Wednesday, November 30, 2011
China adding to Gold Reserves
Communism in China: No Longer a System, Merely an Outdated Brand Name
Eugene Robinson: The China I know
Tuesday, Nov 29, 2011
An incisive quote, from an unexpected source. Chinese intellectuals the world over have known this for some time, but many intellectuals in the US remain blissfully clueless.
"China is governed by a regime that calls itself communist. But ... communism self-immolated two decades ago ... Communism is no longer a system in China. It’s just a brand name that officials haven’t figured out how to ditch."
-- Eugene Robinson, Columnist for the Washington Post
Saturday, September 10, 2011
"When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."
-- Arthur Conan Doyle, creator of Sherlock Holmes
9/11: Controlled Demolitions
September 11, 2011
It seems incredible, but it has been 10 years to the day since September 11, 2001. Those of us old enough to be aware, have had a great deal of time to contemplate the events that unfolded that day.
Among those who watched the events of 9/11 unfold in real time, right before their eyes, were many of my fellow architects and engineers. Thanks to increasingly powerful Information Technology, we have been able to watch the three World Trade Center towers crumbling to dust, in excruciating slow motion detail, again and again.
Closer scrutiny of the events of 9/11 in the 10 years since has led many of us to some disturbing but unavoidable conclusions. One of these conclusions is that the WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7 towers could only have been brought down deliberately and with premeditation, by means of controlled demolition.
Modern steel high-rise buildings engulfed in flames may twist and bend out of shape. But they never spontaneously and miraculously disintegrate into thousands of fragments. They never fall straight down at free fall velocity inside their own footprints.
A modern steel high-rise building will disintegrate into thousands of fragments and fall straight down at free fall velocity inside its own footprint, only if it has been subjected to controlled demolition. Only if thousands of cutting charges have been strategically placed and precisely detonated in close succession.
As one critic of the official explanation of the events of 9/11 put it, in wryly roundabout fashion, "No building exhibiting all the characteristics of a controlled demolition, has ever not been a controlled demolition." In other words, if it looks like a controlled demolition, it is a controlled demolition.
The WTC1 and WTC2 towers were struck by aircraft. The WTC7 tower was not. Yet all three towers disintegrated into thousands of fragments and fell straight down at free fall velocity inside their own footprints.
The aircraft strikes did not cause the three WTC towers to disintegrate. The fires did not cause the three WTC towers to disintegrate. The combination of aircraft strikes and fires did not cause the three WTC towers to disintegrate. The three WTC towers disintegrated as a result of controlled demolitions. The aircraft strikes provided superficially plausible "causes" for the controlled demolitions.
Yes, the political implications are far-reaching and deeply unsettling. After all, if the three WTC towers were destroyed by controlled demolition, then 9/11 was almost certainly an Inside Job, a False Flag Operation, a Reichstag Fire, or as the Project for a New American Century and George W. Bush put it, a "New Pearl Harbor."
Most Americans, however cynical and jaded, cannot bring themselves to believe that "our" government would ever murder 3,000 of its own citizens, with premeditation and in cold blood.
But hard scientific and engineering realities cannot be evaded. There is simply no way around them. As Sherlock Holmes reminded his faithful assistant Dr. Watson, "How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?"
Initially I assumed 9/11 was a case of what Chalmers Johnson called "blowback," retaliation for black ops carried out abroad without the knowledge of the American public. I assumed that at worst it was a case of LIHOP, or "Let it happen on purpose." I assumed that key elements within our own government learned of the attacks in advance, but deliberately lowered America's defenses to ensure that the hijacked flights would not be intercepted.
I temporarily set aside my incredulity over the "Pancake Collapse Theory," even though everything I knew about architecture and structural engineering screamed that it couldn't possibly be the explanation.
Like millions of other fellow citizens, I could not believe "our" government could commit such a horrendous atrocity. Therefore I turned elsewhere for answers.
