The Truth Today is Very Popular – How About some Diplomatic Truth? Jerusalem is the Capital of Israel, and Taiwan is not Part of China, and is Independent and Democratic!

For 50 years, the international community, including the impotent United Nations, has pretended the historical connection of 3,000 years between Jerusalem and Israel dating back to King David did not exist. The diplomatic convenience of appeasement, an act of allowing a lie to be treated as the truth, did nothing for peace.

For 50 years, the international community, including the impotent United Nations, has pretended that the historical separation since 1895 between China and Taiwan did not exist, and has been willing to pretend Taiwan is part of China, for “diplomatic purposes” (read this as “greed”). The diplomatic convenience of appeasement, an act allowing a lie to be treated as the truth, did nothing for peace, and has allowed China to grow in belligerence and hegemony, threatening the world with totalitarianism, “socialism with Chinese characteristics”.

Previous international policy on the Palestinians has failed miserably. In 1995, Congress passed the Embassy Act directing the US embassy be moved to Jerusalem, the capital of Israel. President Clinton failed to sign the law, and it went into effect without his signature, his having failed to return it to Congress during the permitted time. However, Clinton, Bush and Obama all suspended the law for the past 25 years. Now, President Trump has actually complied with the law, saying out loud what has been true for 3,000 years.

Let the Palestinians and the rest of the world face the truth, the fact that Jerusalem and Israel are inextricably connected as they have been since King David declared Jerusalem the capital of Israel around 1,000 B.C. Appeasement has no chance of success, and hopefully the days of appeasing the Palestinians is over. Threatening violence in the middle-east because of this decision is nonsense. It is already burning in chaos with internecine conflict between Shia and Sunni, and many other peoples and sects clamoring for influence, territory and wealth for greedy leaders. Israel has nothing to do with this never-ending conflagration. All Israel ever did was turn a desert into an oasis, something the Palestinians should take note of, if they could put down their AK-47s, suicide belts and bombs, and Jew-hating long enough.

Let the world start acknowledging the truth that the Emperor Xi is naked, that he has no new clothes, that this is the truth, and that Taiwan is a free, independent, democratic nation of peace.

I hope today is the first day of the rest of our lives accepting the truth in diplomacy instead of decades of diplomatic lies and appeasement of evil. Let’s hope the American President’s fulfillment of his promise to the people of Israel is the beginning of “telling it like it is” and starting to get things done in solving the world’s worst conflicts. After the past 8 years of Obama’s polite appeasement and giving evil a pass in the name of false “peace”, it took less than 11 months and a little New York chutzpah to move America in the right direction. I hope it is just the beginning, and that China is next on the list to get a wake up call to something called “the truth”.

Opposition to Legislation Against Israel on the Spurious Grounds of Violating Palestinian Children’s Human Rights – Pro-Palestinian Groups using Palestinian Kids as “Human Shields”

This is an email I just sent to Betty McCollum, Congresswoman for the 4th District in Minnesota after learning of her sponsorship of a bill entitled Promoting Human Rights by Ending Israeli Military Detention of Palestinian Children Act.  It seems the BDS lobby is now using Palestinian kids as human shields to try to hide the malice in the Palestinian campaign to end Israel and Jews. It is embarrassing there are actually people in Congress who have bought this ruse.

1. I am appalled at your bill regarding Israel.

2. A child aged 8 walks into a department store in downtown St. Paul wearing a suicide bomb vest. What should you do? After the child is tackled to the ground by an heroic officer, and apprehended before the vest can be detonated, what to do with the child? Catch and release? Release to parents (who armed the child in the first place, or failed to stop Uncle X from teaching the child to kill)? Detain the child pending further investigation? How about if the story is about thousands of child/teen bombers over a longer time period?

3. Instead of focusing on a tiny nation fighting against a billion adversaries all religiously committed to exterminating them and all Jews worldwide, how about focusing on the brainwashing in Palestinian schools? How about preventing a child from taking part in terrorism by halting aid to a regime that indoctrinates its children with the notion that suicide bombing Jews is the highest achievement they can attain, and that all Jews must be killed? This is the basic curriculum in Palestinian schools. Not be a doctor. Not be a lawyer. Not be an artist. Not be a scientist. Be a terrorist, be a Jew killer.

