Well done!
(Half-a-million Taiwanese protest a KMT-Chinese Communist Party service trade pact which they fear will strip them of their liberties. Image from the Taipei Times.)
i-1
Category: Relations -Sino-Taiwanese
More Fabulism From The China Post
From today's China Post:
Almost everybody knows that the signing of the [services] trade agreement [between Taiwan and Communist China] is the right thing to do. [Emphasis added]
That would be true…if "almost everybody" was defined as "34% of everybody". From the Asia Times:
A survey of 1,008 Taiwan adults released in late July by Taiwan Indicators Survey Research found that 48% opposed signing the services trade pact [with Communist China], while 34% were in favor. [Emphasis added]
To the editors of the China Post: 34% << "Almost everybody".
I know math is hard, but you could at least try a little.
Oh, Look…A Squirrel!
1,600 Chinese missiles targetted on Taiwan, ready to rain terror down on its citizens at any time…yet Taiwan's China Post distracts its readers with a jeremiad against American drones somewhere off in far-flung Yemen, or Pakistan, or wherever.
Beijing sure does get its money's worth with all that illegal advertorial money it bribed the China Post with.
As for drones, I'll say this: drones will never be a suitable substitute for level-headed strategy.
But there are, in this world, members of a bloodthirsty death cult who conspire to torture, rape and mutilate civilian hostages in shopping malls. Before killing them.
When reflecting upon this, I shed remarkably few tears upon hearing these brave and noble Jihadis have been rendered into crispy McNuggets.
If The Chinese Don’t Want Westerners To Think They Run People Over With Tanks…MAYBE They Should Stop Running People Over With Their Tanks
Been a while since I last checked the blog, and I noticed a comment on my Tsai Eng-meng post.
For those unfamiliar with Tsai Eng-meng, Tsai Eng-meng is a Taiwanese food magnate. Got his start in Taiwan, but made it big in China.
Upon returning to Taiwan, Tsai bought up some Taiwanese news media organs. And changed their editorial stances to more Communist-friendly positions.
But around the beginning of 2012, Tsai caused a stir in an interview with the Washington Post, remarking that the Chinese Communists were jolly good fellows who just couldn't possibly have killed very many people at Tiananmen Square. His reason for thinking so? Because the driver of a single tank hesitated to run over the iconic "Tank Man" of Tiananmen Square.
(As I recall, he also expressed scorn for Taiwan's hard-won democratic freedom, which he derided as a poor substitute for a walletful of Chinese redbacks.)
And so, without further ado, I submit my replies to one of Tsai's comradely supporters.
Jon: Not to side with Tsai here…
The Foreigner: Here it comes…
Jon: …but he was citing the fact that the "Tank Man" lie [sic], which is often perpetuated in western media.
The Foreigner: Can I interrupt to say that it suits you? The whole passive-aggression routine, I mean.
If experience is any guide, I do believe you're fishing for some kind of groveling apology.
Jon: For example a supermajority of Americans believe falsely that the "Tank Man" at Tiananmen was run over by those tanks.
The Foreigner: Bullshit.
A cursory web check of the New York Times, Newsweek and Time reveals nothing of the kind. NONE of them declare that Tank Man was definitely run over by tanks at Tiananmen.
(Image from Filmatica.wordpress.com)
Furthermore, I find it exceedingly difficult to believe anybody wasted good money to poll Americans about "Tank Man". But, assuming for the moment that it IS true, you forgot to mention that the Chinese DID run over at least one man (Fang Zheng) with their tanks. (To this day, the Communist propaganda ministry maintains that Fang Zheng lost his legs in an everyday, run-of-the-mill "traffic accident".)
So perhaps Americans' beliefs are a perfectly understandable result of mistaken identity:
- Tank Man gets photographed in front of limb-crushing tanks.
- Fang Zheng is photographed minus a couple of limbs (compliments of Tsai Eng-meng's Communist benefactors).
- Mental conflation of Tank Man (who was NOT run over by Chinese tanks) with Fang Zheng (who WAS run over by Chinese tanks).
But here's a crazy PR suggestion: if the Chinese don't want Westerners to think they run people over with tanks…MAYBE they should stop running people over with their tanks!
