Of Geeks and Wonks

Of Geeks and Wonks
Bevin Chu
September 01, 2007


Jeffrey Tucker, editorial vice president of www.Mises.org

"A Political Theory of Geeks and Wonks" by Jeffrey Tucker, editorial vice president of www.Mises.org., is one of the best articles ever posted at LRC.

It neatly sums up the psychological and philosophical dichotomy between Pragmatists and Idealists.

It correctly affirms that despite appearances, Pragmatists do not have their feet on the ground, and Idealists do not have their heads in the clouds.

It has far-reaching implications for the Democratic status quo and the inevitable Market Anarchist political future.

Market Anarchist Geeks may strike Democratic Wonks as Ivory Tower Utopians. But in fact Market Anarchist Geeks grasp the comparative merits of political systems far better than "realpolitik" Democratic Wonks.

Market Anarchist Geeks know that the structural defects built into conventional monopolistic forms of government such as Democracy doom them to eventual, inevitable failure. They know that in the long term, mankind will have no alternative but to adopt Market Anarchism, the only political system completely consistent with natural rights and individual sovereignty.

See:
A Political Theory of Geeks and Wonks, by Jeffrey Tucker

Saint Peter's Ceiling Fan

Saint Peter's Ceiling Fan
Anonymous
Rewritten by Bevin
August 25, 2007

A man died and went to Heaven. As he stood before St. Peter at the Pearly Gates, he noticed a wall of clocks behind him.

He asked, "What are all those clocks for?"

St. Peter answered, "Those are Lie Clocks. Everyone on Earth has one. Each time you tell a lie, the hands on your clock move forward a notch."

"Oh," said the man, pointing at a clock frozen at 12:00, "whose clock is that?"

That's George Washington's. The hands on his clock have never moved. That means he was completely honest."

"I see," said the man. "And whose clock is that?"

St. Peter replied, "That's George W. Bush's."

"Why does his clock read 11:59:59? Surely he isn't more honest than George Washington?

St. Peter explained, "You misunderstand. He's told so many lies during his presidency that one more lie and the clock will have come full circle."

"Where's Chen Shui-Bian's clock?" asked the man

And St. Peter replied, "A-Bian's clock is in my office. I'm using it as a ceiling fan!"


"Son of Taiwan" by Chen Shui-bian, chronic and habitual liar

This joke has been making the rounds on Taiwan. It true that anybodies' name can be plugged into the joke. However people will only laugh if that person is known to be a liar.


Caption: Just so you know, the official language of Heaven is Aramaic.

What? Not "Taiwanese?"

Better warn the Presbyterian Church in Taiwan.

The Presbyterian Church in Taiwan is almost a caricature of the hypocritical colonialist missionary depicted in literature and film.

It has been meddling in China's domestic politics for nearly a century, driving a wedge between the Chinese mainland and Taiwan by instilling hatred for mainland Chinese in the hearts and minds of the Chinese people on Taiwan.

In their fanatical quest to divide China, ministers of the Presbyterian Church in Taiwan have even advocated violating the Ninth Commandment, which states: "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor."

I wrote about this in Taiwan's Stolen Election, Part III

The Ninth Commandment, according to the Presbyterian Church in Taiwan

During his 2004 re-election campaign, Chen Shui-bian ordered Chen Yu-hao, former chairman of the Tuntex Group and a fugitive exiled to the US, placed on Taiwan's "Ten Most Wanted" list. Chen Shui-bian was desperate to cast himself as a squeaky clean political reformer at Chen Yu-hao's expense.

A furious Chen Yu-hao responded by appearing on television and revealing the ugly truth. Chen Shui-bian had eagerly pocketed a fortune in political contributions from Chen Yu-hao over the past decade.

When Chen Shui-bian tried to deny the charges, Chen Yu-hao revealed that ROC legislator Shen Fu-hsiung, a DPP "elder" with a reputation for honesty within DPP circles was an eyewitness who saw Chen Yu-hao hand First Lady Wu Shu-chen a bag full of cash.

Considering Shen was also Chen Shui-bian's campaign manager, Chen Yu-hao's revelation put Shen in a somewhat awkward position. Rather than lie, Shen went into hiding for the following week.

What happened next was like a scene out of a black comedy by Stanley Kubrick.

A delegation of ministers from the Presbyterian Church in Taiwan, a long time abettor of Taiwan independence, paid an emergency visit to Shen. What textual truth did these supposedly devout Christians share with him? They solemnly assured Shen that it was not a sin to lie as long as it was in a good cause. In other words, "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor, unless of course it advances Taiwan independence."

Are you getting a sense of the moral character of the people involved in the Taiwan independence movement?

聖彼得的風扇
由匿名
2007.08.25

某人死後來到天國，在天國門口遇到了聖彼得，同時看見聖彼得後面的一大片牆上掛滿了時鐘。

他問道：「那些時鐘是作什麼用的？」

聖彼得回道：「那些都是記錄扯謊的鐘，每個人一生都跟隨著一個扯謊的鐘，他每扯一次謊時鐘的指針就動一小格 」

「喔！」這人回應，並指著一個仍停留在十二點的鐘問：「那個鐘是誰的呢？」

「那是喬治·華盛頓的，它的指針從未動過，這表示他一生都沒扯過謊，是個很坦誠的人」

「我明白了」此人說道「那個鐘又是誰的呢？」

聖彼得回道：「那是喬治布希的」

「為什麼他的鐘指到11點59分，難道他此喬治·華盛頓誠實？」

聖彼得又回答：「錯了！這表示他在總統任內謊言不斷，再加上一次就可以回到12點了」

「那陳水扁的鐘在哪裡呢？」這人問道

聖彼得回應道：「阿扁的鐘在我辦公室，我把它裝在天花板上當風扇用了!」

Taoism in Ancient China

Taoism in Ancient China
Murray Rothbard

The following is an extended quote from Chapter One of the late, great Austrian economist Murray Rothbard's book, "An Austrian Perspective on the History of Economic Thought", from a section entitled "Taoism in Ancient China".

1.10 Taoism in Ancient China

The only other body of ancient thought worth mentioning is the schools of political philosophy in ancient China. Though remarkable for its insights, ancient Chinese thought had virtually no impact outside the isolated Chinese Empire in later centuries, and so will be dealt with only briefly.

The three main schools of political thought: the Legalists, the Taoists, and the Confucians, were established from the sixth to the fourth centuries BC. Roughly, the Legalists, the latest of the three broad schools, simply believed in maximal power to the state, and advised rulers how to increase that power. The Taoists were the world's first libertarians, who believed in virtually no interference by the state in economy or society, and the Confucians were middle-of-the-roaders on this critical issue. The towering figure of Confucius (551 — 479 BC), whose name was actually Ch'iu Chung-ni, was an erudite man from an impoverished but aristocratic family of the fallen Yin dynasty, who became Grand Marshal of the state of Sung. In practice, though far more idealistic, Confucian thought differed little from the Legalists, since Confucianism was largely dedicated to installing an educated philosophically minded bureaucracy to rule in China.


