Sunday, May 22, 2005

Stephen Carter: Destroy the Pan-Blues

Stephen Carter, a former teacher at my university, had an angry editorial in the Taipei Times today that the paper entitled "Destroy the Pan-Blues." Carter, a pro-Bush Canadian who once, upon hearing me critique our incompetent and authoritarian President's foreign policy, asked me why I hated America. Carter's rant said:
The sad truth is that no KMT or PFP member has answered in a court of law for their repeated, routine and blatant acts of corruption. No KMT or PFP member has done the right thing and divested (or put into escrow) holdings which bring many of them into clear violation of conflict of interest rules. No KMT or PFP member has answered for the pathetic brawls they initiate in that august chamber.
Actually, quite a number of both parties have done time for corruption. Carter goes on to say:
Their anti-democratic demagoguery, their belittling of everything this nation tries to accomplish, their open consorting with a vicious, totalitarian enemy, their corrupt behavior in and out of the legislature -- they should answer for all of this.
Not likely to happen, just as Bush is unlikely to be punished for behaving in exactly the same way.

On other fronts, one wonders why in the world the story of the teacher who had sex with her 12 year old student and then married him after she got out of prison made the front pages of the Taipei Times. Guys? We got Darfur, the nuclear option, global warming, a thousand other things more important.

Annette Lu, an entertainment industry all by herself, expressed regret at the Legislature's manhandling of the National Assembly.

"In [last Saturday's] election, 83 percent of voters backed parties that support the constitutional amendment package, translating to 249 seats in the National Assembly. Supposedly the constitutional amendments would pass without the need to convene the National Assembly," Lu said.

Not only does the law governing the functions of the National Assembly require a three-quarters majority of votes, it also allows representatives to abstain, a move that the vice president was made "in bad faith."

Lu also said the legislature had turned the National Assembly elections into a joke by passing the law.

"What if some National Assembly representatives who were supposed to vote for the amendments abstain from voting? Should they still get paid?" she said.

There's something wonderfully local about that last comment. Well, Annette, if you people had conducted the legislative elections with a more localized, on-the-ground, get-the-vote-out approach, you might not be facing this problem, eh?
When asked about her teaming up with Shin Kong Wu Ho-su Memorial Hospital deputy superintendent Huang Fang-yen (黃芳彥) to run in the 2008 presidential election, Lu said she may do so, but only under the DPP banner.
Can't wait to see what Annette would say as President.

Meanwhile, Jackie Chan continues his pro-KMT, anti-Taiwan ways.
The GIO minister's remarks were in response to Chan's comments last Tuesday. When asked by reporters, Chan said that for the next four years, he will not step foot in Taiwan to avoid being attacked at the airport -- an implicit reference to the clashes that took place when Chinese Nationalist Party Chairman (KMT) Lien Chan (連戰) left on his trip to China last month.
Jackie, my man, we won't be watching any more of your movies. BTW, it is "set foot" not "step foot." Although I should add that the Taipei Times does a fairly good job of catching the boners, considering the time pressure and the multiplicity of languages.


Anonymous said...

If Chan keeps cranking out mediocre movies, his politics won't matter. People will stop watching long before then. Good on him for sticking it to the DPP nazis, though.

DPP = Fujian Dialect KMT. Fact.

Same B. S., different, bing-lan stained.

TC said...

How come the DPP is so bad?

Anonymous said...

Because they've reduced the power of the mainlanders, threaten to turn Taiwan into a real democracy, shed light on the corrupt and brutal practices of the previous regime....intolerable.


David said...

Annette Lu, the next president of Taiwan. What a thought!

Actually, she has got a point about the legislature though: setting the rules after the election is pretty ridiculous - given that the KMT & DPP were pro-reform, you'd have thought they could push through the proper legislation between them.

Anonymous said...

That's what I really like about Lu. She often speaks truth, if you only stop to listen.


rmdazwdv said...

Why DO you hate America? And freedom? And democracy?

Anonymous said...

Dunno. Must be something in the water here. :)


Anonymous said...

Michael's lost his mind.

DPP for democracy?


Censorship of radio, television and print media, the rapid non-development of territories outside of Tainan and Taipei, Chen Shui-bian inciting ethnic hatred, staging a fake asassination attempt to ensure re-lection:


I hate to tell you this Michael, but the so-called "Taiwanese" (read: Hokklo speakers) are MAINLANDERS! 200, 500 years removed - whatever. All roads point back to FUJIAN.

You know this.

As for autonomy, given how territories like Hsinchu and Tainan and Taitung are allowed to opperate as if they are their own countries - and all fothat red tape - yeah: that's a "united" Taiwan.

Chen Shui-bian is the snotty, spoiled, foul-mouthed jackass who goes into class, harasses the bigger students and then when the heat gets turned back to him he cowers behind his mommy's apron (read; protection from the U. S.). Interestingly, Taiwan has done NOTHING to offer any support back ot the U. S., outside of buying weapons for a war they would lose within an instant.

So, keep pointing fingers at the KMT, when the DPP are nothing more than a Bing Lan spewing, Fujian-dialect KMT inverted.

Same ethnic hatred. Same corruption. Same lies.

To support the DPP is no different than kow towing to a George Bush, Hu Jintao, or dictator/warmonger/asshole of your choice.

DPP = don't protect people

Double pollution (on aborigina) property

Don't prepare (for) problems (like SARS)

Dupe poor punters

Dodgy Peasant Pissants

Take your pick.


Anonymous said...

QUOTE: Stephen Carter, a former teacher at my university, had an angry editorial in the Taipei Times today that the paper entitled "Destroy the Pan-Blues."

Once again, dear Mr Blogger Here, you seem to have a PHD in something but not in newspaper lingo. Carter did not write an ''editorial''. He wrote a letter to the editor that was published on the editorial page. Big difference!

An editorial is an unsigned commentary written by one member of the editorial board (or two or three together) about some issue, that reflects the paper's view of things. A letter to the editor is not an "editorial."

And you are teaching English to kids there?