Saturday, November 12, 2011

It is OK to sell Taiwan to save America
Taiwanese are sub-humans; how else could they support a man like Ma Ying-Jeou?

To Save Our Economy, Ditch Taiwan
New York Times
Here is one: He should enter into closed-door negotiations with Chinese leaders to write off the $1.14 trillion of American debt currently held by China in exchange for a deal to end American military assistance and arms sales to Taiwan and terminate ...

Is This NYT Op-Ed a Joke? Selling Taiwan to the Bankers of Beijing
The Atlantic
America owes China a lot of money; officials in Beijing are always mad at officials in Washington for selling weapons to Taiwan. Presto! Let's solve both problems at once, writing off the debt in exchange for writing off Taiwan...

=====
Today, America has little strategic interest in Taiwan, which is gradually integrating with China economically by investing in and forming joint ventures with mainland Chinese firms. The island’s absorption into mainland China is inevitable. 

OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR

To Save Our Economy, Ditch Taiwan



Published: November 10, 2011
WITH a single bold act, President Obama could correct the country’s course, help assure his re-election, and preserve our children’s future.
He needs to redefine America’s mindset about national security away from the old defense mentality that American power derives predominantly from our military might, rather than from the strength, agility and competitiveness of our economy. He should make it clear that today American jobs and wealth matter more than military prowess.
As Adm. Mike Mullen, then chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, declared last year, “The most significant threat to our national security is our debt.”
There are dozens of initiatives President Obama could undertake to strengthen our economic security. Here is one: He should enter into closed-door negotiations with Chinese leaders to write off the $1.14 trillion of American debt currently held by China in exchange for a deal to end American military assistance and arms sales to Taiwan and terminate the current United States-Taiwan defense arrangement by 2015. 
This would be a most precious prize to the cautious men in Beijing, one they would give dearly to achieve. After all, our relationship with Taiwan, as revised in 1979, is a vestige of the cold war.
Today, America has little strategic interest in Taiwan, which is gradually integrating with China economically by investing in and forming joint ventures with mainland Chinese firms. The island’s absorption into mainland China is inevitable. 
But the status quo is dangerous; if Taiwanese nationalist politicians decided to declare independence or if Beijing’s hawks tired of waiting for integration and moved to take Taiwan by force, America could suddenly be drawn into a multitrillion-dollar war.
There will be “China hawks” who denounce any deal on Taiwan as American capitulation, but their fear of a Red China menacing Asia is anachronistic. Portraying the United States as a democratic Athens threatened by China’s autocratic Sparta makes for sensational imagery, but nothing could be further from reality.
The battle today is between competing balance sheets, and it is fought in board rooms; it is not a geopolitical struggle to militarily or ideologically “dominate” the Pacific.
In fact, China and the United States have interlocking economic interests. China’s greatest military asset is actually the United States Navy, which keeps the sea lanes safe for China’s resources and products to flow freely.
China would want a deal on Taiwan for several reasons. First, Taiwan is Beijing’s unspoken but hard-to-hide top priority for symbolic and strategic reasons; only access to water and energy mean more to Chinese leaders.
Second, a deal would open a clearer path for the gradual, orderly integration of Taiwan into China.
Third, it would undermine hard-line militarists who use the Taiwan issue to stoke nationalist flames, sideline pro-Western technocrats and extract larger military budgets. And finally, it would save China the considerable sums it has been spending on a vast military buildup.
Jeffrey Lewis, an East Asia expert at the Monterey Institute of International Studies, estimated that one-fourth to one-third of China’s defense spending goes to forces in the vicinity of Taiwan — at a cost of $30 billion to $50 billion a year. A deal for the resolution of Taiwan’s status could save China $500 billion in defense spending by 2020 and allow Beijing to break even by 2030, while reducing America’s debt and serving our broader economic interests.
The Chinese leadership would be startled — for a change — if the United States were to adopt such a savvy negotiating posture. Beyond reducing our debt, a Taiwan deal could pressure Beijing to end its political and economic support for pariah states like Iran, North Korea and Syria and to exert a moderating influence over an unstable Pakistan. It would be a game changer.
The deal would eliminate almost 10 percent of our national debt without raising taxes or cutting spending; it would redirect American foreign policy away from dated cold-war-era entanglements and toward our contemporary economic and strategic interests; and it would eliminate the risk of involvement in a costly war with China.
Critics will call this proposal impractical, even absurd. They will say it doesn’t have a prayer of passing Congress, and doesn’t acknowledge political realities. They might be right — today.
But by pursuing this agenda, Mr. Obama would change the calculus and political reality. And Congress should see a deal with China as an opportunity to make itself credible again.
Debt is not in itself bad, when managed, but today’s unsustainable debt will suffocate our economy, our democracy and our children’s futures.
By tackling the issue of Taiwan, Mr. Obama could address much of what ails him today, sending a message of bold foreign policy thinking and fiscal responsibility that would benefit every citizen and be understood by every voter.