Laozi 老子 (Lao Tzu), the World's First Libertarian

By far the most interesting of the Chinese political philosophers were the Taoists, founded by the immensely important but shadowy figure of Lao Tzu. Little is known about Lao Tzu's life, but he was apparently a contemporary and personal acquaintance of Confucius. Like the latter he came originally from the state of Sung and was a descendant of lower aristocracy of the Yin dynasty. Both men lived in a time of turmoil, wars and statism, but each reacted very differently. For Lao Tzu worked out the view that the individual and his happiness was the key unit of society. If social institutions hampered the individual's flowering and his happiness, then those institutions should be reduced or abolished altogether. To the individualist Lao Tzu, government, with its "laws and regulations more numerous than the hairs of an ox," was a vicious oppressor of the individual, and "more to be feared than fierce tigers." Government, in sum, must be limited to the smallest possible minimum; "inaction" became the watchword for Lao Tzu, since only inaction of government can permit the individual to flourish and achieve happiness. Any intervention by government, he declared, would be counterproductive, and would lead to confusion and turmoil. The first political economist to discern the systemic effects of government intervention, Lao Tzu, after referring to the common experience of mankind, came to his penetrating conclusion: "The more artificial taboos and restrictions there are in the world, the more the people are impoverished … The more that laws and regulations are given prominence, the more thieves and robbers there will be."

The worst of government interventions, according to Lao Tzu, was heavy taxation and war. "The people hunger because theft superiors consume an excess in taxation" and, "where armies have been stationed, thorns and brambles grow. After a great war, harsh years of famine are sure to follow."

The wisest course is to keep the government simple and inactive, for then the world "stabilizes itself."

As Lao Tzu put it: "Therefore, the Sage says: I take no action yet the people transform themselves, I favor quiescence and the people right themselves, I take no action and the people enrich themselves…"

Deeply pessimistic, and seeing no hope for a mass movement to correct oppressive government, Lao Tzu counseled the now familiar Taoist path of withdrawal, retreat, and limitation of one's desires.


Zhuangzi 莊子 (Chuang Tzu), the World's First Individualist Anarchist

Two centuries later, Lao Tzu's great follower Chuang Tzu (369—c.286 BC) built on the master's ideas of laissez-faire to push them to their logical conclusion: individualist anarchism. The influential Chuang Tzu, a great stylist who wrote in allegorical parables, was therefore the first anarchist in the history of human thought. The highly learned Chuang Tzu was a native of the state of Meng (now probably in Honan province), and also descended from the old aristocracy. A minor official in his native state, Chuang Tzu's fame spread far and wide throughout China, so much so that King Wei of the Ch'u kingdom sent an emissary to Chuang Tzu bearing great gifts and urging him to become the king's chief minister of state. Chuang Tzu's scornful rejection of the king's offer is one of the great declarations in history on the evils underlying the trappings of state power and the contrasting virtues of the private life:

A thousand ounces of gold is indeed a great reward, and the office of chief minister is truly an elevated position. But have you, sir, not seen the sacrificial ox awaiting the sacrifices at the royal shrine of state? It is well cared for and fed for a few years, caparisoned with rich brocades, so that it will be ready to be led into the Great Temple. At that moment, even though it would gladly change places with any solitary pig, can it do so? So, quick and be off with you! Don't sully me. I would rather roam and idle about in a muddy ditch, at my awn amusement, than to be put under the restraints that the ruler would impose. I will never take any official service, and thereby I will [be free] to satisfy my own purposes.

Chuang Tzu reiterated and embellished Lao Tzu's devotion to laissez-faire and opposition to state rule: "There has been such a thing as letting mankind alone; there has never been such a thing as governing mankind [with success]." Chuang Tzu was also the first to work out the idea of "spontaneous order," independently discovered by Proudhon in the nineteenth century, and developed by F.A. von Hayek of the Austrian School in the twentieth. Thus, Chuang Tzu: "Good order results spontaneously when things are let alone."

But while people in their "natural freedom" can run their lives very well by themselves, government rules and edicts distort that nature into an artificial Procrustean bed. As Chuang Tzu wrote, "The common people have a constant nature; they spin and are clothed, till and are fed … it is what may be called their 'natural freedom.'" These people of natural freedom were born and died themselves, suffered from no restrictions or restraints, and were neither quarrelsome nor disorderly. If rulers were to establish rites and laws to govern the people, "it would indeed be no different from stretching the short legs of the duck and trimming off the long legs of the heron" or "haltering a horse." Such rules would not only be of no benefit, but would work great harm. In short, Chuang Tzu concluded, the world "does simply not need governing; in fact it should not be governed."

Chuang Tzu, moreover, was perhaps the first theorist to see the state as a brigand writ large: "A petty thief is put in jail. A great brigand becomes a ruler of a State." Thus, the only difference between state rulers and out-and-out robber chieftains is the size of their depredations. This theme of ruler-as-robber was to be repeated, as we have seen, by Cicero, and later by Christian thinkers in the Middle Ages, though of course these were arrived at independently.


Bao Jingyan 鮑敬言 (Pao Ching-yen), China's own "V"
no image available

Taoist thought flourished for several centuries, culminating in the most determinedly anarchistic thinker, Pao Ching-yen, who lived in the early fourth century AD, and about whose life nothing is known. Elaborating on Chuang-Tzu, Pao contrasted the idyllic ways of ancient times that had had no rulers and no government with the misery inflicted by the rulers of the current age. In the earliest days, wrote Pao, "there were no rulers and no officials. [People] dug wells and drank, tilled fields and ate. When the sun rose, they went to work; and when it set, they rested. Placidly going their ways with no encumbrances, they grandly achieved their own fulfillment." In the stateless age, there was no warfare and no disorder:

Where knights and hosts could not be assembled there was no warfare afield … Ideas of using power for advantage had not yet burgeoned. Disaster and disorder did not occur. Shields and spears were not used; city walls and moats were not built … People munched their food and disported themselves; they were carefree and contented.

Into this idyll of peace and contentment, wrote Pao Ching-yen, there came the violence and deceit instituted by the state. The history of government is the history of violence, of the strong plundering the weak. Wicked tyrants engage in orgies of violence; being rulers they "could give free rein to all desires." Furthermore, the government's institutionalization of violence meant that the petty disorders of daily life would be greatly intensified and expanded on a much larger scale. As Pao put it:

Disputes among the ordinary people are merely trivial matters, for what scope of consequences can a contest of strength between ordinary fellows generate? They have no spreading lands to arouse avarice … they wield no authority through which they can advance their struggle. Their power is not such that they can assemble mass followings, and they command no awe that might quell [such gatherings] by their opponents. How can they compare with a display of the royal anger, which can deploy armies and move battalions, making people who hold no enmities attack states that have done no wrong?

