Oops another Bird-Brained Brain Fart

 I see Mr Wannabe is gibbering inanely again. The arrogance and ridiculous peacock-like strutting of these plastic politicians is hilarious to watch. They are too thick to realise that by spouting such nonsense they only succeed in making themselves look ridiculous, and a laughing stock. 

First, his bird-sized brain can’t seem to work out the entire referendum was invalid. He really needs to look this word up, but just for him it means…. not correct or provable or not legally recognized. It was an abject failure by those who set the referendum in motion in the first place.

Second, and this is the really worrying bit, he does not seem to understand that referendums, or any vote, can be close. He is implying that if the vote had been valid only a couple of cities would have swung the vote. 

I guess it may come as a bit of a surprise to him that this is how democracy works, and referendum in particular. He clearly does not seem to understand how voting, politics or democracy works. 

Results can be close and small areas and small numbers of people can affect the whole country. A five year old could understand this. If he bothered to look at democracies abroad from time to time he would know this. But it seems he does not look at the global news too much.  

More mind-blowing is him saying those who voted in certain parts of the country didn’t understand the issues but only listened to the government. The towering arrogance of such a statement rocks me back on my heels.

With a brain which is clearly the size of a walnut, he has the temerity to publicly announce 'don't listen to them, listen to me….because I know better.’

It would be sad if it were not so funny. Ten out ten for giving us all a good laugh today. Zero out of ten if you really thought this was somehow a smart thing to say out-loud.

Still, do please keep it up. The more dim-witted, inane, insulting and just plain stupid statements you make will serve to keep you a million miles from any political power you so seem to so desperately crave. 

Please never, ever actually engage your brain. We all need a good laugh from time to time and you need to be kept far, far away from mainstream politics. 

Tinkerty Tonk… 

今天我看到 Mr Wannabe 肖想先生又在瘋狂地胡言亂語了。

傲慢的塑膠政客自以為是孔雀開屏般昂首闊步實在荒謬。為什麼說是塑膠政客？因為這種人根本不是真的政治人物，而且他們笨到不知道胡說八道只會讓自己成為笑柄。

首先他那跟小鳥所差無幾的腦袋規模，似乎無法理解四個公投沒有通過就是無效。他真的應該查查無效是什麼意思，對他來說，這似乎意味著不正確，無法證明或未被法律承認，但事實上無效只代表那些啟動公投的人徹底失敗了。

其次真正令人擔憂的一點，就是他似乎不明白公投或任何選舉的勝敗結果，都可能非常接近。從他對高雄反萊豬不同意票數的發言看來，他認為只要一兩個城市就可以改變結果。是的這沒有錯，所以他為什麼感到驚訝？

我猜他有點驚訝這就是民主，特別是公投，是因為他顯然不明白投票、政治或民主是如何運作。

選舉勝負可能只有分毫之差，因此小選區或是少數人就可能影響整個國家的走向，一個五歲的孩子都明白這一點。如果他偶爾去看看國外的民主，他也會知道這一點，不過也許他不太看國際新聞。

更令人震驚的是，他說在台灣南部選民不看公投內容，只聽政黨的話投票。這種無以倫比的傲慢讓我驚訝到下巴都要掉下來了，明明有只有胡桃般大小的腦袋，哪來的自信：不要聽他們的，聽我的，我比較懂！

若不是因為好笑， Mr Wannabe 這個情況其實很悲哀。在成為笑料方面他是滿分，但如果認為大聲自曝其短是一件很聰明的事情，只能給零分。

不過 Mr Wannabe 還是請你繼續保持下去，因為任何更愚蠢、更空洞、更侮辱人的言論，都將使你遠離你朝思暮想的政治職位一百萬英里。

請永遠，永遠不要讓你的大腦動起來。我們需要你三不五時讓我們開懷大笑，而你也需要遠離主流政治。

Tinkerty Tonk… 掰掰。

Referendum hangover (中文版)

 

Referendum hangover (English version)

Caution - Children crossing

It’s embarrassing enough when small children throw tantrums, when adults do it it’s acutely uncomfortable, when political parties do it it’s time to go and hide behind the sofa so you don’t have to witness people demean themselves to the level of toddlers whose favourite toy has fallen out of their pram. 

Top contender in today’s ‘let’s go and hide behind the sofa’ stakes is, yes, you guessed it, that soft-brained, high-waistband, multiple university entrance exam taker and self acclaimed genius…the Taipei Mayor. 

