A series of weird editorials in the China Post

Politics Taiwan Politics
1

I know that many of you will agree that most newspaper editorials in Taiwan are partisan, immature and based on shaky logic, but I was slightly surprised by these three in the China Post. They were titled, “The Republic of China: A Republic, Not a Democracy.” They are in three parts. Part I has a link below, and itself has links to parts II and III.

http://www.chinapost.com.tw/editorial/taiwan-issues/2009/01/15/192061/The-Republic.htm

Other than the fact that the article only quotes the founding fathers of the USA - whose viewpoints and usage might be a tad out of date - the problem is that it’s like saying, “Australia is a continent, not an island” or “noodles are Chinese, not Italian.” That is, why can’t things be both?

Perhaps the whole point of the editorials - from a KMT point of view - is to (not too) subtly appeal to the presumed “Asian values” of Taiwanese. Let’s be like Singapore (benevolent autocracy), not the Philippines (which we might turn into if we listen Chen Shui-bian and his corrupt, bad-haired demagogues). Hey, and the fact that the Peoples [color=#FF0000]REPUBLIC[/color] :discodance: of China is not so democratic is maybe a good thing!

2

That is so deeply stupid, it’s hard to know where to start. The China Post is absolutely idiotic. I can’t understand why they embarrass themselves by translating that nonsense into another language.

Decent comics, though.

3

As a translator - even a translator of editorials, occasionally - I very much doubt that that article is a translation. The tell-tale signs would be in there somewhere. The article was written in English, I reckon, and I have an inkling who might have written it.

4

As a translator - even a translator of editorials, occasionally - I very much doubt that that article is a translation. The tell-tale signs would be in there somewhere. The article was written in English, I reckon, and I have an inkling who might have written it.[/quote]

Well, yes, I assumed it was a ‘translated’ article as in, it had been written in Chinese and then rewritten in colloquial American English. Nine times out of ten, even error free translations sound awful in English, and the tone of an editorial, I’m guessing, is hard to capture from Chinese to English.

Non-sequiturish, nonsensical content aside, reading the English is like running a cheese grater over my face. Please tell me it’s not a native speaker!

'Now how shocking is that?
(new paragraph)
‘Actually, it’s not shocking at all.’

'America’s Founding Fathers knew the difference between a republic and a democracy. They knew it only too well. ’

A 14 year old could write with more attractive rhetoric. :laughing: But seriously, do they get paid?

5

Given those quotes, it should be amazing that the US became a democracy.

From Wikipedia:
A republic is a form of government where the head of state is not a hereditary monarch[1][2] but in which the people (or at least a part of its people)[3] have an impact on its government. It comes from the Latin term Res Publica, literally meaning “public thing” or “public matter”.

It appears to me that the intention of the China Post article was to mislead. If it mislead people because it’s author was stupid, it’s no excuse. Such a newspaper should ask someone to check it’s political pieces before publishing such tripe. A republic is anti-monarchistic at its root, so for the KMT to declare that the nation was to be called the Republic of China meant that the Qing dynasty’s rule was over and that the people have an impact on the government.

6

[quote=“twocs”]Given those quotes, it should be amazing that the US became a democracy.

We learn in Junior High that the Founding Fathers had a distrust of democracy. That they “loathed” it is overly strong, especially since they had never been part of a democracy. How exactly did they loathe something so vile as democracy that they had never even been a part of?

From Wikipedia:
A republic is a form of government where the head of state is not a hereditary monarch[1][2] but in which the people (or at least a part of its people)[3] have an impact on its government. It comes from the Latin term Res Publica, literally meaning “public thing” or “public matter”.

It appears to me that the intention of the China Post article was to mislead. If it mislead people because it’s author was stupid, it’s no excuse. Such a newspaper should ask someone to check it’s political pieces before publishing such tripe. A republic is anti-monarchistic at its root, so for the KMT to declare that the nation was to be called the Republic of China meant that the Qing dynasty’s rule was over and that the people have an impact on the government.[/quote]

7

What are you guys on about? The article is written like crap, but since when is this news in the annals of Taiwan newspapers?