Eventually however, the knowledge that modern steel high-rise buildings do not suddenly and miraculously disintegrate into thousands of fragments and fall straight down at free fall velocity, forced its way back into my consciousness.
Intractable architectural and structural engineering realities eventually forced me to conclude that 9/11 could only have been a case of MIHOP, or "Made it happen on purpose." I was forced to conclude that key elements within "our" government probably planned the attacks. They carried them out, either on their own or with al-Qaeda, then framed al-Qaeda for them afterwards.
A controlled demolition is a unique and distinctive process. Nothing looks like a controlled demolition except a controlled demolition. If something looks like a controlled demolition, it is a controlled demolition. The destruction of the three WTC towers looked like controlled demolitions, because they were controlled demolitions.
The "Pancake Collapse Theory," promoted by FEMA, PBS, and Popular Mechanics, which purports to explain the destruction of the three WTC towers on 9/11, is riddled with lies and deception.
An objective scientific investigation of the events of 9/11 is essential. The American people have a right to the truth. People the world over have a right to to the truth.
Useful Videos and Web Pages
9/11: Explosive Evidence -- Experts Speak Out
9/11 Research: Other Skyscraper Fires
Fires Have Never Caused Skyscrapers to Collapse
Only Demolition and Earthquakes Have Leveled High-Rises
N.B.: Some 9/11 Truth Movement figures may be government plants whose function is to discredit the 9/11 Truth Movement by advancing arguments that turn out to be non-credible. The only way not to be taken in is to connect the dots for yourself. Evaluate each argument for yourself, on its own merits, independently of who is advancing them.
Sunday, August 21, 2011
Famed Songwriter and Movie Director Liu Jia-chang proclaimed that if Blue Camp candidates refused to say they were running for "President of the Republic of China," then he would
Liu Jia-chang Threatens to Run for President of the Republic of China
by Bevin Chu
August 21, 2011
Famed songwriter and movie director Liu Jia-chang 劉家昌 came out with both guns blazing yesterday evening, at the 18th Anniversary Celebration of the Founding of the New Party.
Unhappy that Blue and Green camp candidates were falling over each other proclaiming that they were running for "President of Taiwan," surprise guest Liu threatened to declare his own candidacy for the upcoming 2012 Republic of China Presidential Election.
Liu said that if by September 20th, none of the candidates made clear that they were running for President of the Republic of China, and not "President of Taiwan," he would throw his hat in the ring. He said that people should not forget who their ancestors are, merely for the sake of a few votes.
Liu said he received an invitation from the Overseas Compatriots Affairs Commission (OCAC) to participate in the centennial ceremonies, and to lead participants in singing Liu's universally recognizable patriotic song, "An Ode to the Republic of China" 中華民國頌,
Liu's "An Ode to the Republic of China" is comparable to "America the Beautiful" in both its spirit and lyrics.
Teresa Teng singing "An Ode to the Republic of China"
Faith Hill singing "America the Beautiful"
But Liu said he saw posters that read "The Centennial of Taiwan's Founding." His reaction was, "Has a Nation of Taiwan really been founded? and flatly turned down the invitation.
KMT Secretary General Liao Liao-yi, who was sitting in the audience, rushed to reassure Liu that KMT candidates Ma Ying-jeou and Wu Dun-yi would absolutely, positively be running for "President and Vice President of the Republic of China."
When confronted by reporters in Tainan the following afternoon, Ma Ying-jeou made a point of saying, "Of course I'm running for President of the Republic of China. From beginning to end I've been running for President of the Republic of China."
Thank you, Maestro Liu, for holding Ma Ying-jeou's feet to the fire, and reminding him that he is the President of China, not the "President of Taiwan."
Thank you, New Party, for keeping the Blue Camp honest.
2011.08.21 04:06 am
2011/08/21 17:46 中央社
Thursday, July 14, 2011
Tsai Ing-wen Plays the "Taiwanese Identity" Card
Taiwan, where are you?
