Disinformation by a member of DPP （民進党）

On Tuesday, January 2007, Chou Yung-Hang (周永鴻) who is the deputy director of the Democratic Progressive Party's department of youth development published an opinion piece titled "Opposition obstructs democracy" in Taipei Times (publish by Liberty Times group/自由時報). Chou Yung-Hang blame the opposition parties for Taiwan being label as a "flawed democracy" by the Economist Intelligence Unit's Index of Democracy. His evidence of this was Taiwan scored particularly low in the "[democratic] political culture" category of the Index because the pan-blue camp (Kuomintang (KMT or 國民黨) and its collaborators) opposition parties. he wrote

"The EIU has adopted a simple and direct definition of political culture: "A successful democratic political culture means that the losing parties and their supporters accept the judgment of the voters and allow for the peaceful transfer of power.""

after establishing what constitute sound democratic political culture Chou Yung-Hang moves in to smear the opposition,

"Judging by this simple definition, we can easily see that the KMT's obstructionism -- be it in the legislature or the streets, in Taiwan or in China -- is the manifestation of a party unwilling to accept the fact that the DPP is in power."

Is he trying to imply that opposition parties criticizing the government in the legislative is undemocratic? or protesting in street demonstrations against the government are undemocratic? This kind of disinformation is specially cynical when the president's family is indited for embezzlement and somehow we should not be criticizing...

Moving on to problems with his use of Index of Democracy.

First in his quote, ht mistakenly wrote use the word "means" which was really "implies" in source he cited. At best this is sloppiness on his part and on the editor of Taipei Times's opinion editor who should have prove read this article. To some people this is nothing to cry about, but professional journalist should know the difference between the two words.

Second, He fail to report that the definition he cited is misleading, considering the the model questions used by EIU to determine democratic political culture might have very little to do with oppositions attitude towards transfer of power.

here are all eight questions in the model used to determine democratic political culture

(Question 36 is the first of the questions under democratic political culture)

"36. Is there a sufficient degree of societal consensus and cohesion to underpin a stable, functioning democracy?

37. Perceptions of leadership; proportion of the population that desires a strong leader who bypasses parliament and elections.

38. Perceptions of military rule; proportion of the population that would prefer military.

39. Perceptions of rule by experts or technocratic government; proportion of the population that would prefer rule by experts or technocrats.

40. Perception of democracy and public order; proportion of the population that believes that democracies are not good at maintaining public order.

41. Perception of democracy and the economic system; proportion of the population that believes that democracy benefits
economic performance.

42. Degree of popular support for democracy.

43. There is a strong tradition of the separation of church and state."

As the reader can see "transfer of power" is not explicitly mention in democratic political culture session of the model, but it did appeared in the "Electoral process and pluralism" session as cited below,

"8. Following elections, are the constitutional mechanisms for the orderly transfer of power from one government to another clear, established and accepted?"

This report is at best sloppy, at worst dishonest partisan propaganda design to smear governments critics, exactly the kind of things that undermine Taiwan's democratic political culture. Both Chou Yung-Hong and Taipei Times's opinion editor should be shameful for publishing this class A disinformation.

Review on the incoherent "America: Freedom to Fascism"

"America: Freedom to Fascism" a documentary by Arron Russo is about political elites' manipulation of the public. The film addresses numerous important issues, but ultimately wrap together incoherently unable to deliver a clear overarching picture. Kind of reminded me of essays that I wrote the night before the due date. Its really bad, its amatureish, its so bad i felt asleep three times watching it.

The film used almost half of the film trying to establish that America don't have a statuary law that require Americans to pay federal income tax, and it did so by showing different people saying the same thing and arguing the same point. Ok, i get it, move on, tell me why this is a problem. I mean having no statuary law against an act doesn't always make that act alright. Murder is still wrong even if there is no law against it. The film showed many case of people convicted for not paying for federal tax, those precedence makes it a law under the common law logic until they are overturned. In fact, before the film ever made clear on the Five Ws(Who, What, When, Where, Why and hoW), it moves to attack the Federal Reserve Bank.

It argues, Federal Reserve Bank is evil organization on the lose with the ability to print money, while acknowledging that elected government appoints its Board of Governors of Federal Reserve. It argues, the government, Federal Reserve Bank and credit companies manipulate the public into borrowing so some how it can enslave the public and make money that way. this obviously contradict the point about federals banks ability to print money. why steal when you can just print it your self.

this flow of incoherent theories just goes on and on. the film move from the federal bank, to credit companies leaders, to miss treatment of citizens by national guards in New Orleans, to lost of privacy by the possibility of implanted identification system, to scandals over fixing elections and vulnerability of electronic voting machines, to arguing American is fighting in Iraq because of federal bank it to, ended with a conspiracy to create a world government.

This documentary is a mess, its trying to tell a story with too many pieces of puzzles not able to fit together to create a picture, either because those puzzles where not from the same picture, or too many pieces are missing or both. The likely scenarios is both in this film. To make sense of all these points that its making and why were they all to put into a single documentary more answers is needed. Who are the conspirators behind this? Why are they doing this and for what purpose?

A documentary don't really have to give answers to be great, Micheal Moores' Bowling For Columbine did not give out an answer, but it lead the audience towards an answer by testing a series of hypothesis in a coherent way.

Having been very critical, many individual issues in the film are worthy of the attention of the public. Are the conduct of the Internal Revenue Service action appropriate? Is the American government providing sufficient oversight into the workings of federal bank, Are our house whole debt too high? and is the integrity of our voting system undermined?

These are important questions, the film offer no convincing answers but it server the public by raising awareness. and its free on google video and i guess its worth watching.

Want to know more?