4. There are hundreds of millions of children suffering around the world, many many many many of them suffering at the hands of Islamic societies using them as child soldiers or as child brides or as slaves. And yet, you focus on Israel, the only true democracy in the region, a nation of around 8 million people, not on the 1.5 billion in Arab nations surrounding it eager to kill every Jew alive. Imagine, if only the region were focused on actually educating their children instead of indoctrinating them to murder? Golda Meir said “Peace? There will be no peace until the Arabs love their children more than they hate us.” She said that 60 years ago. It is still completely true today. By the way. The doctrine for Israel is “Never again.” I wonder. Have you ever visited Dachau? Auschwitz? Buchenwald? If you haven’t been to a concentration camp, you cannot viscerally understand what Israel is dealing with.

5. Palestinians always have had the opportunity for normalcy. But having been chosen by the Arab world as cannon fodder, they have decided to torture their people to try to destroy Israel. Congratulations for buying into the lie that Israel is persecuting Palestinians. Hundreds of billions of dollars have been given to the Palestinians and used there to pay terrorists’ families when they have murdered Jewish children, or to build bombs, or tunnels, not build schools, hospitals or commercial enterprises. Israel created an oasis out of a desert. The Palestinians have turned an oasis into a desert. Go figure.

6. My fervent hope is that this legislation dies an ignominious death in some Committee somewhere. However, given the recent insanity gripping my Democratic Party, I am not sure of the support. Imagine having to turn to Republicans for common sense. What a strange and twisted thing liberalism has become. You were among a group who sponsored the Elie Wiesel Genocide and Atrocities Prevention Act of 2017 – are  you really going to conflate the Holocaust with Palestinians opposed to Israel’s battle for survival against all adversaries determined to kill all Jews? Perhaps you believe that Hamas is a charitable organization?

Appeasement is not a Viable Strategy with North Korea, as 25 Years of it has Shown

An article appeared in the Taipei Times on Sunday, October 29, 2017 on p. 6 regarding the North Korean crisis entitled Talking Must be the Only Answer by Ian Inkster  http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2017/10/29/2003681233/3

Mr. Inkster very instantly and blithely dismisses the most important concept identified by President Trump, that “the US has been talking to North Korea, and paying them extortion money, for 25 years,” at the outset of Inkster’s article.  President Clinton made the horrific mistake of trusting North Korea in 1992, and the agreement with North Korea was violated by North Korea before the ink was dry. Years of Chinese prevarication, talking, and “statesmanship”, as Mr. Inkster lovingly suggests, in particular over the past 8 years by the great statesman President Obama, produced nuclear weapons, long range missiles and a hydrogen bomb. So much for statesmanship. As I mentioned before in my blog post, and here, and in others, President Reagan scared the Iranians so much they released the hostages they had held for a year within hours of his inauguration, after years of wimpiness from President Carter. Curiously we find ourselves in a similar position, with 8 years of extraordinary wimpiness from President Obama followed by a very loose and sometimes scary but apparently resolute cannon (despite not being the brightest bulb in the marquee of life).

Mr. Inkster refers to the Cuban Missile Crisis. He must have viewed it as a young teen through the foggy mist across the pond. From here, in New York, a hop, skip and jump from Washington, I saw and felt President Kennedy’s “bluster”, which Mr. Inkster says Kennedy did not display, but his spine, and his temerity, his willingness to meet move with move and show of strength with show of strength, and the backdoor channel ready to receive a message of contrition from Khrushchev is what made the Russians back down and get the missiles out of Cuba, not “statesmanship” alone. In those days, the US had 16 times as many nuclear weapons as the Soviets, and Khrushchev knew it. Were Kennedy instead Jimmy Carter or Barack Obama, Cuba would be a colony of the Soviet Union with nuclear missiles on our doorstep. Make no mistake. Kennedy played chicken well, and Khrushchev blinked, and then a basis for resolution was found. Junior knows the score. He is crazy but he is not an idiot. He looks for weakness and tries to exploit it. But like a rat, he has no desire to die.

In Europe, the strategy for everything has always been, compromise, compromise, compromise. Even with Hitler. Even with Russia. Even with Iran. Even with N. Korea. Particularly with China. It is this unwillingness to show strength to achieve compromise that has always led to horrible deals. I am not surprised by this (and Europe had a willing partner in Obama, whose foreign policy was taken directly from Europe’s playbook, which is why his foreign policy was reviled in the US, and loved abroad).

As soon as Trump spoke his mind (and the more unhinged he sounds, the better at present for strategic purposes) the European members of NATO were on their hands and knees begging for talks with N. Korea. To what end? To what compromise? To give a lunatic encouragement? Let an insane regime have a hydrogen bomb? There will be no resolution to this situation unless NATO grows a spine and plays its part (which is not begging, but rather trying to convince junior that Trump would love to test the US arsenal), and when North Korea weighs its options well, it will find a way to save face and back down.

