Sunday, March 27, 2005

ONE MILLION Protest China

Image Hosted by ImageShack.us
March 26, 2005 - Taipei, Taiwan

For those of you who would like to organize a protest -- take notes!! This country of 23 million organized a protest of one million strong in less than 2 weeks!!!

Unbelievable!!

This is a post in honour of those supporting Taiwanese freedom, democracy and continued independence from an increasingly aggressive dictatorship which is delusional with its goal to annex this peaceful nation.

Long live Taiwan!!!

Image Hosted by ImageShack.us
The walk, divided into 10 streets converging into one mass crowd consisted of groups each from a different part of Taiwan.

Image Hosted by ImageShack.us
The young attended.

Image Hosted by ImageShack.us
As well as the elders. It was truly amazing how many seniors were present for this long walk.

Image Hosted by ImageShack.us
In the distance, the Presidential Office -- the final destination. This was as far as our group were able to go. There were too many people to progress any further. Thanks to the Mayor of Taipei (a KMT member and Communist sympathizer), a large section of this public area was restricted. The mayor also estimated the crowd to be a little over 200,000!!!

Image Hosted by ImageShack.us
A very angry sign, although I don't agree with this approach. The Chinese people should not be targeted. It is the government that is responsible.

Image Hosted by ImageShack.us
I participated in the walk for more than 3 hours.

Image Hosted by ImageShack.us
Here, one massive group from a different road converged into another. The police were hardly noticable at all. Despite the anger towards China, no violent incidents occured.

Image Hosted by ImageShack.us
People were waving and cheering everywhere you looked. They even lined the windows of the local Pizza Hut.

Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

A prominent Taiwan politician leads the crowd. The China propaganda machine reported that these 1 million people were bribed to participate (see the lies here). In reality, a T.V. telethon was arranged a couple of days before the protest. People donated close to $1 million (U.S. dollars) in only a few hours. This was to help cover the expenses for this major event which far exceeded expectations.

Friday, March 18, 2005

MISTRUTH: AP Legitimizes Taiwan Wacko Conspiracy Theory


ABOVE: Campaign photo showing the President & Vice President on the Jeep before the assassination attempt.

Here's another piece of evidence that shows us that the American Press is lazy and uninformed. I found this in a very short "this day in history" blurb (emphasis added by Newsclip Autopsy):
"One year ago:...Taiwanese President Chen Shui-bian and his vice president were shot and slightly wounded in an apparent assassination attempt on the final day of Taiwan's presidential campaign."
- AP - March 18, 2005.
Yeah, like President Kennedy was apparently assassinated in 1963.

Let's see -- a shooter opens fire on the Taiwanese President Chen and Vice President Lu while waving to their supporters a day before the election. Yeah, I can see how a reporter has to be very careful when it comes to accurately identifying this as an "assassination attempt".

I imagine this word "apparent" stems from the Taiwan opposition party's loony assumption that Chen actually staged the shooting in order to create a "sympathy" vote in order to win the closely fought Presidential election of 2004. This "theory" (if you can call it that) has been refuted by the evidence and investigation so many times that you have to wonder if the leaders of the opposition (Lien & Soong) are mentally challenged. What's more, they plan to hold a protest rally a full-year after this assassination attempt took place. Talk about being the biggest sore loser of all time!

Here are the facts:

- President Chen and Vice President Lu were shot at (2 bullets) from approximately 15-20 feet away by a shooter(s) using a hand-made gun while in a moving jeep travelling approximately 10 km/hr.

- Two bullet holes, showing the bullet's trajectory were anaylized by Henry Lee (Taiwanese-born forensic investigator, famed for the O.J. Simpson trial) on the front windshield of the Jeep. Chen was grazed by the bullet accross his stomach and was a fraction of an inch from being fatally wounded. Lu was injured on her knee by one of the bullets.

- The bullet casings were found at the crime scene and were eventually matched to an illegal gun factory in Taiwan.

- Recently, the wife of the "apparent" assassinator confessed that her husband was the one who shot the President and Vice President. He was a disgruntled citizen, disturbed about Chen's policies.

- The man's image was captured by a public video camera as he fled the crime scene after the shooting.

