The Foreigner in Formosa

"High-Class Mainlander" Becomes Synonymous With "World-Class Asshat"

Still haven't blogged about Kuo Kuan-ying, the KMT bigot from the Taiwanese civil service who fancies himself just a cut above all those provincial Taiwanese yokels he was destined to lord it over.

Kuo initially denied that he posted anti-Taiwanese screeds on a blog under the pen name of Fan Lan-chin (A pseudonym, which roughly translated, means something like, "Respectable Chinese Nationalist").  But eventually he came clean -- and, his KMT patrons, feeling the political heat, quickly fired him under the cloak of a lot of phony, made-up excuses. 

End of story, I thought.

But it turns out that in the early part of the scandal, Kuo wrote an article in his own praise, attached a colleague's name to the column instead of his own (with the colleague's consent), and had the column printed in a Taiwanese paper.

You're a hell of a guy, you are, Kuo.  Turning your buddy into a sockpuppet like that.

From yesterday's Taipei Times:

[Pan Shun-yun], first secretary at the Taipei Representative Office in Paris, seemed to come forward to dismiss criticism of Kuo in an opinion piece under his byline and using his diplomatic title that was published on the [United Daily News'] opinion page last Wednesday.

But Kuo's sock, Pan Shun-yun, didn't just defend Kuo.  No, some of those uppity Taiwanese had the temerity to criticize the writing style of Kuo's secret blogger identity, Fan Lan-chin.  So Kuo had alter ego #2 (Pan the sock) defend the honor of alter-ego #1 (Fan the bigot) as well.  Yesterday's China Post contained this delightful detail:

Pan wrote in support of Fan Lanqin, who is described as a "literary genius" very popular among [Government Information Office] colleagues.

Look at me everyone!  I'm a high-class mainlander!  And a literary genius!  And a . . . oh dear, is this sounding vain?  Never mind, it'll look much better when I put someone ELSE'S name on all this adulation and affect an "aw, shucks" demeanor afterward !

( I am so smart, I am so smart.  S-M-R-T.  I mean, S-M-A-R-R-T. )

OK, now I know the man's been fired already, but seriously, has anybody thought of going back to check his job application for his GIO gig?  'Cause call me crazy, but some of those "Letters of Recommendation" may not be ENTIRELY on the up-and-up . . .

Meet Kuo Kuan-ying.  High-Class Mainlander.  Respectable Chinese Nationalist.  Literary genius.

Also congenital liar.  Chinese racial supremacist.  Communist sympathizer.  Sockpuppeteer par excellence. 

Not to mention World-Class Asshat.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Postscript:  (Kuo Kuan-ying photo from the Apr 1/09 edition of the Taipei Times.  Kuo's the one in glasses, surrounded by black-shirted Taiwanese gangsters.)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

UPDATE:  A great moment in sockpuppet history.  L.A. Times columnist Michael Hiltzik had his blog suspended on their website for a couple years after he was exposed engaging in that sort of nonsense.

Faleomavaega Dustup

By the looks of things, the folks at the Taipei Times don't need any of MY help, but a couple things in American congressman Eni F.H. Faleomavaega's letter to the editor caught my eye:

No name is attached to the editorial [which is critical of Mr. Faleomavaega], which suggests that either the author or your newspaper has its own political agenda.

A brief list of OTHER publications which print unattributed editorials:  the New York Times, the Washington Post, the National Review, the Wall Street Journal, and Taiwan's China Post.

Conspiracy theorists in congressmen's offices:  You may begin connecting the dots . . . now.

Faleomavaega also mentioned this:

. . . one might conclude that your newspaper stands in opposition to the will of your people [the Taiwanese], who voted in 2008 for a change in Administration and for a more honest government.  [emphasis added]

Heh.  The Taiwanese may indeed have voted for a government which they thought was more honest.  What they received however, was a president who is described (by his own media DEFENDERS) as a liar who would say anything to get elected.

By the by, I see from a recent post by Tim Maddog over at Taiwan Matters! that Taiwanese president Ma Ying-jeou's approval rating is currently floundering below the 30% mark, while his Chinese Nationalist Party colleagues in the legislature plumb the depths even further -- below 20%.

Let's be generous, and say Taiwan's legislative and presidential branches enjoy 20 and 30% approval ratings, respectively.  So, what was that you were saying about, "the will of the people," Mr. Faleomavaega?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

UPDATE (Apr 5/09):  In Faleomavaega's latest letter, he parses the meanings of "vital" and "cornerstone".  No, really.