And the answer is not relying on China. China has been playing the North Korea game for 25 years, playing every President and every administration and Europe for fools, just as the Palestinians have. It is a farce. Bullies only understand one thing. A punch in the nose, or the very real threat of one. Tea on the veranda is not the approach.

 

The Chinese Communist Party Emperor’s New Clothes – Buck Naked and Waiting for the Truth from the World

Taiwan is completely independent, it is just mildly schizophrenic, because one very small side of it (the die-hards of the Chinese Nationalist Party (a/k/a KMT)) keeps mistaking itself for Communist China.

We are in fact stuck in the fairy tale “The Emperor’s New Clothes”, and in this tale, the entire world, fearful that the Chinese Communist Party will bar them from selling their goods at the Communist Party kasbah, is willing to tell the CCP that the “Emperor’s” new clothes are delightful, and anything else it wants to hear, including that they believe Taiwan is not independent and is a part of Communist China (nudge nudge, wink, wink). In fact, as we know, the Emperor is buck naked, and the Chinese Communist Party is simply delusional if it thinks Taiwan’s full-fledged democracy is going to go back to the stone age of tyranny (Japan for 50 years and the KMT for 50 years), except this time with Communist China’s communist dictatorship.

Oh. And no one believes Taiwan is actually part of Communist China. They just say that so they can sell their whatever to China, or buy China’s really cheap stuff, get Kommunist Kash from it, or avoid China squeezing off their oxygen because they made the mistake of telling the truth.

We are waiting for the day the rest of the world actually has the guts to tell the Emperor that he is naked, and Taiwan is a great independent democratic nation of 23 million fantastic people who are not communists. Only when the world has the courage of its convictions and stands up as one to tell this to the Emperor’s face will the world be free from Communist China’s blackmail, propaganda, prevarication, and bullying, and the people of China free from the Chinese Communist Party’s 70 years of suffocating tyranny.

Macron’s Visions of European Sovereign Sugarplums Dancing in Paris

An article appeared in the Taipei Times on Saturday, September 30, 2017, P. 9, “Macron’s vast ambitions for a united Europe” By Philippe Legrain  /  PARIS.

Mr. Legrain’s article is just another Project Syndicate pie in the sky piece about rainbows and lollipops. Basically the EU is made up of 28 sovereign nations who have been cobbled together into an economic zone, and pressed by France to sit under what it views as its enormous penumbra of substantive government so that France can be the King of Europe (once again, if ever it was)(“Coalitions of willing governments would then integrate faster, with a revitalized Franco-German engine driving the process forward”). But the EU can never be cobbled into a United States of Europe because to do so would be to release sovereignty and no country is going to give up sovereignty to France or Germany or both – yet at the end, that is Macron’s great “vision” for Europe – or is it for France?

Already the EU has tried to pass so many substantive laws about the internal affairs of nations in the EU (which has led to the exit of Great Britain, which would never cede sovereignty to a French leadership) including vast and often unwelcome immigration and rights and internal policies. Far from the economic and social organization, the EU, under French and German determination, has become a stringent competitive (or anti-competitive) entity which often is at odds with particular sovereign’s own internal policies (e.g. Ireland’s tax concessions to lure international businesses to its shores having become the subject of retroactive reversal and imposition of enormous taxes and penalties by the European commission concerned with protecting EU competition and not member states’ competition, and stealing as much as possible from foreign entities through penalties and taxes).

Of course the French PM sees a greater bigger tighter EU as one entity under France (oh, perhaps I should not have said that out loud). Not going to happen. Not unless Europe finds itself immigrated out of existence, which is more likely than each of the sovereign European members ceding sovereignty to a French and German dominated EU. Nothing has changed in 800 years, the French and Germans are eager to grab territorial influence one way or another. Macron’s view is merely “the good old days” repackaged with ribbons and rainbows.

North Korea Debacle – Another gift from Obama, with an assist from Bill Clinton

Appeasement does not work with men like Kim or Hitler or Castro or Putin or Mao, as history has shown.

President Trump is not facing a situation with North Korea created by anything he has said or done. He is dealing with a debacle clearly laid at his feet by a naive and starry eyed duo of Clinton and Obama, two moron bookkends of a tragedy written by the Kim family and published by Beijing.