Paul V. Kane, a former international security fellow at the Harvard Kennedy School, is a Marine who served in Iraq.
=====

Is This NYT Op-Ed a Joke? Selling Taiwan to the Bankers of Beijing

NOV 11 2011, 3:59 PM ET
My first reaction to today's op-ed in the NYT was that it was some kind of put-on. America owes China a lot of money; officials in Beijing are always mad at officials in Washington for selling weapons to Taiwan. Presto! Let's solve both problems at once, writing off the debt in exchange for writing off Taiwan. I kept waiting for the "but seriously now..." transition to a real proposal, or the paragraph saying, "Obviously this would be crazy, yet it underscores..." But apparently the author, Paul V. Kane, identified as a Marine Corps veteran of Iraq and a former fellow at the Kennedy School at Harvard, really means it.

If you would like to have a detailed explanation why this proposal is lunatic, Joe Weisenthal has conveniently laid one out at Business Insider. His conclusion:
So in short, what Kane is advocating is an abdication of our strategic self-direction in exchange for extinguishing a threat (Chinese holdings of U.S. debt) that doesn't exist.

What's scary is not that this will ever happen -- it won't -- but that the size of the debt is causing people to think loonier and loonier things. Eventually we might do something really dumb.
If you'd rather skip the analysis and just laugh at the idea, you can go straight to -- you guessed it -- our old friends at NMA TV in Taiwan. Here is their quickly produced but predictably outraged and amusing response.



Yes, yes, I am fully aware that "cross-Straits relations" and "the Taiwan question" are deadly serious issues in Beijing, Washington, and Taipei. But in this case comedy comes closer to the truth of things than the "responsible" publication does. And NMA is becoming more and more important as a soft-power asset for Taiwan.

Update: If you'd like a combination of mockery and analysis, you can check out Thomas P.M. Barnett'srecent talk about America's debt to China, and the insanity of discussions like this one in the NYT. Really, couldn't the editors have put a tiny "Onion" logo somewere on this item to show that they knew better? 

