1986 one in seven and it's gotten worse ever since. Another consequence has been the pain of solitude. It is estimated that by 2020, a third of all British households will be headed by a female. Very few now believe in the institution of marriage and prefer to live in sin without a contract and with complete freedom to change and relish many sexual partners. A further area in which women seem to have found themselves commercialized and degraded rather than liberated in the decadent Western way of life is pornography which brings annual revenue of nearly 30 billion pounds ... Pornography is exploited in the fashion industry largely controlled by men who want women to be bare naked for a public spectacle largely for men. Plastic surgeons are making billions out of depressed women who want to look better than any one they see in a woman magazine or walking on the street. As Dolly Parton says, "It costs a lot of money to look as cheap as I do." Every rich woman wants to live longer without wrinkles and the most repellent is the new phenomenon of hormone replacement therapy, known as an anti-aging panacea. The hormone involved, estrogens, is obtained from mares. In America alone 80,000 pregnant female horses are held in battery farms, confined in crates, and tied to hoses to enable their urine to be collected. The foals that are delivered are routinely slaughtered. So and so on, and still, women are so unhappy as always. Islam has never repressed carnal pleasure in lawful cohabitation. According to its medieval wise men, one made love in the name of God, not just to beget but also to get divine or, as I call it, heavenly pleasure. It is important, therefore, that in turn our bodies are not mistreated and the female body honors the principle of beauty and aesthetic enjoyment ...
Saqib Khan
UK (May 5, '08)

It is amazing that there are still people saying the Tibetan riot was peaceful like Mel Cooper intentionally said [letters, May 2]. The Tibetan rioters killed Han and Hui Chinese and burned their shops before the police came. This was even reported by Western tourists. I hope Mel Cooper is not a preacher teaching the Bible in Asia.
Tang (May 5, '08)

The people of Hong Kong are among the most well-informed and balanced in the world. They have access to not just the full spectrum of the "free" commercial media, including Taiwan's, but also the "one-sided" state media from mainland China. With such a wealth of information available they are definitely the most qualified people to voice an opinion on Chinese issues such as Tibet and the Beijing Olympics. While generally supportive of China as a nation they hold a skeptical view of the Communist Party and hold a deep respect for the spirits of democracy and human rights. This is reflected in their annual rally on June 4 to commemorate the Tiananmen Square crackdown and on July 1 rally to protect democracy in the territory. While a number of protesters were present during the torch relay, the sea of humanity witnessing and supporting the relay is a heartwarming reflection that the Olympic movement is to be supported - not hijacked. On this day, May 2, 2008, the people of Hong Kong have spoken resoundingly.
Tommy (May 5, '08)

I believe Da Wei in China's pride versus Western prejudice [May 2] is far too simplistic in his views towards China's actions in Tibet. He also fails to recognize the ethnic problem of Chinese rule over Tibet. With the Dalai Lama in exile and with the case of a fake Chinese stand-in for the Panchen Lama it's not hard to see why the Tibetans don't trust Chinese beneficence. China seeks complete control over all aspects of Tibetan life, they don't seek a partner, they want a vassal. Granted, what China is doing is less immoral than what the United States did to the American Indians; however, those actions where over 120 years ago, not last week and there is a different morality in the world today. It is also wrong for Da Wei to claim this is because of Western prejudice, people in the West believe in certain standards for governments and particular rights that belong to individuals. They are the basic rights granted in the first amendment to the US Constitution: the rights to free speech, religion and a free press. China does not recognize these rights belonging to people, but insists on the primacy of the Chinese Communist Party. I am not afraid of the Indian government because they are a democracy, however, I am afraid of the Chinese government and its plans for the future. China wants to be the pre-eminent superpower of the 21st century. If China wishes to be thought of better in the world, perhaps they should examine their friendship and support of the worst nations in the world. Those nations would include North Korea, Myanmar, Zimbabwe and Sudan. Also in his article Da Wei writes about "the US Navy spy plane that crashed on Hainan Island". Evidently, he does not remember that the US plane was accidentally rammed by a Chinese plane trying to intimidate the US plane in international airspace 70 miles from the Chinese coast. When the US plane was forced to land on Hainan Island to save the plane and its crew, China again violated all international norms and looted the US plane for its intelligence secrets and probably moved Chinese spycraft technology 50 years into the future. China can not rule over the Tibetans with an iron fist and expect to world to see a velvet glove.
Dennis O'Connell
USA (May 5, '08)