Taiwan, what do you want?
Taiwan, where are you going?
TAIWAN NEXT 現在決定未來! / Now determines the future!
Cue cover of Iz Kamakawiwoʻole's rendition of "Over the Rainbow"
Tsai Ing-wen (v.o.)
一九八零年代 / During the 1980s
我是在倫敦經濟學院 / I was at the London School of Economics
我的老師 / My teacher
不斷的啟發我們 / endlessly inspired us
社會中有中一條理性的道路 / Society has a rational path
有一個扛起責任的政府 / a government that bears responsibility
打造一個均富永續的國家 / that forges an equitable and enduring nation
台灣要走向世界 / Taiwan must walk toward the world
我是台灣人 / I am Taiwanese
我是蔡英文 / I am Tsai Ing-wen
TAIWAN NEXT 現在決定未來! / Now determines the future!
Tsai Ing-wen Plays the "Taiwanese Indentity" Card
by Bevin Chu
July 14, 2011
Tsai Ing-wen, DPP candidate for Republic of China President in 2012, has played the "Taiwanese Identity" card.
Watch this slickly made campaign commercial, commissioned by Tsai Ing-wen's campaign committee. But don't be fooled. The impeccably professional production values, replete with a cover of Iz Kamakawiwoʻole's rendition of "Over the Rainbow," mask deeply repugnant psychological attitudes.
Tsai's concluding remarks in the commercial are: "I am Taiwanese, I am Tsai Ing-wen."
Tsai's opponent is incumbent President Ma Ying-jeou (KMT), who was born in Hong Kong.
Many native English speakers unfamiliar with politics on Taiwan, especially those living in the US, may not fully appreciate what Tsai is getting at. They may have difficulty discerning her subtext. They may find it hard to read between the lines.
To better understand what Tsai Ing-wen is really saying, imagine the same commercial in the US, run by white supremacist David Duke, running against a Barack Obama type "outsider," someone cast as "not one of us." Imagine Duke concluding with: "I am American, I am David Duke."
No one would have the slightest difficulty understanding what Duke was getting at. Everyone would know Duke was implying that his opponent was "not an American, not a white American."
And so it is with Tsai Ing-wen, the DPP, and the Taiwan independence movement. They remain motivated, today in 2011, as they have been for the past four decades, by atavistic identity politics and petty ethnic hatred.
The more rabidly fundamentalist supporters of Tsai Ing-wen, the DPP, and the Taiwan independence movement are unguarded in their speech. They scream about how "Taiwanese bulls" will exterminate "Chinese pigs," at the top of their lungs.
Tsai however, gives their barnyard bigotry a kinder, gentler face, the way genteel white supremacists such as Peter Brimelow give white racism a kinder, gentler face.
The sad fact is, DPP leaders and the Taiwan independence movement are motivated at their psychological and emotional core, not by any longing for "democracy, freedom, and human rights," but by their compulsion to craft a "Taiwanese ethnic and national identity."
The central defect at the heart of the Taiwan independence movement is not practical. The central defect at the heart of the Taiwan independence movement is moral. The central defect at the heart of the Taiwan independence movement is its self-hating "We're Taiwanese, not Chinese" identity politics.
As Sisy Chen, former DPP Public Relations Director noted, "The DPP is the KKK of Taiwan." As Cheng Li-wen, former DPP National Assembly Member noted, "I never wanted to believe that the DPP was racist, but it is."
Make no mistake. The KMT was indeed at one time guilty of gross abuses. These abuses were committed by a government against its own citizens.
They were typical of abuses committed by countless governments against their own citizens. They must be harshly condemned, and have been harshly condemned, even by KMT leaders.
