Freedom House lauds Taiwanese, Japanese media

Freedom House lauds Taiwanese, Japanese media
Bevin Chu
April 29, 2006

Freedom House lauds Taiwanese, Japanese media
Taipei Times
April 29, 2006

Taiwan tied with Japan as the country [sic] with the most free press environment in Asia, according to the latest Freedom House report published yesterday. US-based Freedom House, an advocacy group that compiles political science data, published its 2006 Freedom in the World survey yesterday, ranking countries based on their level of democratic freedom. Among 194 countries or territories surveyed on press freedom, Taiwan ranked 35th, up from 44th last year [ ! ], tying with Japan. [Mainland] China, labeled "not free" in the survey, ranked 177th. The report assessed the degree of interference of law, politics and economic influences on media activities. Taiwan also scored well for its legal, political and economic environments. [ ! ]

Comment: In a previous article, entitled The First Atrocity: Freedom House's Crimes against the Truth, I wrote:

The target of my criticism at the moment is the Orwellian-named Freedom House, a lapdog of the national security state in watchdog of democracy clothing. Freedom House is apparently determined to play the role of heartless, soulless, conscienceless mouthpiece for America's global interventionist ruling elite. I have commented on this in the past, but Freedom House is a repeat offender, therefore my remarks bear repeating as well.

In fact, Freedom House is not merely a repeat offender, it is an escalating offender. Freedom House, despite being confronted with a mountain of evidence to the contrary, has become increasingly indifferent to the truth. Consider for example Freedom House's annual "Freedom in the World" report, which classified Taiwan's cronyist dictatorship as "Free" in the face of conclusive and damning evidence to the contrary, for at least two years in a row.

You can now make that three years in a row.

Local reporter fined for keeping silent on source
Taiwan News
April 25, 2006

A reporter with the mass-circulation United Daily News was fined NT$30,000 for refusing to provide the source of his information while testifying in court for a case of alleged insider trading that involved some senior government officials. UDN reporter Kao Yi-nien was one of six witnesses summoned by the Taipei District Court to testify ... the court was trying to determine Lee's contacts with Lin Ming-ta, the head of a group of speculators known as "The Vultures" who have been profiting from insider trading based on information provided by Lee. Kao reported in his story last year that Lee gave "The Vultures" advanced information on a government probe of the illegal trading of the shares of a small computer company called Power Quotient International Co. Armed with the information, "The Vultures" profited by "selling short" on the company's stock. Kao appeared in the hearing, but refused to tell the judges how and where he had gotten information about his story on the grounds that he was obliged to protect the sources of his information.

Comment: The public on Taiwan knows why Kao was obliged to protect his news sources, and from whom. Kao was obliged to protect his news sources from the judiciary.

The judiciary on Taiwan today is not an independent branch of government, but an instrument of the executive branch. It is the Mafia consiglieri for Chen Shui-bian's imperial presidency. It does not provide checks on the executive branch of government. It provides checks only on the legislature.

The judiciary on Taiwan under Chen regime rule is the guardian angel of the Pan Green kleptocracy, and the exterminating angel of potential whistleblowers who would tear the lid off the pork barrel.

If Kao were to reveal his sources to the judiciary on Taiwan, he would be turning them over to the Chen regime kleptocracy his sources just dropped the dime on. What would be in store for them next is anybody's guess.

As of April 27, the courageous Kao has been summoned before the bench three days in a row, and fined NT$30,000 three times in a row, making his total fine so far NT$90,000. To his immense credit, he has flatly refused to either reveal his sources or to pay the imposed fines.

In late 1999, early 2000, then ROC president and KMT Chairman Lee Teng-hui deliberately sabotaged his own party's assured victory, paving the way for the pro independence DPP to become the ruling party.

Since then, Pan Green legislators, officials, academics, and pundits have changed their tune on every issue under the sun. I don't mean they have modified their previous positions. I mean they have totally reversed their previous positions, on every issue they ever professed to care about, including limits on presidential power, prohibitions against cronyism, and most relevant to our current discussion, guarantees of "100% press freedom." Their attitude, stated bluntly is, "The right people are in charge now, so why worry? The rule of law? What's that?"

The Chinese language Liberty Times and English language Taipei Times have been at the forefront of the Pan Green camp's betrayal of its once hallowed pinciples.

In an April 26, 2000 editorial entitled "Freedom, principles come at a price," the Taipei Times tried to rationalize away flagrant Pan Green attempts to silence political dissent. To establish its bona fides, the Taipei Times first paid ritual lip service to press freedom.

Taipei Times: On Monday, the Taipei District Court fined United Daily News reporter Kao Nien-yi NT$30,000, saying the witness had no proper reason to reject the court's request that he give testimony. Kao was fined again yesterday for continuing to stay silent about his sources during testimony in a case of alleged insider trading that involved some senior government officials. Kao is the first reporter in this country to be fined for refusing to reveal a source.

Comment: Congratulations. The Taiwan independence Green Terror has set an historical precedent, a negative precedent that even acknowledged dictators Chiang Kai-shek and Chiang Ching-kuo never set.

Taipei Times: The judge's actions have put an end to the unbridled freedom of expression enjoyed since the end of the Martial Law era. When dealing with conflicting values, judges will not necessarily give priority to protecting freedom of speech.

Protecting one's sources is an important principle for reporters, and an important part of media ethics. It is both a moral responsibility toward the source and the basis for winning the trust of society at large. Once this principle is violated, sources will no longer trust reporters or media outlets, in effect declaring that they have no credibility. The media should not be put in this difficult position. Reporters should be applauded for protecting their sources, not punished.

Comment: So far, so good. But then come the weasel words, the ifs, ands, and buts. Did you expect otherwise?

Taipei Times: Of course, protecting the confidentiality of news sources is not a legal requirement, only a function of the freedom of expression that has long been the norm of the Fourth Estate. Those in the media might see it as an inviolable norm, but for other sectors of society, it is not a sacred standard. When there is a conflict of values, such as maintaining national security, investigating a crime or protecting the public interest, prosecutors and judges might not view protecting a journalist's source as vital.

Comment: Did the Taipei Times actually trot out the terms, "national security" and "the public interest?"

Taipei Times: Since the end of the Martial Law era, the press has played an important role in the development of Taiwan's democracy. President Chen Shui-bian has repeatedly stated his unwavering support for freedom of expression and press freedom. The rampant sensationalism and clear bias within local media, however, have caused the public to distrust the profession and its so-called ethical standards. Obviously the judge in the present case shares these doubts.

Comment: We know Chen has repeatedly stated his unwavering support for freedom of expression and press freedom. Nobody's disputing that. The problem is Chen has repeatedly demonstated utter contempt for freedom of expression and press freedom now that he is the island's dictator.

So "sensationalism" and "clear bias" justify suppression of press freedom? What constitutes "sensationalism" and "clear bias?" Who decides? Do we really need to ask?

Taipei Times: The media must begin thinking about how to uphold its responsibilities if it wants to maintain its freedoms.

Comment: So the fundamental human right to free expression has been demoted to the status of "freedoms," i.e., privileges that may be revoked if one fails to uphold one's "responsibilities." What "responsibilities?" Responsibilities to whom? Do I really need to spell it out?

Taipei Times: The fines imposed upon Kao are not a violation of press freedom. They are simply a matter of making a decision under the pressure of conflicting values, and the media will have to await the public's reaction to the case before determining whether the fines were appropriate.

Comment: Have you ever heard a more cavalier rejection of constitutional republican rule of law, and a more uncritical embrace of democratic populist mob rule?

Taipei Times: Reporters should protect the identity of their sources, but when they fail to win the support of the courts and society at large, they and the rest of the media have to make sacrifices in order to uphold their beliefs. This is the price of press freedom.

Comment: And Freedom House has the chutzpah to anoint this government one of two governments that demonstrate the greatest respect for press freedom in Asia?

As I said before:

Freedom House is not a watchdog of democracy, but a lapdog of the national security state. Freedom House helps reverse the roles of victims and victimizers, warmongers and peacekeepers, reactionaries and reformers. Freedom House's first atrocity, its first crime, is against the truth.

Defending Taiwan, or Attacking China?

Defending Taiwan, or Attacking China?
Bevin Chu
April 28, 2006

Public split over whether US would defend Taiwan
Taipei Times
April 27, 2006

The public is almost evenly split over whether the US would come to Taiwan's defense if China attacked, an opinion poll suggested yesterday. Political scientist Lo Chih-cheng of Soochow University yesterday said the result showed that the majority of people regard the US as a friendly ally. However, Lo added that this view was at odds with public opinion in the US, as past surveys there on public support for the US sending troops to defend Taiwan averaged at only 30 percent.

Comment: In my previous blog entry, I said that the most striking aspect of this article was the fact that anybody, let alone 52% of the public, expected US "support" should a war break out in the Taiwan Strait.

In this blog entry, I want to comment on another striking aspect of this article, and that is the claim that "the majority of people regard the US [government] as a friendly ally."

I question this claim. I took part in the post 320 election protests, from the desperate beginning to the bitter end. When the Bush II administration rubber-stamped Chen's "re-election" instead of doing the right thing and demanding that the election be declared null and void, I experienced first hand the Pan Blue camp's sense of betrayal at the hands of the US government. Considering how the Pan Blue camp constitutes a 53% majority on Taiwan, the 52% number is highly suspect.

Even more to the point is the Taipei Times' suggestion that because over half the public believed "the US would come to Taiwan's defense if China attacked," this "showed that the majority of people regard the US [government] as a friendly ally."

The Taipei Times' faulty premises can be broken down into three parts.

One. The Taipei Times presumes that if the ruling regime on Taiwan were to provoke mainland China so severely that mainland China felt it had no alternative but to intervene, such provocations would amount to a "defense of Taiwan" or a "defense of the ROC."

I consider such provocations treason against the Chinese nation.

Two. The Taipei Times presumes that if mainland Chinese authorities were to live up to their obligation to defend the territorial integrity of the Chinese nation, they would be "attacking Taiwan," i.e., committing an act of agression.

I consider such actions on the part of the mainland authorities patriotic acts in defense of the Chinese nation.

Three. The Taipei Times presumes that US government military intervention in such an event, would constitute the act of "a friendly ally."

I consider such intervention the act of a malevolent neo-colonialist, neo-imperialist aggressor intent on "dividing and conquering" or "dividing and weakening" the Chinese nation.

Finally, Lo Chih-cheng considers the fact that only 30% of the public in the US favors sending troops to "defend Taiwan" evidence of an unfriendly attitude toward Taiwan. Lo considers the 70% of the public in the US who oppose sending troops to "defend Taiwan" to be indifferent to the fate of Taiwan.

I prefer to think of the 70% figure as reassuring evidence that an overwhelming majority of the American public harbors a benevolent attitude toward China. I consider the 70% of the public in the US who oppose sending troops to fight in an unjust war of aggression against China to be American patriots who understand what's in the common interest of both America and China.