- The man officially committed suicide (this is the only aspect that is suspicious) shortly after the Chen shooting. He died by drowning in a river, even though he was said to be an expert swimmer. The wife destroyed the suicide note before confessing.

- The shooter had strong connections to the opposition party who is now protesting the anniversary of the shooting this year.

How the opposition party (KMT) still believes that the President risked his own life by having someone (who is not a marksman) shoot him across the stomach with a non-precision weapon from a distance of 10 - 15 ft away in a moving vehicle for a CHANCE to win an election is simply beyond my imagination. So far, they have not come up with any -- I REPEAT -- any evidence that supports their absurd claim. One simply has to ask a supporter at the rally today, "would you re-enact the scenario if I found the best marksman in the world so that you could prove that this theory has a chance of being credible?"

I doubt you would find many takers.

Perhaps the AP editor who wrote this misleading blurb would do the honours?

Monday, March 07, 2005

MISTRUTH: New York Times Continues to Stereotype Bloggers

For this post, Newsclip Autopsy will paste the colourful writing of a fellow dissector, Winter Patriot. This original post was written at The Brad Blog and it concerns a recent article by the New York Times entitled, "At a Suit's Core: Are Bloggers Reporters, Too?" by Jonathan Glater.

As you read the NY Times article which is tagged "News Analyses" by the publisher (and found in the "Technology" section of the paper), you'll discover that there are a number of eyebrow raising details found in the quotes and by Mr. Glater himself that makes this piece less than fair to the bloggers point of view.

Here is Winter Patriot's post, in it's entirety. Enjoy.

That's a VERY BIZARRE article, Brad. I mean the NYT piece, not yours. It has some astonishing quotes, such as:
Attempting to draw a distinction based on the medium used by the blogger or reporter is misguided, said Jack Balkin, a professor at Yale Law School (also a blogger). "In 15 years, there may be no clear distinction between reporters on the one hand and bloggers on the other," he said. "It won't just be an either-or, where you have a reporter for The Chicago Tribune on the one hand, and a guy sitting in his pajamas drinking beer on the other."
What?? Why pajamas? Why beer? Why does it have to be a guy?

Who says a blogger cannot be a woman sitting in her lingerie drinking chablis?

OK OK I'm kidding again ... but really? Just because you publish your articles on the net does that mean you can't bother getting dressed? Hey, Mister Yale Law School professor, I'm wearing pants and a shirt and drinking tea! What do you have to say about that?

He was also quoted as saying this:
Not all blogs are equally influential and not all blogs even try to report, in the usual sense of cultivating sources, actively gathering information and then organizing and presenting it to the public, Mr. Balkin added. "There are millions and millions of blogs, and most of them are for gossip."
How does he know that most of them are for gossip? In order to know that for a fact, he would have to read at least half of the "millions and millions of blogs". Do you think he did that? Is that what law professors do? What rubbish!! But of course the NYT prints it as if it made sense. More rubbish!! Well at least he isn't trying to start a war with this garbage. Of course even if he were, they would still print it!

Then there's this astonishing sentence, not a quote, but something apparently written by Mr. Glater:
So a blogger who interviews people and spends significant amounts of time gathering and organizing information could claim the privilege; a blogger who wrote about good and bad recipes, and who one day stumbled onto a copy of the Pentagon papers and printed them, might not.
Is this man serious? Does he really think a blogger might be called to identify his sources if he happened to post a copy of the Pentagon Papers? Well at least that's not going to be a problem for me, because I can tell you right now: I got my copy in a used book store. So that one's solved, at least. It had been pretty well-used, too. Some secrets!!

And furthermore, I have never even thought of writing about good and bad recipes on please don't read my blog. So I guess he's not talking about me anyway.

And what's with the word "print"? Doesn't Mr. Glater understand YET that bloggers do not PRINT?? That's what makes them bloggers, Mr. Glater! Hey, no problem. I'm happy to help you out on that one, buddy!