Jon: He is still alive according to most accounts and the "conspiracy theory" sites claim he died months later.
The Foreigner: It is, of course, a red herring to bring up the fate of any one single individual (Tank Man) in the face of a massacre of thousands. Tsai's hasty generalization is that since Tank Man MAY have survived, then "not that many [Chinese demonstrators] could really have died."
And if Anne Frank were to turn up alive tomorrow, would this Communist quisling then argue that the Jewish Holocaust never happened?
Also, it's patently untrue to say Tank Man is still alive according to "most accounts". Wikipedia — hardly a "conspiracy theory" site — points out the conflicting stories on that score.
If he IS alive, let him come forward to say so to the media.
Oh, that's right. He can't. Because if he comes forward, the Chinese government will kill him.
Golly. Maybe the Butchers of Beijing really AREN'T the nice, harmless guys Tsai Eng-meng claims they are. Ya think?
(Image from The Independent)
Jon: As for "democracy-hating", there is nobody who truly loves ALL democracy. For example, the Weimar Republic elected Hitler.
The Foreigner: The "Weimar Republic" didn't vote for Hitler. The political system known as "democracy" didn't vote for Hitler.
MEN voted for Hitler. Men who hated democracy, and wanted it abolished.
Men such as Tsai Eng-meng. And yourself.
It was Germany's great misfortune that these men got what they wished for.
Jon: The French Republic massacred women and children (guillotined them).
The Foreigner: Straw man. Democracy, as a term describing a form of government advocated in the modern world, does not include the French revolutionary model lacking constitional safeguards (formal and informal).
But allow me to make a further rebuttal to your line of thinking. Around the time of the French revolution, doctors carried out a host of unproven treatments, some of which were either ineffective or even downright harmful to their patients (blistering of the skin or confinement for psychological problems, bloodletting, enema use, frontal lobotomies, "spermatorrhoea" prevention, homeopathy, and purging).
On the other hand, they also pioneered procedures which have stood the test of time, such as vaccinations, percussion-based diagnosis, and various surgical techniques.
Only an ignoramus would argue that modern doctors should be loathed and present-day medicine rejected out-of-hand simply because doctors of the past once used some questionable practices.
By the same token, only the genuinely infantile reject modern liberal democracy simply because 200 years ago, some long-dead Frenchmen didn't recognize the importance of checks-and-balances, the necessity of constitutionalism, and the limits to the perfectability of man.
(Image from CartoonPictures5.com)
Jon: The US Republic genocided…
The Foreigner: Excuse me while I look that up in the latest edition of the Oxford Chinglish Dictionary.
Jon: …a million Filipinos in the Philippine-American War, where the US conquered and annexed an independent nation, destroying their Republic, even though the Philippine Republic used the US constitution.
The Foreigner: I believe the number is closer to 250,000…and it's debatable whether it was a deliberate genocide.
But rather than argue about numbers, I'd like to point out that most of the casualties were caused by out-of-control military officers who went far beyond what the civilian leadership ever intended. It's a cause for celebration that modern democracies have matured and figured out that their militaries need to be kept on a much tighter leash.
Why and how did this maturation take place? It occurred because democracies are blessed with a built-in feedback mechanism: the free press. In short, American anti-imperialist papers were free to report atrocities, and thereby helped bring them to an end.
Which is something that doesn't ever happen in Tsai Eng-meng's glorious Communist utopia.
Or in Tsai Eng-meng's pro-Communist newspapers, for that matter.
Oh, one last thing before we move on…you neglected to mention that America went to the Philippines with the ultimate goal of granting it its independence. Which it did, in 1946.
Poor Tibet should be so lucky!
Jon [referring to dead Philippinos]: Rather funny. Democracy is a joke.
The Foreigner: Number of Chinese murdered (or, in your parlance, "genocided") by the anti-democratic doctrine within the last 50 years: 36,000,000. Number of Chinese killed by democracy within the last 50 years: 0.
Which of those two numbers is greater than the other, Jon?
I'll allow you to take your time to figure that out. Math is hard.
But since you're fond of jokes, here's a riddle for you:
Q: What do you call an Uncle Com who tries to bamboozle people into thinking the Chinese don't run their citizens over with tanks, when he's fully aware that they DO run their citizens over with tanks?