Unlike Lo, I don't consider the "Taiwanese, not Chinese" glass 7/10 empty. I consider the "American and Chinese" glass 7/10 full.

Public Split over whether US would defend Taiwan

Public Split over whether US would defend Taiwan
Bevin Chu
April 27, 2006

Public split over whether US would defend Taiwan
Taipei Times
April 27, 2006

The public is almost evenly split over whether the US would come to Taiwan's defense if China attacked, an opinion poll suggested yesterday. The poll conducted by the Taiwan Thinktank on the meeting last week between US President George W. Bush and Chinese President Hu Jintao indicated that 52 percent of the public expected US support should a war break out in the Taiwan Strait. Political scientist Lo Chih-cheng of Soochow University yesterday said the result showed that the majority of people regard the US as a friendly ally. However, Lo added that this view was at odds with public opinion in the US, as past surveys there on public support for the US sending troops to defend Taiwan averaged at only 30 percent. "There is an obvious gap between what the Taiwanese people think they can get and what the American public are willing to give to Taiwan," Lo said.

Comment: Having read the above passage, what would you say is the most striking aspect of this article?

Many people would say that it is "[the] obvious gap between what the Taiwanese [sic] people think they can get and what the American public are willing to give to Taiwan," i.e., the 22% gap between 52% and 30%.

I would say it is something else entirely. I would say it is the fact that anybody, let alone 52% of the public, expects US support should a war break out in the Taiwan Strait.

I'm assuming of course that the 52% figure conveniently offered up by the Taiwan Thinktank is not a "factoid." Pan Green NGOs on Taiwan are notorious for casually disseminating "factoids" and unscrupulously conducting "push polls."

A "factoid," as Wikipedia explains, is a spurious (unverified, incorrect, or invented) "fact" intended to create or manipulate public opinion. The term was coined by Norman Mailer in his 1973 biography of Marilyn Monroe. Mailer described a factoid as "facts which have no existence before appearing in a magazine or newspaper". Mailer created the word by combining the word "fact" and the ending "-oid" to mean "like a fact".

The alleged 30,000 "Taiwanese" dead from the 228 Incident is one such factoid. Pan Green spinmeisters know perfectly well that the actual number is fewer than 900.

A "push poll," as Wikipedia explains, is a political campaign technique in which an individual or organization attempts to influence or alter the view of respondents under the guise of conducting a poll. Push polls are generally viewed as a form of negative campaigning. [Some push polls] are attacks on another candidate. These attacks often contain information with little or no basis in fact. Perhaps the most famous use of push polls is in the 2000 United States Republican Party primaries, when it was alleged that George W. Bush's campaign used push polling to torpedo the campaign of Senator John McCain. Voters in South Carolina were asked "Would you be more likely or less likely to vote for John McCain for president if you knew he had fathered an illegitimate black child?", an allegation that had no substance, but planted the idea of undisclosed allegations in the minds of thousands of primary voters. McCain and his wife had in fact adopted a Bangladeshi girl. The main advantage of push polls is that they are an effective way of maligning an opponent ("pushing" voters away) while avoiding responsibility for the distorted or false information used in the push poll.

The Orwellian "Defensive Referendum" Chen Shui-bian unconstitutionally and illegally forced upon the voters in 2004 was a form of push polling. The two referendum questions were not serious questions to which serious answers were expected. They were merely a means by which an incumbent who knew he was about to handed his hat could demagogue the independence vs. reunification issue in the hope of getting "four more years."

Consider the referendum questions:

1. The People of Taiwan [sic] demand that the Taiwan Strait issue be resolved through peaceful means. Should Communist China refuse to withdraw the missiles it has targeted at Taiwan and to openly renounce the use of force against us, would you agree that the Government should acquire more advanced anti-missile weapons to strengthen Taiwan's self-defense capabilities?

2. Would you agree that our Government should engage in negotiation with Communist China on the establishment of a "peace and stability" framework for cross-strait interactions in order to build consensus and for the welfare of the peoples on both sides?

Anyone familiar with the political context on Taiwan knew that disingenuous "referendum questions" such as these were really about planting negative ideas in peoples' heads about "Pan Blue camp Chi-Com fellow travelers selling out Taiwan."

Fortunately, more politically sophisticated voters, largely Pan Blue but also independents, upon learning that the ruling Pan Green regime intended to demagogue the issue at Pan Blue taxpayer expense, reacted by boycotting the referendum altogether, ensuring its defeat.

Unfortunately, Chen Shui-bian's 319 Wag the Dog "assassination attempt" and 320 election fraud were eventually rubber-stamped by the US puppetmaster, and Chen squeaked by anyway.

But returning to my original point, the most striking aspect of this article is the expectation on the part of anyone, but particularly Pan Green supporters, that the US military will come riding to the rescue in the event the Taiwan independence nomenklatura goes too far and precipitates a shooting war between Beijing and Taipei.

As I have underscored countless times before, and will undoubtedly underscore countless times again, "Taiwan," according to Taiwan independence Quislings, "is a sovereign and independent nation, with its own government, its own territory, its own military."

That being the case, why in the world should any other nation come riding to its rescue, and more to the point, why would any "sovereign and independent" citizen of such a "sovereign and independent" nation cling desperately to the hope that another nation will come riding to its rescue? What the hell kind of "sovereignty" and "independence" is that?

As I wrote in my 2004 article Scrap the Taiwan Relations Act:

Independence: The state or condition of being free from dependence, subjection, or control. Political independence is the attribute of a nation or state which is entirely autonomous, and not subject to the government, control, or dictation of any exterior power.
-- Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition

Chen Shui-bian and fellow Quisling Lee Teng-hui shrilly insist that "Taiwan is an independent nation." Independent means not dependent. An independent nation is a nation that is not dependent on other nations. An independent nation does not depend on another nation for its military defense. A political entity that depends on another nation for its military defense is not an independent nation. It is not a nation at all. It is a colony, dominion, mandate, possession, protectorate, satellite, or territory of another nation.

If the Taiwan independence nomenklatura genuinely wants the US government to treat Taiwan as an independent nation, they should act like an independent nation. They should stop clinging to America's apron strings, stop hiding behind America's skirts, stop being dependent on the US Navy's Seventh Fleet. They should assume responsibility for their own independent national defense.

If Taiwan independence fellow travelers genuinely consider Taiwan an independent nation, they should treat Taiwan as an independent nation. They should stop treating Taiwan as if it were Guam or Puerto Rico. Taiwan is neither an American protectorate nor an American commonwealth.

Power is What They Want

Power is What They Want
Bevin Chu
April 26, 2006

Postings at weblogs, in contrast to postings at websites, are often short takes and random thoughts, not fully developed articles.

In Snow Job: Is More Power worth Less Pay? my short take and random thought was a reminder that what motivates the Political Class is not a selfless desire to ensure liberty and justice for all, but a selfish desire to enjoy power and privilege reserved for the few.

Too many libertarians fail to realize that psychology is a more fundamental determinant by far of one's consciously held values than one's political ideology, or even philosophy. An individual's psychology determines an individual's philosophy and ideology. A collective's psychology determines a collective's philosophy and ideology. Not the other way around.

One of Ayn Rand's most egregious blunders was to invert the importance of psychology and philosophy as factors in determining an individual or a collective's ideological beliefs. Ironically, her lack of psychological self-awareness merely proved that even the most brilliant of intellects are seldom "masters of their own destiny," but are instead slaves of their own darkside. The barbaric, even savage rantings of warfare statists at the Ayn Rand Institute are disturbing evidence of the Objectivist movement's abysmal lack of psychological self-awareness.

Only when we understand the Political Class's collective psychology, can we expose their philosophy and ideology for what they are, rationalizations for vanity and greed, and not allow our energy to be squandered rebutting them on matters to which they might pay ritual lip service but are in fact utterly indifferent.

Democratic universalists, for example, are motivated at their core not by selfless altruism, but by selfish egotism. At best they are motivated by patronizing missionary zeal, a desire to "bear the white man's burden." At worst they are motivated by naked colonialist greed, a desire to plunder the resources of militarily weaker nations.

Taiwan independence Quislings meanwhile, are motivated at their core not by reverence for "freedom and democracy," but by a lust for power and a determination to acquire as much of it as possible via race-based identity politics. Anyone who doubts this need only look at how the ruling DPP has behaved in the six years since it seized power.

Taiwan independence ideology and pseudo-history are not the source of Taiwan independence Quisling psychology. Taiwan independence Quisling psychology is the source of Taiwan independence ideology and pseudo-history. Taiwan independence ideology and pseudo-history are artificial phenomenon reverse-engineered to validate the neurotic emotional and psychological aspirations of the Taiwan independence Quisling mindset. I exposed this sad fact in my 1999 article, Taiwan Independence and the Stockholm Syndrome.

False ideological claims need to be rebutted. But one must never forget that, as Butler Shaffer put it, Power is What They Want. Only then will one's rebuttals strike at the root of the problem.

Snow Job: Is More Power worth Less Pay?

Snow Job: Is More Power worth Less Pay?
Bevin Chu
April 25, 2006

Snow Weighing White House Spokesman Job
Time Magazine
April 25, 2006

If conservative pundit Tony Snow gets the okay from his doctors, he may become President Bush's third press secretary — and a rare outsider in an insular administration, By MIKE ALLEN/WASHINGTON



Tony Snow, the conservative commentator and Fox News host, is awaiting a follow-up report from his oncologist before deciding whether to accept an offer to become President Bush’s third White House Press Secretary. Snow, 50, had his colon removed when he was diagnosed with cancer last year. One of his doctors initially approved him to take the grueling job, joking that the post wouldn’t give him cancer, although it might give him heartburn.

Comment: All joking aside for the moment, those familiar with the principles and practice of holistic medicine know that lying to others on a continual basis, then repressing the negative feelings one cannot help but experience about such lying, can very well give one cancer, in addition to ulcers and heartburn.

Time Magazine: The offer to Snow is a departure for Bush, who has rarely elevated outsiders to top jobs, let alone an outsider who brings his own celebrity and authority. But with his polls at historic lows for an historic length of time, the President has decided to make a few fundamental changes while sticking to his guns in other areas, notably retaining Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld.

Comment: What "fundamental changes" has Bush decided to make? President Bush, like "president" Chen Shui-bian, who is also suffering from low ratings, has defiantly chosen not to make any fundamental changes, only cosmetic changes. If changing the White House's PR flak is genuinely considered a "fundamental change" by the US major media, then the Fourth Estate and by extension, the nation is in worse trouble than libertarians thought.

Time Magazine: White House officials said Bolten has made communications a priority and has calculated that it is in the President’s interest to engage reporters. The appointment could be expected to buy the White House at least temporary good will with the White House press corps. White House aides have generally been excited by the idea and view it as a breath of fresh air ...

Comment: Wow. Toss the White House press corps a scrap from the table by appointing a celebrity pundit, "one of theirs" to the job and their hearts are all aflutter. To characterize the job Tony Snow has been offered as a "snow job" is not a cheap shot, but a depressing truth. HL Mencken, where are you when we need you?