You folks may need to take some more poli-sci courses, however; the US is not a, “democracy”. It is a democratic constitutional republic. Snow & snot, chalk & cheese, confederacy & confederation. Looks the same, but it’s not.

8

What exactly does democracy mean?

Communism = we are all equal in theory, in practice, everyone is not unequal.

Socialism = the govt is of the people, by the people, for the people and is always right, obey your govt.

Social democratic = There is more then one person running in an election but they are of the same party.

Democratic = There is more then one political party in a country.

Kingdom = There is a ruling entity

Republic = There is not a ruling man or woman, but there is a ruling govt

I guess its a matter of degrees. Whats important is how much PERSONAL FREEDOM your average man has. Freedom to pursue a career and a life within the confines of what is considered morally correct of course.

9

As has been noted on here numerous times, the government of the USA is a Constitution-based federal republic.

However, as of 20 Jan 2009 that appears to have changed…

We Are All Socialists Now

10

Do you need new glasses, or is your blindness merely selective?

From that article you linked to: :laughing:

It was Bushy-chimp-Hitler and his pack of clowns that took you down the froggy road to Socialism, TC. And to think, there you were creeping around the world’s jungles fighting those evil commies while right there on the ranch in Texas, lil’ pussy was hatching his let’s fuck up the economy and get the red thang going plot. Bummer, eh?

HG

11

[quote=“Huang Guang Chen”]Do you need new glasses, or is your blindness merely selective?

From that article you linked to: :laughing:

It was Bushy-chimp-Hitler and his pack of clowns that took you down the froggy road to Socialism, TC. And to think, there you were creeping around the world’s jungles fighting those evil commies while right there on the ranch in Texas, lil’ pussy was hatching his let’s fuck up the economy and get the red thang going plot. Bummer, eh?

HG[/quote]

Ach…pearls before swine. You actually expect Republicans to understand economics? They can’t differentiate between stimulus and spending…

12

The wikipedia reference is brief and incomplete. A monarchy derives ultimate power from the monarch. A democracy derives ultimate power from the majority. A republic derives ultimate power from it’s charter or constitution. The USA and the ROC are republics whose constitutions define democratic procedures for electing leaders, and democratic procedures for amending the consitution itself. So both nations are both republics and democracies.

The “democracies” that the founding fathers feared were likely similar to those that developed in the aftermath of the French Revolution, where mob and mob leaders held sway and individual rights were trampled on. In a country where individuals hold reasonably well-enforced rights protected by the constitution, and where universal suffrage exists, there need be no conflict between the two forms.

BTW, does anyone know who writes the editorials for the China Post? How is that part of the paper organized?

13

[quote=“BigJohn”]The wikipedia reference is brief and incomplete. A monarchy derives ultimate power from the monarch. A democracy derives ultimate power from the majority. A republic derives ultimate power from it’s charter or constitution. The USA and the ROC are republics whose constitutions define democratic procedures for electing leaders, and democratic procedures for amending the consitution itself. So both nations are both republics and democracies.

The “democracies” that the founding fathers feared were likely similar to those that developed in the aftermath of the French Revolution, where mob and mob leaders held sway and individual rights were trampled on. In a country where individuals hold reasonably well-enforced rights protected by the constitution, and where universal suffrage exists, there need be no conflict between the two forms.

BTW, does anyone know who writes the editorials for the China Post? How is that part of the paper organized?[/quote]

Wikipedia: It’s not what you know that will get you in trouble, but what you know that ain’t so.

14

[quote=“Huang Guang Chen”]It was Bushy-chimp-Hitler and his pack of clowns that took you down the froggy road to Socialism, TC. And to think, there you were creeping around the world’s jungles fighting those evil commies while right there on the ranch in Texas, lil’ pussy was hatching his let’s fuck up the economy and get the red thang going plot. Bummer, eh?
HG[/quote] :thumbsup: :roflmao: :roflmao:

15

I read only the first part of the series. I don’t think it’s stupid, and I think the writing is okay.

