What to do about China

[Michael Hardner]

3 hours ago, Argus said:

1. The process is whatever the government of the day says it is. It's been five years now. Too late to be blaming previous governments - not that the Liberals don't do that constantly, anyway. I still see Mike Harris blamed for the state of Ontario's education and health care systems.

2. The multinational company has China as a majority owner. ALL visa data being processed by it from multiple countries is going to be viewed by them no matter what the mouthpieces for the company say. Why do you think they invested in this company? Why do you think the Beijing police want to process visas?

3. As to why the Rebel, Canada Proud, and the Post Millennial didn't get the story, gee, maybe they're not collecting millions and millions of dollars from the government like the Globe is.

1. All valid points.  I guess I am thinking that you know/knew something about this from your work ?
2. Wha.... why are Canadian visas to other citizens going here ?  ?  This is one of those 'too strange to be fake' stories.

3. Ha ha.  And before that money went to the Globe they were always getting Scooped by Ezra Levant, who sends his reporters to school yards to interview kids bullied by Muslims.... (not standing by that last one, but I remember something to that effect).  The answer is: no.  Canada's paper of record is a fine publication, and as professional and conservative as you or me.  

[Argus]

34 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. All valid points.  I guess I am thinking that you know/knew something about this from your work ?
2. Wha.... why are Canadian visas to other citizens going here ?  ?  This is one of those 'too strange to be fake' stories.

All visas are not going to this office. The multinational company which subcontracted this office to the Beijing police security bureau is partly (mostly) owned by a Chinese company. And it is responsible for processing Canadian visa applications all over the world.

34 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

3. Ha ha.  And before that money went to the Globe they were always getting Scooped by Ezra Levant, who sends his reporters to school yards to interview kids bullied by Muslims.... (not standing by that last one, but I remember something to that effect).  The answer is: no.  Canada's paper of record is a fine publication, and as professional and conservative as you or me.  

The Globe is not a conservative newspaper. It regularly features a section of its site, right at the top with multiple stories on particular progressive agenda items, Ie, three or four on the same day pushing the notion that women lawyers and women in general are unfairly paid less than men (that was yesterday and the day before), or multiple stories on anti-black racism, or multiple stories on the plight of indigenous Canadians (for example). I believe all three of these topics were being pushed over the last week or two. This is new, by the way, since they started being paid by the government. They didn't do this a year or so ago.

I have never seen a newspaper in Canada pushing a social conservative viewpoint on any subject, be it abortion, immigration, death penalty, trasns rights, gay rights, etc.. There are, however, some, like the Globe, which will argue fiscal conservatism. Though the Globe doesn't argue that as strongly as say the Post.

[Michael Hardner]

2 hours ago, Argus said:

 

1. The Globe is not a conservative newspaper.

2. ... multiple stories on particular progressive agenda items, Ie, three or four on the same day pushing the notion that women lawyers and women in general are unfairly paid less than men (that was yesterday and the day before), or multiple stories on anti-black racism, or multiple stories on the plight of indigenous Canadians (for example). I believe all three of these topics were being pushed over the last week or two. 

 

1. 7/10 endorsements for the Conservative Party
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/federal-election-globe-editorial-endorsements-from-1984-to-now/article26827000/

2. None of those pieces are anti-conservative.

[Argus]

14 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. 7/10 endorsements for the Conservative Party
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/federal-election-globe-editorial-endorsements-from-1984-to-now/article26827000/

2. None of those pieces are anti-conservative.

Those are all progressive issues. You're not going to find conservatives complaining about social justice issues. We're satisfied with plain and simple justice. I notice the Globe is back on its complaint wagon today, whining about female lawyers not earning as much as men.

[Michael Hardner]

11 minutes ago, Argus said:

Those are all progressive issues.    .

 I don't think that a newspaper covering rights issues becomes non-conservative.  Where do you draw the line on that ?  You seem to have drawn it at the fact that the stories merely appeared.

[Argus]

38 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

 I don't think that a newspaper covering rights issues becomes non-conservative.  Where do you draw the line on that ?  You seem to have drawn it at the fact that the stories merely appeared.