To the common charge that he has overlooked good and benevolent rulers, Pao replied that the government itself is a violent exploitation of the weak by the strong. The system itself is the problem, and the object of government is not to benefit the people, but to control and plunder them. There is no ruler who can compare in virtue with a condition of non-rule.

Pao Ching-yen also engaged in a masterful study in political psychology by pointing out that the very existence of institutionalized violence by the state generates imitative violence among the people. In a happy and stateless world, declared Pao, the people would naturally turn to thoughts of good order and not be interested in plundering their neighbors. But rulers oppress and loot the people and "make them toil without rest and wrest away things from them endlessly." In that way, theft and banditry are stimulated among the unhappy people, and arms and armor, intended to pacify the public, are stolen by bandits to intensify their plunder. "All these things are brought about because there are rulers." The common idea, concluded Pao, that strong government is needed to combat disorders among the people, commits the serious error of confusing cause and effect.


Sima Qian 司馬遷 (Ssu-ma Ch'ien), the World's First Laissez-Faire Economist

The only Chinese with notable views in the more strictly economic realm was the distinguished second century B.C. historian, Ssu-ma Ch'ien (145-c.90 BC). Ssu-ma was an advocate of laissez-faire, and pointed out that minimal government made for abundance of food and clothing, as did the abstinence of government from competing with private enterprise. This was similar to the Taoist view, but Ssu-ma, a worldly and sophisticated man, dismissed the idea that people could solve the economic problem by reducing desires to a minimum. People, Ssu-ma maintained, preferred the best and most attainable goods and services, as well as ease and comfort. Men are therefore habitual seekers after wealth.

Since Ssu-ma thought very little of the idea of limiting one's desires, he was impelled, far more than the Taoists, to investigate and analyze free market activities. He therefore saw that specialization and the division of labor on the market produced goods and services in an orderly fashion:

Each man has only to be left to utilize his own abilities and exert his strength to obtain what he wishes … When each person works away at his own occupation and delights in his own business, then like water flowing downward, goods will naturally flow ceaselessly day and night without being summoned, and the people will produce commodities without having been asked.

To Ssu-ma, this was the natural outcome of the free market. "Does this not ally with reason? Is it not a natural result?" Furthermore, prices are regulated on the market, since excessively cheap or dear prices tend to correct themselves and reach a proper level.

But if the free market is self-regulating, asked Ssu-ma perceptively, "what need is there for government directives, mobilizations of labor, or periodic assemblies?" What need indeed?

Ssu-ma Ch'ien also set forth the function of entrepreneurship on the market. The entrepreneur accumulates wealth and functions by anticipating conditions (i.e., forecasting) and acting accordingly. In short, he keeps "a sharp eye out for the opportunities of the times."

Finally, Ssu-ma was one of the world's first monetary theorists. He pointed out that increased quantity and a debased quality of coinage by government depreciates the value of money and makes prices rise. And he saw too that government inherently tended to engage in this sort of inflation and debasement.

The ROC vs. the PRC

The ROC vs. the PRC
Bevin Chu
July 24, 2007


The ROC vs. the PRC: Obviously, the ROC is not "Taiwan," and the PRC is not just the mainland portion of China. The major difference is the de jure status of Mongolia.

Many "Sinologists" (China experts) commit a universal and unforgivable blunder. They erroneously use the term "Republic of China" as if it referred only to the offshore Chinese island of Taiwan, and the term "China" as if it referred only to the mainland portion of China.

Ordinary Americans can be forgiven for dismissing these distinctions as unworthy of their attention, but "China experts" should know better. These constitutional law distinctions lie at the very heart of the cross-straits conflict, and could spell the difference between continued peace and nuclear catastrophe.

These legal distinctions are not subject to "interpretation." They are explicit provisions of the Republic of China Constitution. Taiwan independence leaders know this better than anyone else. They know it, and they hate it. They might try to deceive Americans about Taiwan's current status. They might repeat the catechism, "Taiwan is already independent!" But in their heart of hearts they know that until and unless they author an new constitution and declare formal independence, Taiwan will remain an integral part of China.

See:
The Name Game: From ROC to ROT?
East and West Germany, East and West China
The Republic of China is not Taiwan

Legend Details

Black dotted lines are political boundaries drawn by the ROC. The formal names of these political entities are in black text.

Red solid lines are political boundaries drawn by the PRC. The formal names of these political entities are in red text.

White areas represent the territories claimed by the ROC but not the PRC.

Republic of China
36 provinces
14 municipalities
2 areas
1 special administrative region

People's Republic of China
23 provinces
4 municipalities
5 autonomous regions
2 special administrative regions
1 territorial base

Includes Chongqing as a municipality and Gansu-Qinghai border change

Source: Wikipedia, translated into English by Pryaltonian from the Chinese Wikipedia.

On the Tenth Anniversary of Hong Kong's Retrocession

On the Tenth Anniversary of Hong Kong's Retrocession
Bevin Chu
July 8, 2007

Ten years ago, on July 1, 1997, Hong Kong, a region extorted from China at gunpoint by the relentlessly expansionist British Empire was finally returned to China.


Hong Kong, China


Unequal Treaty of Nanking ceding Hong Kong to the British, signed at gunpoint aboard the HMS Cornwallis in 1842

When I say Hong Kong was returned to China, I mean it was returned to the Chinese nation, not to any particular political authority.

Some western colonialists and imperialists lament that "Hong Kong was handed over to the Butchers of Beijing."

Nonsense.

Suppose Qing dynasty China had sailed halfway around the globe to Britain in 1842, forced the British to buy opium from China, then annexed the southern England seaport of Southampton, and turned it into a Chinese colony?


Southampton, England


Titanic Leaving Southampton Dockside Wednesday April 10, 1912

Now suppose that a century and a half later China returned Southampton to Britain? Would these same western colonialists and imperialists lament that "Southampton was handed over to Thatcher, Thatcher, Milk Snatcher?"

Land annexed by a foreign aggressor must be returned to the nation from which it was seized. The issue is which nation owns the land, not which political authority is in power.

Which political authority is in power in China at the moment of return is a separate issue, and is no excuse not to return stolen real estate.

Besides, as the following June 1997 Asiaweek article reveals, Hong Kong was hardly ruled as benevolently as western colonialists and imperialists would have the world believe.