Monday, October 3, 2011

中學生應該必修 四書五經 嗎? II

若要談邏輯, 最重要的邏輯就是:
不准人民公投的中國國民黨政權是獨裁政權
ECFA,  中學生讀經 加重念中國歷史, 核電,  ...都是中國國民黨說了算, 人民完全不能做主.  
台灣是一個人民不能做主的民主國家嗎?
蘋論:鼠貓狗的讀經邏輯2011年 10月03日總統在教師節大會上演說時,脫稿倡導讀經。馬辦在競選廣告中也推出「讀經篇」。民進黨給它定性為「文化一中」。
讀經不一定是統派
其實,讀經很好,但要多元的讀,多元社會不能倡導只讀儒家經典佛、道、西洋經典都該讀。馬提倡讀經放在選前做的政治廣告內,就不能怪別人把它政治化了。文化問題政治化就很荒誕無聊而令人啼笑皆非。
不信?請看以下邏輯:擁護讀經派認為:反讀經等於反孔,反孔等於去中國化,去中國化等於反統,反統等於台獨,台獨等於該死。有些人反馬,但支持讀 經尊孔,所以不能說反馬的一定反孔。也有反孔的支持馬,例如不少中國人受五四及毛的影響反孔,但認為馬是統派所以支持馬。邏輯不能簡化成:反鼠等於支持 貓,反貓等於支持狗;反狗等於支持貓,反貓等於支持鼠。
五四運動打倒孔家店的大將們,若活到今天都支持台獨嗎?胡適說:「在今日妄談讀經,或提倡中小學讀經,都是無知之談,不值得通人一笑。」胡適肯定 是台獨,台獨等於該死,所以胡適該死,胡適的四書五經讀得極好,打著藍旗反藍旗,尤其該死。偉大光榮正確的毛主席也是台獨,因為他批林批孔,搞文革破四 舊,所以也該死。
反讀經派也一樣昏瞶。他們的邏輯是這樣的:擁護讀經等於擁馬,擁馬等於獨尊中華文化,獨尊中華文化等於文化一中,等於統一,統一等於該死。但很多老台灣人以及有些台獨人士漢學修養很深,熟悉四書五經,也愛寫毛筆字送人,能說他們是統派嗎?該死嗎?所有的台灣人都寫漢字、講漢語、使用中國成語和典故,他們都等於統派,都該死,那台灣人豈不死絕了?
文化問題被政治化
四書五經有封建專制、缺乏科學、民主的一面,但也有人文、人道、人本、強調道德精神的一面。不能如綠營所說秦檜、嚴嵩、和珅等奸臣熟讀經書,所以經書有害;也不能如藍營鐵齒所說:「讀經書的孩子不會變壞。」這麼簡單的邏輯藍綠菁英都夾纏不清,讓人哭笑不得。
統派未必主張念古經,獨派未必反對中華文化,如果馬辦沒把讀經與政治選舉夾帶混同,當競選武器,孔老二也不會那麼倒楣,無緣無故又一次被人修理得灰頭土臉了。

Friday, September 30, 2011

中學生應該必修 四書五經 嗎?

請你花 30 秒用下面的表格表達你的想法.
大家的意見在這裡.

Saturday, July 9, 2011

沒有是非的台東人

台東達仁鄉長補選 王光清勝出
 
〔記者陳賢義/台東報導〕台東縣達仁鄉長昨天補選,四人角逐,結果由國民黨提名的前鄉長、現任公所秘書王光清以七百五十四票當選。王光清在八十四年任職鄉長期間因涉貪污案,在八十九年被停職,如今重掌公所。
國民黨籍前鄉長包世晶前年鄉長選舉期間,因涉及遷移「幽靈人口」而當選,遭判決當選無效,經縣府解職,選委會依法進行補選作業,四名候選人包括張金生、王光清、前鄉代黃國緯、安朔村幹事葛隆盛。
由於王、張兩人都有執政經驗,加上家族動員,呈現捉對廝殺戰況。開票結果,王光清獲七百五十四票,張金生獲七百廿四票,王以卅票險勝,如願重返公所,並允諾任期會依政見戮力推展。
八十三年從警轉政的王光清,八十四年任職鄉長期間,曾涉及貪污案,八十九年被停職,歷經纏訟十五年,數次判決刑度從五到十年不等,僅更二審判無罪,但更五審法官發現花蓮高分檢早在更二審即逾期上訴,今年五月間判決無罪定讞。

Thursday, June 30, 2011

台灣應該民主, 不要馬主

看三個例子:
都是馬英九的中國國民黨説了算.  台灣人怎麼反對都沒用.  中國國民黨不准人民做主, 台灣算什麼民主國家?

中國國民黨剝奪了人民的公投權,  便是剝奪了人民決策的權力,  使中國國民黨可以獨裁統治. 

這不是民主.    這是馬主民奴.

台灣人希望繼續 馬主民奴 嗎?

Saturday, June 18, 2011

台灣人對公投議題的泠漠
(was: Response: [A first response to 黃越綏競選辦公室回應: 宣揚公投])

蕭教授説

Why not elect DPP first and then we talk about 公投 after that?
You guys are putting wheel before the horse.
我認為讓全民覺悟到中國國民黨如何剝奪台灣人的公投權極為重要, 並且是很好的選舉議題.

任何人如果了解沒有公投的國家就不算民主, 他就知道票投給中國國民黨就是支持暴政.

蕭教授説

Why not elect DPP first and then we talk about 公投 after that?

我的感覺是: 台灣人不懂公投, 不了解公投的重要性, 所以不重視公投. 
他們選前不談公投, 選後也不會談公投. 