Check out the official blog
America: Freedom to Fascism blog

About the military-industrial complex running American and pushing it towards war.
Why We Fight (google video), Eugene Jarecki

Talks about military-industrial complex and the end of the American republic
Militarism and the American Empire, with Chalmers Johnson

Hunter S. Thompson with Mick O’Regan on censorship and Bush administration.
Patriot Games - American journalism post 9/11 (transcript)

☆The use of fear by neoconservatives and al queda to manipulate the public
The Power of Nightmares, All four episodes on google video

I found out about this documentary on The Documentary Blog
America: Freedom To Fascism Full Movie on Google Video

Why Google spends so much on people

This is a comment that i am going to post in response to the fallowing question and other comments from CNN about Google being selected as the best companies to work for 2007.

No. 1 Best Company to Work For
What do you think of our No. 1 company on the Best Companies to Work For list as an employer? Should they be No. 1? Have you worked for the company? Would you like to? What do you think is most important when considering where to work -- pay, benefits, company culture, bosses, location? Tell us what you think. The best replies will be published here, and possibly in a future story on CNNMoney.com.

In this globalising economy, where plentiful capital chases few promising companies and yesterdays technology quickly outsourced, the only way a global company can survive with the luxury of living in a developed state is to rely almost exclusively on human resources and its ability generate cutting edge technology, capitol/existing-technology competitive advantages are too easily copied by countries where they can also afford to work cheaper then you. Competitive advantage base on people and the tacit knowledge they hold are properly the most difficult elemental for anyone to imitate.

The fact that Google only has 31% women in their workforce i believe properly reflect more about the society in which Google operates , rather then a policy choice. I am not suggesting that female are less capable doing what Google want their employees to do, what i am saying is that our society socialized females into a less competent demography in some task.

Lastly, i am suspecting Google culture is one where they not there to work or make money, they are they to make the world a better place, because by organizing the worlds information and make it accessible universally they are eliminating properly the most significant source of worlds problem - uneven distribution of knowledge. Google employees may not think this way but they are in fact on a quest save the human race.

Want to know more?

☆Stressing the importance of these kind of services that Google are proposing to do
Google’s destructive innovation: world’s largest content searchable digital library

urging Google not to diversify in the task they do too much.
Google’s future is looking good

Knowledge Society and ICT

ターネーションと情報革命

Saddam Hussien and Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal

The end of trial and execution of Saddam Hussein is a chance lost for justice and closure for the people of Iraq, consequents of which is demonstrated by Japan whom half century later, still haunted by the confusion over its war past that was never effectively resolved by the illegitimate Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal.

So, what are the possible consequence of an unfair trial even if its for the infamous Saddam Hussien? Looking to Japan for lessons . Externally, Japan is in an on going feud with its neighbors over history interpretation, war compensation, (in)sincereness of apologies, status of war crimes and Yasukuni Shrine. Internally, confusion over war past has continued to divide Japanese society, frequently exploited by politicians elites as a "wedge issue" to drum up emotions and divert attention from their incompetencies.

As Japan's older generation slowly fade away with society's memory of war and younger generations confused over the issue, lessons of the Second World War that cost millions of life may be soon be forgotten.


Iraq's future is at state, and consequences dire.

One may argue, slow justice is not what Iraq can afford at its present state.

Even if the the trial is prolonged, the process of a legitimate fair trial could have been a chance to prove to the people that Iraq is changing, rule of laws can be counted upon, winner don't all, power is limited by justice, despot politics is over and the new government is just and worth supporting.

Although unjust trials don't necessarily make Saddam innocent, but it may made him martyr in the eyes of some, just like Japan's war criminal whom are still honored by Prime Ministers annul visit to Yasukuni Shrine.

Want to know more?

☆Questioning the legal validity and capacity of the trial.
Failed Justice in Iraq: The Trial of Saddam Hussein, John Pace

Blog converge of the trial
Grotian Moment: the Saddam Hussien trial blog

News and articles from legal professional and academic on the trial
Saddam Hussien Trial , Jurist

☆A nuanced look at Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal's impact on Japan's society and popular culture, a must read for the interested
Goodbye Godzilla, Hello Kitty, Norihito Kato

Japan's trouble with its past.
Japan’s War Guilt Revisited, Orville Schell

A major Japanese news paper went back 60 years to find justice
WAR RESPONSIBILITY--delving into the past (1) / Manchuria start of slide into war

Youtube political

Below is a list of Youtube videos complied by Passport (blog arm of the Foreign Policy) that have political consequents or "Youtube Effect"

* China kills Tibetan monks Murder in the mountains: Chinese soldiers shot down Tibetan monks, women, and children in cold blood, but a climber caught them on tape.


* China can't censor everything: A Sky News reporter risks detention, even harm to report on the simmering discontent brewing in China over land grabs. But the victims haven't been waiting around for him to discover their misery. His report builds on footage shot by ordinary Chinese of clashes between peasants and government hired thugs, and of ordinary people being forcibly evicted from their houses.


* Real or staged, we'll never know: This harrowing video, purportedly of U.S. troops crying and praying during a firefight with Iraqi insurgents, may be a fake. But that didn't stop 86,000 people from viewing it in the first 10 days after it was posted.


* Egyptian police slap detaineeInside Egypt's jails: An Egyptian police officer slaps around a detainee, to the delight of his colleagues. He didn't think anyone was watching.


* Two U.S. humvees attacked in Baquba: A typical video posted by Iraqi insurgents of a roadside bomb attack on a U.S. convoy.

and here is the Moises Naim editorial about Youtube Effect and these videos.
a free registration with Foreign Policy may be required to read the article.

Want to know more?

Potential negative impact of internet
Internet as a nursery for extreme views

Questioning Blogsphere's self-correcting mechanisms
The Self-Correcting Blogosphere

The effect of blog journalism on traditional media
Weblog Journalism: Between Infiltration and Integration