See: When Eccentrics Ruled the Roost

Asiaweek story
When Eccentrics Ruled the Roost
Far away from London under the dazzling tropical sun, Hong Kong's first governors turned to treachery, warmongering and not a little backbiting
By Arthur Hacker


Asiaweek: When Eccentrics Ruled the Roost

THERE IS A POPULAR two-dimensional image of the British colonial in the early days of Hong Kong: he is depicted as a crimson-faced, gin-swilling planter or army colonel with a gigantic white mustache who waves a fly whisk and brays "boy" in a loud, plummy voice. Actually, this sort of creature was a rarity in Hong Kong -- though Sir Henry Pottinger, the Colony's first Governor (1843-1844) and previous Administrator (1841-1843), had some of the qualifications. He was a heavy drinker, had once been a colonel in the 5th Bombay Native Infantry and sported an impressive mustache.

That, however, is where his resemblance to the Colonel Blimp stereotype ended. Pottinger spoke with a soft Irish brogue and as a teenager had been a remarkably daring spy. His brush with espionage began in 1810, after London caught wind of a plan by France and Russia to form an alliance to invade British India through Persia. Disguised first as a Tartar horse dealer and later as a holy man, young Pottinger successfully blarneyed his way through Sind and Baluchistan, which were not a part of British-held India at the time. Pottinger's mission was a great success, although in the end the French Emperor, Napoleon Bonaparte, gave up the idea of invading India and attacked Russia instead.

On becoming Governor of the new colony, Pottinger was obliged by the Charter of Hong Kong of 1843 to establish two civilian bodies, the Executive and Legislative Councils. Pottinger had a military background and did not take kindly to being advised by civilians. He was able to frustrate the concept of a two-council administration by a simple device: he appointed the same people to both bodies.

The councils were small and -- happily for Pottinger --never met due to the lack of a quorum. One member, John Morrison, a brilliant young Chinese linguist, died within a few days of his appointment. Another councilor, the colorless former Administrator, Alexander Johnston, went on a very long sick leave. As Pottinger was a major-general, and the sole remaining councilor, the redoubtable William Caine, only a humble major, the Governor was able to do exactly what he wanted, often with disastrous results.

Pottinger's cavalier approach to government caused enormous problems. All treaties are unequal, but some treaties are more unequal than others. The Commercial Treaty of the Bogue in 1843 was unique because the English and the Chinese versions were different. The Chinese Commissioner, Keying (Qiying), was alleged to have surreptitiously inserted a number of trade regulations into the Chinese text that were not in the agreed English version. This created chaos in shipping and trade, but Pottinger, although embarrassed at being misled, did not seem to harbor any resentment toward Keying over the incident. He treated it as a part of the political game and they occasionally got drunk together. Pottinger even named his son after the Chinese Commissioner.

Gutzlaff tried to save the souls of those he was poisoning

Keying inserted his secret clauses after the final draft had been approved, but the blame for the incident fell rather unfairly on the shoulders of the interpreter, Robert Thom, who with Morrison had prepared the original document. There was a critical shortage of interpreters at that time because it was a capital offense in China for a Chinese to teach a foreigner the language. Pottinger wanted Thom as his Chinese Secretary. But when Thom was sent to the new northern Treaty Port of Ningpo, Pottinger had to make do with the Rev. Karl Gutzlaff.

A former Pomeranian saddle maker, Gutzlaff arrived in the Portuguese enclave of Macau in 1831. He was a missionary and printed thousands of religious tracts, which he gave to his converts to distribute. These venal "rice-Christians" sold them back to the printer, who resold them to Gutzlaff. This tended to frustrate his hopeless grand design "to evangelize en masse a great nation." Early in his career he had acted as an interpreter on an opium ship owned by Jardine, Matheson & Co., and helped to smuggle the drug into China. With one hand Gutzlaff sold illegal opium and with the other he handed out religious tracts designed to save the souls of the Chinese he was poisoning. When Gutzlaff died he was discovered to be extremely rich.

Incidentally, the opium trade was not confined to the British. The leading American opium firm was Russell & Co. Its taipan was an old sea captain named Warren Delano. He was at one time the American vice-consul in Canton (Guangzhou) and was a staunch Republican. His political philosophy is best summed up by his somewhat bigoted statement, "I will not say that all Democrats are horse thieves, but it does seem that all horse thieves are Democrats." He was rather upset when his daughter married a Democrat, James Roosevelt. Her son, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, became the 32nd U.S. president. He was also a Democrat.

-- Arthur Hacker, a longtime resident of Hong Kong, is a historian and artist

The Angel of Austria's Jews

The Angel of Austria's Jews
by Mark O'Neil
South China Morning Post


Ho Fengshan, The Angel of Austria's Jews

Comment: JourneyEast is a China oriented website designed and maintained by a good friend of mine, a talented professional web designer in San Francisco.

I revisited her site recently and noticed an excellent article worth recommending.

Apparently China had its own counterpart to Oskar Schindler, John Rabe, and Minnie Vautrin. He was Ho Fengshan, the Republic of China Consul General to Vienna, Austria.

Ho saved the lives of thousands, perhaps tens of thousands of Austrian Jews just prior to WWII.

June 7, 2007, is the 70th anniversary of the June 7, 1937 Marco Polo Bridge Incident. The Seven Seven Incident, as it is also known, was a fierce battle between the defending Chinese National Revolutionary Army and the invading Japanese Imperial Army that marked the beginning of the Second Sino-Japanese War (1937-1945).

That makes today as good a day as any to read about an unsung Chinese hero of WWII.

Read all about it at:
The Angel of Austria's Jews

Americans fly the flag for July 4, as long as it’s not made in China

Americans fly the flag for July 4, as long as it’s not made in China
Tom Baldwin in Washington
From The Times
July 5, 2007


Stars and Stripes and the Statue of Liberty

Comment: This article provides a sobering insight into what is wrong with many Americans' understanding of America's values, especially on the Fourth of July, a day on which America's values ought to be more clearly understood than any.

If America stands for anything, it stands for the rights of the individual.

What are those rights?

Those rights are explicitly enumerated in many of the state constitutions. They are the right to "life, liberty, and property."

Rhode Island was the very first state to declare independence from the British Empire. As Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution of the State of Rhode Island, puts it:

"No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property... "

A flag is a piece of colored fabric.

Americans fly these pieces of colored fabric on the Fourth of July to celebrate their hard-won right to life, liberty, and property.

If Americans do not have the right to use their own hard-earned money to purchase a piece of colored fabric, then hang that piece of fabric on a pole in their own front yard, then what has happened to those precious rights?

If Americans can be thrown in jail for 90 days or fined US$1,000, merely because a piece of fabric that they purchased with their own money, and displayed in their own front yard, met with the disapproval of their "public servants," then what has happened to the very rights all those fluttering flags were meant to celebrate?

I can't be the only person who has noticed the irony, can I?



From The Times
July 5, 2007
Americans fly the flag for July 4, as long as it’s not made in China
Tom Baldwin in Washington

As if raising and waving millions of Stars and Stripes was not patriotic enough at Independence Day celebrations yesterday, the flags now have to be made in the US.