I’m sorry, but his signoff message today is just ridiculous. I can think of only two excuses for writing something so mindbogglingly stupid. 1) He was dog-tired and worn out from staying up late wringing his hands and stressing out because he was part of a plan that utterly and miserably failed, and that he was involved. 2) It was written by one of his simple-minded minions because he ordered it up before falling asleep in his chair. 

First he says referendums are a “manifestation of direct democracy.” But magically this one was different because the government acted like any government and defended its position.

How naive do you have to be to think if you attack someone they will not do everything they can to defend themselves. He talks about the government “seizing power.” I guess it has escaped his marshmallow-like intellect that, er, the government has already seized power. 

He points out the DPP spent 58 million of their own party funds to defend their position. So what? They felt deeply enough about the national interest to defend their position and they won. How is this unfair? In the fullness of time we will learn what the KMT spent, it will be interesting to compare the figures. Laughably he says the government has lost credibility. That, truly, is the rantings of someone deeply out of touch with reality. 

Much of his raving is his usual nonsense, but I do agree with him on some issues. 

He opines “most voters are disgusted with this referendum.” He is dead right there. Most voters are disgusted that the opposition parties forced these ridiculously small issues to a referendum and initiated the huge waste of time and effort in the first place. Remember who set all this in motion Mr Mayor, not the government, but the opposition.

He also pointed out the referendums did not cross the threshold and said that reflected the wisdom of the people. Quite right, they knew this was all a waste of time and money and didn’t bother to vote because they saw it as the opposition simply playing political games in a pathetic attempt to get one over on the government. 

He also says it is the “responsibility of the central government” to deal with these issues. Er, Mr Mayor, they were. It was the ridiculous games of the equally ridiculous opposition parties which created all this nonsense. As you know I’m against referendums because they detract from democracy, not aid it. Saturday’s nonsense is a good example of why they don’t work. 

He also says quite rightly that “Taiwan must join CPTPP and various international organizations as soon as possible, and renewable energy must make up for the electricity gap!”

Good heavens, so many things I agree with the Taipei Mayor on…I think I need to go and have a lie down. 

Tinkerty Tonk…  

The Referendum Rumble

 A huge disappointment for fight fans across Taiwan today as the heavyweight battle between the titleholder DPP and the challenger KMT - The Referendum Rumble - ended with the contender unable to even land a glove on the reigning champion. 

Weeks of intensive training by the protagonists came to nothing with the challenge by the KMT shown to be weak and desperate. To be fair to the opposition, they were always on the back foot given the rather pathetic nature of the challenge in the form of four questions about which the electorate clearly thought didn’t matter very much. 

The downside for the DPP was always limited as they won a presidential election less than two years ago, and have years in office left. The KMT are desperate to inflict some kind of political damage but they are not choosing their battles wisely and would do well to stockpile some ammunition for future scuffles closer to the next election. 

While a defeat for the DPP on Saturday would not have done too much long term political damage, the injury to the opposition credibility is substantial. They really have given this latest political slugfest a huge amount of effort and very publicly pinned their hopes on it, only for the electorate to open one sleepy eye on Saturday morning and decide that the issues were not even worth getting out of bed for. By any measure, this was a humiliation. 

The result, or rather lack of it, represents a spectacular political mis-calculation by the opposition, and is a cringeworthy demonstration of just how out of touch they are with the electorate and the issues people find important. Political parties being out of touch with the electorate happens everywhere in the world on a regular basis, it is by no means unusual.

Parties with long periods in power think they know the electorate well, the irony being is that even when they lose, they still believe they are the real ‘party of the people’ and the fact they were voted out will only be a short-term aberration. This applies to the KMT.

The excuses are now coming thick and fast. On the TV someone just said it was because 80-90 percent of the Taiwan press supports the DPP! WHAT? Someone else blamed the low turnout on the weather - a very old chestnut indeed. Another pro-KMT commentator blamed Wang Leehom and the fact he and his wife kept everyone awake all night with their tale of woe, so people were too tired to go out and vote. 

They really should shut up and salvage at least some of their dignity. Making up such excuses is just sad and they need to concentrate their efforts on learning a lesson, regrouping and becoming the effective opposition that every democracy deserves. They really are letting down the electorate and furtherance of Taiwan's democracy by acting like school-kids who have not done their homework.