Oh, and he also says that the REAL problem with Taiwan and China is that "sensible people refuse to get along".  Odd then, that he doesn't say the same about West Papua and Indonesia.

UPDATE #2:  Some of Faleomavaega's Chinese Nationalist Party buddies deliberately misquote him.  From KMTNews.net:

[Faleomavaega] said in his article that the Formosa Association for Public Affairs (FAPA) and the Taipei Times had vilified and insulted the US House of Representatives.

In the interest of the truth, here's what Mr. F. actually said in his first letter:

Since my proposed changes were supported by all members of the Subcommittee as well as the Chairman and Ranking member of the full committee prior to the markup, are these Members of Congress also no friend of Taiwan? I do not believe so.

I don't see Faleomavaega accusing the Taipei Times of "vilifying and insulting" the U.S. House of Representatives.  What he DOES do is attempt to use reductio ad absurdum to negate the Times' argument that he's "no friend of Taiwan".

(At any rate, the Times points out that the reductio isn't terribly convincing: "Mr Faleomavaega’s claim that changes he made to the resolution had full backing from fellow committee members cannot be sustained in light of the reversal and, in substance, repudiation by committee members of the amendments on the floor of the House of Representatives . . .")

KMTNews.net also mentions this:

When granting an interview to CtiTV, Eni Faleomavaega said “FAPA and the Taipei Times have plotted to weaken the US’s “One China Policy” and instigate cross-Strait conflict, in the hope that the US would send troops to maintain peace. He emphasized that the TRA was not a platform for Taiwan independence, and that the US would not be tricked into supporting any such plots.

Plots?  A NEWSPAPER conspiring to start a WAR?  Is the good politician from American Samoa cracking up?  Or are his ideological soulmates in the KMT lying about him for their own political purposes?

Or is the answer a little bit of A, a little bit of B?

China, America and the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea

Ill-informed be the reader who relies on Taiwan's China Post for knowledge of this subject.  From an editorial on March 24th:

The 1982 U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea [UNCLOS - The Foreigner], to which the U.S. is not a signatory . . .

Wrong.  President Bill Clinton signed the treaty all the way back in 1994.  What IS true is that the American senate has never RATIFIED the agreement. 

A distinction without a difference?  Hardly, as we shall next see:

But the U.S. does not subscribe to [UNCLOS] rules on [Exclusive Economic Zones].

Wrong again.  Ever since the Reagan administration, the American government has committed itself to abiding by the terms of the treaty -- EXCEPT for the provisions governing deep sea mining.  So the U.S. DOES subscribe to UNCLOS rules on EEZs (for the most part), despite the fact that America hasn't ratified the agreement.

(And, just to make this clear, those deep sea mining provisions are utterly irrelevant to the current disagreements America & China are having over China's EEZ in the South China Sea.)

[An American research ship's visit to China's EEZ] could be even more provocative than the USNS Impeccable's mission that led to the recent standoff.

Beijing's stance on its EEZ over the Impeccable incident should give the Columbia University scientists pause for thought.  Right or wrong, it has accused the U.S. of violating international and Chinese laws by conducting surveillance in its exclusive zone.

Much of this is not merely wrong; it's wrong BY DEFINITION.  The Post makes the incredible claim here that the Impeccable's surveillance mission was an American provocation, REGARDLESS of whether China's legal arguments are right or wrong.

That's tantamount to saying that ANYTHING is a provocation, just as long as Beijing says it is.  International law don't mean squat, in other words.

We can dismiss out of hand the Post's bizarre implicit claim that China's whims make it the ultimate authority on international law.  But we should be willing to admit that if the UNCLOS prohibits intelligence-gathering in EEZs, then international law is on China's side.  And, and if this is the case, then the presence of the Impeccable in China's Exclusive Economic Zone WAS an American provocation.

Conversely, if the UNCLOS doesn't prohibit such intelligence gathering, then international law is on America's side.  Which makes the Impeccable incident, in actuality, a CHINESE provocation.

Let's go to the treaty to decide for ourselves, shall we?

Part V of UNCLOS describes the rights and jurisdiction of coastal states over their EEZs.  The reader will find that there is nothing -- NOTHING -- in this part of the treaty forbidding naval surveillance in Exclusive Economic Zones.  Oh sure, you might find that Article 60.5 permits coastal states to establish 500 meter "no-go" zones around oil rig platforms and the like.  Which of course is interesting and commonsensical, but has no bearing on the Impeccable case.