The state of Minnesota has taken the most draconian action, requiring all US flags sold in the state to be of American manufacture. Violations of the law, which comes into force at the end of the year, will be punished by a $1,000 (￡495) fine or 90 days in jail.

From this month, schools and colleges in Arizona are being forced to equip every classroom with a US-made Stars and Stripes – sometimes known as “Old Glory”.

Tennessee state law already stipulates that any US flag bought with public money cannot be imported from another country, while similar Bills are being considered by legislators in New Jersey and Pennsylvania.

Such measures chime with the protectionist mood sweeping America. The Democrats, in particular, have become increasingly concerned about preserving manufacturing jobs that they believe are being destroyed by free trade and cheap foreign imports.

In this cause Old Glory has, as ever, emerged as a potent symbol. Last year Republicans failed by a single vote to get the two-thirds majority they needed in the US Senate for a constitutional amendment banning the burning of the flag.

The sponsor of the Minnesota legislation, the Democratic state congressman Tom Rukavina, said that his Bill was inspired by seeing flags made overseas during a memorial service for the victims of September 11, 2001.

Yesterday he was handing out 1,000 miniature flags – presumably US-made – at Independence Day parades in his district. “The biggest honour that you can give the flag is that it be made by American workers in the United States of America,” he said.

“Nothing is more embarrassing to me than a plastic flag made in China. This replica of freedom we so respect should be made in this country . . . I think this Bill is about jobs, jobs for Americans.”

His proposal was backed by fellow congressman Larry Howes, a descendant of Betsy Ross, the Revolutionary War seamstress who, according to American mythology, was instructed by George Washington to sew the first Stars and Stripes on to a piece of cloth. “It’s time to bring the flag home,” Mr Howes said.

Not surprisingly, the series of new laws is supported by the Flag Manufacturers’ Association of America. It has complained about a flood of US flags, valued at $5.3 million, imported mostly from China last year.

The Chinese, whose high-speed response to market demands has made US industry look leaden-footed in recent years, appear to have spotted a gap in the market after the 9/11 attacks. In 2000 America imported $748,000 of US flags, mostly from Taiwan [the Taiwan region of China]. In 2001, however, that figure rose to $51.7 million – mostly from China [the mainland region of China].

The Biggest Obstacle to Freedom

The Biggest Obstacle to Freedom
Bevin Chu
June 25, 2007

The biggest obstacle to freedom is not logical, but psychological. We the Sheeple are accustomed to Big Brother's definition of freedom, as carved on the face of the Ministry of Truth:

War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.

We cannot imagine life without government. We cannot imagine not having to pay taxes. We cannot imagine not being told what to do. We dismiss as "lunatic fringe" those who suggest that maybe, just maybe, we could actually live our lives perfectly well without Big Brother watching over us. Genuine freedom, not the slavery passing for freedom that we know under democracy and other forms of dictatorship, elective and non-elective, is quite literally unimaginable to us.


The Shawshank Redemption (1994, directed by Frank Darabont, written by Stephen King and Frank Darabont): Fear can hold you prisoner. Hope can set you free.

Voter/taxpayers in "advanced democracies" are little different from the prison inmates in The Shawshank Redemption. Both voter/taxpayers within democracies, and inmates within prisons are thoroughly "institutionalized."

Voter/taxpayers within democracies are institutionalized first by the psychological bars within their minds, then in the event some of them wise up to the scam, by physical bars around their bodies.

Inmates within prisons are institutionalized first by the physical bars around their bodies, then with the passage of the years, by the psychological bars within their minds.

104 EXT -- PRISON YARD BLEACHERS -- DUSK (1954) 104

ANDY
I just don't understand what happened in there, that's all.

HEYWOOD
Old man's crazy as a rat in a tin shithouse, is what.

RED
Heywood, enough. Ain't nothing wrong with Brooksie. He's just institutionalized, that's all.

HEYWOOD
Institutionalized, my ass.

RED
Man's been here fifty years. This place is all he knows. In here, he's an important man, an educated man. A librarian. Out there, he's nothing but a used-up old con with arthritis in both hands. Couldn't even get a library card if he applied. You see what I'm saying?

FLOYD
Red, I do believe you're talking out of your ass.

RED
Believe what you want. These walls are funny. First you hate 'em, then you get used to 'em. After long enough, you get so you depend on 'em. That's "institutionalized."

JIGGER
Shit. I could never get that way.

ERNIE
(softly)
Say that when you been inside as long as Brooks has.

RED
Goddamn right. They send you here for life, and that's just what they take. Part that counts, anyway.


Andy Dufresne and Ellis Boyd 'Red' Redding, inmates of Shawshank Prison, played by Tim Robbins and Morgan Freeman

Champions of democracy smugly assure us that democracies, unlike other forms of dictatorship, are "responsive to the will of the people" and "provide for peaceful regime change."

Oh, really?

As Ron Paul noted in his recent debate with other 2008 GOP presidential candidates, 70% of the American people oppose Gulf War II and want the troops to come home, yet the Bush II regime remains stubbornly indifferent to their clearly expressed wishes.

So where is democracy's "responsiveness to the will of the people?"

The only candidate with the guts to openly oppose the war and who has explicitly sworn to end it if elected, is libertarian Ron Paul. Guess what? He is being shut out of future debates. Both the liberal and conservative wings of America's Demopublican one party system intend to trot out someone "mainstream" who will parrot the same Chickenhawk policies as Bush II.

So where is democracy's "provision for peaceful regime change?"

Apparently any regime change under a democracy must be non-peaceful, just like under other forms of dictatorship. Unless one is willing to resort to the desperate extreme of non-peaceful regime change, one is just going to have to lump it.

The cruel irony is that democracy makes regime change even more difficult than under other forms of dictatorship. Democracy's bogus claim that it provides for peaceful regime change inside the system makes the Great Silent Majority unwilling to sign on to non-peaceful regime change, even when peaceful regime change under a democracy is impossible. Democracy's bogus reputation for "accountability" enables an unresponsive regime to dig its heels in even more deeply, enriching the "players" who know how to work the system, and impoverishing the nominal "masters of the nation."

The result is an elective dictatorship, even less responsive to the Will of the People than other forms of dictatorship, and even less susceptible to regime change, peaceful or otherwise.

That is why a benevolent dictatorship such as Singapore's can sometimes be better than a democratic dictatorship such as Taiwan's, Indonesia's, or the Philippines'.


The Shawshank Redemption: Andy Dufresne "de-institutionalizes" himself

The solution to the problem of dictatorships is not to pick and choose among different forms of dictatorship, including democratic dictatorships.

The solution is to reject all forms of dictatorship. The solution is to "de-institutionalize" ourselves.