There is a well-worn phrase that has been used in over 20 movies since Sean Connery first used it in the The Untouchables (1987). It has since become idiomatic. 

We can now adapt it for the opposition in Taiwan - 'Isn’t that just like the KMT, to bring a knife to a gunfight.' 

Tinkerty Tonk…  

《 公投拳擊賽》

今天期待精彩拳擊賽的台灣人恐怕非常失望，因為冠軍保持者 DPP 和挑戰者 KMT 之間的重量級比賽，一如70年代的拳王賽一樣賽前雙方聲勢驚天動地，但結局卻是挑戰者甚至連一拳也沒有打中衛冕的冠軍。

過去幾個星期來挑戰方的高強度訓練最後是一場空，這讓 KMT 的挑戰顯得無力而且絕望。不過老實說，反對陣營似乎總是力不從心，因為他們每每提出的挑戰總是相當可悲，例如這個回合選民顯然認為公投的四個問題，並沒有重要到讓他們去投票呼應。

DPP 的劣勢是有限的，因為不到兩年前他們才贏得總統大選，而且還有數年的任期。KMT 不顧一切地想造成某種政治損害，但他們沒有明智地選擇戰場，也沒有為下次選舉備好彈藥。

我認為即使 DPP 在週六的公投中失敗，也不至於造成太大的長期傷害，但反對黨的失敗，對他們信譽的損害卻是巨大的。他們真的為這場最新的政治鬥爭付出了巨大的努力，並非常公開地寄予厚望，結果選民在週六早上只睜開了一隻睡眼，認為這些問題甚至不值得起床。不管從哪個層面看來，這都是反對黨的恥辱。

公投結果代表了反對黨在政治上的嚴重錯誤估計，並且令人尷尬地證明了他們與選民脫節，也不知道什麼議題對人們來說是重要的。不過政黨與選民脫節在世界各地皆然，台灣的情況絕非罕見。

長期執政的政黨自以為很了解選民，諷刺的是即使輸了，他們仍然認為自己是真正的“人民黨”，認為他們被選民否決的事實只是短期的異常現象。這適用於KMT。

現在藉口越來越多了，今天電視上有人說反對黨失敗的原因是因為台灣有80-90%的媒體支持 DPP，什麼？也有人將低投票率歸咎於天氣，這個老掉牙的理由一點也不好笑。另一位親 KMT 的評論者怪罪王力宏，因為他和他的妻子用他們的悲慘故事讓所有人徹夜難眠，所以人們太累了，隔天不想出去投票。

他們真的應該閉嘴，這樣至少可以挽回一些尊嚴。編造這樣的藉口是可悲的，他們需要集中精神吸取教訓，自我檢討改革來成為每個民主國家應有的有效反對黨。 然而他們卻表現得像沒有做功課的小學生，實在是辜負了選民和台灣民主的進步。

有一句經典台詞在20多部電影裡不斷被用到，首次出現在去年才過世的蘇格蘭演員史恩康納萊主演的電影 The Untouchables (1987) 裡：Brings a knife to a gunfight.

我們現在可以把它改編成台灣的反對黨：這不就像 KMT 一樣，帶了一把刀去加入槍戰。

Tinkerty Tonk… 掰掰。

Another Brain Fart from Mr Mayor

It’s been a while since I had to scrape J off the ceiling, well at the moment given we are in France it would be…le plafond.

All was calm across the breakfast table until the dullard who somehow managed to become Taipei Mayor, had another mental ‘episode’ and insisted Saturday’s referendum on pork imports were nothing to do with trade with the United States. 

We are all well used to non sequiturs from this dumbbell, but frankly this latest brain-fart really takes the biscuit. I almost joined J… sur le plafond. 

No matter that pretty much all 23.57 million of his fellow countrymen and women know full well the referendum question is all about American pork imports and everything to do with trade with the United States, in his simple-minded way he felt the need to point out the referendum question doesn’t actually include the word American, or United States. 

Even by his own prestigious and far-reaching levels of unsurpassed stupidity, this is an attempt to clear a record high-bar of witlessness. He conducts a rhythmic symphony of stupid, which is generally only surpassed by the inane utterances of his minions and immediate family.

This is the guy who constantly boasts about how smart he is. I have many times pointed out Dunning-Kruger, his innate narcissism and accompanying God Complex. 

