Whenever I get upset at the ridiculous lies that I hear or read in the media, I try to remember that the people telling them cannot be held entirely responsible for their own actions.
After all, mankind abandoned the progress it had made in civilizing itself at some point during the late 1960s, as far as I can make out. We cast aside the Age of Reason in favor of marijuana, rock-and-roll and relativism. And two out of three ain't bad.
At the time, it all seemed like a pretty good idea, but only because we were forced to compare it to what had come before: the 1950s, with stultifying intellectual oppression and a stark world of moral absolutes.
I'm Old School. So although I try to accept that individuals can no longer be held accountable for their own words, and that even obvious lies must be viewed as the moral and intellectual equivalent of the truth, I just can't do it.
However, this is all getting somewhat off track.
What has occasioned this philosophical ramble -- or sophomoric rant, if you prefer -- is China's rather predictable reaction to the US Department of Defense's Annual Report to Congress: Military Power of the People's Republic of China 2006.
I have to admit, I no longer look forward to these reports the way I did back in the 1990s.
Once you have heard the sentence: "China's economic growth, growing diplomatic leverage, and improvements in the PLA's [People's Liberation Army] military capabilities, contrasted with Taiwan's modest defense efforts, have the effect of shifting the cross-Strait balance in Beijing's favor," you have heard it a thousand times.
And of course, China's response was equally predictable:
"China is a peace-loving nation and has insisted on a way of peaceful development, with a national defence policy that is defensive in nature," said Chinese Foreign Ministry Spokesman Liu Jianchao (劉建超), according to a May 24 story from the Press Trust of India, in a story run on the Times of India's Web site.
The only thing surprising about this is that God didn't strike Liu dead on the spot. But I assume that one must have some kind of special agreement with the Almighty -- or the Devil -- before one can become a spokesman for the Chinese bandits.
"Taiwan is an inseparable part of China's territories. The Chinese government sticks to the policy of `peaceful reunification and one country, two systems,'" Liu said.
Inseparable? But Comrade Liu, they are already separated: geographically, politically, economically and socially. Try walking across the Taiwan Strait sometime. Or try criticizing your leaders in an opinion piece in the China Daily.
Furthermore, why does Beijing keep trying to sell us this "peaceful reunification" shtick when they've already told us in writing that they'll invade us if we "move toward independence," the catch-all phrase that China's "Anti-Secession" Law employs.
What will China do if some of us "move toward independence"? Or if just part of Taiwan declares independence? Let's find out:
Dear China,
I, Johnny Neihu, being of sound mind, do hereby declare that I and the district of Taipei which is my namesake are moving toward independence. We shall continue moving in this manner until such time as we see fit, and assert our right as responsible parties to move in whichever direction we desire, without fear of coercion or obstruction.
Truly yours,
Dr. Johnny Neihu IV
Well, big things have small beginnings, as they say. So write that off as my tiny gesture toward the establishment of individual liberty and peace worldwide. Now let's hope that that black-market PAC-3 Patriot anti-missile battery I bought the last time I passed through Tripoli still works.
I can't think of Libya anymore without being reminded of the ridiculous position that Taiwan has been reduced to when it tries to conduct diplomacy.
Witness this year's World Health Organization (WHO) debacle.
"Although Taiwan's participation in the WHO has not been institutionalized, de facto contact [with many countries] has been established," Taiwan's de facto ambassador to Switzerland Shen Lyu-shun (
The only thing that should be institutionalized, as far as I can see, is Taiwan's diplomatic corps.
We failed to join the WHO again? Gee, you mean Taiwan failed to completely overturn the entire structure of international politics this year? How surprising. Maybe we should increase the Ministry of Foreign Affairs' budget. I'm sure if we put a few more posters in subway stations in Brooklyn, we'll succeed next year.
However, it was good to see that at least some people seem to have a sense of reality.
Before his arrival in Taiwan on Wednesday, Deputy US Trade Representative Karan Bhatia exhibited the kind of level-headed restraint that one wishes the rest of the US political establishment could exercise.
Agence France-Presse ran the following exchange in a story on May 24:
"But the US official played down the political significance of his visit to Taipei, from where he is due to travel on to India and Vietnam.
`I recognize that my visit over there is likely to be noted by the media there. That's fine,' Bhatia said. `But what I would stress is that this is not intended to be a political trip.'"
Now mind you, this is an actual US official speaking. Normally we are subjected to reams of stories about people who are not even in the US government anymore, who come here on the Taiwanese taxpayer's dime, pretending they have the inside scoop about what's happening in Washington.
What they really want, of course, is to cash in by pushing the private companies they work for.
But hey, not everyone is Therese Shaheen.
Heard or read something particularly objectionable about Taiwan? Johnny wants to know: dearjohnny@taipeitimes.com is the place to reach me, with "Dear Johnny" in the subject line.
Chinese state-owned companies COSCO Shipping Corporation and China Merchants have a 30 percent stake in Kaohsiung Port’s Kao Ming Container Terminal (Terminal No. 6) and COSCO leases Berths 65 and 66. It is extremely dangerous to allow Chinese companies or state-owned companies to operate critical infrastructure. Deterrence theorists are familiar with the concepts of deterrence “by punishment” and “by denial.” Deterrence by punishment threatens an aggressor with prohibitive costs (like retaliation or sanctions) that outweigh the benefits of their action, while deterrence by denial aims to make an attack so difficult that it becomes pointless. Elbridge Colby, currently serving as the Under
The Ministry of the Interior on Thursday last week said it ordered Internet service providers to block access to Chinese social media platform Xiaohongshu (小紅書, also known as RedNote in English) for a year, citing security risks and more than 1,700 alleged fraud cases on the platform since last year. The order took effect immediately, abruptly affecting more than 3 million users in Taiwan, and sparked discussions among politicians, online influencers and the public. The platform is often described as China’s version of Instagram or Pinterest, combining visual social media with e-commerce, and its users are predominantly young urban women,
Most Hong Kongers ignored the elections for its Legislative Council (LegCo) in 2021 and did so once again on Sunday. Unlike in 2021, moderate democrats who pledged their allegiance to Beijing were absent from the ballots this year. The electoral system overhaul is apparent revenge by Beijing for the democracy movement. On Sunday, the Hong Kong “patriots-only” election of the LegCo had a record-low turnout in the five geographical constituencies, with only 1.3 million people casting their ballots on the only seats that most Hong Kongers are eligible to vote for. Blank and invalid votes were up 50 percent from the previous
Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi lit a fuse the moment she declared that trouble for Taiwan means trouble for Japan. Beijing roared, Tokyo braced and like a plot twist nobody expected that early in the story, US President Donald Trump suddenly picked up the phone to talk to her. For a man who normally prefers to keep Asia guessing, the move itself was striking. What followed was even more intriguing. No one outside the room knows the exact phrasing, the tone or the diplomatic eyebrow raises exchanged, but the broad takeaway circulating among people familiar with the call was this: Trump did