Asia Times Online is a great news source. Unfortunately, the recent addition of video on the right side of the page has made the site very difficult to view due to excessive bandwidth use. Your homepage frequently won't load at all.
Bob Calhoun (May 5, '08)

[Re The heat is on Muqtada, May 2] Sami Moubayed gives us yet another outstanding report. Considering that [Abdul Aziz] al-Hakim's followers are individually far more prosperous than [Muqtada] al-Sadr's, it's understandable that the White House treasures al-Hakim despite his continuing allegiance to Iran and al-Sadr's independence from Iran. Contempt for the poor predominates in Washington, where the clowns of Wall Street find unstinted support. For many years it seemed that as China and then Russia shifted toward capitalism, the US was adopting the sort of top-down state planning formerly seen under communism. But as incompetent as the economic planners in China and Russia had been, the foreign policy of each nation often showed signs of shrewdness. In contrast, the US is now bungling its foreign policy to an extreme, while making a shambles of its economy by intervening in markets that would be much better off if left alone ... it now seems the suitable analogy is to look upon China and Russia as recreating the era of the American robber barons, and the US as recreating the final days of the czars. The only mismatch undermining this comparison is that the last czar was much sharper than the current American president is.
Harald Hardrada
Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA (May 2, '08)

[Re Bernanke takes one more gamble, May 2] Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke sanctioned a quarter point cut in the prime rate to 2%. It did not inspire confidence in the American dollar which sank again after strengthening slightly the day before. Chairman Bernanke and his camp followers are firm believers that inflation is bad, and should be kept firmly under control. There is something to be said for that, but [considering] the way he has chosen in the turmoil of the American and world marketplace, it is legitimate to question his dogged adherence to counterproductive policies. Bernanke is encouraging a weak dollar which as food and fuel prices rise, is causing untold hardship for American families who are struggling to borrow [from] Peter to pay Paul, in order to eat, keep a roof over their head, and ride to work on a $50 tank of gas. The chairman of the Federal Reserve is banking on a sustained continuum of consumer spending which is not in today's cards. Doesn't he read the front page headlines of newspapers which trumpet that consumer spending is tightening fast and the index of consumer confidence is at at lowest in 35 years? Percolating under Bernanke are the lessons of economic theory and practice which fail to meet today's economic realty. A dose of inflation may buoy up an anemic US economy which the pundits have cheered on of late even though it grew at 0.6% but beat, mind you, market expectations. Great expectations indeed! If Bernanke needs a primer in the value of guided inflation, he would do well to read the noted South Korean economist Ha-Joon Chang's Kicking Away the Ladder: Development Strategy in Historical Perspective [2002] and Bad Samaritans: The Myth of Free Trade [2008]. The chairman, alas, has to go back to school and get his sums right.
Nakamura Junzo
Guam (May 2, '08)