An article appeared through Associated Press in the Taipei Times on September 8, 2017, p. 9 (“S. Korea and Japan feel the heat as the North aims nukes at the US” By Bradley Klapper, Robert Burns and Matthew Pennington/ AP, WASHINGTON http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2017/09/08/2003678017/1 ) basically arguing the US will back off because of North Korea’s capabilities.

This article says: “Twenty-six years ago this month, in the hopeful aftermath of the Cold War, then-US president George H.W. Bush announced the unilateral withdrawal of all land-based and sea-based tactical nuclear weapons, including from South Korea. * * * He then pulled all air-delivered nuclear bombs from the South, in part because officials believed they were no longer needed for an effective defense. That was years before the North demonstrated its nuclear prowess with a first explosion in 2006.”

The last sentence is patently false, and in fact points to one of the reasons for the North’s nuclear weapons journey. After the then recent fall of the USSR, George Bush, Sr. withdrew nuclear weapons abroad, as the article states. However, as the article neglects to mention, Clinton, as would Obama, had faith the North Koreans would abide by an agreement, and in 1994 entered into the Agreed Framework, which gave the North Koreans billions in exchange for empty promises to stop development of nuclear weapons, an agreement which was violated as the ink was drying on the toilet paper on which it was written (part of the negotiating team for that disaster was unbelievably used by Obama for the Iran deal).

The situation today is a direct result of that inane agreement (which, by the way, is the model for the equally suicidal Iran agreement, which Iran violated while the ink was drying, but before Obama delivered $1.50 billion in cash to Iran moments before he left office).

The article goes on to say: “Now that the US faces its own threat of North Korean retaliation, the most pressing security question of the next years could be: Would Washington risk San Francisco for Seoul? * * *“It’s the core dilemma of extended deterrence for allies in the nuclear era: Will the US actually risk one of their population centers for our defense?” said Sheila Smith of the Council on Foreign Relations think tank. “It’s hard to believe the answer is ‘yes.’”” This is the statement of a small child hoping that Daddy (Clinton or Obama) would do everything to protect them, not realizing “Daddy” in this case would sell his underwear and his child to avoid conflict, including creating a monster with a ravenous appetite.

And this is the reason we are in this situation – the Clinton-Obama deficit, an unwillingness to actually act on the US military dominance, and therefore the absence of deterrent effect. Words have meaning, but actions have impact. President Obama never actually provided any evidence he would act on anything at any time for any reason. He drew meaningless red lines and embraced America’s worst enemies, paid others billions, and agreed to anything to avoid a scuffle. Kumbaya, Barry. The effect was to remove any deterrent the US might have had. Russia, Iran, North Korea, China all put their ambitions in overdrive and sped right over Barry’s blinking weakness.

Looking at the nuclear impunity of North Korea, it began spiking in 2013, North Korea speeding up its development before Obama would leave office, because North Korea knew that it could act brazenly while Obama would do nothing concrete except take away Kim’s allowance (which he got right back from Beijing, his puppet master and masterful puppeteer, playing Barry like a five dollar fiddle). Sanctions did not have an effect on Kim because the castle always has running water, champagne and caviar, and the people have been taught to die for Kim, a deity of sorts.

The North Korean nuclear train was well on its way and speeding forward long before January, 2017. This was another gift (like DACA and Obamacare) that Barry left on the Resolute Desk when he left the Oval Office.

Weakness does not produce agreements with evil dictators. Neither Chamberlain with Hitler, nor Clinton with Kim Jong-il (Junior’s father) or Obama with Hu or Xi or Putin or the Ayatollah or Assad or Hamas, or Chavez or Maduro, or Fidel or Raul, or Osama, or ISIS (or ISIL as Obama found it necessary to say) produced peace, they produced a path to turmoil and even more dire situations just down the road.

Keep this in mind — Israel was prepared to destroy Iran’s nuclear capabilities before they were made invulnerable tucked away in bunkers under the ground, as it had destroyed Iraq’s and Syria’s…and Barry said no. Blinking Barry said no. He opted for the most insane agreement with an enemy who could never be trusted in order to create the identical debacle we have now with North Korea, ten years from now. Barry, like Bill, is an idiot, and this nuclear standoff is the child of Bill, George and Barry, the three blind mice.

Now that the situation is infinitely more complicated, Barry, retired but not silent, as his predecessors were, has suggested quiet and reassuring words. Of course he does. He emasculated the U.S. over 8 years of indecision and inaction, and his eunuch approach to diplomacy set us up for disaster after disaster.