Tsai, the DPP, and the Taiwan independence movement, however, knowingly and deliberately misrepresent these abuses. They misrepresent them as abuses committed by "one tribe against another, different tribe." As abuses committed by "one people against another, different people." As abuses committed by "mainlanders against natives." And ultimately, as abuses committed by "Chinese against Taiwanese."
Why do they engage in this flagrant misrepresentation of the facts?
Because they need a rationale for their ethnic identity based project of nation building, for the creation of a Hoklo Chauvinist themed "Republic of Taiwan," and have no qualms about lying to achieve that goal.
In 2004 for example, a delegation of ministers from the Presbyterian Church in Taiwan, a long time abettor of Taiwan independence, paid an emergency visit to DPP elder Shen Fu-hsiung. Shen was under pressure to spill the beans, and testify that First Lady Wu Shu-cheng had accepted huge cash bribes from a prominent businessman.
What textual truth did these devout Christians share with him? They solemnly assured Shen that it was not a sin to lie as long as it was in a good cause. In other words, "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor, unless of course it advances Taiwan independence."
Tsai Ing-wen has marketed herself as a reformer whose mission it is to upgrade the DPP. Sad to say, she has done no such thing. Instead, the DPP has downgraded Tsai Ing-wen, bringing her down to its level.
Assuming of course that Tsai Ing-wen was not already at their level from the beginning.
The following is a recent UDN News editorial on Tsai Ing-wen's "I am Taiwanese, I am Tsai Ing-wen" campaign commercial.
Decoding Tsai Ing-wen's "I am Taiwanese."
United Daily News editorial
Translated by Bevin Chu
July 21, 2011
"I am Taiwanese, I am Tsai Ing-wen," This declaration means that "Ma Ying-jeou is not Taiwanese." It means also that "They are not Taiwanese." That is, those who support Ma are "not Taiwanese." Tsai's declaration does not just divide Ma from Tsai. It divides society as well.
Just exactly what is Ma Ying-jeou? According to Green Camp political logic, Ma Ying-jeou is a "mainlander." By implication, Ma Ying-jeou is "Chinese." By further implication, he is a "Chi-Com fellow traveler." Context reveals meaning. Ma Ying-jeou, by implication, is "not Taiwanese." In fact, Tsai's declaration is merely a sanitized version of "Chinese pigs, get the hell back to China." According to Green Camp logic, Ma Ying-jeou stands for a "foreign regime," for "eventual reunification," and for "pandering to [Mainland] China and selling out Taiwan." Therefore Ma Ying-jeou is "not Taiwanese," By implication he is "Chinese," just like "those people" on the other side of the Taiwan Strait. Therefore Green Camp political rhetoric often equates the China Nationalist Party with the Chinese Communist Party. Lashing out at the Kuomintang means lashing out at the Chinese Communists. Sometimes it even equates the Republic of China with the Peoples Republic of China. Opposition to the ROC is hence equated with opposition to the PRC.
The Republic of China government has scant wherewithal currently to represent China as a whole. This is primarily the fault of Beijing. Few people on Taiwan identify themselves as "Chinese." This too is primarily the fault of Beijing. Therefore when Taiwan independence advocates incite "ethnic struggles," they spin them as showdowns between "Taiwanese" on the one side, and "Chinese" on the other. On Taiwan, being labeled "Chinese" is now the equivalent of being a "Chinese" person from the other side of the Taiwan Strait. The term "Taiwanese" is no longer merely an antonym for "Mainlander." That merely invokes the issue of "ethnicity," or more accurately, provincial origin. Today the term "Taiwanese" has been transformed into an antonym for "Chinese." That invokes the issue of "national identity." According to the self-styled "Taiwanese" in today's Democratic Progressive Party, the Republic of China is a "foreign regime." Ma Ying-jeou is a "Territorial Governor," and supporters of the Republic of China are "Chinese." By implication, opposition to Taiwan independence is opposition to Taiwan. Opposition to Taiwan independence is "lack of love for Taiwan." Opposition to Taiwan independence is proof positive that one is "not Taiwanese." This is the clear and unambiguous subtext behind Tsai Ing-wen's declaration, "I am Taiwanese,"
But champions of this rhetorical framework must prove that Taiwan independence is the only way to save Taiwan, and the only way to demonstrate one's love for Taiwan. Unfortunately for them, Taiwan independence is a movement whose time has come and gone. Since martial law was lifted, Taiwan has been subjected to over 20 years of internal and external shocks. These shocks swept Taiwan independence into the dustbin of history. With their ringing declarations that "I am Taiwanese," Tsai Ing-wen and DPP officials are encouraging Taiwan independence supporters to cling to their delusions. They are inciting social divisions. In fact, Tsai and the DPP no longer have the chutzpah to openly champion Taiwan independence. Otherwise, Tsai Ing-wen would have come right out and declared, "I am a champion of Taiwan independence. I am Tsai Ing-wen!"