Regarding Da Wei's article China's pride versus Western prejudice [May 2] I would rather change the title into "China's pride versus Western virtual reality". Sounds more neutral. Let me give a simple example of "Western virtual reality". When Jack Cafferty of CNN said, "Chinese are goons and thugs", you could see most CNN fans nodding in approval, and only (almost only) Chinese protested. Later, Cafferty said, he meant the Chinese government, not the Chinese people, and your writer Willy Lam (China intensifies war against splittism, Apr 30) appeared quite satisfied with this explanation, though his name shows he is ethnic Chinese. However, you may call all the Chinese leaders since 1949 "a bunch of thugs", but who in his right mind would call them a bunch of goons (as in stupid and silly)? Remember, Satan is smart. On the other hand, you may call ordinary Chinese "a bunch of goons", but who in his right mind would call them a bunch of thugs? Have you ever been mugged in Chinatown? So what Cafferty really should have said was, "the Chinese government is a bunch of thugs and the Chinese people a bunch of goons", but he missed this crucial point altogether. That is even worse than prejudice, it's virtual reality, or opium for the people. With such "prejudice", China doesn't seem to have much to worry about. By the way, "Cafferty" means "goon" in [the South African language] Afrikaans.
Migrant Worker
Luxembourg (May 2, '08)

Our Afrikaans is rusty, but "cafferty" is a not a word we're familiar with. However, it is similar in sound to an extremely pejorative and racist Afrikaans slang word. - ATol

[Re China's pride versus Western prejudice, May 2] Da Wei's plaint is not new. Simply said, blaming the victim, it is a matter of sour grapes. China has a blind spot when it comes to Tibet. Beijing lost the sympathy of world opinion when it brutally cracked down on the Tibetan monks' peaceful demonstration in Lhasa. What the Chinese authorities had not foreseen nor counted on was the of violence of the state was firmly resisted by the demonstrators, and the bloody scenes of repression was, in our cyberspace age, flashed throughout the world, thereby exposing its very media savvy campaign that by organizing the 2008 Summer Olympics Games in Beijing it had ushered in globally a new Chinese spirit of peace, harmony, and friendship. The world's onlookers found out otherwise. The communist government has stoked the fires of what Chairman Mao Tse Tung called Great Han Chauvinism. Beijing uses it for its own purposes. Doesn't anyone remember the students running amok and destroying Japanese owned property? Would Da Wei characterize these acts of vandalism as an example of Western prejudice even though Japan is an Asian nation, and one that China keeps imitating? Da Wei uses the blunt tip of his pen to bolster his national pride and prejudice.
Mel Cooper
Singapore (May 2, '08)

[Re China's pride versus Western prejudice, May 2] This whole brouhaha about Olympic torch protests and notions of boycotts by politicians and human rights activists has nothing to do with human rights in Tibet, despite the Dalai Lama's claims, nor Darfur, nor Burma, and not even human rights within China proper. To the naive Western simpleton, a Chinese backlash would probably be a confirmation of his claim that China is too uncivilized to host the Olympics. The theme here is the inability of the West to accept China as an emerging superpower, and the inability of the Chinese government, despite 30 years of contact and opening up, to win over the West's suspicions. This Western hostility, or what I say as reluctance to accept China due to differences in values, culture or history, was exploited by the Dalai Lama and his supporters as an opportune time to wreck havoc on Beijing's Olympic plans. This risky move of inciting racial riots was at worst to draw attention to their cause and humiliate the Beijing government, and at best to force Beijing to compromise on Tibetan autonomy just as the world's attention was fixated on China's hosting of the Olympics. Almost everyone in the West believed the Dalai Lama is a Gandhi-like saint who is an all-knowing sage and possessing absolute moral authority. To the gullible West, the Dalai Lama is probably holier than the Pope. All this has to do with the fantastic notion of Tibet as an enlightened civilized and genteel society that was invaded by the brutal Chinese communists. The Nazis even believed that Tibet was the birthplace of an advanced ancient Aryan race, so much so that they sent anthropologists and climbers in the 1940s to study Tibet. Heinrich Harrer, a Nazi Austrian climber who later became mentor to the Dalai Lama was part of one of such missions. Nothing could be further from the truth. While I would probably be branded as a communist apologist, Tibet before the Chinese takeover was not the Shangri-la paradise espoused by the current Dalai Lama and his supporters like Richard Gere. Children as young as two years old died of malnutrition. Serfdom, the European version of it was practiced throughout Tibetan society and children of sharecroppers remained as serfs and were permanently tied to the land. The political-economy of Tibet revolved around a theocratic Lamaist regime which derived its legitimacy as the reincarnation of Buddha, controlling nearly all the estates of the land. Production of agriculture was entirely for the benefit of the clergy. In short, the entity was by Western definition a theocratic feudal state similar to Europe in the Dark Ages. This version of history is an inconvenient truth for gullible Western media and politicians who immediately praised the Dalai Lama as one of them, when he advocated genuine autonomy and democracy for Tibet. History is more nuanced. The Dalai Lama is more of a politician than a monk who used his celebrity status to regain his old position as absolute ruler of Tibet. The Dalai Lama publicly seeks autonomy but he clings to the notion of Greater Tibet which would incorporate 25% of China's current landmass. He continues to head the exiled Tibetan Central Tibetan Administration as the only legitimate government of Tibet, and refuses to recognize the Tibet Autonomous Region. The Dalai Lama's brother even admits that autonomy is merely a springboard to independence. When I read Time's Simon Elegant pontificating the treatment of ethnic Tibetans and Uyghurs in China, he should read more of his country's history. At least they have an Autonomous Region, while the Apaches, Cheyenne, and Navajo were all stripped from their land and moved to reservations. How many Americans learn the Apache language by the way? And how many American Indian tribes like the Iroquois still exists with their culture and language intact? That was by the Dalai Lama's and CNN's definition, a cultural genocide! By the way, China's claim on Tibet dates back to 700 years while America only annexed Hawaii in the late 19th century. Hawaii and Alaska did not become officially part of the United States before 1950. If Tibet is not part of China, then Alaska, Hawaii and Puerto Rico are not part of the United States, and Northern Ireland was never part of the United Kingdom! What China needs to do is actively assimilate the Tibetans and the Uyghurs as part of the Chinese nation state and polity similar to what America successfully did with the Indians, and not compromise on human rights and greater autonomy.
Jake Q Bantug Cebu, Philippines (May 2, '08)