To my mind, a perfect newspaper would cover stories in an unbiased fashion and would not have any sort of agenda. When stories like this appear - which aren't news - up front, top of the main page, repeatedly, that's indicative of an organization with an activist bent pushing stories to convince me to agree with their viewpoint. That the Globe keeps doing this with core progressive issues does not indicate a very conservative viewpoint, in my opinion.

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, Argus said:

1. To my mind, a perfect newspaper would cover stories in an unbiased fashion and would not have any sort of agenda.
2. When stories like this appear - which aren't news - up front, top of the main page, repeatedly, ...
3. ...that's indicative of an organization with an activist bent pushing stories to convince me to agree with their viewpoint.
4. That the Globe keeps doing this with core progressive issues does not indicate a very conservative viewpoint, in my opinion.

1. Sure but it's not possible coming from people.
2. Why ?  There could be news in there.  I didn't see the article though...
3. You have to give people the benefit of the doubt.  It's a flaw of yours that you do this with people, including me.  And it's really arrogant to constantly think you know what peoples' motivations are.  You will put people off when you guess wrong.
4. Well... I will allow you your opinion but also point out (again) that they went for Harper pretty much every time.

 

[Argus]

5 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

2. Why ?  There could be news in there.  I didn't see the article though...

It wasn't AN article. There have been half a dozen this week. That's a campaign.  And they're all one-sided, with no attempt to explain why there would be pay discrepancies other than discrimination.

5 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

3. You have to give people the benefit of the doubt.  It's a flaw of yours that you do this with people, including me. 

What benefit of a doubt should I give the Globe? That they think they're doing their job to make the world a better place? That they think they're fighting against discrimination? That they think they're good and noble? I'm sure they do. That's not in question. The question is whether this persistent agenda to convince me that discrimination is there, that systemic racism is there, etc. etc., is 'news' or propaganda. And also whether it's a fair coverage of the issues, or one-sided activism. Given these stories never have but one side, with no attempt at discerning any causes of an identified issue other than discrimination, I think I'm safe.

5 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

And it's really arrogant to constantly think you know what peoples' motivations are.

Yes, well, I'm arrogant. 

5 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

4. Well... I will allow you your opinion but also point out (again) that they went for Harper pretty much every time.

Publishers make that decision. But they rarely interfere with the day to day editorial slant of the stories being covered.

[dialamah]

20 hours ago, Argus said:

1 Those are all progressive issues.

2 You're not going to find conservatives complaining about social justice issues.

3  We're satisfied with plain and simple justice.

1.  Liberals support progressive issues before the fact; conservatives after.  Example:  Conservatives fought same-sex marriage and now pat themselves on the back that Canada is so progressive; 

2.  They seem to complain plenty:  pay inequality, access to assisted dying, LGBTQ+ issues.   In the past, conservatives complained about letting women vote, letting women access birth control without having to go through their husband, legalizing homosexuality, letting natives vote, letting natives off the reservation without permission.  Conservatives complain lots about these sorts of things, and then when they're dragged - kicking and screaming - into a more progressive country, they suddenly realize it's what they wanted all along and how great Canada is to have these freedoms and rights and how dare anyone mention that Canada wasn't always such a great place for many non-white, non-male, non-Christian people.  

3.  Maintaining status-quo is not, by definition, 'plain and simple justice'.  

[OftenWrong]

I love being condemned, for being reasonable.

What to do about China? Divide ourselves, and conquer.

Let me repeat that - and conquer.

[Zeitgeist]

I think China's Wuhan virology lab is still the most likely source of Covid-19, despite what the WHO is being fed by Chinese officials.  I hope that the WHO investigation is published soon.

[Army Guy]

3 hours ago, dialamah said:

1.  Liberals support progressive issues before the fact; conservatives after.  Example:  Conservatives fought same-sex marriage and now pat themselves on the back that Canada is so progressive; 

2.  They seem to complain plenty:  pay inequality, access to assisted dying, LGBTQ+ issues.   In the past, conservatives complained about letting women vote, letting women access birth control without having to go through their husband, legalizing homosexuality, letting natives vote, letting natives off the reservation without permission.  Conservatives complain lots about these sorts of things, and then when they're dragged - kicking and screaming - into a more progressive country, they suddenly realize it's what they wanted all along and how great Canada is to have these freedoms and rights and how dare anyone mention that Canada wasn't always such a great place for many non-white, non-male, non-Christian people.  