A: A lying asshole.
But I guess you've probably heard that one before.
Jon: If you go to any of the 200 democratic countries of the world…
The Foreigner: Which "world" are you referring to? Here on planet Earth, there are only 78 democracies.
Jon: …everyone on the street will say it's a democracy, but ask them if they can be president or a congressman, and the average folk always say "no", and ask why, and they say because they lack money or influence.
Basically democracy only elects the aristocracy (wealth or fame).
The Foreigner: Have you ever heard of a guy named Barack Obama (D)? Or Bill Clinton (D)? Or Ronald Reagan (R)? [Apr 10 / 2013 Update: Or Richard Nixon (R)?]
Word on the street is that they all came from fairly modest beginnings…
But you labor under a misconception. Liberal democracy entails the consent of the demos. It does NOT mean that everyone gets to be president for their fricken' birthday.
Money and influence help in life. If you don't have 'em, you may have to set your immediate sights a little lower. Run for dog catcher. Or the PTA. Or city commissioner.
Bust your ass at it. Do a good job. Don't steal from the public purse. Don't get caught in bed with a dead girl or a live boy.
Do all that, and you just might get further than you ever thought you could.
But even should you fail there's one final thought you may yet still console yourself with: your well-meaning efforts have not landed you in a urine-soaked Communist political prison.
Jon: Aristotle hated democracy for this reason and preferred monarchy.
The Foreigner: Was that the reason? Or was it because he was born an aristocrat, and was quite naturally predisposed towards the form of government under which he was privileged? (Or, along similar lines, was it because he worked for Alexander the Great, and knew which side his bread was buttered?)
Nevertheless, I understand Aristotle also believed that there were some men whose very natures destined them for slavery. Never much cared for the notion, although I'm perfectly willing to admit he may have been right..about individuals such as yourself.
But let's examine your contention that "Aristotle HATED democracy" by allowing the man speak for himself:
Aristotle: "The principle that the multitude ought to be supreme rather than the few best is one that is maintained, and, though not free from difficulty, yet seems to contain an element of truth. For the many, of whom each individual is but an ordinary person, when they meet together may very likely be better than the few good, if regarded not individually but collectively, just as a feast to which many contribute is better than a dinner provided out of a single purse. For each individual among the many has a share of virtue and prudence, and when they meet together, they become in a manner one man, who has many feet, and hands, and senses; that is a figure of their mind and disposition. Hence the many are better judges than a single man of music and poetry; for some understand one part, and some another, and among them they understand the whole."
— Politics, Book 3.11
I'm not sensin' any of that "hate" you were talkin' about. He may have had his druthers, but unlike Tsai Eng-meng, he was at least honest enough to give democracy its due.
(And he certainly deserves credit for his intuition about the Wisdom of Crowds, long before anyone ever coined the phrase.)
Jon: And ALL of the Greek philosophers disagreed with elections, but rather preferred representatives to be chosen at random.
The Foreigner: It should then be a relatively simple matter for you to name at least five of them who held this opinion.
Citations of original sources, please.
"All he had was 50 cents, 50 cents, 50 cents…"
(Shaky camera-work alert. To listen, click PLAY and scroll the video off the screen.)
Update (Nov 8/2012): Tsai Eng-meng finds himself in the fine company of notable ancient Greek philosopher Mahmoud Fraudmadinejad.
Update (Dec 7/2012): What's that, Ari? You'd like to weigh in on the subject of democracy again? Why certainly, be my guest…
"The basis of a democratic state is liberty; which, according to the common opinion of men, can only be enjoyed in such a state; this they affirm to be the great end of every democracy."
–Aristotle, Politics Book 6.2
So, to paraphrase Jon's philosophical hero, Aristotle: "Liberty is the great result of every democracy."
Which just might be why would-be tyrants hate it so.
Update (Jan 9/2013): Jon averred:
"Basically democracy ONLY elects the aristocracy (wealth or fame)." [Emphasis added]
I gave 3 examples disproving this assertion. But this refutes the claim even more convincingly:
(Image from BostonReview.tumblr.com)
The chart plainly shows that half those in the U.S. Congress AREN'T wealthy. That works out to about 267 people (535 members of Congress / 2 = 267.5).