If one looks a bit back in the treaty, one DOES find that Part II, Article 19.2 (c) prohibits acts "aimed at collecting information to the prejudice of the defence or security of the coastal State".  But Part II of the treaty deals only with TERRITORIAL SEAS, which international law defines as extending 12 nautical miles from land (UNCLOS, Part II, Article 3).

Since the Impeccable was operating 65 nautical miles (120 kilometers) from Hainan Island (and not 12 nmi), it was within China's EEZ, not China's Territorial Seas.  Therefore, the relevant part of UNCLOS is Part V, not Part II.

Ergo, the Impeccable was well within its rights under international law to conduct intelligence operations.  By interfering with those operations, it was China that was the provocateur, as I have demonstrated.

Let's go back to the Post's editorial, which in spite of getting all this wrong, does manage to get at least ONE thing right:

A U.S. survey vessel is risking another confrontation in the waters around China when it arrives in the region this week . . .

The operators of the [civilian] research ship, the Marcus G. Langseth . . . have permission to conduct a seismic survey of the ocean floor from the governments of Taiwan, the Philippines and Japan.  Beijing was not informed.

This IS true, because Part II, Article 56.1 (b) (ii) of the UNCLOS clearly states:

In the exclusive economic zone, the coastal State has . . . jurisdiction as provided for in the relevant provisions of this Convention with regard to . . . marine scientific research.  [emphasis added]

Thus, while international law was on America's side in the case of the Impeccable conducting intelligence work in China's EEZ, it's on CHINA'S side if the Langseth performs marine research in those very same waters without Chinese permission.

May seem strange that coastal states can legally prevent innocent research but not OPEN SPYING within their EEZs, but there you go.  It wasn't me who drew up the document.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

UPDATE:  Interestingly enough, the Marcus G. Langseth's mission is being conducted mostly for Taiwan's benefit.  From the Langseth's pre-survey statement:

This project will provide a great deal of information about the nature of the earthquakes around Taiwan and will lead to a better assessment of earthquake hazard in the area. The information obtained from this study will help the people and government of Taiwan to better assess the potential for future seismic events and may thus mitigate some of the loss of life and economic disruptions that will inevitably occur.

UPDATE #2:  During her Jan 13/09 confirmation hearing, Hillary Clinton revealed that the Obama administration will press for U.S. ratification of the UNCLOS.  (You'll have to scroll down almost halfway through the transcript, to her question session with Senator Murkowski)

CLINTON: Yes, [ratification will be a priority for the administration], and it will be because it is long overdue, Senator. The Law of the Sea Treaty is supported by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, environmental, energy, and business interests. I have spoken with some of our -- our naval leaders, and they consider themselves to be somewhat disadvantaged by our not having become a party to the Law of the Sea.

Our industrial interests, particularly with seabed mining, just shut up.  I mean, there's nothing that they can do because there's no protocol that they can feel comfortable that gives them the opportunity to pursue commercial interests.  [emphasis added]

Seems pretty damn arrogant for the Secretary of State to dismiss America's mining companies so rudely.  Reminded me of an old song, from back in the day:

Joe Dolce's Shaddup You Face

I notice Samuel L. Jackson has his own unique take on some of the lyrics.  Heh.

[Mar 30/09:  A commenter informs me that Mrs. Clinton wasn't telling the mining companies to shut UP; she was really trying to say that the mining companies had shut DOWN their deep sea operations.  You gotta admit though, the words, "shut up," really leap off the transcript.]

UPDATE #3:  Enough fun stuff.  Here's an article by Robert D. Kaplan that ought to be required reading.  Somewhat sensationally titled, "How We Would Fight China," the fighting Kaplan refers to is more like the Cold War kind.  Written in 2005, some of it's obviously out of date -- concerns over the possibility that Taiwan might unilaterally declare de jure independence have surely given way to concerns over Taiwan's Finlandization by its neighbor to the west.