Trump has his own blustery style (which makes most people alternately laugh and cringe), and it is hard to determine what will be effective. I am just reminded of the difference between Jimmy Carter, the spineless model for Blinking Barry, and President Reagan, whose reputation produced a reaction in Iran that released the hostages there right after he took office. The fact that Reagan never took overwhelming response off the table had its effect. But we were not dealing with someone like Junior back then, who is likely out of his mind most of the time, living in Korealand, a kind of magic kingdom where reality is what he says it is and his new toy produces pretty mushroom clouds.

Clearly the only way the situation is resolved is when Junior is no longer in power, accomplished in whatever way is most expedient with the least amount of loss of life. But as usual, it could be too little too late because Barry sat on his hands for 8 years using sanctions on a country that could care less and had a back door to essentials through China, another dire enemy masquerading as a “partner” and with a legendary skill at prevarication.

Good luck to President Trump being handed someone else’s disaster. Ignore anyone involved with Clinton or Obama before, they all failed. Don’t believe China. Get people familiar with the landscape and determined to resolve it one way or another (sort of like John Bolton). Nothing used before has worked. Think outside the box.

Gay Rights in Modern Society and the Democratic Debate: A Reply to Marco Chu’s Article “No space for ‘pluralism’ on equality committee”

Marco Chu wrote an article in the Taipei Times on Wednesday, July 25, 2017 P. 8 entitled “No space for ‘pluralism’ on equality committee”  http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2017/07/26/2003675304/1

Here is some tough love, Marco.

Sorry Marco, while I completely agree with you that it is right that LGBTQ people are entitled to the same protections in law as a consequence of their inherent gender identity, and I agree that gay people are entitled to be free of discrimination and are entitled to live openly as they choose according to their gender identity, I completely disagree with how you arrive at that conclusion and your typically “progressive” selectivity of ideas and controversies as “enlightened”, and for lack of another term the opposition to those ideas as “evil”.

You have not said anything in your Taipei Times article that has not been hashed out for the past umpteen years in the United States, which, unlike Taiwan, is 80% or more Christian, and where religion is as much a part of daily life as is freedom of religion and freedom of speech, and all of the rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights in the U.S. Constitution, which, by the way, have been heavily litigated for two hundred years.

You go off on a tangent that cannot be accepted, the notion that progressive ideas are somehow entitled to uber-protection and “golden” treatment because….because….well, because they are progressive! That is nonsense.

First, were a poll taken with secret ballots, you would find an overwhelming opposition in Taiwan to some of the LGBTQ issues you have mentioned, including “marriage”. However, since the Constitution is the Constitution and since it has been ruled by Taiwan’s highest legal authority that it allows gay marriage, but that the Government should determine how and when to implement that, debate is now forthcoming. Taiwan is a very traditional culture, with a very progressive epicenter, but those traditions are very strong among a majority of the population. Come back in another generation and the poll would likely change. Such is democracy, and such is human nature, where people are more careful and conservative in middle aged and older generations. Your notion that anyone in opposition to LGBTQ issues should be excluded from the discussion – well, there is a word for that – it is called “tyranny”. You are suggesting that only the LGBTQ voices can be considered in this debate (which takes away the very notion of a debate), and that anyone who opposes does not deserve to be heard.

In the US, the opposition usually takes the form of religious dogma. In Taiwan, it is likely the opposition is deeply rooted in ancient traditions and culture, just as Taiwan independence is naturally accepted among younger generations and harder to accept among the older blue-trained generations saturated with KMT dogma.

Progressive ideas do not necessarily smell better because they are progressive. This is a slippery slope. Some of the statements made in the article are somewhat dangerous.

1. The parallels offered (White Terror and human rights committee) are patently ridiculous and the parties taking part in the debate about LGBTQ are nothing like those named (“military personnel and police who tortured”) and comparing several million amah, who are likely not in favor of gay marriage to secret police is somewhat preposterous, don’t you think? (“Amah (Grandma), it is normal today, it is okay for a girl to dress like a boy, or for that boy next door to wear a dress, and for girls to marry girls and for men to marry men.” “No! Marriage has always been for a man and a woman, no one else, period. You need to see a doctor. Didn’t your parents teach you anything?” Tell me this conversation has not been had at least twenty million times in Taiwan).