His latest claim that he was a frustrated genius at school because he could not skip grades and forge ahead - odd then, that he had to retake a university entrance exam - was cosmically idiotic. 

A true genius, Professor Stephen Hawking once said. “People who boast about their I.Q. are losers.”

Enough said……….

Tinkerty Tonk… 

我已經有一段時間沒有把 J 從天花板上刮下來了，現在我們在法國，天花板的法文是 le plafond。

今天早餐桌上的一切都很平靜，直到那個不知道用什麼方式成為台北市長的笨蛋 (dullard) 又有個精神方面的小插曲 (mental ‘episode’)：他堅稱週六的豬肉進口公投與美國無關，因為公投主文裡沒有美豬兩個字。

我們都已經習慣了這個笨蛋 (dumbbell) 的無厘頭推測，但坦率地說，這個最新的 brain fart 絕對拔得頭籌 (takes the biscuit)，連我都差點就加入J 衝上天花板了。 

儘管他的2357萬同胞們幾乎都心知肚明，豬肉公投的問題是關於美國豬肉進口以及與美國貿易有關的一切，但他頭腦簡單 (simple-minded) 地覺得有必要指出：公投文字並不包括美豬這個詞。

即使以他高人一等 (prestigious) 無遠弗屆 (far-reaching) 的愚蠢程度來看，這個發言清除了先前所有難以超越的愚蠢記錄 (clear a record high-bar of witlessness)。他指揮著一首有節奏的愚蠢交響曲 (rhythmic symphony of stupid)，這個曲目通常只有他的嘍囉 (minions) 和直系親屬可以超越。

這是一個不斷吹噓自己有多聰明的人。我曾多次指出此人的鄧寧克魯格效應，與生俱來的自戀和伴隨而來的上帝情結。

他最近聲稱他在學校是一個沮喪的天才，因為他無法跳級只是陪同學讀書，這簡直是宇宙級的愚蠢了：他不是大學重考嗎？

真正的天才史蒂芬霍金教授曾經說過：  “吹噓自己智商的人是失敗者。”

真是夠了………

Tinkerty Tonk 掰掰

Beware of FUD - Vote No

There is a well known editorial technique used in the media world called FUD.

It is not widely used, in fact it is only used by news-sheets at the lower end of the publishing spectrum, otherwise known as tabloids, or by so-called newspapers which are highly biased in their political views that they need to pander to party politics. 

FUD stands for Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt.

It is a style which is not only the stock-in-trade of low-life sensationalist media, but also of unscrupulous politicians who will not stop short of lying or bending the truth to suit their political ends. 

Make no mistake, it can be highly effective, particularly among those who only take a passing interest in news or the world around them. This can be a substantial part of any population and I’m sure you personally know many such people.  

Such people are not unintelligent or dimwitted, it’s just that they have little interest in searching out the truth for themselves to double check what they are being told. Their lives are full of other things, or they simply don’t have the interest. In most countries over 25 percent of eligible voters don’t even bother to turn out for polls, such is their level of interest in politics or current affairs. There is not blame to attach, it is simply a fact of life. 

FUD can be extremely effective, particularly when both a section of the media and certainly politicians indulge in spreading Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt about certain subjects when they know full-well a good proportion of those who read or hear such utterances will just err on the side of fear, uncertainty and doubt, not bother or check, and just behave or vote in a certain way. 

The coming Taiwan referendums are a classic example of how FUD has been used during a seemingly democratic process to make people frightened, uncertain or doubtful that what their government is telling them is not wholly true. So voters will simply mitigate their fear, uncertainty and doubt by voting for something without having a full picture of the wider implications in their minds.

On Saturday all these fear factors will play out when people vote. Unless they truly understand all the implications of what they are voting for, the safest and strongest stance for democracy and the smooth continuation of current government policy is to vote 'no' and trust the government on all four issues. The referendums are opposition distractions based on political expediency, nothing more.   

I’ve written many times on how referendums are not a reliable tool that working democracies can usefully employ. Indeed, Saturday's clutch of four questions are riddled with the usual pitfalls and lack of context which will undoubtedly trip up many voters. Opposition parties have for weeks been waging a campaign of instilling fear, doubt and uncertainty via rumour and innuendo based around the frighteningly simple this-or-that style questions.