It should be pointed out, though, that the material quoted in the piece is (perhaps unintentionally) misleading in that Hamilton, Adams, and Chief Justice Marshall were members of the Federalist Party, a party which tended toward anti-democratic policies, favored monied interests and strong central government, and finally went the way of all flesh. It’s also (again perhaps unintentionally) misleading to call Jefferson a Republican, although that was the “short version” of his party affiliation (Democratic-Republican). Finally, Thomas Paine was British.

The China Post piece also ignores the then-widely-shared sentiments (see George Mason, and even Hamilton and Adams) of the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence, which implies that certain rights (then called natural rights) exist independently of any social contract (including written law) and cannot be alienated in such a compact. The second paragraph also explicitly states that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed (i.e., through democratic processes), and that when a government becomes destructive of these inalienable (the Declaration uses the term “unalienable”) natural rights or exercises powers without the people’s consent, the people have a right to change or get rid of that government (impliedly, even if it takes a rumble to do it). Lincoln kept visiting the issue of these natural rights at the time of the Lincoln-Douglas Debates and afterwards (and there was another rumble).

Additionally, the piece ignores the historical evolution of American government (but maybe that’s discussed in Parts II or III, which I haven’t read). But although I disagree with it, I don’t see anything horrible or weird about it, and I don’t think the writing is horrible.

One more thing:

[quote]Young man, what we meant in going for those redcoats was this: we always had governed ourselves, and we always meant to. They didn’t mean we should.[/quote]–Levi Preston, participant in the Battle of Lexington and Concord (1775), interview (ca. 1842), from Tindall, George Brown and David E. Shi. AMERICA: A Narrative History. New York, New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc., 1996. wwnorton.com/college/history … vidoc6.htm

16

[quote=“Buttercup”]That is so deeply stupid, it’s hard to know where to start. The China Post is absolutely idiotic. I can’t understand why they embarrass themselves by translating that nonsense into another language.

Decent comics, though.[/quote]

I think the writer of the editorial series got his/her polisci degree at the Mickey Mouse College of Political Science at Epcot Center or something.

17

[quote=“ludahai”][quote=“Buttercup”]That is so deeply stupid, it’s hard to know where to start. The China Post is absolutely idiotic. I can’t understand why they embarrass themselves by translating that nonsense into another language.

Decent comics, though.[/quote]

I think the writer of the editorial series got his/her polisci degree at the Mickey Mouse College of Political Science at Epcot Center or something.[/quote]

Really? I heard many American universities were tiptop?

18

[quote=“Buttercup”][quote=“ludahai”][quote=“Buttercup”]That is so deeply stupid, it’s hard to know where to start. The China Post is absolutely idiotic. I can’t understand why they embarrass themselves by translating that nonsense into another language.

Decent comics, though.[/quote]

I think the writer of the editorial series got his/her polisci degree at the Mickey Mouse College of Political Science at Epcot Center or something.[/quote]

Really? I heard many American universities were tiptop?[/quote]

This one is about the level of Dayeh University.

19

[quote=“Huang Guang Chen”]Do you need new glasses, or is your blindness merely selective?From that article you linked to: :laughing: [quote]There it was, just before the commercial: the S word, a favorite among conservatives since John McCain began using it during the presidential campaign. (Remember Joe the Plumber? Sadly, so do we.) But it seems strangely beside the point. The U.S. government has already—under a conservative Republican administration—effectively nationalized the banking and mortgage industries. That seems a stronger sign of socialism than $50 million for art. Whether we want to admit it or not—and many, especially Congressman Pence and Hannity, do not—the America of 2009 is moving toward a modern European state[/quote]It was Bushy-chimp-Hitler and his pack of clowns that took you down the froggy road to Socialism, TC. And to think, there you were creeping around the world’s jungles fighting those evil commies while right there on the ranch in Texas, lil’ pussy was hatching his let’s fuck up the economy and get the red thang going plot. Bummer, eh?
HG[/quote]
why oh why do I even try… :unamused:

Once again you display no reticence in showing your political ignorance…one almost feels pity at the spectacle you so willingly provide…almost.
try to understand “political satire” and irony. Maybe get a compendium of such terms it might help you out. But then you’d actually have to read it…and then you’d need another dictionary for the larger words. And then there’s all that subtlety…thats going to go right over your head…Oh well…
Skimed right over this rather explanatory paragraph didn’t ya? Oh curse in your ejaculatory frenzy of self-jubilation and titlation you most likely just never noticed it. And why should ya…its actuaslly relevant to the reason I posted a link to the article.
Which was “Published Feb 7, 2009, From the magazine issue dated Feb 16, 2009”

[quote]"As the Obama administration presses the largest fiscal bill in American history, caps the salaries of executives at institutions receiving federal aid at $500,000 and introduces a new plan to rescue the banking industry, the unemployment rate is at its highest in 16 years. The Dow has slumped to 1998 levels, and last year mortgage foreclosures rose 81 percent.

All of this is unfolding in an economy that can no longer be understood, even in passing, as the Great Society vs. the Gipper. Whether we like it or not—or even whether many people have thought much about it or not—the numbers clearly suggest that we are headed in a more European direction. A decade ago U.S. government spending was 34.3 percent of GDP, compared with 48.2 percent in the euro zone—a roughly 14-point gap, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. In 2010 U.S. spending is expected to be 39.9 percent of GDP, compared with 47.1 percent in the euro zone—a gap of less than 8 points. As entitlement spending rises over the next decade, we will become even more French."[/quote] The rest is pretty relevant also. And as the days have passed…proven very accurate.
(That means…“on the money”)

Elequa pontificates:

Seeing as how no "Republicans’ voted in favor of the "stimulus’ package back at the end of January in the House of Reps, it seems they know a heck of a lot more about it than you do. Not that thats really a big accomplishment, I agree.
[i]"President Barack Obama’s budget would produce $9.3 trillion in deficits over the next decade, more than four times the deficits of Republican George W. Bush’s presidency, congressional auditors said Friday.

The new Congressional Budget Office figures offered a far more dire outlook for Obama’s budget than the new administration predicted just last month - a deficit $2.3 trillion worse. It’s a prospect even the president’s own budget director called unsustainable."…apnews.myway.com/article/20090320/D9721GMO0.html

Obama budget projected at $9.3 trillion in next 10 years
“Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa and ranking minority member on the Finance Committee, as well as a senior member on the Budget panel, said Congress and the White House need to get the message that the new figures embody.
“People can afford only so much government spending, even for the worthiest-sounding causes,” he said in a statement.”
Some Reps understand the difference very well.

UPDATE 3-US Congress budget office sees $1.8 trln deficit
" * Sees FY09 deficit at highest ratio to GDP since 1940s

  • GDP to shrink 3 pct in 2009, grow 2.9 pct in 2010
  • White House says priorities unchanged despite forecasts
  • Republicans argue projections demand less spending (Adds White House, congressional reaction)"

Facts trump “feelings” every time Elegua…every time… :sunglasses:

20

It was the Republicans who started bloating the debt to simultaneously cut taxes and boost spending, especially on the military.

Obama’s spending is obviously Keynesian in nature: Spend money you don’t have in order to create economic activity that will pay off later in terms of tax revenues. He is trying an old war-horse of center-left economics, the one that lifted the world out of the Great Depression.

Republicans prefer to do boost the economy with tax cuts, but I’m not sure that’s a good way to start an economy that is paralyzed in the way that this one is.

BTW, today’s attack on Obama in the CP was pretty nasty, blaming him completely for the whole AIG bonuses thing. There’s one editorialist there that scans the US news and rewrites editorials for the CP that are neither well-rewritten or appropriate for a Taiwanese newspaper.