3.  Maintaining status-quo is not, by definition, 'plain and simple justice'.  

1.   Not all progressive issues are supported by the liberals, lets just take a few examples: the collection of laws and regulations that govern how Canadians live their lives, and what sorts of individual rights the government is willing to protect and defend. here the liberals are willing to change or modify existing laws and rights in order to control the population. those very rights and laws are a progressive issue. 

Next take a look at our climate change policies, another progressive issue which todays liberals are doing very little, or like they do push it down the road for someone else to look after. Hey I get it the cons are not any better but climate change is a huge progressive issue and we have done very little in fact it was in the media our country ranks near the bottom of the list for action taken.

My point is the liberals are not always proactive, in some cases not active at all. All political parties are guilty

2.    Some of your examples are reaching waaaayyyy back in history, but like any nation we have grown and all parties are now behind these socially excepted issues. and I'm sure we could bring up liberal whinny about other issues, back during the second world war our nation refused entry of a ship full of Jews fleeing the conflict and we refused not because we did not have the room , or money, it was because they were Jews and back then Canadians were racist as f****, all Canadians, including liberals Cons, NDP , and today we are still evolving on this issue, but there has been progress.

Lets not forget the what is being called a genocide of Native Americans by sending them off to school, don't point any fingers but this idea was never abolished under Liberal reign , in fact it had is largest growth under the liberals, once again all parties have their hands in the pie, and yet today we are just coming around to the idea of making peace  for our past sins.

Maintaining status que seems to be a Canadians trait, if we look into our past, we can't point one finger at one party, when it was "Canadians" that wanted those policies at the time... which covers all parties involved . Trust me I'd love to pin all of our problems on the liberals more specific Justin , but even that guy is not responsible for everything wrong with our country. 

[dialamah]

45 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

My point is the liberals are not always proactive, in some cases not active at all. All political parties are guilty

Agreed.  I fell into the trap of responding to "its all one way" with my own "its all one way".   I'll try to do better.

Edited February 10, 2021 by dialamah

[Argus]

7 hours ago, dialamah said:

1.  Liberals support progressive issues before the fact; conservatives after.  Example:  Conservatives fought same-sex marriage and now pat themselves on the back that Canada is so progressive; 

Religious conservatives opposed same-sex marriage for religious reasons and still do. Other conservatives opposed it because they thought it was a waste of time to no purpose and because they worried the government or human rights boards would interfere with religious freedom and order churches to marry gays. And I don't think either group congratulates themselves on how progressive Canada is.

7 hours ago, dialamah said:

2.  They seem to complain plenty:  pay inequality, access to assisted dying, LGBTQ+ issues.   In the past, conservatives complained about letting women vote, letting women access birth control without having to go through their husband, legalizing homosexuality, letting natives vote, letting natives off the reservation without permission. 

No, these are not complaints. They're opposition to changes brought about by complaints. And again, mostly by the religious right. It was a conservative, btw, who gave women the right to vote (Borden) and a conservative who gave natives the right to vote (MacDonald). A Liberal (Laurier) then took it away a decade or so later. The right to vote was then returned to them by another conservative (Diefenbaker) in 1960.

7 hours ago, dialamah said:

3.  Maintaining status-quo is not, by definition, 'plain and simple justice'.  

Perhaps not but there is a difference between fair and just, which involves hiring and promotion based on merit, and preferential, race and gender based hiring which social justice types embrace.

[Argus]

4 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

I think China's Wuhan virology lab is still the most likely source of Covid-19, despite what the WHO is being fed by Chinese officials.  I hope that the WHO investigation is published soon.

I am more concerned by what China has learned from this experience.

It has learned that the West is EXTREMELY vulnerable to biological attacks, even from a relatively simple and less fatal virus, while China is much, much more capable of coping with such things with not only minimal loss of life but minimal disruption of their economy. I expect a lot of their soulless leaders are going "Hmmm" about this a lot.

[dialamah]

37 minutes ago, Argus said:

No, these are not complaints. They're opposition to changes brought about by complaints

Aka: complaint.  Or, Liberal "complaints" are only opposition to maintaining a status-quo that results from unfairness in our society.  