The piece is quite prescient with regards to China's games of naval brinksmanship, however:

What we can probably expect from China in the near future is specific demonstrations of strength—like its successful forcing down of a U.S. Navy EP-3E surveillance plane in the spring of 2001. Such tactics may represent the trend of twenty-first-century warfare better than anything now happening in Iraq—and China will have no shortage of opportunities in this arena. During one of our biennial Rim of the Pacific naval exercises the Chinese could sneak a sub under a carrier battle group and then surface it. They could deploy a moving target at sea and then hit it with a submarine- or land-based missile, demonstrating their ability to threaten not only carriers but also destroyers, frigates, and cruisers. (Think about the political effects of the terrorist attack on the USS Cole, a guided-missile destroyer, off the coast of Yemen in 2000—and then think about a future in which hitting such ships will be easier.) They could also bump up against one of our ships during one of our ongoing Freedom of Navigation exercises off the Asian coast. The bumping of a ship may seem inconsequential, but keep in mind that in a global media age such an act can have important strategic consequences. Because the world media tend to side with a spoiler rather than with a reigning superpower, the Chinese would have a built-in political advantage.

UPDATE #4:  Move over China Post, the Beeb gets it wrong, too.

Once more people: the Impeccable was operating in China's Exclusive Economic Zone, NOT its Territorial Sea.  Like the China Post, the BBC gets the two hopelessly confused.

UPDATE #5:  The pre-survey statement of the Marcus G. Langseth is quite explicit about what route the ship will be taking:

The survey would take place from March through July 2009 in the Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZ) of Taiwan, China, Philippines, and Japan, in water depths ranging from <100 to >1000 m.  [emphasis added]

It seems highly unlikely that Columbia University would have accidentally overlooked the importance of asking the Chinese for permission to conduct the survey. 

So it's speculation time.  Perhaps the reason the Chinese were not approached was that the U.S. Government wished to send them a message:  If you're not going to abide by the terms of the treaty, then why should WE?

China Initiates Pikachu Eradication Program

Well, actually, its been going on since 1958.  The short version of the PRC's most recent efforts to wipe out the plateau pika in Tibet can be found at the  Taipei Times, while a longer version is on the Guardian's webpage.

For those interested, Answers.com has a one paragraph explanation of the plateau pika's ecological role (scroll down one screen).  For greater depth, one could read this article from in the English version of China Daily.com, but readers are cautioned to use this link at their own risk.

(I've removed the direct link to the China Daily.com story, and replaced it with a Google search link instead. See update for the reason.)

(Pikachu image from a French medical website)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

UPDATE:  Yeesh.  "Use at your own risk" ain't the half of it.  From today's Guardian:

A mystery electronic spy network apparently based in China has infiltrated hundreds of computers around the world and stolen files and documents, Canadian researchers have revealed.

The network, dubbed GhostNet, appears to target embassies, media groups, NGOs, international organisations, government foreign ministries and the offices of the Dalai Lama, leader of the Tibetan exile movement.

[...]

GhostNet can invade a computer over the internet and penetrate and steal secret files. It can also turn on the cameras and microphones of an infected computer, effectively creating a bug that can monitor what is going inside the room where the computer is. Anyone could be watched and listened to.

UPDATE (Apr 1/09):  From yesterday's Taipei Times:

Although the reports [on China's hacking] paid special attention to Chinese spying on Tibetans, in the process the authors determined that of 986 known infected IP hosts in 93 countries, Taiwan had the most — 148 — including its embassy in Swaziland, the Institute for Information Industry, Net Trade, the Taiwan External Trade Development Council and the Government Service Network.

And that's no April Fool's joke.

Rod Blagojevich and Chen Shui-bian

A couple weeks ago, David Ting (of Taiwan's China Post) wrote a column which invited comparison between the Blagojevich case in America with the Chen Shui-bian case in Taiwan:

Chen Shui-bian's frothy-mouthed drivel in court, defiant and unchastened, evokes images of Ron [sic] Blagojevich, the former governor of Illinois who was impeached and ousted from office two months ago for "plotting to sell" [an] Illinois senate seat vacated by President Barack Obama.  "Blago" too, denied he had ever done anything wrong.  Yes, if by A-bian's standard.  The youthful-looking Serb descendant was only guilty of "plotting to sell the plum position, and had his political career ruined.  Was Blagojevich aggrieved?  The international media showed no sympathy for him.  It seems, therefore, our ex-president may have made the wrong bet by trying to politicize his case with the help of foreign media, which may cut both ways.

The issue of Blagojevich's and Chen's innocence or guilt is completely separate from the question as to whether their treatment by the justice system has been politically-neutral.  Compare and contrast:

1)  After Blagojevich received his bail-bond hearing, police escorted him out of the courthouse through an underground tunnel so the media could NOT take any "gotcha!" perp-walk footage.

Taiwan's former president was treated with far less discretion.  Police paraded him in handcuffs in full view of media cameras.

