Fact checking Frank

Been exchanging emails with Frank Mickadeit on his column in yesterday's OC Register (a link is provided in an earlier post).

Frank didn't talk with Mayor Krom (or anyone else on the city council, through there is a specific reference to Choi's awareness).

Frank won't say why he quoted a Republican candidate for city council on demographic information on the number of Taiwanese living in Irvine rather than use US Census statistics.

Frank asked for my reaction to quotes by the Mayor in today's story saying the "defied logic and common sense." This specific language is used by Republican operatives on a regular basis but Frank still insist's, as a columnist, he can't be spun. My own opinion is that ship has already sailed.

I read Frank regularly. He is a good columnist. And most of the time, I find him very fair. In this case, his column helped to manufacture ill will towards a mayor who is not at fault for a city administrator who signed a document she shouldn't have. He didn't contact the Mayor for comment. He made a connection to the Great Park that is a stretch at best. And there will be fireworks tonight at the City Council meeting because of this.

Response to Mickadeit's Column on Irvine's "Great Blunder"

I like Frank Mickadeit. I really do.

He's a rare columnist who will actually admit when he's made a mistake. But lately, Frank's columns lean decidedly to the right.

Here's a link to today's column (6/19/06)

I emailed Frank and asked if he spoke with Irvine Mayor Beth Krom on the column, because it was clear he had spoken with Irvine councilman Dr. Stephen Choi. Frank admitted he hadn't. In a nutshell, the column makes it look like Mayor Krom tried to pull a fast one on a sister city program with Mainland China and its going to upset a high number of Tawainese residents in Irvine. Frank goes on to quote a Republican politician on the high number of Taiwanese residents in Irvine. The numbers don't hold up.

Below is my response to Frank's email to me...

Frank --
Thanks for the response; a lengthy rebuttal to follow with some questions/comments.
See below
Dan



From a 2004 State Department Press Release... http://usinfo.state.gov/eap/Archive/2004/Oct/26-277540.html
Headline: "One China" Policy Stabilizes Asia-Pacific Region, Powell Says But U.S. will sell weapons as necessary to support Taiwan's self-defense
The United States' "One China" policy has created conditions of stability and security throughout the Asia-Pacific region, Secretary of State Colin Powell said in an October 25 interview with Hong Kong-based Phoenix TV.
Powell, on a three-nation trip to Japan, China, and South Korea, forcefully affirmed the U.S. government's commitment to the policy, set forth in three joint communiqués signed by the governments of the United States and China between 1972 and 1982.
"[O]ur policy is clear," he said. "There is only one China. Taiwan is not independent. It does not enjoy sovereignty as a nation, and that remains our policy, our firm policy."
*****
Quotes from Condi... http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2005-03/21/content_426672.htm
Rice said the US Government's position on pursuing the one-China policy and abiding by the three US-China joint communiques will not change, according to a Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman.
During her meeting with Hu, Rice said the US Government attaches great importance to developing US-China constructive and co-operative ties, and that people around the world are watching the "remarkable transformation" that is going on in China.
She said the United States is ready to join hands with China in exploring new fields for co-operation.
Win-win trade
On the bilateral trade disputes, Wen said China and the United States should take each other's concerns into consideration and handle conflicts in trade co-operation to achieve a win-win situation.
http://www.fas.org/news/taiwan/2000/roc-000824-prc.htm
Nicholas Berry, senior analyst at the Washington-based Center for Defense Information, wrote in a commentary that "one doesn't have to be a devotee of Beijing to realize the one-China policy serves American interests and, over the long term, serves the interests of Taiwan and even the mainland Chinese."
He pointed out that understanding how the one-China policy affects the policies of Beijing and Taipei confirms its usefulness:
-- Reduces possibility of war. Virtually no analyst believes that the PRC leaders are not serious when they talk about the necessity of territorial integrity. And the fact that national unification is a deeply cherished dream by virtually all mainland Chinese is widely recognized. People's Liberation Army leaders are extremely patriotic, fiercely supportive of unification, and deeply suspicious of foreign meddling what they regard as "China's internal affairs."
President Lee Teng-hui's 1995 pro-independence speech at his alma matter, Cornell University, mobilized PLA officers to press Beijing's political leadership to hold military exercises off Taiwan's coast. "Quite simply, Taiwan independence means war. No government in Beijing could tolerate the permanent division of China. Peace, therefore, depends on maintaining the one-China principle which the US one-China policy supports," wrote Berry.
-- Compels PRC modernization and democratization. As long as the one-China principle is maintained, the PRC is obliged to pave the way towards reunification by becoming more like Taiwan.


