Author: The Foreigner

That’s 19 Fewer Protesters For Iraq’s Next “Anti-Sharia” March

Things That Cause Islamic Terrorism

i-1

This Is CNN

A photo of "a vile lich-like Face of Death, and also, a prop severed Trump head."

CNN's Kathy Griffin: When they go low, we ... aw, fuck it, we decapitate people.

That's Kathy "al-Amriki" Griffin to you, Infidels.

POSTSCRIPT: 

i-1

Two Corinthians, Too

Talk of Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg exploring his options for running for high office.

Best of luck to him, but I suspect two billionaire businessman won’t be elected in a row.

[There are no atheists in the foxholes…or on the campaign stump!]

[D.C. is worth a mass.]

 

 

UPDATE: I assume this is satire:

UPDATE (May 26 / 2017):

 

UPDATE (Aug 9 / 2017):

 

Plagiarist Defends Convicted Perjurer Who Defended Convicted Rapist

Easy to see why Taiwan's China Post has discontinued its print version and gone all digital. After all, why pay good money for a newspaper when so much of it is lifted verbatim from Wikipedia?

As a case in point, here's Joe Hung explaining perjury in his latest editorial:

"Perjury is the intentional act of falsifying an affirmation to tell the truth, whether spoken or in writing, concerning matters material to an official court proceeding. Contrary to popular misconception, no crime has occurred when a false statement is intentionally or unintentionally made in court while subject to penalty. Instead, criminal culpability only attaches at the instant the declarant falsely asserts the truth of statements which are material to the outcome of the proceeding."

You sound very knowledgeable and erudite and…hey, did you just copy all that from Wikipedia? Because here's Wikipedia on perjury:

"Perjury is the intentional act of […] falsifying an affirmation to tell the truth, whether spoken or in writing, concerning matters material to an official proceeding. Contrary to popular misconception, no crime has occurred when a false statement is (intentionally or unintentionally) made while under oath or subject to penalty—instead, criminal culpability only attaches at the instant the declarant falsely asserts the truth of statements […] which are material to the outcome of the proceeding."

More "original" material from Joe Hung:

"Statements that entail an interpretation of fact are not perjury because people often draw inaccurate conclusions unwittingly, or make honest mistakes without the intent to deceive. Individuals may have honest but mistaken beliefs about certain facts, or their recollection may be inaccurate, or may have a different perception of what is the accurate way to state the truth. Like most other crimes, to be convicted of perjury one must have had the intention (mens rea) to commit the act, and to have actually committed the act (actus renus).

Furthermore, statements that are facts cannot be considered perjury, even if they might arguably constitute an omission, and it is not perjury to lie about matters immaterial to the legal proceeding."

Wikipedia again:

"Statements which entail an interpretation of fact are not perjury because people often draw inaccurate conclusions unwittingly, or make honest mistakes without the intent to deceive. Individuals may have honest but mistaken beliefs about certain facts, or their recollection may be inaccurate, or may have a different perception of what is the accurate way to state the truth. Like most other crimes […] to be convicted of perjury one must have had the intention (mens rea) to commit the act, and to have actually committed the act (actus reus). Further, statements that are facts cannot be considered perjury, even if they might arguably constitute an omission, and it is not perjury to lie about matters immaterial to the legal proceeding."

Awesome how promiscuously Georgetown University gives away PhDs in history to those who have mastered the scholarly skill of cutting-and-pasting other people's work without attribution.

Postscipt: Joe Hung defends one Dr. Chen Peng-jen (陳鵬仁) of the Chinese Culture University of Taipei, who was convicted of providing a perjurious alibi in the trial of rapist (and former vice-presidential candidate) Elmer Fung.

Hung maintains, quite wrongly, that Chen's testimony was immaterial to the conviction of Fung. Why exactly he should think so is rather a mystery, for Chen claimed to have been on the phone with Fung the entire time the rape occurred.

If Chen's claim was indeed truthful, Elmer Fung should have been exonerated. The innocence of Fung in a court of law hinged upon Chen Peng-jen's testimony, making that testimony material by definition.

As for the actual evidence used to convict Chen Peng-jen of perjury, Joe Hung is light on specifics.

On the one hand, phone records no longer exist that would corroborate Chen's testimony (leading Hung to suggest there wasn't enough evidence to convict Chen).

But on the other hand, Chen claimed he spoke with Fung while on the way to the American Institute in Taiwan to pick up a passport with a new visa.

The only problem with his story was that AIT was apparently closed that day. Oops!

But before I close this discussion of convicted perjurer Dr. Chen Peng-jen, there's one sentence in Hung's column that almost deserves some kind of award for its deceitfulness:

"No questions were asked of Professor Chen to defend himself [at his perjury trial]."