2)  Blagojevich was granted bail on the very same day he was arrested.  Bail was set at a paltry $4,500.  In addition, his passport was confiscated as a precaution against flight.

Taiwan's Chen Shui-bian was not granted bail -- he was instead thrown into pre-trial detention, where conditions are apparently worse than Taiwan's regular penal system.  No hot showers, even in winter.  Bread and water for lunch.  That sort of thing.

(Chen's most recent request for bail was denied, partly because the current judge said the former president has not shown REMORSE for crimes he has not yet been tried or convicted upon.  This court will not grant you the presumption of innocence, sir, unless you first admit to us that you are GUILTY!)

3)  Blagojevich is at liberty to publicly protest his innocence on CBS' Late Night with David Letterman, NBC's Today, CNN's Larry King Live and Fox's On the Record with Greta van Susteren.

Taiwan's Chen on the other hand, was held incommunicado to all, save his lawyer.  In fact, when Chen's lawyer relayed to the public a POEM the former president wrote in detention to his wife, the KMT government began exploring options for legal sanctions against that lawyer.

(For purposes of completeness, I should also mention that Chen WAS briefly released by a judge, after which a KMT legislator threatened to have the judge investigated.  When the judge was duly replaced, the new judge sent Chen back to detention.  Chen is, however, now permitted at least SOME contact with the outside world, I understand.)

4)  To my knowledge, no Republican politician has ever publicly gloated over Blagojevich's fall.

In Taiwan, KMT legislators openly remarked that Chen's arrest was a joyous event.  Some of the rank-and-file agreed, setting off firecrackers in celebration.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Postscript:  The treatment of Bernard Madoff, the man accused of running a $50 billion Ponzi scheme, is also instructive.

Bernard Madoff was initially offered bail at $10 million.  When he couldn't come up with the money, he was offered an ankle bracelet and house arrest:

The new conditions require "round-the-clock monitoring at the defendant's building, 24 hours a day, including video monitoring of the defendant's apartment door(s) and communications devices and services permitting it to send a direct signal from an observation post to the Federal Bureau of Investigation in the event of the appearance of harm or flight." Both Madoff and his wife, Ruth, have surrendered their passports as a part of the bail condition, and Ruth Madoff has signed confessions of judgment on the multi-million dollar properties in her name in Palm Beach, Florida and Montauk, Long Island, two of the nation's most desirous luxury retreats.

Now, Madoff's crimes are truly despicable.  A $50 billion Ponzi scheme.  Some people say $17 billion -- whatever.  Charities -- including Elie Wiesel's -- plundered of their assets.  People's life savings wiped out.  Two or three suicides, so far . . .

And yet, despite public opposition, the American judge decided that house arrest in this case was preferable to incarceration.  Preferable, that is, until the defendant had been found guilty in a court of law.  There was no rush -- society could surely wait 6 months or a year before sending Madoff to the big house.  (And as it turned out, it only took 3 months for the guy to plead guilty.)

What I've tried to demonstrate is that the Taiwanese judicial system has always had a whole spectrum of legal instruments to wield against former president Chen, and has at almost every turn chosen the harshest and most punitive.  Bail (be it  $4,500 or $10 million), passport confiscation, ankle bracelets or house arrest -- all these things were options for dealing with the POSSIBILITY of Chen's flight prior to trial.  Yet the court scorned them in favor of pretrial detention in which the suspect was held incommunicado.

I think it's fair for the international media to wonder why.

Criticism Of China Gets The KMT's Goat

From last Monday's Taipei Times:

The National Geographic Channel received a warning from the National Communications Commission (NCC) last year for broadcasting a documentary involving violence and bloodshed at too early a time, potentially the first governmental penalty the channel has ever received in the 166 nations where the channel is available.

166 countries get National Geographic, and Taiwan gears up to be the FIRST COUNTRY IN HISTORY to slap it with fines for objectionable programming?  For two documentaries touching on the subject of the People's Republic of China?  Which not even the PRC (which also receives National Geographic) has complained about?

Hmm.  My Spidey-sense is tingling . . .

NCC Communications Content Department Director Jason Ho (何吉森) said yesterday that the commission had received quite a few complaints from parents when the channel first broadcast Ou Dede and His Daughters in 2007, a documentary on the Nu Tribe who reside in southwestern China.

Ho said parents complained that their children were terrified after watching the goat-beheading scene in the film, where blood was splattered everywhere. The documentary was broadcast at 1:30pm, Ho said.