Time Magazine: Saying he was concerned about the loss of family time and the "massive cut in pay," [Snow added]: "The up side is that for somebody like me who's been a pundit for many years, you sit around and you think about the way the world should be, you become part of something that's very rare, which is an inner White House circle, where you've got to make decisions. So there is something that has a sort of perverse attraction, which is it's a meaty, substantive job with real responsibilities." The question for Snow, and his doctors, is whether the excitement is worth the hassle.

Comment: No, the question for Snow is whether more power is worth less pay.

As Butler Shaffer astutely observed in his recent article, "Power is What They Want":

We do not pay sufficient attention to the fact that statists are less interested in either the substance of their specific “problems,” or the merits of their proposed solutions, than in retaining and aggrandizing control over the lives of others. We spend far too much of our time giving credence to statists’ issues by making reasoned or empirical responses to their proposals, and too little time addressing the underlying power ambitions.

What Snow said was:

"The up side is that for somebody like me who's been a pundit for many years, you sit around and you think about the way the world should be, you become part of something that's very rare, which is an inner White House circle, where you've got to make decisions. So there is something that has a sort of perverse attraction, which is it's a meaty, substantive job with real responsibilities."

What Snow meant was:

Merely commenting on government policy for all these years without being able to make government policy was frustrating. Now I've got a chance to be part of the "inner White House circle" that issues commands that 290 million Americans must obey. Now that's what I call a "meaty, substantive job with real responsibilities!" Now that's got a real "perverse attraction" for me! In fact, it's got me tingling all over!

Destroying "Taiwan's Credibility"

Destroying "Taiwan's Credibility"
Bevin Chu
April 24, 2006

In tracking the winners and losers in the ongoing struggle between Pan Green Quislings and Pan Blue patriots, one really has to know how to read the scorecards.

For example, Pan Green critics of the Pan Green camp's leadership have lately been lamenting the fact that Chen Shui-bian and the DPP, through their flagrant corruption and appalling incompetence, have destroyed "Taiwan's credibility," both at home and abroad.

By this of course they don't mean "Taiwan's credibility." They mean the Taiwan independence nomenklatura's credibility, and the appeal of Taiwan independence as a political "ideal," among both the Chinese people on Taiwan and foreign observers.

Pan Blue talking heads will often chime in with Pan Green critics when they express their dismay over the fact that unprincipled and opportunistic Taiwan independence Quislings have, true to their unprincipled and opportunistic nature, sold the Taiwan independence movement down the river.

Every time I watch Pan Blue spokespersons do this on TV talkshows, I can't help doing a double-take.

Do these purported defenders of the Republic of China really want a clean, competent Pan Green regime to do a good job of governing Taiwan, thereby enhancing the domestic and international appeal of Taiwan independence as a political goal?

These Pan Blue spokespersons remind me of Colonel Nichols, the captured British army engineering officer in "The Bridge on the River Kwai" (1957, directed by David Lean, novel by Pierre Boulle, screenplay by Michael Wilson, Carl Foreman), who having gotten caught up in doing a professional job of building a railway bridge for his Japanese captors, completely loses sight of his larger purpose, to defeat the enemy.

Sometimes, I have to admit, I feel a little bit like Commander Shears, frustrated at Colonel Nicholson's failure to see the bigger picture.


The Bridge on the River Kwai


British Army Engineering Officer Colonel Nicholson (Alec Guiness)


US Navy Commander Shears (William Holden)

The Name Game: From ROC to ROT?

The Name Game: From ROC to ROT?
Dream On!
Bevin Chu
April 23, 2006

According to an April 22, 2006 Central News Agency (CNA) news report entitled "ROC, PRC titles should be abolished, says legislator":

NAME GAME: A DPP legislator said that a gaffe made in Washington was caused by the similarity between Taiwan's and China's official names. A Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) legislator said yesterday that both Taiwan and China should change their national designations to avoid confusion. Speaking during a meeting at the Legislative Yuan on affairs of state, DPP Legislator Chen Chung-hsin said that when US President George W. Bush met with Chinese President Hu Jintao on the lawn outside the White House for an official meeting on Thursday, the People's Republic of China was incorrectly referred to by the announcer as the Republic of China prior to the playing of the national anthems. Chen attributed the fiasco to the fact that Taiwan's official title of the "Republic of China" was too similar to China's. Chen suggested that both countries discard their confusing national designations altogether and simply call themselves China and Taiwan. Taiwan Solidarity Union (TSU) Legislator Lo Chih-ming said the mistake by the announcer at the White House reflected the fact that it was imperative and justifiable for Taiwan to change its official name.

Taiwan independence Quislings are, as usual, exactly wrong. How so? Let's subject their disingenuous Taiwan independence spin control to systematic Reality Checks, one point at a time.

Taiwan Independence Spin Control: A DPP legislator said that a gaffe made in Washington was caused by the similarity between Taiwan's [sic] and China's official names. Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) legislator said yesterday that both Taiwan and [mainland] China should change their national designations to avoid confusion.

Reality Check: The DPP is exactly wrong. Taiwan's official name, according to the Republic of China Constitution that is the basic law on Taiwan, is "Province of Taiwan." The DPP is attempting through disingenuous semantic sleight of hand to elevate the Chinese province of Taiwan to the status of a nation. Sorry, but that won't wash. Taipei, Taiwan is the capital of a political entity known as the Republic of China, but the Republic of China is not "Taiwan." The government of the Republic of China is located on the Chinese island of Taiwan, but the nation known as the Republic of China does not equal Taiwan and cannot be reduced to Taiwan, or even "tai peng jin ma" (Taiwan, Penghu, Jinmen, Matzu). Taiwan is at most a geographical term, or the name of an adminstrative region of China.

In order to better grasp the situation, try this "thought experiment." Suppose that during the Cold War, a civil war broke out between Australian capitalists and Australian Communists. Suppose the Australian Communists were victorious and seized control of the Australian mainland, and set up an Australian Communist government in the Australian capital of Canberra. Suppose the Australian capitalists meanwhile, retreated to the Australian island of Tasmania, and set up a rival Australian capitalist government in Hobart.

Under such circumstances, would anyone who understood the situation mindlessly refer to the Australian capitalist government on Tasmania as "the Tasmanian government?" Of course not. Both governments are Australian governments, i.e., governments of Australia. The government on Tasmania would not be "the government of Tasmania." It would be the "government of Australia located on Tasmania."

Well, guess what? The same is true of the government on Taiwan. It is not "the Taiwan government." It is not the government of Taiwan. It is the "government of China located on Taiwan."

Taiwan Independence Spin Control: Speaking during a meeting at the Legislative Yuan on affairs of state, DPP Legislator Chen Chung-hsin said that when US President George W. Bush met with Chinese President Hu Jintao on the lawn outside the White House for an official meeting on Thursday, the People's Republic of China was incorrectly referred to by the announcer as the Republic of China prior to the playing of the national anthems. Chen attributed the fiasco to the fact that Taiwan's [sic] official title of the "Republic of China" was too similar to China's.

Reality Check: Again, the DPP is exactly wrong. The "Republic of China" is not "Taiwan's official title." The "Republic of China" is China's official title. Just as the "Commonwealth of Australia" is Australia's official title, and not "Tasmania's official title." The "Republic of China" is the title of one of two rival political authorities, both claiming to be the legitimate government of all of China. It is emphatically not "the official title of Taiwan." Taiwan's official title is as Google correctly noted, "Province of Taiwan."

As far as the DPP's complaint about the "Republic of China" being "too similar" to the "People's Republic of China" used by the rival political authority in Beijing is concerned, that ironically, is exactly as it should be. Since both political authorities are rival Chinese political authorities, their official titles ought to be similar. In fact, they ought to be identical. That would reflect even more clearly the fact that both poltiical authorities are Chinese political authorities, and that there is no "Taiwanese" political authority, period. The only "Taiwanese government" that has ever existed is the currently frozen Taiwan Provincial Government.

In fact, it is said that Mao Zedong later regretted his decision in 1949 to change the official title of China from the Republic of China (ROC) to the People's Republic of China (PRC). Some of his advisors allegedly warned him that changing the national title from ROC to the PRC would merely serve to diminish the perception that the CCP had succeeded the KMT as the sole.legitimate ruler of all of China.

Taiwan independence Quislings, who are advocates of democracy, the political system Thomas Jefferson denounced as "nothing more than mob rule," are in the habit of mocking Pan Blue allegiance to constitutional republicanism, the political system America's Founding Fathers favored. Specifically, Taiwan independence Quislings are in the habit of mocking the Pan Blue camp's "strict constuctionist" position that "The Republic of China is China, and includes the Chinese mainland." KMT Chairman Ma Ying-jeou correctly reaffirmed this Pan Blue point of constitutional law during his recent debate with "president" Chen Shui-bian, only to be greeted with howls of derision from Taiwan independence Quislings. Ma is too much of a gentleman to lash out at these traitors to the Chinese nation the way they deserve, so I will do it for him.

For starters, this Taiwan independence Quisling tactic is sophomoric "argument from intimidation," and as such amounts to an indirect confession that one's own case is indefensible. As Eric Alterman, a columnist for The Nation, and a regular contributor to MSNBC once noted: "A good rule of thumb in political debate is that you can judge the seriousness of an adversary's argument by the seriousness with which he treats yours. If he takes you seriously, it means he's pretty certain he's got you beat on the merits. But if he resorts to hyperbole, parody, and sarcasm, then he clearly fears an honest debate."

In the ongoing political debate between Pan Green advocates of Taiwan independence and Pan Blue defenders of Chinese national unity, Pan Green propagandists seldom if ever treat Pan Blue arguments with any seriousness. As Eric Alterman correctly noted, that merely means the Pan Greens know the Pan Blues have them beat on the merits, and they clearly fear an honest debate.

When Pan Blue defenders of Chinese national unity insist that the Chinese mainland is part of the Republic of China, Taiwan independence Quislings invariably resort to hyperbole, parody, and sarcasm, dismissing the "strict constructionist" Pan Blue position as "Ah Q," or even "delusional." But just exactly which political camp's position is "Ah Q and delusional?" Is it the Pan Blues', the Pan Greens'? Have Pan Greens already forgotten what their Furhrer Chen Shui-bian blurted out in a moment of rare honesty? He said "Taiwan independence is self-delusion and delusion of others. Taiwan independence is a myth." That was one of the rare occasions on which a Pan Green leader actually spoke the truth.

Pan Greens argue that because the Chinese Communist authorities on the mainland are vastly more powerful militarily than the Chinese capitalist authorities on Taiwan, any Pan Blue claims that the Chinese mainland is part of the Republic of China are obviously "Ah Q and delusional." The Pan Greens typically resort to mocking Chiang Kai-shek era vows to "fan gong da lu" (retake the mainland).