This is the pathetic reality behind this political farce. Chinese from the other side of the Taiwan Strait have become "Mainland tourists." They have become Taiwan's "sixth ethnic group," second only to foreign spouses. Tsai Ing-wen was encouraging delusions of Taiwan independence. Why else would she revive the long dead Taiwan independence mantra, "I am Taiwanese?" Since she insists on reviving the "I am Taiwanese" mantra, why not use the more common phrase, "My Nation of Taiwan compatriots?" Why not come right out and champion Taiwan independence?
This has long been the plight of the Democratic Progressive Party. It flirts with Taiwan independence, but does not dare openly champion Taiwan independence. Unfortunately, Tsai Ing-wen remains trapped within this dilemma of self-delusion. Tsai Ing-wen opposes the 1992 consensus. She opposes ECFA. She opposes "politically motivated procurements." All her positions are based on Taiwan independence political and economic logic. But when all is said and done, she cannot publicly champion Taiwan independence. Tsai Ing-wen remains trapped. She can flirt with Taiwan independence, but she cannot openly promote Taiwan independence. In which case, what are we to make of her "Taiwan Next" gimmick?
Three years ago, Tsai Ing-wen became Democratic Progressive Party Chairman. She clearly hoped to shrug off this albatrosss around her neck. In March 2009, she issued a manifesto entitled, "Defend Taiwan with a New Concept of Nativism." She said "Some people have unintentionally [sic] defined Nativism far too narrowly. They have invested it with a specific meaning. Their narrow definition of Nativism is at odds with our need to unite for our collective survival." What does Tsai Ing-wen plan to do with her "I am Taiwanese" TV spot, which intentionally defines Nativism ar too narrowly.
DPP officials can no longer talk through their hats. They can no longer treat the term "Taiwanese" as their private property. Taiwan independence advocates can no longer treat the term "Taiwanese" as their private property. Tsai Ing-wen can no longer treat the term "Taiwanese" as her private property. Taiwan independence is an ideology that can only create chaos on Taiwan. It cannot save Taiwan. Therefore, it is not a means by which one can demonstrate "love for Taiwan." Taiwan independence advocates must cease using the terms "Republic of China" and "Nation of Taiwan" to divide the nation, They must cease using the declaration that "I am Taiwanese (whereas you are not)" to divide Taiwan.
Some people may persist in using such terms as "love for Taiwan" and "Save Taiwan" to define who is "Taiwanese." Perhaps we should compare Ma Ying-jeou and Tsai Ing-wen. Which of the two has demonstrated greater allegiance to the nation's Constitution? Which of the two has crafted a cross-Strait policy that has benefitted the public on Taiwan? Which of the two deserves the honorific "Taiwanese" more? Perhaps we should let the public decide.
Tsai Ing-wen did not say "I am a champion of Taiwan independence, I am Tsai Ing-wen." She was afraid even to whisper it. Why do DPP officials insist on flirting with Taiwan independence, when they are afraid to champion it?
2011.07.21 02:32 am