41 minutes ago, Argus said:

was a conservative, btw, who gave women the right to vote (Borden) ....

Yup, it hardly matters what name a a party claims, they can be progressive or conservative in action, as Army Guy has already pointed out to me.

[Zeitgeist]

7 hours ago, Argus said:

I am more concerned by what China has learned from this experience.

It has learned that the West is EXTREMELY vulnerable to biological attacks, even from a relatively simple and less fatal virus, while China is much, much more capable of coping with such things with not only minimal loss of life but minimal disruption of their economy. I expect a lot of their soulless leaders are going "Hmmm" about this a lot.

I think we're watching the transition to totalitarian capitalism. Trump was the transitional middle-man.  Xi's approach is the one being advocated by the WHO and followed internationally, but it's not a good time for people or their freedom.  Human rights are sacrificed at the alter of public safety.  Individuals only matter for their contribution to the collective hive.  The fact that severe restrictions and government control is effective in fighting a pandemic is to be lamented, not celebrated.  We're papering over the totalitarian nature of current government with nostalgia, small displays of anti-mask opposition, Netflix fantasy, and occasional exhortations of freedom in news media, but the fix is in for sure. 

That's why people must press for the loosening of restrictions as soon as our vaccine program  and treatments make it safe to do so.  If new variants/mutations keep cropping up beyond the current vaccination plan horizon, the focus will have to be protecting the vulnerable and getting the bulk of the population back to normal life.  I don't see another way without destroying more people than Covid ever could. 

Edited February 11, 2021 by Zeitgeist

[Argus]

In a story in today's Globe and Mail we learn that one of those hitherto unknown federal government agencies, this one called The National Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC), has decided the proper way to spend millions of taxpayer dollars is in helping Huawei conduct research in Canada. Which, in other words, means helping the Chinese Communist party improve their technology, which they then use to attack us.

Just another example of how stupid and useless this government is, and how enthralled so many of its members are with China.

Jim Balsillie, former co-chief executive of Research In Motion and founder of the Centre for International Governance Innovation, said he considers it astonishing that Ottawa would put up money to help Huawei obtain advanced technology that will serve to benefit China.

“All these areas of research are for strategic digital infrastructure that serve as the nervous system for today’s economy and security,” he said. “It boggles the mind that in 2021 we continue to use taxpayer funds to advance China’s priorities at the expense of our economy, security and Five Eyes partnership.” The Five Eyes is an intelligence alliance between Canada, the U.S., Britain, Australia and New Zealand. Canada is the only country in the alliance that has not banned or restricted Huawei from 5G mobile networks.

In 2018, a Globe and Mail investigation revealed that Huawei had established a vast network of relationships with leading research-heavy universities in Canada to create a steady pipeline of intellectual property that the company is using to underpin its market position in mobile technology.

The NSERC research funding was recently announced by Ottawa and comes as the Prime Minister has asked his cabinet ministers to safeguard intellectual property in Canada. Justin Trudeau issued a mandate letter to François-Philippe Champagne when the former foreign affairs minister took over the Innovation department in a cabinet shuffle last month.

Jim Hinton, a leading Canadian intellectual property lawyer, said “it doesn’t make any sense at all to be supporting the IT development of a company that our allies don’t consider somebody safe to work with.”

Mr. Hinton said the research projects tap into Canadian brainpower and give Huawei’s parent company in China an inside track on getting access to next-generation technology that will serve China’s national interests.

Canada has welcomed Huawei through the front door, allowing it to tie up Canadian researchers to develop valuable patented technology while “paying a relatively insignificant amount [money] to get access to that information,” Mr. Hinton added.

Edited February 15, 2021 by Argus

[Zeitgeist]

24 minutes ago, Argus said:

In a story in today's Globe and Mail we learn that one of those hitherto unknown federal government agencies, this one called The National Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC), has decided the proper way to spend millions of taxpayer dollars is in helping Huawei conduct research in Canada. Which, in other words, means helping the Chinese Communist party improve their technology, which they then use to attack us.

Just another example of how stupid and useless this government is, and how enthralled so many of its members are with China.