The solution is to choose free markets, to privatize each and every function "normally" provided by government monopolies, including the police, the military, and the courts. The solution is to choose free market anarchism.

But that requires that we overcome the biggest obstacle to freedom, fear. That requires that we psychologically "de-institutionalize" ourselves, the way Andy Dufresne physically "de-institutionalized" himself in The Shawshank Redemption.

We must conquer our fear of the unknown. We must reclaim our hope for the future. We must reject the attitude embodied in the expression "better the devil you know than the devil you don't."

As the tagline from the film put it so well: Fear can hold you prisoner. Hope can set you free.

US is "Really in Trouble" says Bloomberg

The New York Times
June 19, 2007
U.S. Is ‘Really in Trouble,’ Says Bloomberg, Sounding Like a Candidate
By DIANE CARDWELL



Comment: The US is really in trouble. Bloomberg is right about that much.

The solution however is not "Bloomberg for President!" any more than it was "Perot for President!" Pinning ones' hopes for the future of America on some "Third Force" is too little, too late. Even a dyed in the wool minarchist libertarian like Ron Paul can't fix the system from within.

That's because the system is broken, and broken beyond repair. New personnel plugged into the old structures will result in a marginal improvement at best. Probably not even that.

The root of the problem is that the "client-agent" relationship between the citizen of a democracy and the elected officials of a democracy, his so-called "public servants," is not really the relationship between a client and his agents. It is not really the relationship between a master and his servants.

It is merely a progressive sounding veneer applied to the surface of the old subject-monarch relationship. A citizen of a democracy is merely an imperial subject who has euphemistically been spun as the "true master of the nation." The elected chief executive of a democracy is really a monarch who has euphemistically spun as a "servant of the people."

A real client retains the power to fire his agent at his individual discretion.

Can a citizen fire his "public servant" at his individual discretion?

I don't mean "censure" him. I don't mean "impeach" him. I mean fire him. Can a citizen fire a "public servant" the way a private sector client can fire a private sector agent, i.e., a real servant?

No?

Then you already have your answer to why governments remain chronically unresponsive to the "Will of the People" in the US and other "advanced" democracies.

The New York Times
June 19, 2007
U.S. Is ‘Really in Trouble,’ Says Bloomberg, Sounding Like a Candidate
By DIANE CARDWELL

MOUNTAIN VIEW, Calif., June 18 — Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, sounding every inch the presidential candidate he insists he is not, [told] a crowd of Google employees that the nation was “really in trouble.”

In unusually stark terms, Mr. Bloomberg expressed his frustration with the state of the nation.

Mr. Bloomberg also took a swipe at the presidential candidates of both parties, saying they were not offering serious ideas about improving public education or lowering street crime.

He ended the day in Los Angeles, where he assailed what he called the “swamp of dysfunction” in Washington.

Russia to recognize California as a "Separate Nation" in Retaliation over Kosovo

Russia to recognize California as a "Separate Nation" in Retaliation over Kosovo
By Sorcha Faal
June 13, 2007

Comment: Foreign political leaders are finally catching on. They are finally becoming aware of the American Imperium's long obvious Achille's heel. They are beginning to realize that when the American Imperium sanctimoniously accuses other nations of colonialism and imperialism, it is turning a blind eye and a deaf ear to its own, far more egregious colonialism and imperialism.


Mexico, prior to the unequal Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo

I've made an issue of this at The China Desk in recent years, but not out of any prejudicial "Blame America First" mentality. As my fellow alumni from the 60s know perfectly well, I was never one of the "America Stinks" crowd. I began criticizing the US government only belatedly, well after the end of the Cold War. I began doing so only in response to the relentless demonization of an increasingly liberalized post Communist China by Taiwan independence and Tibetan independence fellow travelers.

Neocon China Threat theorists point accusing fingers at China for its territorial claims in the South China Sea. But as the name of that body of water clearly denotes, it is squarely in China's own backyard.

The US government by contrast, lays claim to Pacific islands as far away as Hawaii, in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, and Guam, on the opposite side of the Pacific Ocean. These islands were long ago settled by other peoples, and had their own cultural traditions and their own political systems. They are, not to put too fine an edge on it, currently under colonialist and imperialist occupation. And I haven't even mentioned lands within the continental US stolen from the American Indians.


The sovereign and independent Kingdom of Hawaii, currently under US Occupation


Guam: Why does this Island on the opposite side of the Pacific this belong to the US?

By contrast, China's claims to uninhabited islets in the South China Sea, quite close to the Chinese mainland, far closer to the Chinese mainland than Guam or even Hawaii are to the US mainland, are far more geographically plausible, not to mention far more historically justifiable.


China's Nansha Islands, which western colonialists persist in referring to as the "Spratly Islands"

One can't help asking, just exactly who's the colonialist? Who's the imperialist?

So why aren't celebrity China bashers Richard Gere and Steven Seagal railing against the US government's annexation of territories that rightly belong to its southern neighbor Mexico, or the US government's continued occupation of the sovereign and independent Kingdom of Hawaii?

Could it be that these wealthy and privileged Hollywood luminaries are more Chauvinistic and less humanistic than they would have the world believe, and hold the US government to more lenient standards than they hold governments headed by "wogs" (wily oriental gentlemen)?

The US government has been remarkably successful in playing Rudyard Kipling's "Great Game of Empire." It has managed to divide and conquer one potential strategic rival after another, citing the very rationale the Russians are using against the US right now.


The Conquest of Aztlan: Mexico is reclaiming its former territory


Republica del Norte circa 2080 AD?

When the Russians call the US government on its annexation of territory belonging to Mexico, which is ironically being rapidly repopulated by Mexicans and other Hispanics, they are merely giving the US government a taste of its own medicine. They are merely saying "What's good for the goose, is good for the gander."

Russia to recognize California as a "Separate Nation" in Retaliation over Kosovo
By Sorcha Faal
June 13, 2007


Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, during a press conference held in Sweden today, threatened the breakup of the United States by stating that an American unilateral recognition of Kosovo as an independent Nation ‘could’ prompt Russia to do the same for California ‘should they request it of us’.

Foreign Minister Lavrov’s stunning comments were said to be in response to President Bush’s declaration on Kosovo, and as we can read as reported by Pakistan’s Daily Times News Service in their article titled "US ready for showdown with Russia on Kosovo independence", and which says:

"The United States is pressing for a quick UN vote on Kosovo, but is ready to take on Russia’s threat of a veto and move on to unilaterally recognise the Serbian province’s right to independence.

US President George W Bush on Sunday chose Tirana as a backdrop to make an urgent call for Kosovo’s independence, refusing an “endless dialogue” on the future of the UN-run province.

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice “will be moving hard to see if we can’t reach an agreement” in the UN Security Council between US and Europeans which are for Kosovo’s independence, and Russia, which is against.