[Re Oil in 2012: $200 or $50?, Apr 30] It's interesting that Martin Hutchinson purposely left out Iran in his discussion of likely future oil prices. As a US-Iran war would profoundly impact the world energy market, I wonder what Mr Hutchinson saw in his crystal ball when arriving at his $50-per-barrel prediction, a US victory (and control of Iranian oil) or some other outcome?
John Chen
USA (May 1, '08)

Reading comments from Chrysantha Wijeyasingha regarding the April 30 article Oil in 2012: $200 or $50? by Mr Martin Hutchinson brought much laughter to our household in Canada. Environmentalists are holding up America's vast oil resources? This is a ridiculous notion. The country that practices rendition and torture is afraid to go after a few environmentalists? There must be something in the water they are drinking in the States.
Bob Van den Broeck Canada (May 1, '08)

[Re China intensifies war against splittism, Apr 30] Willy Lam's keen insight into China's thoughts are very helpful to the public at large who are so saturated with Western media bias on anything China. Hopefully, through time better understanding is forged by astute contributors like Willy Lam.
Stevie
Canada (May 1, '08)

[Re US's Pakistan policy under fire, May 1] Recent elections in Pakistan have turned president Bush's Pakistan policy on its ear. The warning signs have been there for many years but the disarming optimism of the American president has been unwilling to encounter new ideas let alone new truths. Jim Lobe admirably gives a good account of the stress of America's embrace of General Pervez Musharref after 9/11, in its war on terrorism. Clothed now in civilian togs, President Musharraf put the interests of his country first which meant accepting debt forgiveness and billions of US dollars in aid; Washington's largesse went to bolster Pakistani defense against India while leaving the country's two porous border provinces with Afghanistan not only hospitable to the Taliban but a safe haven for their renewed strength to fight NATO troops in Afghanistan. At the same time, [there was] such half-heartedness in roping in Pakistani Islamic militants who brought assassinations and terrorism to the very heart of Pakistan. Now the newly elected government is composing with these very same "terrorists" in order to save first and foremost Pakistan from itself, and Washington be damned! The upshot of this is a failed US policy towards Islamabad, and the failing war against terrorism in Afghanistan.
Nakamura Junzo
Guam (May 1, '08)