台灣人對公投議題泠漠的一個例証是他們對下面推動公投網站
Chinese KMT strips away Taiwanese' referendum rights 中國國民黨剝奪人民的公投權
endorse the statement 連署的請求反應泠淡.  2010-05-31 到今天超過一年的時間才只有 21 個人連署.
=====
2011/6/16 Frank S T Hsiao
Guys, I can agree all what you say and recognize that is very  important topic.

The problem is timing. Why Huang has to come out at this crucial time to compete with Tsai and divide the votes? Can Huang and her cohort wait until after the election? There is no way 公投 can be realized before the election. And after the election, if KMT wins, there never has any 公投. If DPP wins, there is a hope for 公投. Why not elect DPP first and then we talk about 公投 after that?
You guys are putting wheel before the horse.

From: natpa_forum@googlegroups.com [mailto:natpa_forum@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Luby Liao
Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2011 8:34 PM
To: i_love_taiwan; post@posterous.com; buzz@gmail.com; Forum NATPA
Subject: [NATPA Forum] Response: [A first response to
黃越綏競選辦公室回應: 宣揚公投]

謝謝蔡丁貴教授的回應.

根據 Wikipedia 下面這篇文章及我的美國生活經驗, 不必要是複決我希望 2012 年我們從中國國民黨拿回公投權後, 舉辦一個反核公投這反核公投就是一個非複決的新議題.

其實蔡教授和我心中的公投是同一件東西蔡教授和我都主張台灣人的公投權 (謝謝 Sean Huang 的指正)不應被中國國民黨剝奪我們的目標相同應該密切合作.   建議
If there is anything I can do to make this site work for 蔡丁貴教授's referendum movement, please don't hesitate to let me know. 

Referendum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A referendum (also known as a plebiscite or a ballot question) is a direct vote in which an entire electorate is asked to either accept or reject a particular proposal.

全民投票 (也稱為全民公決投票的問題 )是直接投票中,整個選民被要求接受或拒絕某項建議。
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referendum - 頁庫存檔 - 類似內容

Southern Sudanese independence referendum, 2011 - Wikipedia, the ...

 - [ 翻譯這個網頁 ]A referendum took place in Southern Sudan from 9 January to 15 January 2011 ...

=====
From: Aquia
Date: 2011/6/16
Subject: RE: [I Love Taiwan] A first response to 黃越綏競選辦公室回應: 宣揚公投
     我們這裡講的住民自決公投不是鳥籠公投法的公投,人民天賦權利的自決公投,是高於憲法層次的公民投票,英文的翻譯是Plebiscite,不是翻譯「複決權」的Referendum
     集結台派力量以打敗中國國民黨是我們參選的目標之一。不論是住民自決的公投或是創制複決的公投都是人民的權利,都被中國國民黨剝奪殆盡。向人民傳播自己之天賦權利的草根社會公民教育工作遠高於選舉一時的勝敗,選舉當然希望可以勝選,      在不公平的殖民體制下的選舉若未能如意,了解這個道理的知識分子必須繼續與人民一起使用非暴力抗爭以捍衛天賦人權。沒有其他的訣竅或捷徑。
    感謝你與大家的努力。

Aquia
獨立總統黃越綏參選總部總幹事

=====

A first response to 黃越綏競選辦公室回應:
宣揚公投

1. 黃越綏老師參選的目地為了宣揚「住民自決,公投建國」...
中國國民黨剝奪了人民的公投權如果 2012 我們不能打敗中國國民黨, 台灣人將永遠不會有公投權公投自決建國就都是空談

在宣揚公投公面, 我希望我的一個網頁
Chinese KMT strips away Taiwanese' referendum rights 中國國民黨剝奪人民的公投權
夠對你們的努力做出貢獻.  Please let me know how I can help you promote referendum in Taiwan, and wrestle back people's referendum rights back from Chinese KMT.

--
請隨時 造訪我們的網站 http://groups.google.com/group/i_love_taiwan
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/i_love_taiwan

若要退訂此論壇,請送電子郵件給 i_love_taiwan+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com 標題及本文空白就可.
To unsubscribe from this group, please send email to i_love_taiwan+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
You can leave Subject and Body blank.

--

Join [I Love Taiwan] group
Email:
Visit this group