Jim Balsillie, former co-chief executive of Research In Motion and founder of the Centre for International Governance Innovation, said he considers it astonishing that Ottawa would put up money to help Huawei obtain advanced technology that will serve to benefit China.

“All these areas of research are for strategic digital infrastructure that serve as the nervous system for today’s economy and security,” he said. “It boggles the mind that in 2021 we continue to use taxpayer funds to advance China’s priorities at the expense of our economy, security and Five Eyes partnership.” The Five Eyes is an intelligence alliance between Canada, the U.S., Britain, Australia and New Zealand. Canada is the only country in the alliance that has not banned or restricted Huawei from 5G mobile networks.

In 2018, a Globe and Mail investigation revealed that Huawei had established a vast network of relationships with leading research-heavy universities in Canada to create a steady pipeline of intellectual property that the company is using to underpin its market position in mobile technology.

The NSERC research funding was recently announced by Ottawa and comes as the Prime Minister has asked his cabinet ministers to safeguard intellectual property in Canada. Justin Trudeau issued a mandate letter to François-Philippe Champagne when the former foreign affairs minister took over the Innovation department in a cabinet shuffle last month.

Jim Hinton, a leading Canadian intellectual property lawyer, said “it doesn’t make any sense at all to be supporting the IT development of a company that our allies don’t consider somebody safe to work with.”

Mr. Hinton said the research projects tap into Canadian brainpower and give Huawei’s parent company in China an inside track on getting access to next-generation technology that will serve China’s national interests.

Canada has welcomed Huawei through the front door, allowing it to tie up Canadian researchers to develop valuable patented technology while “paying a relatively insignificant amount [money] to get access to that information,” Mr. Hinton added.

It's a joke.  We've seen this show before too often.  Canada should search quickly for new export markets, so that we can slam the door on Chinese imports without suffering badly from trade retaliation.  Really Canada needs to rebuild domestic capacity across sectors.  It will mean more expensive goods but also new exports.  Our research universities are still among the best, but selling off our applications has been a Canadian pastime for too long.  The government never should've let Nortel fall apart.  It was the world's leading telecom for a significant period and had multiple spin-offs, RIM being one of them.  Sad to see Blackberry and Corel get cannibalized, but it doesn't help when our government courts foreign investment so desperately.  Operating systems were literally assembled from key Nortel tech by companies such as Google, Samsung, and Huawei.  https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.2325485
 

Edited February 15, 2021 by Zeitgeist

[blackbird]

1 hour ago, Argus said:

In a story in today's Globe and Mail we learn that one of those hitherto unknown federal government agencies, this one called The National Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC), has decided the proper way to spend millions of taxpayer dollars is in helping Huawei conduct research in Canada. Which, in other words, means helping the Chinese Communist party improve their technology, which they then use to attack us.

Just another example of how stupid and useless this government is, and how enthralled so many of its members are with China.

Jim Balsillie, former co-chief executive of Research In Motion and founder of the Centre for International Governance Innovation, said he considers it astonishing that Ottawa would put up money to help Huawei obtain advanced technology that will serve to benefit China.

“All these areas of research are for strategic digital infrastructure that serve as the nervous system for today’s economy and security,” he said. “It boggles the mind that in 2021 we continue to use taxpayer funds to advance China’s priorities at the expense of our economy, security and Five Eyes partnership.” The Five Eyes is an intelligence alliance between Canada, the U.S., Britain, Australia and New Zealand. Canada is the only country in the alliance that has not banned or restricted Huawei from 5G mobile networks.

In 2018, a Globe and Mail investigation revealed that Huawei had established a vast network of relationships with leading research-heavy universities in Canada to create a steady pipeline of intellectual property that the company is using to underpin its market position in mobile technology.

The NSERC research funding was recently announced by Ottawa and comes as the Prime Minister has asked his cabinet ministers to safeguard intellectual property in Canada. Justin Trudeau issued a mandate letter to François-Philippe Champagne when the former foreign affairs minister took over the Innovation department in a cabinet shuffle last month.

Jim Hinton, a leading Canadian intellectual property lawyer, said “it doesn’t make any sense at all to be supporting the IT development of a company that our allies don’t consider somebody safe to work with.”

Mr. Hinton said the research projects tap into Canadian brainpower and give Huawei’s parent company in China an inside track on getting access to next-generation technology that will serve China’s national interests.