If someone has evidence that these 267 non-wealthy people are all incredibly famous (and yet, for some reason, not millionaires), then I'd be very interested in seeing it.
Update (Mar 11/2013): This just in — 85 billionaires have seats in Communist China's top political chambers.
Number of billionaires in America's democratically-elected congress?
Zero.
(To put this into more perspective, there are a total of 95 billionaires in China as of 2012. Which means that 89% of China's billionaires have positions in China's top legislative bodies. By contrast, the U.S. has 425 billionaires, and 0% of them have positions in America's top legislative bodies.)
So it seems that there is a system in which only the rich and famous obtain political power. However, the evidence shows that that system is not democracy, but the one beloved by Tsai Eng-meng: Chinese Communism.
Update (Jul 24/2015): Yet more evidence that Communists always lie. What was that Jon said?
"the Philippine Republic used the US constitution"
But the truth about the Malolos Constitution is…
The style of the document is patterned after the Spanish Constitution of 1812, which many Latin American charters from the same period similarly follow.
Sweet baby Jesus, Jon. You've an even poorer grasp of the facts than Comrade Joe Hung.
i-4
Loyal Son Of The Yellow Emperor Sells Out Taiwan
Taiwan Today has the story:
The ROC Military Supreme Court sentenced former Maj. Gen. Lo Hsien-che to life imprisonment July 25 for selling secrets to mainland China and jeopardizing national security.
(Major General Lo Hsien-che image from Taiwan Today.)
SinoDaily describes the information Taiwan's Turncoat General is said to have passed along to China:
. . . documents Lo handed over to China included details of the Po Sheng (Broad Victory) command, control and communications system that Taiwan is buying from US defence contractor Lockheed Martin for US$1.6 billion.
They said Beijing is believed to be extremely interested in learning more about the project, which gives the Taiwanese military some access to US intelligence systems.
Other information leaked by Lo reportedly covered the army's procurement of 30 Boeing-made Apache AH-64D Longbow attack helicopters and the army's underground optical fibre network.
As for motive, there are some reports that Maj. Gen. Lo was seduced by a Chinese female agent. Lo, on the other hand, claims he turned traitor only after Chinese Intelligence threatened to expose damaging photos of himself in the company of Thai prostitutes, taken while he was stationed in Bangkok. (As utterly improbable as THAT scenario may sound…)
Others may speculate that he was merely doing some "eventual reunification" freelance work. As some Chinese Nationalists have occasionally been known to do.
i-2
Taiwan’s China Post On Zhongnanhai’s Payroll
Till today, I never knew the fellow-travellers there were actually on the take — receiving advertorial money on a regular basis from the Butchers of Beijing.
From their grotesque opposition to defensive weaponry for Taiwan, to their sly anti-Dalai Lama rhetoric, to their enthusiastic support of the Politburo's demeaning "Chinese Taipei" appellation for the R.O.C., down to their unseemly cheerleading for the modern Chinese economic model (& on occassion, its political leadership as well) — all these stances for several years now have made the paper's sell-out apparent to all.
But I'd always chalked-up the KMT mouthpiece's new-found pro-Communist leanings to the sentiments of Chinese ultranationalists who had made their peace with 'Communism' (if not 'communism'). How wrong I was.
As the paper was once fond of saying, cui bono?
That's Latin for, "Who benefits?" Or in the modern vernacular, "Follow the money".
Koan For A Zen Master
A wonderful line from one of the China Post's recent editorials (inadvertently) illustrates the absurdity of Taiwan basing its China policy on a "consensus" supposedly formulated by two unelected bureaucrats sent by Taiwan & China to negotiate with one another back in 1992:
Although the Chinese communists and the nationalists cannot agree on what was actually agreed on in their 1992 talks . . .
While I do not spend much time contemplating the sound of one hand clapping, or pondering what the definition of the word 'is' is, something this inane simply must be immortalized. Not with mere words, but by taking quill to parchment, and committing lyric to verse.
Snatch the pebble from my hand, Grasshopper:
Can we agree an agreement
is still an agreement,
if those in agreement
cannot agree
upon what was agreed
in the agreement?