But wait! Here's one more bizarre paragraph, again from Mr. Glater:
Yet if recognizing a privilege for bloggers means that everyone online can maintain that they are journalists, judges may conclude that rather than giving everyone the privilege, no one should have it. That possibility worries reporters, who could find themselves at new risk for what they write or broadcast.
Reporters could find themselves at NEW RISK for what they write?? What is NEW about this risk?? Am I dreaming or are certain NYT reporters already at risk for something they DIDN'T EVEN WRITE? And on the other hand isn't there someone who is NOT at risk even though he was the one who SPILLED THE BEANS in the first place?

Oh what a tangled web we weave! Sometimes I think we must have passed through the looking glass...

Phew! Long deep breath ... yesterday I promised myself I wouldn't post any more long rants here, and already I've broken my promise. What should I do as penance? Maybe I'll put on my pajamas, crack open a beer, and write a hot new piece about how not to make chicken soup.

Oops! Gotta run! Here comes Alice!!


Thanks Winter Patriot!

Thursday, March 03, 2005

SPECIAL: Former Canadian Foreign Minister Gives Condaleeza Rice Some Advice

I've never been more proud to be a Canadian! I just had to post this letter to Condaleeza Rice by our previous and esteemed Minister of Foreign Affairs and current President of the University of Winnipeg. Canadians aren't quietly going to take any of this neocon grade-school bully behaviour anymore!!!

Hat tip to zander at daily Kos



Missile Counter-Attack

Axworthy fires back at U.S. -- and Canadian -- critics of our BMD decision in An Open Letter to U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice

Thursday, March 3rd, 2005

By LLOYD AXWORTHY

Dear Condi, I'm glad you've decided to get over your fit of pique and venture north to visit your closest neighbour. It's a chance to learn a thing or two. Maybe more.

I know it seems improbable to your divinely guided master in the White House that mere mortals might disagree with participating in a missile-defence system that has failed in its last three tests, even though the tests themselves were carefully rigged to show results.

But, gosh, we folks above the 49th parallel are somewhat cautious types who can't quite see laying down billions of dollars in a three-dud poker game.

As our erstwhile Prairie-born and bred (and therefore prudent) finance minister pointed out in presenting his recent budget, we've had eight years of balanced or surplus financial accounts. If we're going to spend money, Mr. Goodale added, it will be on day-care and health programs, and even on more foreign aid and improved defence.

Sure, that doesn't match the gargantuan, multi-billion-dollar deficits that your government blithely runs up fighting a "liberation war" in Iraq, laying out more than half of all weapons expenditures in the world, and giving massive tax breaks to the top one per cent of your population while cutting food programs for poor children.

Just chalk that up to a different sense of priorities about what a national government's role should be when there isn't a prevailing mood of manifest destiny.

Coming to Ottawa might also expose you to a parliamentary system that has a thing called question period every day, where those in the executive are held accountable by an opposition for their actions, and where demands for public debate on important topics such a missile defence can be made openly.

You might also notice that it's a system in which the governing party's caucus members are not afraid to tell their leader that their constituents don't want to follow the ideological, perhaps teleological, fantasies of Canada's continental co-inhabitant. And that this leader actually listens to such representations.

Your boss did not avail himself of a similar opportunity to visit our House of Commons during his visit, fearing, it seems, that there might be some signs of dissent. He preferred to issue his diktat on missile defence in front of a highly controlled, pre-selected audience.

Such control-freak antics may work in the virtual one-party state that now prevails in Washington. But in Canada we have a residual belief that politicians should be subject to a few checks and balances, an idea that your country once espoused before the days of empire.

If you want to have us consider your proposals and positions, present them in a proper way, through serious discussion across the table in our cabinet room, as your previous president did when he visited Ottawa. And don't embarrass our prime minister by lobbing a verbal missile at him while he sits on a public stage, with no chance to respond.

Now, I understand that there may have been some miscalculations in Washington based on faulty advice from your resident governor of the "northern territories," Ambassador Cellucci. But you should know by now that he hasn't really won the hearts and minds of most Canadians through his attempts to browbeat and command our allegiance to U.S. policies.

Sadly, Mr. Cellucci has been far too closeted with exclusive groups of 'experts' from Calgary think-tanks and neo-con lobbyists at cross-border conferences to remotely grasp a cross-section of Canadian attitudes (nor American ones, for that matter).