Canada has welcomed Huawei through the front door, allowing it to tie up Canadian researchers to develop valuable patented technology while “paying a relatively insignificant amount [money] to get access to that information,” Mr. Hinton added.

If you haven't, try to get the book "Claws of the Panda" by Jonathan Manthorpe, Beijing's Campaign of INfluence and Intimidation in Canada.  The tentacles of the CCP reach far into every aspect of Canada.  That coupled with the fact most of Canada's politicians can't see the danger and can't grasp what is happening.  I am presently reading the Kindle book "Middle Power, Middle Kingdom" by one of Canada's former foreign ambassadors to China, David Mulroney.   He says in one part: 

"Lack of respect for the rule of law leads to some other mind-boggling situations, including a number of outrageous examples of intellectual property theft in which the Chinese partner not only steals his foreign partner’s idea but then successfully sues him in local court for having the temerity to continue using the technology he (the foreign partner) developed in the first place. There are many accounts of trusted Chinese employees taking valuable production secrets to the local competition or even siphoning money from the joint venture to build a competing factory down the road."

I haven't finished this kindle book yet.  It is quite detailed and describes how Canadian government departments operate in a disconnected un-coordinated way with respect to China and there doesn't seem to be a coherent foreign policy in Ottawa.  David Mulroney has a deep knowledge of the Canada - China relationship and how it operates, although he has been so deeply ensconced in the system, he may not be able to see the broader picture of what is happening to Canada's sovereignty.   It seems like the CCP has moved into and taken up residence in Canada as though they are a sister country and Canadians, including Canadian politicians, do not see this as a Trojan horse taking control of Canada.  Canadian politicians are so enthralled with the policy of multilateralism that they are completely blind to the real danger and the need to protect their own country from foreign control and influence.

Edited February 15, 2021 by blackbird
additional information

[Michael Hardner]

NSERC response from the article:

 

Quote

A spokesperson for NSERC, Valérie Levert-Gagnon, did not explain why it funded the projects but said it is working with university researchers to improve their “security awareness.”

 

[blackbird]

50 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

It's a joke.  We've seen this show before too often.  Canada should search quickly for new export markets, so that we can slam the door on Chinese imports without suffering badly from trade retaliation.  Really Canada needs to rebuild domestic capacity across sectors.  It will mean more expensive goods but also new exports.  Our research universities are still among the best, but selling off our applications has been a Canadian pastime for too long.  The government never should've let Nortel fall apart.  It was the world's leading telecom for a significant period and had multiple spin-offs, RIM being one of them.  Sad to see Blackberry and Corel get cannibalized, but it doesn't help when our government courts foreign investment so desperately.  Operating systems were literally assembled from key Nortel tech by companies such as Google, Samsung, and Huawei.  https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.2325485
 

Canadian politicians, led by liberals, have been selling out Canada to China for decades, particularly since JT's father, PM Pierre Trudeau, was one of the first western leaders to establish diplomatic relations with Communist China in 1970.  It has been one long complete sellout to Communist China ever since.  The Trudeaus have been enthralled with Communist dictators, like China's leaders and Fidel Castro.  Incomprehensible.

[Argus]

9 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

NSERC response from the article:

 

 

Very convincing. s/

BTW, I didn't cite the article itself because it's for subscribers only and I figured most people here wouldn't have access.

[Zeitgeist]

4 minutes ago, blackbird said:

Canadian politicians, led by liberals, have been selling out Canada to China for decades, particularly since JT's father, PM Pierre Trudeau, was one of the first western leaders to establish diplomatic relations with Communist China in 1970.  It has been one long complete sellout to Communist China ever since.  The Trudeaus have been enthralled with Communist dictators, like China's leaders and Fidel Castro.  Incomprehensible.

https://medium.com/@leibowitt/of-course-fidel-castro-is-justin-trudeaus-dad-nobody-has-debunked-anything-4db6fc8a9042

[blackbird]

"The Party regularly reminds the Chinese people of the country’s century of humiliation at the hands of foreigners. Striking back by appropriating technology for the motherland can seem downright patriotic."

Mulroney, David. Middle Power, Middle Kingdom . Penguin Canada. Kindle Edition.