Comments on: Gravel

By: Kerim

Kerim — Wed, 22 Nov 2006 13:33:21 +0000

a person who does not understand how a culture can balance sarcasm and humor on its general social and political problems may simplistically interprets the Taiwanese attitude as lacking concerns in political corruptions and misplacing antipathy in political leaders

Oh, so the red shirts and the Taiwanese evening news are being sarcastic and humorous … I understand now! Thanks for clearing that up

By: you do not know

you do not know — Wed, 22 Nov 2006 01:56:36 +0000

The culture of taiwan is born between political conflicts. The people of Taiwan are uniquely Taiwanese in that their strength exists in their flexibility- always being sandwiched in controversies from China and the States. Antipathy in Taiwan towards political figures is not to be taken literally. Yet I can understand that to a person who does not understand how a culture can balance sarcasm and humor on its general social and political problems may simplistically interprets the Taiwanese attitude as lacking concerns in political corruptions and misplacing antipathy in political leaders. Of course, understanding and critiquing black humor within a complex society structure, Taiwanese or American, requires an audience of deeper local insights and basic knowledge on modernity in Asia. Something that one cannot feign by elaborating the news of the day.

By: Keywords » Oversight

Keywords » Oversight — Tue, 21 Nov 2006 05:13:10 +0000

[...] What was the number one issue for voters? According to CNN’s exit polls, the number one issue for voters was not Iraq, but corruption. [...]

By: Kerim

Kerim — Mon, 20 Nov 2006 14:50:09 +0000

I guess my point was that, if it is a setup, they were awfully stupid to fall for it, and have done an equally bad job of digging themselves out of the hole. One thing Democrats in America have hopefully learned from the past 6 years is that it isn’t enough to yell that the other side isn’t being “fair” – you have to be able to play the game and play it well.

By: Tim Maddog

Tim Maddog — Mon, 20 Nov 2006 07:26:26 +0000

Kerim, you wrote: - - - ...why use family purchases as receipts[?] - - - One might ask Ma Ying-jeou "Why use other receipts to cover family purchases?" but I answered your question in my first comment: - - - The question that’s being obfuscated by all the media reports on this is not if the president bought his wife jewelry with public funds, but whether he actually conducted “secret” diplomacy with that money, whether the Ministry of Audit told him to supply these kinds of receipts to cover the expenses when the Directorate-General of Accounting, Budget and Statistics says receipts aren’t required (see law #4 and tell me how you’d translate it), and whether this is all a setup. - - - Two things are key to understanding the dubious nature of the accusations: 1) The pan-blue accusers 2) Aesop's fable of "The Boy Who Cried Wolf" Tim Maddog

By: Kerim

Kerim — Mon, 20 Nov 2006 05:35:50 +0000

Thanks Tim. I’ve been reading your reports, which have been very helpful in understanding what has been going on. Still, the diamond ring matter has been handled very badly by the president’s office. First of all, assuming you are correct that they were covering up for missing receipts – why use family purchases as receipts. Really, how stupid can you be? Secondly, if this is the story, why not make it and stick to it, rather than constantly changing the story as they have done? Don’t they have any PR staff – or lawyers? And third, now they are saying the ring is for the “mother in law” – which doesn’t seem to help make the situation any less awkward … I’m not saying you aren’t correct – just that it is hard to defend the DPP when they do such a bad job of defending themselves.

By: Tim Maddog

Tim Maddog — Sun, 19 Nov 2006 14:55:34 +0000

You linked to ESWN while saying: - - - While I certainly think any president who spends public funds on having a diamond ring personally fitted for his wife should be forced to resign, whether or not it was legal to do so... - - - The question that's being obfuscated by all the media reports on this is not if the president bought his wife jewelry with public funds, but whether he actually conducted "secret" diplomacy with that money, whether the Ministry of Audit told him to supply these kinds of receipts to cover the expenses when the Directorate-General of Accounting, Budget and Statistics says receipts aren't required (see law #4 and tell me how you'd translate it), and whether this is all a setup. Read my earlier analyses of the case here and here. Question everything, especially this directive (and ESWN). Tim Maddog