From: echeng@phys.psu.edu (Eddie Cheng)
Subject: Re: Action-9201.appendix
Organization: Penn State, Department of Physics
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 17:03:02 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.152711.14941@linus.mitre.org> 129.83.161.10 (H. Chao) writes:
>
>1) I agree with you, I do not like the word "Protection".

	Fine.

>but,
>
>2) It is not a case of "Chinese-sell-Chinese".  I do not think Chinese have
>to limit themselves inside a fixed political boundary.  If British limited
>themselves inside the British islands, how to establish countries like U.S,
>Australia, South Africa?

	Oh, no.  Are we talking about the same issue here?

>3) This bill will hurt U.S. more than C.G.  If this bill get passed, U.S.
>will lose 80,000 jobs to CSS. Think of that how many jobs can be saved by
>selling F-16 to Taiwan and selling F-15 to Saudi.  Because this is election

	This is ridicurous.  "Jobs" are "lost" only when they are being shipped
out of this country (like auto plans to Mexico).  There is no job loss if
the job is taken by some people instead of others here.  After all, the
socalled "jobs" really means government tax and residential incomes.  It
doesn't make any difference here.  Only that more immigration.

>year, Clinton try to use this case to embarrass Bush.  That is the only
>chance to get the bill passed.  Oterwise, I do not think either Bush or
>Clinton would sign it.  "Saving face" is not only Chinese problem, it is
>also U.S. problem. 

	Look, this is true.  But please don't forget the most fundamental
reason for such a bill is 6.4 massacre.  When you abuse the blood, *at
least* acknowledge the blood.  Don't over-credit Bush or Clinton!

>4) It will not hurt C.G so much.  How many of these 80,000 CSS you think
>are very important?  For those hi-tech engineers/scientists, they can find
>jobs easily.  It does not matter this bill passed or not.  So, I think C.G
>will protest this bill ( again, just for face saving), but will not
>retaliate upon U.S; because the overall result is not bad for C.G.

	This is anybody's guess.  But one of the consequence of this bill is
the cration of a false image of China.  This fans the China-bashing mode
in this country and threatens Sino-US trade and other relations.  That
is what I consider as disgusting in addition to take advantage of our
nation's tragedy.

>
>Suggestion:
>
>1)  Living in U.S. does not means you can not love the contry you came
>from.  Try to learn the lesson from Jewish people how to  make U.S. help
>Israel.

	No problem.

>2)  Political issue is not black and white usually.  It is gray, light
>gray, or dark gray.  Yes, I don't like the word "protection" and some
>sentence in the bill.  However, in gneral, this bill favors both C.G. and
>CSS.  That is the reason I am not against it. 


	But I thought it *is* black and white to be honest.  Especially when
your word or action affects your country's interest.

>3)  Unificatoin is strength.  You can break one chopstick easily, but you
>can not break a bundle of chopsticks.  How to unify CSS is more important
>than polarize CSS.  That is why I am very disappointed to see some
>D(Dog)-figher fighting over how to distribute the pie instead of make the
>pie bigger.


	There is something more important than strength.  That is purpose and
principles.

>
>Final Words:
>
>Even I do not fully agree with you, I still respect your view point,
>because you pointed out the deficits of this bill which are neglected by
>most of CSS.

	I happen to believe the moral (or the lack thereof) of this bill is
more important.


	 Eddie