Alas, this Pan Green argument proves too much. If, as the Pan Greens insist, the Chinese authorities on the mainland are vastly more powerful militarily than the Chinese authorities on Taiwan, then it is Pan Greens and not Pan Blues who are "Ah Q and delusional." After all, the vastly more powerful Chinese authorities on the mainland are absolutely unwilling to tolerate Pan Green claims that "Taiwan is a sovereign and independent nation which does not include the Chinese mainland," whereas they are willing to tolerate Pan Blue claims that "The ROC government is the legitimate ruler of all of China."

Besides, this Pan Green argument completely misses the point, and confuses form with substance. From the Pan Blue perspective, the KMT has already "retaken the mainland." The KMT has effectively retaken the mainland by winning the ideological war between Communism and capitalism, by making the Chinese Communist Party see the error of its ways and adopt the free market economic policies of Chiang Kai-shek and Chiang Ching-kuo. The Pan Blues don't need to defeat the Chinese Communists militarily in order to win the Chinese Civil War. The Pan Blues have effectively retaken the mainland by converting the Chinese Communists into Chinese capitalists. That is not an "Ah Q" rationalization. That is an inspiring historical fact.

Taiwan independence Quislings hate the Chinese Communists not because they are Communists. After all, Lee Teng-hui was once a Communist. Taiwan independence Quislings hate the Chinese Communists because they are Chinese. The Pan Blues, on the other hand, have never hated Chinese Communists for being Chinese, only for being Communists. Now that the Chinese Communists are Communists in name only, Pan Blue patriots have no reason on earth to hate them. Mainland China's "capitalists in red clothing" are not the Pan Blue patriots' enemies, they are the Pan Blue patriots' fellow countrymen. In fact they are the Pan Blue patriots' comrades in arms against the real enemy, the Pan Green Taiwan independence Quislings on Taiwan.

Taiwan Independence Spin Control: Chen suggested that both countries [sic] discard their confusing national designations altogether and simply call themselves China and Taiwan. Taiwan Solidarity Union (TSU) Legislator Lo Chih-ming said the mistake by the announcer at the White House reflected the fact that it was imperative and justifiable for Taiwan to change its official name.

Reality Check: Taiwan independence Quislings would like nothing better than to take advantage of the Cold War standoff between the CCP and KMT to conveniently replace the Republic of China with a "Republic of Taiwan." Dream on. Talk about expecting a free lunch. Unfortunately for the Taiwan independence Quislings, it doesn't work that way. If Taiwan independence Quislings are serious about wanting a sovereign and independent ROT, they are going to have to fight a war of independence for a sovereign and independence ROT. Taiwan independence Quislings are not only going to have to politically defeat the Pan Blues on Taiwan, but also militarily defeat the Reds on the Chinese mainland. And as they themselves have so smugly reminded the Pan Blues, the Chinese Communist authorities on the mainland are vastly more powerful.

Combat Fatigue: Time Magazine catchs on to Taiwan's Reality

Combat Fatigue: Time Magazine catchs on to Taiwan's Reality
Bevin Chu
April 22, 2006

Executive Summary: Some elements within the US major media are finally beginning to report the truth about Taiwan. It's about time. In the past the US major media simply parroted the Taiwan Lobby's simplistic "democratic Taiwan David vs. totalitarian [mainland] Chinese Goliath" line, largely verbatim. Now, some elements within the US major media are belately telling at least part of the real story. Are they providing more accurate coverage now because they have finally gotten wise to the reality of Taiwan's politics? Or were they wise to the reality of Taiwan's politics all along, but deliberately slanting their coverage to aid and abet political forces they sympathized with? Perhaps it was a little of both. Fortunately, some elements within the US major media are beginning to tell at least part of the truth about Taiwan. They are pretty late coming to the game, but better late than never.

Let's look at Time Magazine's latest report on Taiwan, entitled "Combat Fatigue." and see what it has to say.

Sunday, Mar. 26, 2006
Combat Fatigue
Taiwan's voters are tiring of the island's rancorously divided politics and of President Chen's provocative stance towards China
BY BILL POWELL AND TIM CULPAN, with reporting by Elaine Shannon/Washington and Donald Shapiro/Taipei

Time Magazine: There are moments these days when a person like Chloe Lee, a 32-year-old boutique owner in downtown Taipei, can seem like a forgotten soul amid the bitterness that now defines politics in Taiwan. In the 1990s, she worked for the then opposition Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), when it stood for reform and change, she says, not just for Taiwan's autonomy from China. But nowadays, she says, the ruling DPP—and, for that matter, its leader Taiwan President Chen Shui-bian—seems like a one-trick pony, and a tired pony at that. "We spend too much time on Chen and his independence," says Lee. "We have more important and deeper things to discuss."

Comment: This coverage is a vast improvement over past news reports that merely parroted stock phrases such as, "a growing sense of Taiwanese national identity." Reading those so-called "news reports" one got the unmistakable impression that the reporters were secretly hoping that by writing about "a growing sense of Taiwanese national identity" they would be promoting "a growing sense of Taiwanese national identity." Hopefully that kind of "news coverage" will become less common in the coming years. That said, this coverage still has a way to go before it tells the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. It dramatically understates the degree of disillusionment that Pan Green voters and former Pan Green voters feel not only toward the DPP as a political party, but toward Taiwan independence as a political goal.

Time Magazine: Chen, meanwhile, creates "independence" controversies even where none would seem to exist: witness his high profile dismantling last month of the National Unification Council, which was created to explore Taiwan's eventual reunification with the mainland. Chen called the body and its governing guidelines, established in 1990, "absurd products of an absurd era." But the truth is that it was a dormant outfit that a fair number of Taiwanese hadn't even heard of until Chen closed it as a way of thumbing his nose at Beijing. Then, as if for emphasis, Taiwan's Defense Ministry last week proposed removing some run-down statues of Chiang Kai-shek, former KMT leader and ruler of Taiwan for three decades, from military bases across the country ...

Comment: Finally, the US major media has correctly identified the real "troublemaker" in the Taiwan Straits. Past news reports reflexively blamed Beijing, purely on the basis of an a Manichean "you're either with us or against us in the fight against the enemies of democracy" dichotomy. Newsweek Magazine's 1996 puff piece on Lee Teng-hui, entitled "Mr. Democracy," was the worst example of such "advocacy journalism." Such news stories were not journalism. They were Taiwan independence fellow traveler agitprop.

Time Magazine: The problem for Chen and the DPP is that voters like Lee are losing patience with the politics of provocation and confrontation. Taiwan has a myriad of economic ties to the mainland—the factories of scores of Taiwanese companies are located there. And in many ways, Taiwan—which Beijing regards as a renegade province—already functions as if it were truly independent; when Chen stokes the issue, it strikes many as both gratuitous and reckless, given Beijing's threats to strike with missiles if Taiwan moves to declare itself independent. According to a poll conducted last month by TVBS, a national television network, "boosting the economy" rated nine out of 10 in terms of importance, while "resolving the issue of unification and/or independence" scored just four out of 10. Public weariness with the wrangling over independence has had an effect: the DPP fared poorly in local elections last December, and a recent poll put Chen's approval rating at a dismal 15%.

Comment: Gratuitous and reckless indeed. In the past, the US major media invariably rushed to the defense of Taiwan independence provocateurs without bothering to verify Who, What, When, Where, Why, and How. The implicit attitude of the US major media seemed to be: Hell, we already know who's on the side of the angels, so why do we need to waste all that time and energy checking the facts?

Since September 11, 2001, George Bush Jr. has been insisting that those responsible for 9/11 attacked the US because "They [the Muslim world] hate what they see right here in this chamber: a democratically elected government. Their leaders are self-appointed. They hate our freedoms: our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other."

Libertarians of course know better. Libertarians know that the real reason the Muslim world hates the US is that the US is engaged in Neocolonialist, Neo-imperialist aggression against Muslim nations in their own backyard.

Taiwan's Quisling nomenklatura has been peddling a virtually identical, equally nonsensical line for the past 18 years. Taiwan's Quisling nomenklatura would have the world believe that "They [mainland Chinese] hate what they see right here on Taiwan: a democratically [sic] elected government. Their leaders are self-appointed. They hate our freedoms: our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other."

Libertarians of course know better. Libertarians know that the real reason patriotic Chinese on the mainland and on Taiwan hate (despise is a better word) Taiwan's Quisling nomenklatura is that Taiwan's Quisling nomenklatura are willing proxies of US and Japanese Neocolonialist, Neo-imperialist aggression against China's national sovereignty and territorial integrity.

Libertarians know that Beijing doesn't particularly care what kind of system the Taiwan region has, as long as the Taiwan region doesn't become a foreign nation and foreign territory. After all, have we forgotten that Beijing went to a lot of trouble to devise a legal framework that explicitly allows the Taiwan region to have its own political system, whatever that is? That legal framework is known as "One Country, Two Systems." Could Beijing's attitude be any clearer?

A recent confidential in-house poll commissioned by the DPP for DPP Eyes Only put Chen Shui-bian's approval rating at 18%, and the DPP's approval rating at 18%. This poll, to the dismay of the DPP party hierarchy, was leaked to the press. What's worse, a even more recent confidential in-house poll, again commissioned by the DPP for DPP Eyes Only, and again leaked to the press, showed that both Chen Shui-bian's approval rating and the DPP's approval rating dropping another five points to 13%!

Time Magazine: Critics say the DPP's fixation on [mainland] China skews economic policy, making faster growth difficult to achieve: just last week, Chen's government tightened restrictions on companies planning investments in [mainland] China.

Comment: "Skews economic policy, making faster growth difficult to achieve" is not exactly wrong, but neither is it right. It is a gross understatement. Taiwan's economy is in such dire straits Taiwan's suicide rate due to utter destitution is among the highest in Asia, one suicide each hour among a population of 23 million. Taiwan's Quisling nomenklatura is naturally not among this class of newly impoverished suicide victims. The "First Family" for example, can be routinely seen living large on the evening news, dining at five star gourmet restaurants, shopping for exclusive European designer fashions, purchasing multi-million dollar luxury condominiums, driving the latest model Jaguar imports, even traveling to Switzerland to deposit the estimated US$100 to 300 million they have embezzled from ROC taxpayers in their numbered accounts.

See:
The Amazing Panda Adventure

Time Magazine: The U.S., which has pledged to defend Taiwan against Chinese attack, has been irritated by Chen's compulsion to upset the status quo.

Comment: To describe the US as "irritated" is again, a major understatement. The Bush II administration was incensed at Chen Shui-bian's shenanigans.

See:
A Slap heard across the Pacific: The US Hegemon disciplines its Unruly Taiwan Puppet

Time Magazine: Lin Chong-pin, a professor at Taipei's Foundation for International and Cross Strait Studies, argues that there's a large, moderate group of voters in Taiwan who ... are weary of the war of words with [mainland] China ... 36-year-old Taipei resident Elsa Lu. "Who cares if you are Chinese or Taiwanese," says Lu, who works in her family's Taipei-based printing business. "As long as we all have a good standard of living, either unification or independence will be good." During the presidential election two years hence, whoever can tap into that sentiment may well be Taiwan's political future.