It would be par for the course to find metaphysicians and mystics answering in the affirmative. However, it is tantamount to professional malpractice when the president of a country — someone supposedly well-schooled in contract law – maintains such a proposition holds true.
So, How’s That Diplomatic Truce Workin’ Out For Ya?
Time was when China would lure Taiwan's diplomatic allies away from Taiwan. But back in 2008, Ma Ying-jeou of the Chinese Nationalist Party was elected president of Taiwan. And the hemorrhaging suddenly stopped.
Whether rightly or wrongly, President Ma was able to take some kind of credit for that.
So it must have come as quite a slap to the face when China sandbagged Ma. Only instead of swiping one of Taiwan's allies, as was its previous custom, this time it seized 14 Taiwanese citizens on foreign soil instead. And had them extradited to the P.R.C. to stand trial.
There are some who might not call this an improvement.
Postscript: "Beijing Bob", at Taiwan's China Post, predictably characterizes China's effrontery as, "No loss of Taiwan's national sovereignty."
Which merits a Swiftian-style Modest Proposal: If Taiwan truly doesn't suffer any loss of national sovereignty when its citizens are tried in Chinese Communist courts, then wouldn't Taiwanese interests be even better-served by simply abolishing its own law courts entirely and subsequently shipping all of its criminals to China? Think of the time, effort, and most importantly, the MONEY that could be saved.
And the best part is, there would be no downside. Consider:
a) There would be no loss of national sovereignty, as the China Post — the most honest newspaper in the history of the world — assures us.
b) Only vicious Sinophobes question the integrity, political neutrality and fierce commitment to the rule of law that is the solid bedrock of the Chinese judicial system.
c) As people of Chinese descent (and members of the Chinese "race-nation"), Taiwanese can rest easy that they will be treated more-than-fairly under Chinese law. After all, "blood IS thicker than water" . . . and the judge and prosecutors in the courtroom will be "son's of the Yellow Emperor", too.
(Or son's of somethings, at any rate.)
Communist Politburo Of China Awards KMT Quisling The Mao Tse-tung Peace Prize
Well done, Honorary Chairman for Life Lien Chan. With any luck, next year you may yet be the proud recipient of China's "World Harmony Peace Prize". Fingers crossed!
(Where Lien can share the podium with the previous winner — General Chi "Mahatma Gandhi" Haotian. A tireless warrior for peace, who issued the courageous order to flatten Tiananmen Square protesters with 30-ton tanks back in 1989.)
Great stuff from Taiwan's Next Magazine:
UPDATE: News reports from Hong Kong suggest that the Butchers of Beijing wish to make their Toady in Taipei vice-president of the People's Republic of China.
Nah. For China to publicly out their unpaid $15,000 agent would simply be too good to be true. Chairman Wormtongue is much more useful behind the scenes, cutting shadowy deals with Saruman.
"A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear. The traitor is the plague."
— Marcus Tullius Cicero
(Lien Chan image from Life.com)
UPDATE #2: MSNBC reports on the farce.
i-1
Communist Party Vassal Refuses To Call For Release Of Chinese Dissident
And to think Lien Chan came within 26,000 votes of the Taiwanese presidency. Does he really expect people to believe he's never read about the first Chinese to ever win the Nobel Peace Prize?
On second thought, this is Lien Chan of Taiwan's Chinese Nationalist Party we're talkin' about. And the man has his priorities. When someone of his ilk has to choose between standing up for democracy advocates or bringing pandas to Taiwan, there's really no contest.
(All my panda-huggin', all my panda-kissin', you don't know what you've been a-missin'…)
Postscript: Good on France and Nicholas Sarkozy for defying The Empire and sending ambassadors to Oslo for Liu's award ceremony. Same goes for Germany, Sweden and the Netherlands.
As for Japan, we'll see. On the one hand, Prime Minister Kan seems willing to bend over backwards to appease the PRC. On the other, his poll numbers seem to be tanking as a result:
Public support for Prime Minister Naoto Kan's Cabinet has plunged 14.9 points since early October to 32.7 percent, reflecting growing frustration with the government . . . reflect[ing] public dissatisfaction with the government's handling of Japan's row with China and a political funds scandal dogging ruling party kingpin Ichiro Ozawa.
i-1