“It [beheading the goat] was not a religious ritual and the goat was killed because of a feud between two families,” Ho said. “The scene lasted about two minutes and was not blocked by any mosaics. Neither did the channel warn the audience about the gory scene to come.”

Let's be honest:  it DOES sound pretty grisly.  Couldn't have been that bad though if no one from 166 other countries complained about it.

(BTW, is Mr. Ho implying that showing gory goat-beheadings on TV are only objectionable when they're done as a result of family feuds?  That they're A-OK when they're part of religious rituals?) 

There was another documentary the Taiwanese government just couldn't . . . stomach:

Meanwhile, the channel also received a note from the NCC about The Riddles of Dead Diva Mummy, another documentary on the anatomy of a female mummy from the Han Dynasty.

“The documentary explicitly showed the internal organs of the mummy,” Ho said, “The channel did warn the audience about the scene, but members on the panel thought it was more appropriate that the documentary was aired at a later hour.”

You've got to be kidding me.  The general practitioner in my neighborhood has a gigantic 3' X 4' anatomical poster prominently displayed in his office.  You know the one -- the cut-away kind which shows EVERY internal organ of a man's GI tract, from the esophagus right down to the anal sphincter.

And yet a few dessicated and unrecognizable body parts on the small screen are somehow more objectionable than that?

We are being told to accept two things here:

1)  These two programs are uniquely offensive -- out of the hundreds or thousands of documentaries that National Geographic has aired. 

And:

2)  Of all the parents there are to be found in a 166 countries, that Taiwan's parents are unequaled in their squeamishness.

Unlikely.  The Chinese Nationalist Party is hot for surrender to unification with China.  And so Radio Taiwan International is issued an order not to criticize China.  KMT-friendly media compliantly see no evil when Chinese tourists come to call.  And KMT shills pretending to be parents issue bogus complaints about educational networks like National Geographic, which are to be punished for confusing impressionable youths with negative images of the PRC.

After all, the KMT has labored mightily to convince the young in Taiwan that China is the land of cute and fuzzy pandas (and money, money, money!).  Why permit anyone to muddy the waters with images of family feuds and goat decapitations?

Misquoting Bismarck

From last Monday's China Post:

If [Taiwanese President Ma Ying-jeou] truly believes [that a free trade agreement with China will benefit Taiwan], like by far a great majority of people on Taiwan who do, he has to have it signed as soon as possible.  He must [know] what Otto von Bismarck said.  The Prussian chancellor told the legislators: "Not by speeches and votes of the majority are the great questions of the time decided."

As arguments go, that's a little incoherent.  The Post seems to be saying that a majority of Taiwanese want a free trade agreement with China . . . but Ma should ignore putting the measure to a vote because what the majority thinks is irrelevant!

Say what?  If the majority truly DOES want the free trade agreement, how could it possibly hurt to put it up for a vote?  After all, the treaty should pass hands down, right?

Curiously, the Post had to resort to misquotation in order to make their anti-democratic case.  Because the full quote is actually this:

Not through speeches and majority decisions will the great questions of the day be decided - that was the great mistake of 1848 and 1849 - but by iron and blood.  [emphasis added]

Bismarck was essentially telling the legislature of his time to quit their jawing and vote for the increased military budget the king had requested.  You lawmakers can talk all you like, Bismarck was saying, but ultimately our country's position can only be maintained through its strength of arms.

Odd then, that the Post neglected to bring up this quote between the years 2006-2008, when the KMT blocked debate on a special arms bill 60 times.  Or now, when the KMT presides over military cutbacks in the face of a clear and growing threat from across the Taiwan Strait.

News From Taipei's Famous Rashomon District

Two versions of the same event at Taiwan's National Palace Museum.  First, Tuesday's Taipei Times:

A Taiwanese tour guide died of a heart attack while taking Chinese tourists on a tour of the National Palace Museum yesterday.

[...]

The death of their tour guide did not seem to affect their mood. Most took out stacks of cash and snapped up souvenirs. The shopping spree continued later at Taipei 101 and Keelung night market.  [emphasis added]

Taiwan's English unificationist newspaper, the China Post, recalls the Chinese tourists' reactions a bit differently:

All 40 Amway China members on the No. 18 bus were shocked to witness the incident, indicating they were in no mood to tour the rest of the National Palace Museum.  [emphasis added]

Comments in a latter post.

Quote Of The Day

"It does not do to leave a live dragon out of your calculations, if you live near him."

- J.R.R. Tolkien, The Hobbit, Chapt. XII