“And if not, we’re going to have to move,” said Bush. “Independence is the goal, and that’s what the people of Kosovo need to know.”

Though technically a Serbian province, Albanian-majority Kosovo has been UN-run since the end of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation assault in mid-1999."


Kosovo, a Province of Serbia: Not the US's to give away

To the outrage of the Serbian Nation towards the unprecedented remarks by the American President we can read as reported by the Australian News Service in their article titled "Serbia 'disgusted' with Bush Kosovo call", and which says:

Belgrade was "disgusted" with US President George W. Bush's call for Kosovo to quickly be granted independence, Prime Minister Vojislav Kostunica said, insisting Washington had no right to give away Serbian territory.

“The United States has a right to support certain states and nations in accordance with its interests, but definitely not by giving away as a gift something which does not belong to it,” Mr Kostunica said.

Mr Kostunica's strongly-worded reaction came a day after Mr Bush underscored the need to speed up the process of granting the ethnic Albanian majority province independence under a United Nations plan vehemently opposed by Belgrade and its ally Moscow."

To Russia’s President Putin’s stance on Kosovo we can see as reported by the Turkish Weekly News Service in their article titled "Russia: Is Moscow Prepared To Make Stand On Kosovo?", and which says:

"One day after the Group of Eight (G8) summit wrapped up in Germany, Russian President Vladimir Putin met on June 9 with Serbian Prime Minister Vojislav Kostunica on the sidelines of an economic forum in St. Petersburg.

Afterward, Putin told reporters that it was "with pleasure" that he had informed Kostunica of the outcome of the G8's negotiations on the future status of Kosovo.

It was a deadlock -- with Russia once again rejecting a UN Security Council draft proposal that would grant a form of internationally supervised independence to the province, which has an ethnic-Albanian majority.

Russia has thrown its weight behind its longtime ally Serbia, which strongly opposes formally losing the breakaway province of Kosovo. And despite growing pressure from many UN members -- particularly the United States -- Moscow seems determined to stand its ground."

Foreign Minister Lavrov’s equating of the United States State of California with Kosovo does appear to be apt, as like the breakaway Serbia Province being controlled by Muslim Gangs, California is, likewise, controlled by Mexican Gangs, with the California Department of Justice stating that the number of these gang members in California are estimated at a staggering 300,000 [2004].

To the dangers of the Muslim Gangs who have taken control of Kosovo under the protection of NATO, and known as the ‘Islamic Mafia’, we can read:

"FBI has recently announced that ethnic Albanian gangs, including immigrants from Kosovo, are replacing the Italian La Cosa Nostra mafia as the leading organized crime outfit in the US.

According to a CNN report the FBI "Officials said ethnic Albanians from Kosovo, Macedonia and Montenegro" make up the emerging American criminal cartel and "represent a major challenge to federal agents because of their propensity for violence and brutality." This statement comes several months after Amnesty International declared NATO-administered Kosovo province a hotbed of organized crime activity."

It is, also, most curious that President Bush was received by the Albanian criminal Nation with ‘wild’ enthusiasm and cheering crowds, who, according to some news report, stole his watch while he shaking hands with them.

To the greater danger, however, facing the United States is the growing independence movement in California being led by the Nation of Aztlán, and which is described as:

"The Nation of Aztlán is a Latino patriot and independence organization headquartered in Whittier, California, United States. Its platform states that United States must return the land that was stolen from Mexico during the Mexican-American War and which it calls "Aztlan territory" in order to form an independent nation.”

Russian Military Analysts, in their reports, state that California does indeed contain those elements needed for an independence movement, which include: 1.) A large armed militia (gangs) separate from and in conflict with US government control. 2.) A growing illegal migrant base willing to displace the local population. 3.) A foreign state on their border sympathetic to their cause, in this case Mexico.

To what the American people in California could expect, should Russia recognize them as an independent Aztlan Nation, we cannot see it being any less traumatic to them than that faced by the Serbian peoples in Kosovo, and as we can read:

"Serb leaders in the breakaway Kosovo province Thursday accused four European countries and the United States of assisting ethnic cleansing of Serbs from Kosovo by handing them immigrant visas. Marko Jaksic, president of the Alliance of Serb Municipalities in Kosovo, said the US, Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Finland were among the countries which helped Kosovo minority Serbs to emigrate, paving the way for Kosovo independence, demanded by majority ethnic Albanians.

“What is happening now is just a perfidious continuation of ethnic cleansing,” Jaksic said. Referring to the fact that over 200,000 Serbs have fled Kosovo since it was put under United Nations control in 1999, he said the international community would do better to rebuild their destroyed homes and facilitate their return, if it really wanted to live up to its declared goal of a multi-ethnic Kosovo."

© June 13, 2007 EU and US all rights reserved.

[Ed. Note: The United States government actively seeks to find, and silence, any and all opinions about the United States except those coming from authorized government and/or affiliated sources, of which we are not one. No interviews are granted and very little personal information is given about our contributors, or their sources, to protect their safety.]

Be sure to check out Dateline Taipei

Dear Readers,

Be sure to check out my new blog, Dateline Taipei

Introduction to Dateline Taipei explains what it's all about



Bevin Chu,
Author of The China Desk

China's Rise is a Fact. How will Taiwan Cope?

Caption: China's rise is a fact. How will Taiwan cope?

On June 7, 2007 a local Taiwan television talk show asked its guests a question: "China's rise is a fact. How will Taiwan cope?"

The fact that it would ask such a patently absurd question shows that much of the intelligentsia on Taiwan is pretty far gone. Bear in mind I'm not talking only about Deep Green Taiwan independence fundamentalists such as Trong Chai. I'm not even talking about Pale Green "liberal democrats" such as Hu Chung-hsing. I'm talking about any number of Pale Blue talking heads. Out of pity I will not identify them by name.

Let me put it this way. Say you live in San Francisco, and an American television talk show asks the question: "Silicon Valley's rise is a fact. How will San Francisco cope?"

Wouldn't you do you a double take? Wouldn't you respond, "What kind of idiotic question is that? Why is Silicon Valley's rise a problem that San Francisco must cope with? Silicon Valley is an integral part of California. Silicon Valley's rise is a benefit to all of California, including the entire Bay Area, including San Francisco. What the hell are you talking about?"

Of course you would.

By the same token, any right thinking citizen of the ROC living in the Taiwan region of China would respond, "What kind of idiotic question is that? Why is the rise of the mainland region of China a problem that Taiwan must cope with? The rise of the mainland is a benefit to all of China, including the Taiwan region of China. What the hell are you talking about?"

Taiwan is part of China. That does not mean it is ruled by the current government in Beijing. Being ruled by the government in Beijing is not synonymous with being part of China. Like Germany before German reunification, China has two governments. One government of China is located in Beijing. The other government of China is located in Taipei. The Taiwan region of China is ruled by the government of China located in Taipei.