Comment: Elsa Lu's remark, "Who cares if you are Chinese or Taiwanese, as long as we all have a good standard of living, either unification or independence will be good" is what terrifies Taiwan's Quisling nomenklatura. Taiwan's Quisling nomenklatura are desperate to exploit the half century old Cold War divide to establish an artificial "Taiwanese, not Chinese" ethnic and national identity. They know that with the end of the Cold War, their window of opportunity is closing rapidly. They know their artificially concocted ethnic and national identity cannot withstand the test of reality. They know ever closer cross-Straits people to people contacts will shatter their flimsy illusion of separate "Taiwanese, not Chinese" vs. "Chinese, not Taiwanese" ethnic and national identities. That is why even if though they know the consequence of their "Taiwanese, not Chinese" Apartheid is economic ruin and mass suicide among the "Taiwanese, not Chinese" they claim to love, they are prepared to sacrifice "Taiwanese, not Chinese" lives to their cause. Other "Taiwanese, not Chinese" lives that is, not their own.

The Lien Hu Summit II

The Lien Hu Summit II
Boy, are those Grapes ever Sour!
Bevin Chu
April 20, 2006


Lien Chan and Hu Jintao in Beijing, April 2006

Editorial: The man who sold Taiwan, twice
So former Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) chairman Lien Chan has wrapped up his second trip to [mainland] China. Apart from helping this sad and aloof figure secure some kind of political legacy, it is hard to see what this latest trip has actually achieved.
Taipei Times, April 18, 2006

The Taipei Times is the English language mouthpiece for the Taiwan independence movement. Unfortunately, for an English language mouthpiece, the Taipei Times' English isn't terribly impressive. In case you're still frowning in puzzlement over the Taipei Times' "Chinglish," or "Chinese English," what the learned editors of the Taipei Times meant to say was not that Lien Chan "sold" Taiwan, but that Lien Chan "sold out" Taiwan. Excuse me, "sold out Taiwan, twice." [ ! ]

Perhaps "Chinglish" is not the right word. Since Taiwan independence Quislings are so loath to think of themselves as Chinese, and so eager to think of themselves as "Japanese, Second Class," perhaps I should refer to their laughably poor English not as "Chinglish," but as "Engrish," i.e., Japanese English.

But leaving their lack of English proficiency aside for the moment and returning to the main point: Were the grapes ever more sour?

The reason the grapes are so sour, is that Taiwan independence Quislings, Chen Shui-bian in particular, have suffered four major humiliations in a row.

First, the Bush II administration gave its unruly puppet regime on Taiwan a slap in the face, a slap so hard it was heard across the Pacific.

See:
A Slap heard across the Pacific: The US Hegemon disciplines its Unruly Taiwan Puppet

Second, in order to punish "that SOB" (Bush II's term for Chen Shui-bian), and put him in his place, the Bush II administration rolled out the red carpet for KMT Chairman and 2008 ROC presidential front-runner Ma Ying-jeou.

Third, CCP General Secretary Hu Jintao rolled out the red carpet for Honorary KMT Chairman Lien Chan and his entourage of over one hundred industrial magnates, representing an estimated 48% of the Taiwan region's GDP. Among the rich and famous Taiwan-based CEOs who stood around half an hour for the honor of having their picture taken with Hu Jintao were Deep Green benefactors of the Taiwan independence movement.

Fourth, Microsoft, Boeing, Starbucks, and the Governor of Washington have just rolled out the red carpet for mainland Chinese National Secretary Hu Jintao, according him A List VIP treatment. Chen meanwhile, will probably be denied transit rights on the US mainland during his upcoming "state visits" to sundry banana republics in central and south America.

"Sad and aloof figure?" Hardly. Despite the fact that Lien Chan is merely an Honorary KMT Chairman, he is demonstrating more cross-Straits leadership and is contributing more to the economic survival of Taiwan's economy than the entire Chen regime, the entire DPP, the entire Pan Green camp.

No, "Sad and aloof figure" is not the word. Unless of course the Taipei Times is referring not to Lien Chan, but to a self-marginalized lame duck Chen Shui-bian, cowering in fear from the Chinese people on Taiwan behind newly installed bulletproof panels inside the Presidential Palace.

But boy, are those grapes ever sour!

Let's review the Taipei Times' heavy-handed Taiwan independence media spin control, and subject it to systematic, point by point Reality Checks.

Taiwan Independence Media Spin Control: Chinese President Hu Jintao's offer of talks based on the "one China" principle was nothing but the same stale produce that has been on the table for the last six years, wrapped up in fresh packaging. Hu made his latest offer safe in the knowledge that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) government would reject it out of hand. President Chen Shui-bian has been vilified in the Chinese media as the arch splittist and has become public enemy No. 1 since former president Lee Teng-hui retired. So there was no way that Hu would make an offer if he thought for a minute that Chen would accept it. If China was really interested in talking to Chen, it could have done so long ago.

Reality Check: The CCP's policy regarding Taiwan has never wavered since 1949, when it wrested control of the Chinese mainland from the KMT. It has certainly not changed during the six years Chen has been squatting in the ROC Presidential Palace. Nor has the KMT's. Both the CCP and the KMT have maintained since time immemorial that there is only One China, and that both the mainland and Taiwan are integral parts of that One China. The only disagreement between the CCP and KMT has been over which of two rival governments is the legitimate ruler of that One China.

The Taipei Times casts the CCP and KMT's unwavering defense of the territorial integrity of the Chinese nation, as defined in both their constitutions, as "Nothing but the same stale produce that has been on the table for six years, wrapped up in fresh packaging." If that's the case, what pray tell would constitute "fresh produce?" Endless waffling? Repeated reneging? Flagrant betrayal of one's sworn commitment to "Five Noes?" Is it even necessary to dignify such an "argument" with a rebuttal?

The Taipei Times editors write:

"So there was no way that Hu would make an offer if he thought for a minute that Chen would accept it. If China was really interested in talking to Chen, it could have done so long ago."

In other words, according to the Taipei Times, Hu is a big fat liar who's merely bluffing, whereas Taiwan independence Quislings are straight shooters who mean what they say and say what they mean.

But didn't these same editors openly gloat only two weeks ago that Chen had shrewdly run a number on Ma Ying-jeou and Hu Jintao, deftly jerking them around? As they put it in an April 6, 2006 editorial entitled "Chen's smart challenge to Beijing":

"President Chen Shui-bian on Monday told Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Ma Ying-jeou that he would "absolutely respect" the idea of "one China with each side having its own interpretation if Chinese President Hu Jintao were to openly declare that the so-called "1992 consensus" means just that ... Chen has thrown the ball squarely back into China's court ... Chen's challenge to Hu also carries a risk ... What if Hu ... were to accept? How will the DPP administration respond ... Although Chen had carefully phrased his challenge -- the word "respect" is not tantamount to "accept" -- the president should nonetheless be cautious ..."

Are you getting a sense of why honest observers of Taiwan's political scene, Chinese and westerner alike, eventually wind up feeling nothing but undiluted contempt for the Taiwan independence movement and its media spin controllers?

Taiwan Independence Media Spin Control: Besides that, the communists tossed a few more crumbs onto the table in the guise of help for Taiwanese fishermen, farmers and other groups, in a blatant attempt to erode the DPP's support base. It's certain that there will be no positive achievements from Lien's trip. After all, what government would honor an agreement that their traitorous opposition had signed with a country that has 800 missiles trained on it?

Reality Check: Actually, the benefits the "communists" granted Chinese fishermen, farmers, and other groups on Taiwan were substantial enough to get the Taipei Times' panties in a bunch. The reason the benefits weren't more substantial, was that anything more would have required the cooperation of the obdurate Quisling Chen regime. The "communists," as the Pan Greens are fond of calling Beijing's capitalists in red clothing, were only able to offer those benefits that could be conferred unilaterally. Having denied Chinese fishermen, farmers, and other groups far more substantial benefits through their obstructionism, the Taiwan independence Quislings now want to blame the CCP for not offering more.

The Taipei Times denounces the CCP's "blatant attempt to erode the DPP's support base," as if we are supposed to be outraged. Of course the CCP's offer was an attempt to erode the DPP's support base. What of it? The DPP's support base deserves to be eroded. The DPP's support based needs to be eroded. As former DPP supporters now reluctantly concede, the DPP has made them nostalgic for the days when the KMT was only mildly corrupt, and at least knew how to grow the economy. Besides, the DPP is doing a far better job of eroding its own support base than either the CCP or the KMT. If anything, the CCP and KMT need to pay closer attention to the DPP's blunders. Only then will they be able to erode the DPP's support base even more effectively.

The Taipei Times denounces the KMT as a "traitorous opposition [that signed an agreement] with a country [sic] that has 800 missiles trained on it." Rebutting such a charge is difficult for only one reason. One has to pick one's jaw off the floor before one can speak.

In fact, who is a patriot and who is a traitor is not that hard to determine. Who is a patriot and who is a traitor is not a matter of subjective opinion. Who is a patriot and who is a traitor is a matter of demonstrable behavior. A patriot is one who swears allegiance to a nation and its constitution, then defends that nation and its constitution. A traitor is one who swears allegiance to a nation and its constitution, but then subverts that nation and its constitution.

Most KMT officials within the ROC government, with the notable exception of Lee Teng-hui and his ilk, are patriots. Before assuming office, KMT officials swore allegiance to the Republic of China and the Republic of China Constitution. Upon assuming office, they have faithfully defended the Republic of China and the Republic of China Constitution.

DPP and TSU officials within the ROC government, on the other hand, are traitors. Before assuming office, DPP and TSU officials swore allegiance to the Republic of China and the Republic of China Constitution. Upon assuming office, they have treacherously subverted the Republic of China and the Republic of China Constitution.

Who are the patriots, and who are the traitors is crystal clear. Is it really necessary to say anything more?

Taiwan Independence Media Spin Control: One thing Lien's trip has achieved, however, is to drive yet another stake through the heart of Taiwan's already faltering democratic system. Sharp divisions have long festered under the surface of Taiwanese society, but since Lien's first visit to China last year, these divisions have resurfaced with a vengeance. By teaming up with the dictatorship across the Taiwan Strait to oppose Taiwanese who believe in democracy, Lien has done untold damage to this nation. It is hard to believe that this is a man who spent years both studying and teaching political science at some of the best universities in the self-styled "home of democracy," when it is apparent to all that he has not one iota of respect for that political system.

Reality Check: The Taipei Times writes that Lien's trip has driven "yet another stake through the heart of Taiwan's already faltering democratic system."

Lien Chan's role I will leave for later. What I want to ask is: Why is Taiwan's "democratic system," so-called, faltering? Ironically, the editors of the Taipei Times provide the answer in their very next sentence. Because sharp divisions festering beneath the surface of Taiwan's society have resurfaced with a vengeance.