2. “If the DPP government accepts religious extremists who have been discriminating against those who are not heterosexually inclined, even taking the lead in oppressing, attacking, ostracizing and cursing gay people, on the committee — imagining that this is diversity — it would not just be wrong” Basically, it is the progressive play book to say that anyone who opposes a liberal or progressive idea is an “extremist”. But this is patently false. There is a huge, huge portion of the population who are in the middle, not deep left and not deep right. Those people are ordinary everyday people who believe in their traditions, go to work, go to school, bai bai when necessary, and live their lives without “oppressing, attacking or ostracizing” anyone. They just disagree with you. Saying these people have no voice in the debate, is tyranny. Of course they should have a voice. They are a majority of the people the government represents.

Ahhh….this is the point. The progressive idea is so golden, it must be shoved down the throats of the populace because it is an enlightened position with which no one can disagree without being crazy or evil. Sorry, Marco. That just doesn’t work. And the people on the committee don’t have to be the extremists you mention, not on either side, LGBTQ or its opposition. You see, you want the extreme pro-LGBTQ voice to be represented, but not any other. Do you see the hypocrisy there? Do you understand that when far far far left ideas become like this, they become far far far right? Like Nicolas Maduro, in Venezuela, who is so far to the left, that he has crossed over into the far right, as a dictator, a socialist dictator.

3.”If a church or religion does not accept gay marriage, it can refuse to conduct same-sex weddings. That is religious freedom and cultural diversity, so while it might not be right, it cannot be criticized.” And yet, in the US, the movement has been to force religious groups, under Obama’s administration, to accept these ideas as givens, without any right to refuse to accept. In the US right now, a baker cannot refuse to bake a cake for a gay wedding. There are huge numbers of people who oppose that. (Personally I think it is ridiculous, a cake is a cake and you are in business, so bake the damn cake already, but it is an explosive issue.)

What I mean is that it is a slippery slope and once you accept one position, you will end up accepting all of it, eventually. Progressives will call this “progress”. Conservatives will call this “revolution”.  Aren’t both voices entitled to be heard in the debate? Is that not what “free speech” is all about?

4. “The state should stand up for minorities and protect them from prosecution [sic] rather than dance to the oppressors’ tune while calling it ‘pluralism.'” Again, characterizing the opposition as “oppressors” certainly is a strong indication of the writer’s refusal to accept any other dissenting voice, and adopting the progressive play book in labeling opposition as “evil” as opposed to simply a contrary position. The progressive’s BM always smells like roses to the progressive.

Finally, I understand disappointment with the DPP for it not pushing through the changes that the LBGTQ community hoped would be made. Some changes have begun. To suggest the government has a duty to ignore the populace of the country and to cater to only some of its supporters also smacks of tyranny. Again, that is the tyranny of the left, that is the march towards dictatorship. If you listen to the verbiage of Nicolas Maduro in Venezuela and Hugo Chavez before him, you would hear the same progressive mumbo jumbo and the translation of the mumbo jumbo equals “I am your dictator, viva la revolution”. To stand up and argue that only your voice counts in a democracy is wrong.

Yes, pluralism has its dangers. The UN is an excellent example. In the UN a majority of countries often vote against history, fact and logic, because they have the votes for it. So they can vote that there is only one China and that includes Taiwan, even though Taiwan has been de facto independent for 70 years and Communist China has no dominion over Taiwan whatsoever, or that Jerusalem has no connection whatsoever to the Jews and wipe out 3,000 years of Jewish history, simply because there is a plurality. So too, in Iran and some eastern European countries, and in Russia, the leadership has actually said “We have no gays here” reflecting a plurality. That is either because they are hiding or were killed. Pluralism has its dangers too.

Stability requires deliberate action, and deliberate action requires deliberation, which by its very nature requires consideration of all sides in an issue or debate. By arguing the opposition has no voice, a beautiful thing called democracy becomes dictatorship.

There is nothing wrong with, as the DPP has said, promoting reconciliation. There is nothing wrong with considering opposing voices. “Considering” them and “obeying” them are completely different. Rejecting opposition is included within “considering” opposition. The writer’s fear of those opposing voices does not place sufficient faith in the process under the system of government Taiwanese have chosen. The alternative is the Communist Chinese way, where the supreme leader makes the decision, no debate, next case.

The LGBTQ revolution has already taken hold around the world. If you turn on the TV in the U.S., every other TV show involves LGBTQ issues, characters are in every movie, every TV show, on the news, in public life everywhere. While many in the US oppose this, there is not very much that can be done to stop it. It has taken hold in Taiwan too, in many ways. The culture is still a conservative culture. Only time will tell the extent to which the concepts are acceptable. As younger people step into positions of power, the nature of how these issues are decided will likely change. Many times sea change takes time. It requires patience (not less pressure, but patience).