I invite you to expand the narrow perspective that seems to inform your opinions of Canada by ranging far wider in your reach of contacts and discussions. You would find that what is rising in Canada is not so much anti-Americanism, as claimed by your and our right-wing commentators, but fundamental disagreements with certain policies of your government. You would see that rather than just reacting to events by drawing on old conventional wisdoms, many Canadians are trying to think our way through to some ideas that can be helpful in building a more secure world.

These Canadians believe that security can be achieved through well-modulated efforts to protect the rights of people, not just nation-states.

To encourage and advance international co-operation on managing the risk of climate change, they believe that we need agreements like Kyoto.

To protect people against international crimes like genocide and ethnic cleansing, they support new institutions like the International Criminal Court -- which, by the way, you might strongly consider using to hold accountable those committing atrocities today in Darfur, Sudan.

And these Canadians believe that the United Nations should indeed be reformed -- beginning with an agreement to get rid of the veto held by the major powers over humanitarian interventions to stop violence and predatory practices.

On this score, you might want to explore the concept of the 'Responsibility to Protect' while you're in Ottawa. It's a Canadian idea born out of the recent experience of Kosovo and informed by the many horrific examples of inhumanity over the last half-century. Many Canadians feel it has a lot more relevance to providing real human security in the world than missile defence ever will.

This is not just some quirky notion concocted in our long winter nights, by the way. It seems to have appeal for many in your own country, if not the editorialists at the Wall Street Journal or Rush Limbaugh. As I discovered recently while giving a series of lectures in southern California, there is keen interest in how the U.S. can offer real leadership in managing global challenges of disease, natural calamities and conflict, other than by military means.

There is also a very strong awareness on both sides of the border of how vital Canada is to the U.S. as a partner in North America. We supply copious amounts of oil and natural gas to your country, our respective trade is the world's largest in volume, and we are increasingly bound together by common concerns over depletion of resources, especially very scarce fresh water.

Why not discuss these issues with Canadians who understand them, and seek out ways to better cooperate in areas where we agree -- and agree to respect each other's views when we disagree.

Above all, ignore the Cassandras who deride the state of our relations because of one missile-defence decision. Accept that, as a friend on your border, we will offer a different, independent point of view. And that there are times when truth must speak to power.

In friendship, Lloyd Axworthy

(Lloyd Axworthy is president of the University of Winnipeg and a former Canadian foreign minister)

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/westview/story/2610442p-3026695c.html

Wednesday, March 02, 2005

TRUTH LEFT OUT: Boondocks Cartoon Pulled By Hundreds of Newspapers

Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

As reported by Propaganda Matrix, about 300 newspapers across the U.S. pulled the above strip (or another unedited version) from their papers.

The Chicago Tribune reasoned that the comic “presents inaccurate information as fact”.

O.K., so now the recorded voice confession of George W. Bush smoking pot is not considered fact. This is now part of the growing list of "non-facts" that King George has publically voiced on record. Does that mean that the MSM are now telling us that, implicitly, President Bush is not to be believed anymore?

--------------------

Here's the other Boondocks cartoon on the same topic:

Image Hosted by ImageShack.us
Image Hosted by ImageShack.us
Name:
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada

(If you've got the urge - cut and paste)

info@ap.org; evening@cbsnews.com; comments@foxnews.com; letters@latimes.com; hardball@msnbc.com; nightly@nbc.com; newshour@pbs.org; letters@newsweek.com; nightline@abcnews.com; atc@npr.org; nytnews@nytimes.com; letters@time.com; tips@upi.com; editor@usatoday.com; letters@washpost.com; safire@nytimes.com; dabrooks@nytimes.com; fmanjoo@salon.com; mdaly@edit.nydailynews.com; nicholas@nytimes.com; andrewmsullivan@aol.com; rroeper@suntimes.com; suellentrop@slate.com; editor@weeklystandard.com; online@tnr.com; editor@watchblog.com; bobherb@nytimes.com; davidbroder@washpost.com; froomkin@washingtonpost.com; liberties@nytimes.com; public@nytimes.com; washington@nytimes.com; news-tips@nytimes.com; letters@slate.com; editpg@freepress.com; newsonline@bbc.co.uk;

Powered by Blogger

Weblog Commenting and Trackback by HaloScan.com
Listed on BlogShares