Who is responsible for these sharp divisions resurfacing with a vengeance? Why Taiwan independence demagogues, of course. Who else? Taiwan independence demagogues are the ones who thrive on such divisions, the sharpest, the most primitive, the most atavistic of all divisions -- ethnic divisions. They are the ones who have divided the Chinese people on Taiwan into "zheng gang de tai wan ren" (real Taiwanese) and "zhong guo zhu" (Chinese pigs) in order to promote their "Taiwanese, not Chinese ethnic and national consciousness." Their "Taiwanese vs. Chinese" divisions mean power. Not "people power." Not "power to the people." But power to the Taiwan independence nomenklatura. If the editors of the Taipei Times want to see who the culprits are, they need only look in the mirror.

The Divided China problem is a lingering after effect of the Cold War era capitalist vs. Communist Chinese Civil War. This internal division was created by the CCP and KMT, and will be healed by the CCP and KMT. That is precisely what Lien Chan and Hu Jintao are doing at the moment. Taiwan independence Quislings, who are nothing but contemptible pawns in the service of US and Japanese neocolonialist and neo-imperialist aggression against the Chinese nation have nothing to say in this matter. They should count themselves fortunate they are not rounded up and summarily executed for treason.

As far as "stakes through the heart" are concerned, had the editors of the Taipei Times been better versed in western folk legends, they would have realized that one only drives stakes though the hearts of vampires. On second thought, perhaps the Taipei Times' malapropism is unwittingly apropos. Professor Lien Chan is indeed a counterpart to Professor Abraham van Helsing, vampire killer. By meeting with Hu Jintao a second time, Lien has indeed driven a second stake through the ideological heart of the Taiwan independence movement, the Count Dracula vampire that is sucking the lifeblood from the Chinese people on Taiwan. And not a moment too soon.

Taiwan Independence Media Spin Control: Why doesn't he just apply for membership in China's KMT -- the Revolutionary Committee of the Kuomintang, which split from the KMT in the 1940s -- and take a seat in the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference? He would feel much more at home there, since the one-party authoritarian system still employed in China would remind him of the good old days under KMT rule in Taiwan, when he didn't need to rely on the support of the people.

Reality Check: Lien Chan doesn't need to apply for membership "China's KMT." Lien Chan is a member of "China's KMT." Somebody needs to slap some sense into these Taiwan independence Quislings. Lien Chan is the Honorary Chairman of "China's KMT," aka the Chinese Nationalist Party, aka the "Zhongguo Guomindang," aka the Kuomintang or KMT. The address of the Chinese Nationalist Party is "No. 11, Zhongshan S. Road, Taipei, Taiwan, ROC 100." The abbreviation ROC of course stands for the Republic of China. The Republic of China is the formal name of China. Just as the United States of America is the formal name of America. Got that? Taiwan is part of China. Taiwan is inside China. Lien Chan didn't go to "China" to meet with Hu JIntao. Lien Chan went from one region of China to another region of China to meet with Hu Jintao.

Unless and until Taiwan independence Quislings succeed in overthrowing the Republic of China government in Taipei and replacing it with a government of the "Republic of Taiwan," they will forever remain Chinese citizens living on Chinese soil. They of course know this better than anyone. That's why try as they might to convince themselves that "The Republic of China equals Taiwan, and Taiwan equals the Republic of China," they can't bring themselves to live with the Republic of China Constitution, the Republic of China national title, the Republic of China national flag, and the Republic of China national anthem. They can't stand the word "China." The fact is Taiwan independence Quislings don't care about "freedom and democracy," don't care about human rights and political liberty, don't care about constitutionalism and the rule of law. Taiwan independence Quislings care only about their neurotic and irrational "Taiwanese, not Chinese" identity politics. See: Taiwan Independence and the Stockholm Syndrome. They care only about officially redefining themselves as "Taiwanese, not Chinese," the sooner the better. That's why they can't resist exhorations to formally scrap the Republic of China Constitution in 2006 and to found a "Republic of Taiwan" in 2008.

As far as "one-party authoritarian systems" go, does anybody on Taiwan today not know that Chen regime ruled Taiwan is a one-party, correction, one-man authoritarian system? Does anybody on Taiwan today not know that Chen Shui-bian and the DPP both received humiliatingly low 18% approval ratings in a confidential poll commissioned by the DPP itself, but which was leaked to the press? Does anybody on Taiwan today not know that KMT Chairman Ma Ying-jeou's ratings reached as high as 80% following the three in one County and Municipal Elections? Does anybody on Taiwan today not know which political leaders and which political parties enjoy "the support of the people?"

Taiwan Independence Media Spin Control: But having been rejected by the people of Taiwan not once, but twice, he decided to sell his soul to the devil, and turned to the only place where he knew he would be guaranteed a red-carpet reception. Indeed, looking at the pictures of the reception at the economic forum with hundreds of prominent businesspeople would impress anyone -- except that many of those people had been threatened, coerced and press-ganged into coming.

Reality Check: Lien Chan was not "rejected by the people of Taiwan twice," and Pan Green spin controllers know it. On election day 2000, Pan Blue supporters voted for James Soong because they feared the consequences of a split vote. On election day 2004, with Lien and Soong on the same ticket, they gave Lien Chan a 53% to 47% majority over Chen Shui-bian. In private, away from the TV news cameras, Pan Green officials, activists, and grass roots supporters freely admit that Lien Chan won the 2004 Presidential Election fair and square. But they insist that Chen Shui-bian's phony 319 Wag the Dog "assassination attempt" and 320 election fraud were "justifed" because they feel a single four year term just wasn't enough for their man and their camp to show their stuff.

Does Lien Chan need to cross the Taiwan Strait to be guaranteed a red carpet reception? Hardly. A scientific poll conducted by TVBS immediately following the second Lien/Hu summit reveals that Lien Chan, with an approval rating of 54%, is the second most popular political figure on the island, right behind first place Ma Ying-jeou with an approval rating of 70%. Despite the fact that Lien Chan is officially retired from politics and nominally out of the picture, he remains far more popular than DPP premier Su Tseng-chang in fourth place at 44%, than former DPP premier Frank Hsieh in fifth place at 40%, than former DPP premier Yu Hsi-kuen in sixth place at 30%, than "sitting vice-president" Annette Lu in seventh place at 29%, than former president Lee Teng-hui in eighth place at 23%, than 2000 presidential frontrunner James Soong in ninth place at 21%, and here's the real kicker, than Chen Shui-bian, the "sitting president" in tenth place, dead last, at 13%.

I mean, who are the editors of the Taipei Times trying to kid? Do they think we are morons who don't have the wits to access other news sources? Do they think they can make us believe anything they want? Please!

Taiwan Independence Media Spin Control: In his bid to satisfy his vanity, Lien and the KMT have merely become tools of the Chinese Communist Party's "united front" campaign. Lien is like the Pied Piper of Hamelin, and the pro-unification media his pipe, as he leads Taiwan's democracy into the dark reaches of Beijing's cavern. The question is: Do the Taiwanese people want to follow him?

Reality Check: One truly has to wonder, do Deep Green media spin controllers actually believe their own hysterical rantings? When I ask that question, I'm not merely resorting to an old and reliable rhetorical device. I mean it. I really would like to know whether they believe their own outdated McCarthyite rhetoric.

Have Deep Green media spin controllers actually come to believe their own Taiwan independence Newspeak? Have they actually come to believe that "War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength?" Do they truly not understand that if anyone deserves to be prosecuted for high treason, it is DPP and TSU officials? Do they truly not understand that Lien Chan is a bona fide Chinese patriot, and that his Journey of Peace last year and his Economic and Trade Summit this year are the Chinese counterpart of Willy Brandt's "Ostpolitik" and Kim Dae-jung's "Sunshine Policy," and that Lien Chan and Hu Jintao deserve consideration for the Nobel Peace Prize?

Taiwan independence media spin controllers had better wake up and smell the coffee. The Cold War is over. The global standoff between capitalism and Communism is a fading memory. The Berlin Wall has been demolished. Germany has been reunified. Korea and China are next in line. The intitials "CCP" for all intents and purposes, stand for the "Chinese Capitalist Party." No one, not even Deep Green sponsors of the Taiwan independence movement such as the Ku and Tsai family syndicates, give a damn about Pan Green demagogues' McCarthyite mutterings about "Pied Pipers" and "dark reaches."

Whether "the Taiwanese people," i.e., the Chinese people on Taiwan, want to follow Lien Chan is no longer a question. That question has already been answered. The undisguised, dutiful, even enthusiastic attendence of Taiwan's business elite at the second Lien/Hu summit in Beijing demonstrated that "the Taiwanese people" have already decided to follow Lien Chan and the KMT toward a reunified China.

Who Contributed Nothing to Taiwan's Democracy?

Who Contributed Nothing to Taiwan's Democracy?
Junior High Students say: Chen Shui-bian!
Bevin Chu
April 17, 2006

The News that Taiwan's Quisling Nomenklatura doesn't think You oughta see

"What is news? You know what news is? News is what you news directors interpret it as. News is what we at CNN interpret it as. The people of this country see the news that we think they oughta see."
-- Ted Turner, Founder of CNN

The Taipei Times and Taiwan News are English language mouthpieces for the Taiwan independence movement. These propaganda organs, masquerading as "newspapers," do their best to avoid reporting news that reflects badly on the Taiwan independence movement. When they do report such news, they do so only under duress, because they realize they won't be able to suppress international awareness of them. They then impart their own Alice in Wonderland/Through the Looking Glass spin on them, hoping, in political scientist Michael Parenti's words, "to reverse the roles of victims and victimizers, warmongers and peacekeepers, reactionaries and reformers."

In the case of Taiwan, one might well add, to reverse the roles of "contributors to and destroyers of democracy," or to be more precise, "contributors to and destroyers of constitutionalism and the rule of law."

Who Contributed Nothing?

The following April 15 news story was given wide coverage by the Chinese language print and electronic media on Taiwan. As of April 17, it still had not appeared in either the English language Taipei Times or English language Taiwan News. Given that two days have already gone by, it is doubtful that it ever will. It is news that Taiwan's Quisling nomenklatura doesn't think you oughta see.

東森新聞報
誰對台灣民主毫無貢獻？全班大部分學生都選阿扁
2006/04/15 11:17


北市一所國中的歷史考題，問誰對台灣的民主沒有貢獻，蔣中正、蔣經國、李登輝以及陳水扁四個選項，全班36個學生，竟然就有30個學生選擇陳水扁總統。

The headline above the illustration reads:

ET Today Newflash
Who contributed absolutely nothing to Taiwan's Democracy? Out of an entire class, most chose Chen Shui-bian.
2006/04/15 11:17

The illustration reads:

"Bizarre" Test Question. Taiwan's Democracy, Who Contributed Nothing?!

(A) Chiang Kai-shek; (B) Chiang Ching-kuo; (C) Lee Teng-hui; (D) Chen Shui-bian

The caption below the illustration reads:

A Taipei City junior high school history examination question asked: "Who contributed absolutely nothing to Taiwan's democracy? Chiang Kai-shek; Chiang Ching-kuo; Lee Teng-hui; Chen Shui-bian? Among these four choices, 30 students out of a class of 36 unexpectedly chose President Chen Shui-bian.