The impression that Hung clearly is trying to convey is that poor Chen Peng-jen was railroaded, and his conviction was a terrible miscarriage of justice. 

When instead, what most likely happened is that the prosecutor asked Chen to take the witness stand, and Chen declined to testify in his own defense.

Whether that decision was his alone or done in accordance with the advice of his lawyer is – dare I say it? – immaterial.

Postscipt #2: A quick backgrounder on Elmer Fung. Some from memory, some from Wikipedia. (And NONE of it plagiarized, I hasten to add):

In 2003 / 2004, Fung was the vice-presidential candidate in Taiwan for a minor party advocating unification with Communist China. (His "New Party" received very little support in that election, garnering a meager 17,000 votes out of 13 million cast).

But a few months before the election, Fung's Filipino maid accused him of raping her. Fung insisted the sex was consensual, and claimed she framed him by fishing out his used condom from the toilet and depositing it in a wastebasket for the police to discover.

[About this: It should have been pretty easy to verify Fung's claim by having lab techs determine if the condom had been contaminated with toilet water.]

A very sordid he-said-she-said situation. Who to believe?

For me, that dilemma was solved when Fung fired the maid, and paid her a "bonus" of something like 6 months salary? [about $24,000 USD]. (That was all above board – no one knows how much he paid her under the table.)

Because of Taiwan's immigration laws, the unemployed maid was required to return to the Philippines. Once out of country, it'd be difficult for her to testify against Fung now. And on top of that – mirabile dictu! – the maid signed a sworn statement withdrawing her accusation. Ain't it grand what a little hush money'll do?

Nevertheless, the case was brought to trial.

Which resulted in his conviction.

Which was subsequently overturned.

A couple years later, he'd be convicted again. Only to win in a later appeal.

Anyways, I lost track, but apparently there were 7 trials held between 2005 & 2016.

Frankly, I was unaware that Taiwan's supreme court found him guilty in 2016, and sentenced him to 3 1/4 years in prison. And I also didn't hear that he only spent 85 days in prison before being released on medical parole.

But it does lead one to wonder though: will Chen Peng-jen the KMT perjurer spend more time behind bars than Elmer Fung the New Party rapist?

UPDATE (May 13, 2017): More on Chen Peng-jen's perjury:

"In most jurisdictions, the false statement made by the individual must have been important to the case. For instance, a witness who lies about his whereabouts during the crime is committing perjury."

Trump Enforces Obama’s Red Line

Hey, remember that time Hitler launched missile strikes in punitive response to a dictator who attacked civilians with chemical weapons?

Me neither.

Quite likely this relegates news of the Senate “Nuclear Option” and Xi Xin-ping’s visit down to page 2.

(Kinda makes Putin look weak as well. What with his troops skedaddling from their ally’s Sarin dispensary on extremely short notice.)

 

Menace 2 Society

Multiple fines issued to Taiwanese farmer for selling cabbage in streets of the southern city of Tainan:

A 59-year-old farmer [surnamed Chen (陳)] from Tainan’s Kuantien District (官田) faces multiple fines after attempting to sell his produce on the streets of the city over several days last month.

[…]

“I come into the city like this only once or twice a year; I do not want to see all my hard work be for nothing. These fines are really a big blow to me,” Chen said.

Police said Chen was fined according to Article 82 of the Act Governing Punishments for Violations of Road Traffic Regulations (道路交通管理處罰條例), which stipulates that vending on the roadside without a permit may result in fines from NT$1,200 to NT$2,400.

Police said they would only continue to fine Chen if they received complaints from residents, adding that if any vehicle accidents occur as a result of Chen’s activities, he could face criminal charges.

Bit absurd to fine someone for selling cabbages, but one can see where the police are coming from. Surely the farmer could have rented a stall at a night market somewhere in town to avoid creating a vehicular hazard.

But if the rental fees there were too steep, one possible solution might be to rent space to small entrepreneurs like this in one of the city's "mosquito halls". (For those not familiar with the term, a "mosquito hall" in Taiwan is a government building constructed with legislative pork, which then sits idle most of the time — attracting only mosquitoes.)

It'd be win-win all the way around. The government would generate at least some revenue from under-utilized facilities, and part-time vendors would obtain low-cost floor space. Given that the February 28 Massacre and the Arab Spring were both sparked by heavy-handed police responses to poor people just trying to earn a buck, I wouldn't call this charity. It's instead an investment in maintaining social peace.

(Although on second thought, there would be ONE loser: the local politician who squandered taxpayer money in constructing a building that was never needed in the first place. Oh my god, what was I thinking! My proposal is utterly unfeasible! Politicians can't be made to lose face now, can they?)