1) US Pork - Do you agree that the government should completely ban the import of pig meat, offal and related products containing ractopamine beta receptor hormone?

Note this is without the context of the wider implication of the possible follow-on impact of such a ban like Taiwan’s vitally important relationship with the United States. It is pretty much impossible to answer such a black-and-white question like this in an intelligent way. It points the way to one-dimensional thinking and the door open for political rivals to just say “vote yes if you don’t want this nasty additive in your food” and engender fear and uncertainty built around health issues. This highlights the very narrow and imperfect nature of referendums. The Pork question is a particularly egregious example of how badly a referendum question can be formed and lead to possibly bad consequences in the future.

2) Number 4 Reactor - Do you agree to unseal (restart) the no 4 nuclear power plant for business operations?

Again, with this question it is black and white and doesn’t get to the heart of what people are actually voting for. People may vote for this thinking it is just one nuclear power plant they are agreeing to, only for a future government to take it as a mandate to open the others or build new ones. This is exactly what has happened with the UK’s Brexit referendum with the Leave vote taken by the government as a mandate to make any deal they want with Europe and it has been an utter disaster. The nuclear power issue in Taiwan, and energy policy in general, is an extremely broad issue and should not be boiled down to just one yes/no question. It is an issue which should be addressed at a general election as policy, not boiled down to one power station. 

3) The Coral Reef - Do you agree that the third natural gas receiving station of CNPC will move away from the coast and waters of Datan Algae Reef, Taoyuan?

Again this extremely narrowly based question could lead of countless issues, delays and costs in the future, and I’m sure most people voting yes to this will do so purely based on emotion. If yes, the environmental lobby will have got its way and they don’t have to care about future energy needs. It will also allow them to oppose any future location the government chooses on environment issues and allow them way too much control over energy policy. This question will be answered based on the emotion of voters. It is an excellent example of why referendums should not control such decisions.

4) Referendums and Elections - Do you agree that within six months of the establishment of the referendum proposal, if there is a national election during that period, the referendum should be held on the same day as the election, provided that it meets the requirements of the referendum law?

Not only is this poorly worded and confusing, it risks mixing referendums and elections. There is no worse idea. Elections are supposed to be about broad policies and running the country. Bogging them down with tiny single issues would only add to confusion and misdirection as politicians battle to outdo each other with statement upon statement on every minute detail. Issues surrounding elections are difficult enough for most people to digest. Adding to them with a swathe of referendums is a road to confusion, lack of focus about what's important and works to weaken democracy, not to strengthen it.  

It’s clear I am against any referendum on principle, regardless of what I personally think of the issues involved this Saturday, Let’s look at what happened with the the Brexit poll in 2016 in the land of my birth, where the electorate was asked the simple black and white question - Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?

Many people voted emotionally without understanding the implications of such a move and many are disappointed and angry with the outcome and complain “This is not what I voted for!” The trouble is, of course, that they did know what they were voting for, they just didn’t understand, or bother to study, the possible implications of their vote. 

There are now almost daily stories talking about 'Brexit Regret.' A Google search ‘Brexit Regret’ reveals a huge crop of headlines such as...

Brexit regrets for UK fishermen as catch values halve

Why many British voters are having Brexit regrets

Brexiteer says he’d never have voted for Brexit ‘if we knew we’d lose our jobs

Regret for backing Brexit in Birmingham South-Asian community 

...and many, many more.

Current polls show 49 percent of people in the United Kingdom now think that it was wrong to leave the European Union, compared with 38 percent who thought it was the right decision. The rest are don't knows. In the actual 2016 referendum, leave won 51.9 percent of the votes and remain 48.1 percent.

I really hope that the lessons learned elsewhere will prompt a 'No' vote this weekend and there will be no regrets.  

Tinkerty Tonk...

Pork vs Pragmatism

Pragmatism is defined as - “A reasonable and logical way of doing things or of thinking about problems that is based on dealing with specific situations instead of on ideas and theories.”

In the relatively short time I have lived in Taiwan I have always got the impression from the people I meet that they are politically aware, but more importantly sensible and pragmatic. 

I’ve always had the impression that the majority would do the right thing, and have always been encouraged that they replaced the KMT with the DPP in 2016, then returned them in 2020 with an increased share of the vote. 