Here is one of those 30 test papers:


The exact wording of the question was: "During Taiwan's [sic] difficult and painful process of democratization, which president contributed absolutely nothing?"

Notice how the teacher "corrected" the student's answer, from "(D) Chen Shui-bian," to "(A) Chiang Kai-shek?"

Taiwan Independence Quislings' Long Term Plan to Indoctriate Chinese Youth

ROC legislator Diane Lee was sufficiently incensed by this flagrant historical revisionism to call a press conference exposing for it what it was: part of a long term plan to indoctrinate the Chinese people on Taiwan with a "Taiwanese, not Chinese" ethnic and national consciousness by demonizing "mainlanders" such as Chiang Kai-shek as "enemies of democracy" while deifying "native Taiwanese" such as Chen Shui-bian as "champions of democracy" and as "Taiwanese national heroes."


Repubic of China Legislator Diane Lee exposes Pan Green efforts to politically indoctrinate students

When students at the junior high school in question complained, saying they couldn't understand why the "correct" answer was "Chiang Kai-shek" and not "Chen Shui-bian," the teacher condescendingly "explained" that "Chen Shui-bian was the first president directly elected by the voters during a ruling party secession. Therefore he could not be said to have no contribution to Taiwan's democracy."

If you're laughing out loud at or scratching your head at her answer, you're not alone.

Diane Lee reminded Pan Green propagandists of a rather inconvenient fact. If Chiang Kai-shek had not led KMT troops to Taiwan and stubbornly held out against Mao Zedong, Taiwan would have been swallowed up by the Chinese Communist Party. Then how could Chen Shui-bian ever have been elected president?


President Elect Chen Shui-bian pays his respects to Chiang Kai-shek in 2000, three days after his inauguration

Impressionable Youth? Not!

For 18 years, nearly two decades, Taiwan independence Quislings Lee Teng-hui and Chen Shui-bian have been able to fool some of the people on Taiwan all of the time, and all of the people on Taiwan some of the time with their cynical and mendacious Taiwan independence historical revisionism.

Fortunately for the Chinese people on Taiwan, Abraham Lincoln was right: "You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time."

A confidential poll recently commissioned by the DPP, intended for "DPP Eyes Only," but leaked to what Pan Green spinmeisters denounce as the "tong pai mei ti" (pro reunification media), reveals that only 18% of the public approves of Chen Shui-bian as president and only 18% of the public approves of the DPP as the ruling party. Apart from this 18%, reflecting the 20% hardcore of Taiwan independence True Believers, few on Taiwan are deceived by Taiwan independence spin control anymore.

As the above mentioned April 15 news story reveals, even junior high students are too intelligent, too well-informed, to mindlessly swallow Taiwan independence Big Lies.

One student said "I felt that neither Chen Shui-bian nor Lee Teng-hui contributed anything, because there was nothing you could point to and say that they did."

Another student upon seeing this ideologically-motivated, flagrantly rhetorical question felt so disgusted he refused to answer it and left it blank.

Yet another student said "The question was crap. What has Chen Shui-bian ever contributed? Teachers shouldn't try to turn classrooms into political talkshows. Students should stand up and object."

On April 14, when one Taipei City Shi-lin High School student was asked which president contributed nothing to Taiwan's democracy, he replied without hesitation "Chen Shui-bian. Besides being elected president by a popular vote, I can't really see what contribution Chen has ever made to democracy." He thought the test question was "lousy," and said "It gave the impression of pressuring students to denounce certain designated political figures." He said everyones' values are different, so there shouldn't be any one answer.

A student named Sun said that if determining the official answer were up to him, he would choose Lee Teng-hui, because Lee Teng-hui was "nothing but an overpaid old geezer who constantly lectured everyone in the Hoklo dialect. What did he ever contribute to democracy?" As for the "official" claim that Chiang Kai-Shek contributed nothing to democracy, he asked "Who led ten attempts at revolution until he eventually succeeded?" He said such a subject was one that should be asked on a political talkshow, and was extremely inappropriate on a history exam. Their own history teacher would never include such a question on a history exam, nor presume to openly criticize any particular political party or any particular political figure.

A Taipei City Zhong Zheng High School student named Shi said that when she was in the sixth grade her music teacher was a Pan Green zealot. During class he would go on and on about how much the DPP contributed to Taiwan's democracy. When she complained "How can you talk about this in a music class? Is this really something you should be doing?", the teacher scolded her "How dare you speak to your teacher this way?", but didn't dare punish her.

Who contributed nothing to Taiwan's "democracy," such as it is?

Just ask any junior high school student on Taiwan. They'll give you a more honest and factual answer than Taiwan's Quisling nomenklatura.

V for Vendetta

V for Vendetta
Bevin Chu
April 15, 2006

Movie review of V for Vendetta, posted at:
http://electricshadows.wordpress.com/2006/04/15/v-for-vendetta/

The Amazing Panda Adventure

The Amazing Panda Adventure
Bevin Chu
April 6, 2006

Very Daft Thinkers

A right Stinker and some very daft thinkers
Tracey Mcveigh, foreign editor
Guardian Unlimited, April 2, 2006

It was a sign of increasingly brittle relations that saw Taiwan's churlish rejection of two pandas from [mainland] China last week. Taiwan's President, Chen Shui-bian, wants to keep independence from the mainland from which Taiwan split in 1949 amid civil war and was unimpressed by the names of the bears - Tuantuan and Yuanyuan, from the word 'tuanyuan' which means 'reunion'. In a statement Chen said the pandas would not be happy living in Taiwan and called on Beijing to step up conservation efforts for pandas in China. Last week, the government announced stricter supervision of trade and tourism links with China.

Comment: Once in a blue moon, a mainstream journalist will surprise you. He, or in this case she, will almost renew one's lost faith in the major media.

The "right Stinker" I will not elaborate on. Suffice to say he was a former Mossad chief who got his unflattering nickname when he fell into a sewage pit, but has recently been elected to Israel's Knesset.

It was Tracey McVeigh's mention of "Taiwan's churlish rejection of two pandas from China" that got my attention. I must say Ms. McVeigh really nailed it.

The "Amazing Panda Adventure" (1995, directed by Christopher Cain, written by John Wilcox and Steven Alldredge) was a harmless children's film. As film critic James Berardinelli wrote:

There have been countless variations of the "boy and his dog" theme, using every animal from man's best friend to a whale. The Amazing Panda Adventure transplants the Lassie story to China and replaces the collie with a panda cub. In reality, the only amazing thing about this motion picture is Jack N. Green's impressive camerawork, which constantly allows the scenery to upstage both two and four-legged performers.

The Amazing Panda Adventure that has unfolded on Taiwan in the past months truly has been amazing -- amazingly daft.


The Amazing Panda Adventure DVD Cover Art

Ecologically Correct? Not!

As a March 24, 2006 Taipei Times article entitled, "Pandas should live in the wild: Chen" reported:

PANDA PANDERING: [Chen Shui-bian] wrote in his weekly e-newsletter that the pair of pandas [mainland] China wants to give to Taiwan would be better off if they were left alone. Chen Shui-bian yesterday called on [mainland] Chinese leaders to leave the two giant pandas it intends to give Taiwan as gifts in their natural habitat, saying they would be happier there.

"A-bian sincerely asks the [mainland] Chinese leaders to allow the giant pandas to remain in their natural habitat, because they will not be happy if they are kept in captivity or given away as presents. Only if they live in the wild and are given the absolute right to live like us human beings can they live freely and breed willingly."

Chen said ... he was inspired by a book he recently read, "Calling for Spring -- Panda Hutzi and I," in which the author, Pan Wen-shih, chronicled the 13 years he spent with a giant panda called "Hutzi," which had to endure being trapped, placed in a zoo and participating in a breeding program that involved electric stimulation. Pan's study, which included four more years spent observing other giant pandas, concluded that only wild pandas are capable of steady reproduction, earning the author the nickname "Panda Daddy."

Chen wrote that he was particularly impressed by a section of the book which said that giant pandas do not exist for the pleasure of humans and should not be kept in zoos: "Giant pandas need to live in their natural habitat where they can feed, mate, live and die freely." Chen said that human beings liked to think that they could conquer nature, but that "we must learn how to peacefully coexist with other species ... so all life on this earth will be preserved."

Comment: Chen, like Bob Dole, is in the annoying habit of referring to himself in the third person. Chen begins every sentence with "A-Bian sincerely believes ... " or "A-Bian deeply regrets ... "

Leaving that annoyance aside, the real problem is that Chen misrepresented Pan Wen-shih's meaning. The reality is that although Pan opposes capturing wild pandas and caging them in zoos, he also favors donating pandas produced through artificial insemination to zoos around the world because the program helps raise funds for the conservation of those pandas still living in the wild.

Pan Wen-shih's years of studying giant pandas earned him the nickname "Panda Daddy." Chen Shui-bian's years saying one thing while doing another, often on the same day, have earned him a nickname as well -- "Chen Shui-pian." As those who know a little Chinese have probably figured out, "pian" means "deceit."

DPP Green, not Greenpeace Green

So environmentally conscious! So Ecologically Correct! So "green!" One would think that Chen Shui-bian had suddenly turned into Al Gore or Jerry Brown.

Alas, Chen's chameleon green was not the high-minded ecological green of Greenpeace, but the narrow-minded partisan green of Taiwan's Democratic Progressive Party. Chen's green was daftly and churlishly Taiwan independence "green."


DPP Emblem


Greenpeace Emblem

Chen's Ecological Correctness was merely convenient political cover for what really mattered to him, keeping Taiwan Chinese segregated and alienated from their mainland Chinese compatriots in order to promote the Taiwan independence nomenklatura's ersatz "Taiwanese, not Chinese" racial identity and national consciousness.

Pandas? We Don't Need No Stinking Pandas!

Anyone who doubts Chen's priorities need only read a Saturday March 15, 2006 Central News Agency report entitled "China must respect Taiwan as `state' to send pandas: COA." The report confirms that A-Bian's real concern was the preservation of an endangered ideology, and not the preservation of an endangered species.

CNA: Whether Taiwan should accept a pair of giant pandas that [mainland] China has offered as so-called "gifts" hinges on whether [mainland] China will respect Taiwan as a sovereign state, the vice chairman of the Council of Agriculture (COA) said yesterday. Lee Chien-chuan said that Taiwan would accept the pandas only if [mainland] China considers Taiwan as a state in the panda export process ... Lee made the remarks during a meeting at the legislative caucus of the Taiwan Solidarity Union (TSU).

Beijing offered Taiwan the pandas last May when then Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) chairman Lien Chan made a trip to [mainland] China. Late last year, [mainland] Chinese authorities said that two pandas would be sent to Taiwan as gifts in June this year. Mainland Affairs Council Chairman Joseph Wu responded to the [mainland] Chinese announcement by pointing out that [mainland] China cannot send its giant pandas across the Taiwan Strait without the consent of Taiwan's [sic] government.