So Venezuela makes the State Department's "Top Ten of Terror", eh? Of course, in BushSpeak "terrorist" translates to "anti-imperialist" just like "Iraqi democracy" really means "Meso-kleptocracy". But if we were to apply objective definitions, then without a doubt, the United States would be the Number One Terrorist nation on earth. Indeed, we've had that dubious distinction for decades now. Let's start with Dictionary.com's definition of the root word "terrorism":
1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.
Certainly, definition one qualifies the US as a terrorist state, since we routinely use violence to "persuade" countries like Iraq to give up WMDs [weapons of mass destruction] they don't have. And there's no doubt that that violence had a political goal in mind, ie, replacing a government hostile to American hegemony with a stooge puppet amenable to US demands. As for definition two, can there be any doubt about the fear induced by the American proclivity for violence first, followed by more violence? The entire goal of American threats of violence is to ... subvert the will of other sovereign nations. We define a state as democratic as one that does our bidding, either with a gun pointed at their head or with two guns pointed at their head. The only diplomats with any standing in this White House carry carbines. The third definition would appear to let Uncle Sam off the hook, unless one considers that it is by the threat of force that Bush and his gangsters impose their vision of anti-constitutional abrogations of human rights here at home as well as abroad. Violence is the only language the neo-con nutjobs in this lunatic administration understand. There whole mentality is terror, either the clandestine variety in the dark dungeons of Guantanamo, the destruction of whole villages in the Pamir Mountains or the midnight knock on the door of a dissenting journalist here (or an ATol letter writer!). So, hopefully, I've made my case for the US being a terrorist nation using a standard definition. But even if you want to use the killing of civilians as a metric for defining terrorism, well, there too the US ranks far ahead of anyone else. In its efforts to conduct "precision war", scores of innocent Iraqis and Afghanis have been killed, though it is only the criminally naive that thinks even a small fraction of these deaths are accidental. Yeah, just like the Dresden, Hamburg and Tokyo's firebombings in World War II were "tragic errors". But American terrorism can be covert, too. The aspirations of millions of Third Word citizens have suffered directly as a result of American interference in other countries' affairs, of crippling embargoes that promote starvation and disease, of financing and protecting terrorists here in the US, of training right-wing agencies to torture, imprison and ruin the lives of countless people struggling for justice. I think all that can easily fall under the rubric of terrorism to an extent that al-Qaeda can only dream about. So Arab jihadis and Latin American tinpots would have to rank far, far below a country that has made maintaining its imperial status its number one priority, ignoring its own laws, its much-hyped morality, or even the inevitable ruin of empires. But ancient wisdom knows what's next. As the invisible hand wrote on the walls of Babylon, Mene, mene, tekel, upharsin.
Hardy Campbell
Houston, Texas, USA (May 1, '08)

According to the Biblical Book of Daniel 5:1-31, the mysterious hand that scrawled the original "handwriting on the wall", wasn't exactly invisible. Still, your point is taken and the reference appreciated. Here's a very brief version of the story as it appears on JewishEncyclopedia.com:
Once when King Belshazzar was banqueting with his lords and drinking wine from the golden vessels of the Temple of Yhwh, a man's hand was seen writing on the wall certain mysterious words. Frightened by the apparition, the king ordered his astrologers to explain the inscription; but they were unable to read it. Daniel was then summoned to the royal palace; and the king promised him costly presents if he would decipher the inscription. Daniel read it "Mene, mene, tekel, upharsin" and explained it to mean that God had "numbered" the kingdom of Belshazzar and brought it to an end; that the king had been weighed and found wanting; and that his kingdom was divided and given to the Medes and Persians.
For a more detailed rendition, as well as Talmudical explanations and the views of modern scholars, please visit - ATol

April Letters