Thursday, May 22, 2014

Thursday Links....

Bridge near Mugumuyu...

Too tired to finish the post that went with these, didn't want to deprive you of them...
_______________
Daily Links:
_______________________
Don't miss the comments below! And check out my blog and its sidebars for events, links to previous posts and picture posts, and scores of links to other Taiwan blogs and forums!

8 comments:

Jenna Cody said...

I agree on "Asian security should be handled by Asians", but have to also disagree just due to the source: exactly the person the rest of Asia should NOT trust with their security in ANY WAY.

Anonymous said...

from Aussie journo visits Spratly reef, scene of Phils vs China clash

CAMPBELL: Unable to match China’s growing military, the Philippines has asked the UN to arbitrate. Beijing has refused to take part in the case and is already exploiting the disputed resources.

MAYOR EUGENIO BITO-ONON: “That’s the boats used for hauling clams and coral”.

CAMPBELL: There’s a constant rumble of Chinse dredges on the outer reef. They run 24 hours a day crushing the coral.

MAYOR EUGENIO BITO-ONON: “Mainly they’re using that… turning that into powder and then they use that as fillers for boat building”.

CAMPBELL: Mayor Eugenio wants to turn the reef into a protected marine park. Now he’s worried there’ll be no coral or fish left.

MAYOR EUGENIO BITO-ONO: “If you go there, there’s no more rocks, it’s just become turned into sand”.


China is completely destroying all these reefs and not a word from the West? Environment groups are afraid of China too? If it's an open ocean like the USA says why isn't someone documenting this destruction? It's way past time that USA backs up its talk with some concrete action. If China is doing this massive destruction of reefs and sea life the US Navy should stop them now. If not now then when.

Readin said...

"Presbyterian Church fail on same-sex marriage, LBGT rights, after so many years of working for democracy in Taiwan"

Quite a non-sequiter there. Can you name a single country that has become democratic after redefining monogamous "marriage" to include two people of the same gender?


Readin said...

That Dallas blog guy seems pretty out of touch. He called the Sunflower movement "leftist" despite no hint of authoritarianism or freedom restriction from the movement.

In fact the Sunflower movement seems to be pretty much more devoted to restoring democracy than to expanding arbitrary rule.

They weren't demanding everyone be forced to spend more time working for the government. They weren't demanding that the government impose more rules on their lives. They were demanding democracy and transparent government. Very anti-leftist.

Anonymous said...

On gay marriage: Is there ANY Christian church on the island that supports it?

Supporters of a New East Asian Sphere of Co-Prosperity should appreciate NEA SO COPROS from "Cloud Atlas."

Eric Pickett said...

As a long-term reader of this blog, I have for many years quietly read and put up with the anti-gay, right-wing excretions frequently dropped in the comments section of this fine blog from this Readin reader. Though, more often than not, my reaction was to throw my coffee mug at the screen when he squeezed out another one of his anti-gay comments, my jaw dropped when I read the mother of all non-sequiters:

Can you name a single country that has become democratic after redefining monogamous "marriage" to include two people of the same gender?

Can you name a single rational person that has become MORE enlightened after reading this sentence from Readin? What is it supposed to mean? That the 18 countries -- all of them functioning democracies ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage) -- that have legalized same-sex marriages in recent years have somehow magically become undemocratic now? Is Taiwan -- whose 53% populace approves of same-sex marriage according to a recent poll ( http://sinosphere.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/05/22/taiwan-activists-push-for-same-sex-marriage-bill/) -- on its way to becoming another un-democracy if and when it legalizes same sex marriage?

What does this mean? That expanding equal rights and civil liberties of gay citizens -- the very definition of democracy in action -- is, in fact, anti-democratic because it violates the sanctity and exclusivity of heterosexual marriages?

Totally dumbfounded.....

Marc said...

Re: Presbyterian Church fail

This stance might have something to do with two things: the "Presbys" here in Taiwan I don't think are of the Reformed Presbyterian Church, but the more evangelical side,and a large number of Taiwan's members are aboriginal, whose societies might a hold a more traditional view on such mores.

Readin said...

"...anti-gay, right-wing excretions frequently dropped in the comments section..."

That's what I like about "the comments section of this fine blog", no one ever stoops to name-calling.

As for my supposed "mother of all non-sequiters", did Mr. Pickett bother to read my post or did he just skim it looking for something to attack? _My_ point was that the link between support for redefinition of marriage and support for democracy are not related. Thus my use of the term "non-sequitur" (which I sadly misspelled) to describe the idea that because the Presbyterians supported democracy in Taiwan they should also be should be supporting the redefinition of marriage in Taiwan. The two are unrelated.

The question I asked, was merely to highlight the fact that Democracy is quite capable of existing absent such redefinition.

You may take that to be anti-gay but I take as being a fan of logic.

If there is any correlation between the two, it is that sadly in America people supporting redefinition of marriage have been very successful at getting the courts to nullify democracy here. However I think it is a bit of a stretch to assume the same thing will happen in Taiwan. There is a decent chance that unlike in America the decision about the future of marriage in Taiwan will be made democratically.

Finally, as to the statement that my comments "anti-gay", I would point out that I was fighting and arguing against real homophobia decades before doing so was considered cool and righteous. I can't claim it was a lot because I wasn't politically active, but I was contesting hatred of gays where I found it among my friends instead of just going along or keeping quiet. And it wasn't like it is today.