Comment: Did you get that? After all of A-Bian's unctuous concern for the survival of an endangered species, the Taiwan independence nomenklatura's bottom line is, "We don't really give a damn about the pandas. Just give us what we want, our own little "Taiwanese, not Chinese" state.

Readers unfamiliar with the mentality of Taiwan independence True Believers, who actually believe the Taiwan Lobby's PR about "freedom and democracy" being Taiwan independence Quislings' highest priority, may finally be getting an idea of what Tracey Mcveigh was talking about when she referred to "Taiwan's churlish rejection of two pandas from [mainland] China"

Pandas, No. Money Si!

"Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power."
-- Abraham Lincoln

Ex-Representative Cunningham Gets Eight Years
Sentence Sets Record for Members of Congress
AP: SAN DIEGO March 4, 2006

Former Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham, who collected $2.4 million in homes, yachts, antique furnishings and other bribes on a scale unparalleled in the history of Congress, was sentenced Friday to eight years and four months in prison, the longest term meted out to a congressman in decades. Cunningham, who resigned from Congress in disgrace last year, was spared the 10-year maximum by U.S. District Judge Larry Burns but was immediately taken into custody.

Comment: Americans are disgusted with former Republican congressman Randy Cunningham for accumulating $2.4 million in bribe money, and rightly so. After all, Randy "Duke" Cunningham was the first Navy ace of the Vietnam War, and if Cunningham is to be believed, the inspiration for "Maverick," the character portrayed by Tom Cruise in Tony Scott's 1986 blockbuster, "Top Gun." Cunningham got elected based on his image as a true American hero. The American public's sense of betrayal is therefore, correspondingly acute. Nevertheless, Americans are relatively innocent. Americans haven't the first inkling of what real corruption is.

The Chinese people on Taiwan, on the other hand, know only too well what real corruption is. That's because over the past 18 years, Lee Teng-hui and Chen Shui-bian have provided the Taiwan people with an expensive education on the meaning of the term "tan wu fu hua" (graft and corruption). Lee and Chen have embezzled sums that make Cunningham's $2.4 million look like chump change. If we think of graft and corruption as a kind of aerial dogfighting skill, then Lee Teng-hui and Chen Shui-bian are the aces, and Duke Cunningham is the rookie. Lee and Chen are the masters of ACM, air combat maneuvering. Cunningham is a bogey flying straight and level. Lee and Chen are Iceman and Maverick. Cunningham is "dead meat."

On March 19, 2000, former ROC First Lady Tseng Wen-hui (Mrs. Lee Teng-hui) fled to New York with 54 suitcases containing US$85 million [ ! ] in embezzled funds, where she was intercepted by US Customs officials. ROC legislatorrs Fung Hu-hsiang, Hsieh Chi-tah and Dai Chi, of the small but influential New Party demanded a thorough investigation of the scandal, which was witnessed by EVA Air baggage handlers, US Customs agents, high-ranking US State Department officials, Bank of America executives, and Brink's security guards. But a deal was apparently struck between the US State Department and former ROC President Lee Teng-hui: In exchange for his resignation as KMT Party Chairman, Lee and his wife would get to keep their ill-gotten gains, and the embarrassment to both governments would be covered up. Not content, a vindictive Tseng filed slander suits. A Taipei District Court dismissed them for lack of evidence. Tseng filed appeals. A more sympathetic High Court presided over by a judge connected to the former president convicted Fung, Hsieh and Dai. Fung was sentenced to 4 months prison and fined NT$10,000,000 in damages.

Bear in mind, Tseng Wen-hui's US$85 million in 54 suitcases was merely the tip of the iceberg, merely the Lee family's liquid assets.

Lee Teng-hui successor Chen Shui-bian meanwhile, has outdone even his mentor. Chen has assumed personal control of the ROC's two largest government banks. To make a long story short, the ROC national treasury has for all intents and purposes become Chen Shui-bian's personal bank account.

The celebrated native Taiwanese liberal reformer and television commentator, Joyce C. Huang, author of the best-selling books "Taiwan at the Crossroads: An Expose of Taiwan's New Dictatorship" and "Emptying the Coffers," estimates that Chen and his wife alone have embezzled anywhere between US$100 million to US$300 million from the "Taiwanese people" they "love" so much. As Ms. Huang cautions, these are educated guesses. We will probably never know exactly how much these "defenders of Taiwan's democracy" have stolen from the people.

Readers of this column know that I have compared Taiwanese kleptocrats Lee Teng-hui and Chen Shui-bian to their Indonesian and Philippine counterparts Mohammed Suharto and Ferdinand Marcos. I may have to stop doing that. Based on the full extent of Taiwan independence Quisling corruption, such comparisons may be unfair. Unfair to Suharto and Marcos.

Taiwan independence fellow travelers, whose hearts bleed over "the plight of the Taiwanese people," either don't know what Taiwan's Quisling nomenklatura have been doing, or they don't care. If they knew or cared, they wouldn't continue abetting these contemptible parasites who are eating the 23 million people on Taiwan alive.

Chen Shui-bian and the DPP would have the public believe that they are concerned whether a pair of pandas would be happier in a zoo on Taiwan than in a zoo on the Chinese mainland. But a just leaked poll commissioned by the DPP itself shows both Chen and the DPP receiving an 18% public approval rating. In other words, the Taiwan public doesn't even believe Chen and the DPP care whether 23 million human beings on Taiwan live or die, let alone whether two pandas are "happy."

For the past six years, Pan Green voters on Taiwan have watched in stunned incredulity as A-Bian, their "Man of the People" and the "Son of Taiwan," a former dependant of a "Category Three Impoverished Household," in cahoots with the "idealistic" and "reformist" DPP, loot the public coffers three ways from Sunday, and live in a manner so ostentatious as to make previous Asian strongmen look like Mahatma Gandhi.

Fate tested Chen Shui-bian's character by forcing him to grow up under adversity. Chen, like nearly all men, could stand adversity. Fate tested Chen Shui-bian's character again by giving him enormous power, at least within the confines of the "Free Region of China." Chen, like his fellow Quisling opportunists, failed the test of power.

Bu Ai Tai Wan

Woman kills two grandsons, tries to kill self
DPA AND CNA, April 3, 2006

A 55-year-old grandmother killed her two grandsons early yesterday morning before slitting one of her own wrists in an attempt to commit suicide. Wu Shu-hui, who previously suffered a minor stroke, had been taking care of her two grandsons, 7 and 8, since the divorce of her son, who has gone to Keelung to seek employment. Neighbors said the elder grandson was mentally retarded, and that it was probably stress from living conditions and heavy financial pressures that caused the woman to decide to end the lives of the two children and her own. Wu burned charcoal in her bedroom early yesterday morning after her two grandsons went to bed. The younger boy died from carbon monoxide inhalation, but the elder grandson woke up and shook his grandmother, attempting to wake her. Realizing the elder grandson was still alive, she used a knife to stab the boy to death before slitting one of her own wrists.

Comment: The above news article tells an all too common, all too tragic story of Pan Green misruled Taiwan. Such stories are so common they almost no longer qualify as news. This particular story only made the headlines because the suicide didn't go according to plan, but instead went even more horrifically wrong than usual.

Taiwan independence Quislings accuse anyone who refers to himself as "Chinese" and who wants reunfication with "West China," of the mortal sin of of "bu ai tai wan" (not loving Taiwan).

Let no one accuse Taiwan independence Quislings of "bu ai tai wan." The Pan Green DPP government, with infinite compassion, has responded to this epidemic of suicides by ordering manufacturers of charcoal to paste warning labels on sacks of charcoal, urging consumers not to use the product to commit suicide.

SURGEON GENERAL'S WARNING: Charcoal Smoke Contains Carbon Monoxide; Inhalation May Be Hazardous to Your Health.

No, the labels don't actually say that, but they say something pretty close. For example,

One brand of barbecue charcoal imported from Indonesia appeared on the shelves of supermarkets with the [following] warning on its package:

"Charcoal can bring you warmth and light. No matter where you are and what difficulties you face. We are willing to help you."

It included the phone numbers of suicide-prevention hotlines. The importer of the Indonesian charcoal printed the message in response to concerns raised by the Department of Health about a recent wave of suicides by charcoal-burning. In the past month, hardly a day has gone by without someone committing suicide by burning charcoal and inhaling the carbon dioxide. Many of the deceased were so-called "card abusers" -- people who have fallen hopelessly into debt on their credit cards. Taiwan has one of the highest suicide rates in Asia with an incident recorded every two-and-a-half hours.

This number, as shocking as it may be, was last year's. This year it has more than doubled, to one suicide every hour.

Tuantuan and Yuanyuan, Agents of Influence

Editorial: Enough about the pandas, already
Taipei Times, April 2, 2006

Tomorrow the Council of Agriculture is expected to announce its formal rejection of two zoo operators' applications for the importation of pandas from [mainland] China ... One can hardly blame [the] government ... If the pandas had entered Taiwan, the KMT would have had something to claim credit for ... one should never look at such government decisions in isolation ... they should be examined in the context of the entire cross-strait relationship. Only then can one recognize that the gesture was never anything more than an act of propaganda ... Beijing was trying to create the impression that [mainland] China means no harm to Taiwan ... what could the government do? It could have accepted the pandas (ignoring the prison lifestyles that they would have had to endure), but this would have rewarded [mainland] China for its cynicism and diverted public attention from the growing danger that Taiwan faces. Those [who wanted to see the pandas] can consider saving up to visit [mainland] China's interior where pandas belong, or, better still, patronize the Taipei Zoo's native [sic!] fauna exhibit, which includes an interesting range of creatures, including the magnificent -- and no less cute ... Formosan black bear. The pandas are now a non-issue.


Tuantuan and Yuanyuan, the Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxemburg of the Animal Kingdom

Comment: Be not deceived! Tuantuan and Yuanyuan, these seemingly innocuous members of the family Ursidae, genus Ailuropoda, species melanoleuca, are the animal kingdom counterparts of Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxemburg. Had A-Bian been so naive as to allow these "agents of influence" onto the hallowed soil of Ilha Formosa, who knows what dangerous and hypnotic spell they might have cast over the flower of our Taiwanese youth? Truth, Justice, and the Taiwanese Way must be protected from the ever present threat of Chinese Communism. Besides, who needs foreign Chinese bears when we have perfectly good native Taiwanese bears of our own?

Dear Ms. Mcveigh, thank you for restoring a little perspective on Taiwan's Amazing Panda Adventure. For a while I thought I was the one going crazy. As political observers in both the Pan Green and Pan Blue political camps know perfectly well, the Taiwan independence nomenklatura feels daftly and churlishly compelled to perpetuate the Cold War estrangement of "East China" from "West China," come hell or high water. Failure to maintain Taiwanese Apartheid would mean rapid economic and social reintegration and eventual political reunification with the Chinese mainland. That is why Taiwan independence True Believers are willing to sacrifice the lives of 23 million Chinese on Taiwan without even batting an eyelash, without shedding a tear.

See:
East and West Germany, East and West China