The rise of China is not a problem that Taiwan must "cope with." It is a positive development that Chinese people living in the Taiwan region of China will benefit from and ought to celebrate. The question the organizers of the show should have asked is "[Mainland] China's rise is a fact. How will Taiwan benefit and celebrate?" The fact that it didn't, reveals how lost the intelligentsia on Taiwan is, even many Pan Blues.

The fact that even a Pale Blue oriented television network such as TVBS would ask: "China's rise is a fact. How will Taiwan cope?" shows that much of the intelligentsia on Taiwan has already been successfully indoctrinated with Taiwan independence Political Correctness.

Joyce C. Huang is a renowned native Taiwanese author and political commentator. She is the "Sophie Scholl of Taiwan." As Huang and I have pointed out in our writings, Taiwan today is in many respects like Germany in the 1930s.

Just as even "Good Germans" bought into Nazi propaganda in the 1930s, so even "Good Taiwanese" have bought into Pan Green Hoklo fascist propaganda over the past decade. And just as Germany eventually needed a "de-Nazification" program to restore it to normality, so one day Taiwan will need a "de-Nativization" program to restore it to normality.

One Man, One Gun

One Man, One Gun
by Bevin Chu
May 04, 2007


Pai Ping-ping: "I can accept abolishing the death penalty, but I demand the same rights as Americans. One man, one gun. When my life is threatened, we'll shoot it out and see who's left standing."

Pai Ping-ping is a well-known television personality on Taiwan. A decade ago, she was an enthusiastic supporter of the DPP as a political party, and of Lee Teng-hui and Chen Shui-bian as political leaders.

Then she got wise.

In April 1997, Chen Ching-hsing, Lin Chun-sheng, and Kao Tien-min, a trio of Taiwan independence thugs, Deep Green supporters of the DPP, kidnapped Pai Ping-ping's 17 year old daughter Pai Hsiao-yen, and held her for ransom.

Pai Ping-ping raised the five million US dollars the kidnappers demanded and repeatedly attempted to turn the money over to them. But the kidnappers sadistically tortured and murdered her daughter anyway, then dumped her body in a rural drainage ditch, on the premise that "dead girls tell no tales."

It is said that "A fool who persists in his folly will become wise." Many supporters of Taiwan independence are now former supporters of Taiwan independence. By persisting in their folly they have become wise.

China, including the Taiwan region of China, has never acknowledged the right of ordinary citizens to keep and bear arms. Many societies, as divergent as Afghanistan and Switzerland, have cultural traditions that acknowledge this natural right of individual human beings. China, it pains me to say, has not been among them.

Pai however, has become very wise indeed. Not only has she forsaken Pan Green ideology, she now explicitly champions the right to keep and bear arms.

Pai is hardly a "deep thinker." She is not a constitutional scholar or a civil rights lawyer. She is a TV personality who is for the most part "famous for being famous."

That someone like Pai would have the uncommon sense to recognize that armed self-defense is a fundamental human right, is immensely encouraging. This is particularly true in the wake of the 32 shooting deaths at Virginia Tech, when many Americans have lost sight of this simple truth that the Founding Fathers considered self-evident.

One can only hope that Pai's conversion to champion of the right to keep and bear arms is the first of many to come, not only in the Taiwan region of China, but in China as a whole.

One can only hope that Pai's conversion is not merely the first of 23 million, the Chinese population on Taiwan, but the first of 1.3 billion, the population of China as a whole.

See:
An interview with John Lott: More Guns, Less Crime
Gun control myths: Part III

The Presidential Pardon / Furious Backlash!
Pai Ping-ping: This can't be the President's Legacy
translated by Bevin Chu
April 25, 2007


The Presidential Pardon / Furious Backlash!

President Chen Shui-bian intends to issue a nationwide presidential pardon. As soon as the news got out, victims' families reacted angrily. Pai Ping-ping, whose daughter Pai Hsiao-yen was murdered ten years ago, angrily denounced the proposed pardon as callous indifference to the feelings of decent, law-abiding citizens. She also urged President Chen to reconsider, pointing out that if Chen Ching-hsing, her daughter's murderer was still alive, her tax money would be supporting him for the rest of his life.

Although her tone was moderate, the content of Pai Ping-ping's statement was direct and sharp. She occasionally choked up as she attacked President Chen's nationwide mass pardon.

Pai Ping-ping: "Abolishing the death penalty means life sentences. If Chen Ching-hsing, the man who murdered Pai Hsiao-yen were still alive today, I would have to work hard earning money paying taxes to support him for a lifetime. What kind of society is that?"

Pai Ping-ping: "I can accept abolishing the death penalty, but I demand the same rights as Americans. One man one gun. When my life is threatened, we'll shoot it out and see who's left standing."

On the 10th anniversary of Pai Hsiao-yen's kidnap/murder, Pai Ping-ping's mood remains as intense as back then. The sense of helplessness felt by crime victim family members can only be imagined.

Source: TVBS

Original Chinese below:

總統特赦／痛批赦免！
白冰冰：不會是總統政績
2007-04-25 17:58

陳水扁總統將推動全國性赦免，消息一出，就引起受害者家屬的反彈，10年前女兒白曉燕遇害的白冰冰，痛批這是不顧善良百姓的感受，也在錄影現場懇求陳總統三思，白冰冰還比喻，如果陳進興沒有死，不就等於拿納稅錢，養他一輩子。

藝人白冰冰：「我覺得，赦免案這一件事情，不會是陳總統在位8年的政績。」

語氣很婉轉，白冰冰話的內容卻是直接犀利，帶點哽咽，反擊陳總統擬推動的全國大赦免。白冰冰：「廢除死刑的配套措施，就是終生監禁，今天殺白曉燕的陳進興(如果)不死，我白冰冰得努力賺錢，繳稅金去養他一輩子，那是那門子的社會？」

才走上街頭，連署死刑不能廢，現在，白冰冰再抗上大減刑，喪女之痛還在，不滿情緒發難。白冰冰：「我接受廢除死刑，但是我能不能要求跟美國一樣，一個人配給我們一支槍，我生命有威脅的時候，大槍拼小槍，贏的人算。」

白曉燕案10週年，白冰冰情緒依舊激昂，受害者家屬的心情無奈，可想而知；比白曉燕再早一個10年，新竹學童陸正的綁票撕票案，也是父親陸晉德一輩子的痛，得知減刑消息，氣得話都快講不清楚，開罵！

陸正父親陸晉德：「怎麼你現在受到國法懲罰，忽然說要減刑，那有這種道理，我們政府到底是為善良的百姓做事情，還是說要站在罪犯那一邊呢？」

聽的出忿忿不平，還有無力感，質疑，司法怎麼給正義交代？看來，赦免爭議一時不會平息。

新聞來源：TVBS