To me that result reflected a sense of Realpolitik - which is politics or diplomacy based primarily on considerations of given circumstances and factors - rather than explicit ideological notions or moral and ethical premises. Realpolitik is decisions based on wider factors, rather than just a single issue and is generally extremely practical. 

I’ve written about it before, but the referendum on pig meat from Taiwan’s friend the United States, is not only getting in the way of the wider aims of the government, it is allowing the KMT to score cheap political points. 

The idiocy of all these referendums aside, which ironically makes for less democracy, not more, a vote to ban the importation of US pig meat will damage the relationship with Taiwan’s biggest diplomatic ally and also play into the hands of China who would like nothing more than to see Taiwan/US relations damaged.

I’ve said before that every KMT victory on the political front takes Taiwan a step closer to ultimately having Beijing govern the island. If you are OK with Taiwan ultimately ending up like Hong Kong be led by the KMT, listen to what they say and vote accordingly.  

Or you can look at the bigger picture and what might be at stake and say no to this ridiculous referendum which is about a tiny issue, but a tiny issue that could have large ramifications. 

Just put up with the tiny inconvenience of looking at pork product labels and signs in restaurants, for the greater good of sound relations with the most powerful nation on earth that supplies Taiwan with the means to defend itself, and has openly stated it will help in times of future trouble.

Please don’t be narrow-minded and refuse to think of the broader issues, or be so selfish and self-centred you can’t be bothered to read a food label. It is, after all, only one percent of the country's pork consumption.. The issue is a tiny one and there are laws in Taiwan that it has to be labelled. You have a choice.

Think of the future and what Taiwan will be going through with China in the coming decades and as even now as their fighter jets invade Taiwan’s air space pretty much every day. 

Pork over protection...I know which way I would vote.  

Tinkerty Tonk...

The definition of pragmatism is to adopt a reasonable and logical treatment or way of thinking for a specific situation without being attached to ideas and theories.

As far as my experience living in Taiwan is not too long, the people I met gave me the impression that they are very politically conscious, and more importantly, they seem to be sensible and pragmatic.

I think most Taiwanese will do the right thing and have been inspired by this attitude. Therefore, they let the DPP replace KMT in power in 2016, and then let the DPP continue in power with more votes in 2020.

For me, the above results reflect a kind of Realpolitik, that is, political or diplomatic considerations are mainly based on specific circumstances and factors, rather than ideology or moral ethics as the premise. Real politics decisions are based on a wide range of factors, not just a single consideration, which is usually very practical.

I have written about my views on referendums before. I think referendums are generally stupid, and the irony is that many referendums will not only promote democracy, but will damage democracy. Of course you can disagree with my personal opinion.

Now let's take a look at this referendum on imported pork from American friends in Taiwan.

This anti-Lesbian pig referendum will not only hinder the Taiwanese government from achieving more important and broader goals than pork, but will also allow KMT to obtain a cheap political dividend. Banning the import of American pigs will harm Taiwan’s relationship with its most powerful diplomatic ally, and it will also make China happy, because China must hope to see the damage to Taiwan-US relations.

As I said before, every political victory of KMT will bring China one step closer to ruling Taiwan. If you think that under the leadership of KMT, it is not a big problem for Taiwan to become Hong Kong, then just listen to them and cast the votes they want you to vote.

In addition to the above options, you can also look at the broader vision blueprint, consider the possible pros and cons, and then say no to this absurd referendum. The safe import of pigs is actually a minor issue, but this minor issue may have a huge impact on Taiwan’s future.

After importing Laizhu, check the pork import label when buying food, and pay attention to the place of origin of the pork used in the restaurant. This procedure may cause some inconvenience, but this is to establish a good relationship with the most powerful country on the planet. That country provides Taiwan’s self-defense. Weapons, and openly stated that Taiwan will provide assistance when it is in difficulty.

Therefore, I would like to ask Taiwanese people not to be narrow-minded, not to blatantly refuse to broaden their horizons, and not to be too selfish or self-centered to bother to read food labels. After all, imported pork from the United States only accounts for one percent of Taiwan’s pork. This problem is really small. Moreover, Taiwan’s laws require that the source of meat must be declared. You can choose.

Even today, Communist aircraft invades Taiwan’s airspace almost every day. Taiwanese must think about the future and how they should respond to China in the next few decades.

Against the American pigs or the United States substantial protection? I know which one I will choose.

Tinkerty Tonk... Bye bye.