Month: February 2008

Pakistan Unblocks YouTube

A few days ago, the Pakistani government blocked its citizens from accessing YouTube, although it couldn’t quite settle on a single excuse for the move.  After Pakistan reversed its decision, the press attempted to contact the management of YouTube about the brouhaha:

YouTube was not immediately available to confirm whether it had removed the material, which the [Pakistan Telecommunications Authority] said was controversial cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed that were republished by Danish newspapers earlier this month.  [emphasis added]

However, a story from a day later suggested the Paks had a different reason:

The [Pakistan Telecommunications Authority] told Internet service providers to restore access to the site on Tuesday afternoon after removing a video featuring a Dutch lawmaker who has said he plans to release a movie portraying Islam as fascist and prone to inciting violence against women and homosexuals.  [emphasis added]

So, their story is that they censored YouTube because of the Mohammed Cartoons.  Or Geert Wilders’ movie trailer.  Whatever.  And that they unblocked YouTube when the "offensive" clips were removed.

Now, far be it from me to tell journalists how to do their job, but uh, instead of taking the Pakistani government at their word about this (or going through the trouble of contacting the big bosses of YouTube), shouldn’t they have checked YouTube’s website to see if this stuff was actually deleted?

It really isn’t THAT hard to do:

www.youtube.com  ==>  Search Term:  Danish Mohammed Cartoons

This brings up 77 related entries (as of this posting).  Since I’m a lazy, lazy man, I can’t be bothered to page through all of them.  But glancing at the list, I notice this YouTube clip has the Mohammed cartoons.  And so does this one.  And this one. 

The Pakistani government can claim that YouTube surrendered all they like.  As I’ve demonstrated, the evidence would appear to suggest otherwise.

Moving along, let’s see what happens when we look for Geert Wilders’ movie trailer:

www.youtube.com  ==>  Search Term:  Geert Wilders

Holy smokes, 615 entries?  Sure, plenty of those are probably video responses by people who either love or hate the man.  Nonetheless, the FIRST PAGE features the trailer here, as well as Part 1 of his interview about the movie.  (And though it may seem like piling on, Part 2 is here, as well.)

Once more for the record: these aren’t recent additions. They’ve been on YouTube for 1-2 months.

No matter how you slice it, Pakistan’s government LIED about YouTube taking down "blasphemous" material – no ifs, ands or buts.  Strange the AP was uninterested in informing its readers about that little tidbit.

Teddy bear with t-shirt reading: My Name Is Mohammed The Bear.

i-1

Those Nonpolitical Olympics

Response from China over Spielberg’s pullout from the Genocide Games:

"China has been doing a lot toward the resolution of the Darfur issue," said Yuan Bin, director of the Beijing Olympics marketing department. "I want to say the Olympics should be kept nonpolitical."

So, Mr. Yuan, I take it this then means China will be dropping its long-standing opposition to Taiwan competing under its Republic of China flag?

Hmm?

Republic of China (ROC) flag.

UPDATE (Feb 24/08):  No dogs or Falun Gong members allowed.  From the Feb 23/08 ed of the Taiwan News:

[Delegates at a human rights conference in Taipei] urged the IOC to request that the Chinese Olympic National committee adhere to the fundamental spirit of the Olympic Games and abolish the announced exclusion of Falun Gong practitioners from the 2008 Olympics in a joint statement issued after the two-day international forum.

More on this from Between Heaven and Earth.

i-1

Unclear On The Concept Of Checks And Balances

Taiwan’s China Post argues the country should have a KMT president, in addition to the KMT-dominated legislature that was recently elected.  Relaaax, legislatures don’t need checks and balances.  Those inconveniences are just meant to tie PRESIDENTS down:

The belief that there should be checks and balances in a government is based on the idea that various branches of a government, especially the executive, legislative and judiciary branches, should have enough power to control each other.

In actual use, however, the term generally refers to the limits that the legislature and the judiciary put on the executive branch to prevent dictatorship. It is seldom used to describe a situation in which a powerful president is needed to control the legislature.  [emphasis added]

Unsurprisingly, this is hogwash.  James Madison wrote about EXACTLY this situation in Federalist Paper #47.  And in Federalist #48, he quotes another Virginian on the same issue:

The concentrating [of legislative, executive and executive powers] in the same [legislative] hands, is precisely the definition of despotic government. It will be no alleviation, that these powers will be exercised by a plurality of hands, and not by a single one. One hundred and seventy-three despots would surely be as oppressive as one. Let those who doubt it, turn their eyes on the republic of Venice. As little will it avail us, that they are chosen by ourselves. An ELECTIVE DESPOTISM was not the government we fought for…  [emphasis added]

(Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, from Federalist Paper #48)

In Taiwan’s case, that might now be revised to read "81 despots".  Despots who, within days of being elected, were already being counselled by the party faithful to concentrate executive power into their own hands…

How Caesar Augustus Helped Colonize Taiwan

(Indirectly, of course!)

Finally started reading Forbidden Nation, Jonathan Manthorpe’s book on Taiwan.  The opening chapter is a little sad to read now, brimming as it is with statements like "[The Taiwanese] have only recently extricated themselves from the coils of the corrupt and dictatorial one-party Kuomingtang state, and see no reason to jump into the arms of another one…"

Well, we were ALL a bit more optimistic back in 2005.  But getting back to the question:  What’s the Augustus-Taiwan connection that Manthorpe suggests? I’ll just briefly summarize his argument (from pages 32-33).

In 30 B.C., Marc Antony and Cleopatra commit suicide, and Octavian conquers Egypt.  Within the next 50 years, a lucrative trade between Rome and India apparently develops, via Egyptian ports on the Red Sea and the Mediterranean.  Merchants from India travel abroad, scouring Southeast Asia for ever more exotic goods to ship to the Roman market.  Hindu missionaries follow those merchants, as do Indian colonists.  Ethnic Malays wind up being displaced from their land, or leave when they find conditions in the new Hindu monarchies are not to their liking.

And where do these Malays go?  Well, at least a few of them find their way to Taiwan.  Where they end up founding some of the aboriginal tribes that continue to exist on the island to this very day.

Way cool stuff.

Brian Blessed as Caesar Augustus in I, Claudius

(Brian Blessed as Emperor Augustus from I, Claudius)

Commentary: 

First off, I’ll admit I know nothing about Indian imperialism two thousand years ago.  But I’m somewhat sceptical of the notion that absent the Roman conquest of Egypt, India wouldn’t still have been tempted to establish colonies abroad.

Now, if someone tells me increased Roman-Indian trade sweetened the pot, further fueling India’s colonial ambitions, then sure.  I’ll buy that.

Correction (Feb 8/08):  Egypt, of course, has ports on the Red Sea, not the actual Indian Ocean.  The correction’s been made to the post.

A further boost to Octavian’s reputation came from his reception of envoys from India, seeking to negotiate a trade agreement for the spice route via the Red Sea and Egypt.

(from Richard Halloran’s Augustus: Godfather of Europe, p 304)

Correction of Correction (Sep 15/25): Ancient Egypt did in fact have ports on the Red Sea.

Sep 22/25: It’s a nice story, but as far as I can tell, the Malays never colonized Taiwan. Don’t know where Manthorpe got the idea they did.

i-1