From Wikipedia (not entirely unreliable...)
The One-China Principle is also a requirement for any political entity to establish diplomatic relations with the People's Republic of China. The PRC has traditionally attempted to get nations to recognize that "the Government of the People's Republic of China is the sole legal government of all of China...and Taiwan is an inalienable part of the territory of the People's Republic of China." However, many nations are unwilling to make this particular statement and there was often a protracted effort to find language regarding one China that is acceptable to both sides. Some countries use terms like "acknowledge", "understand", "take note of", while others explicitly use the term "support" or "recognize" for Beijing's position on the status of Taiwan.
The name "Chinese Taipei" is the only acceptable name in most international arenas since "Taiwan" suggests that Taiwan is a separate country and "Republic of China" suggests that there are two Chinas, and thus both violate the One-China Principle. Most countries that recognize Beijing circumvent the diplomatic language by establishing "Trade Offices" that represents their interests on Taiwanese soil, while the ROC government represents its interests abroad with TECRO, Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office. The United States (and any other nation having diplomatic relations with the People's Republic of China) does not have formal diplomatic relations with Taiwan. Instead, external relations are handled via nominally private organizations such as the American Institute in Taiwan or the Canadian Trade Office in Taipei.
In the case of the United States, the One-China policy was first stated in the Shanghai Communiqué of 1972: "the United States acknowledges that Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait maintain there is but one China and that Taiwan is a part of China. The United States does not challenge that position." Thus, the United States's One-China Policy is subtly different from the One China Principle that China imposes on the rest of the world in that Washington has not expressed an explicitly immutable statement regarding whether it believes Taiwan is independent or not. Instead, Washington simply states that they understand China's claims that the country claims Taiwan as its own. In fact, many scholars agree that US One-China Policy was not intended to please the Chinese government, but as a way for Washington to conduct international relations in the region, which Beijing fails to state.
When President Jimmy Carter in 1979 broke off relations with Taiwan in order to establish relations with the PRC, Congress responded by passing the Taiwan Relations Act, which while maintaining relations, stopped short of full recognition of the ROC. In 1982 President Ronald Reagan also saw that the Six Assurances were adopted, the sixth being that the United States would not formally recognize Chinese sovereignty over Taiwan. Still, United States policy has remained ambiguous. During the House International Relations Committee on April 21 of 2004, the Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, James A. Kelly, was asked by Rep. Grace Napolitano (D-CA) whether America’s commitment to Taiwan’s democracy conflicted with the so-called One-China Policy. He admitted the difficulty on defining the U.S.'s position: "I didn’t really define it, and I’m not sure I very easily could define it." He added, "I can tell you what it is not. It is not the One-China principle that Beijing suggests."
Comments:
1. Thanks for the name; Valerie Lareene works for the city's manager's office handling the sister cities program. So she signed this document, not the mayor or members of the city council, and she is accountable to Sean Joyce, city manager. The questions I have are: did she have the authority to sign this on behalf of the city and did she fully understand/previously reviewed what she was signing? Contracts almost always favor the entity who writes them.
2. You didn't speak with Krom, but the column implies she knew the contents of the document Chinese officials had signed, but it looks like you did speak with Choi. Please tell me you at least called her and she didn't call back. Because fairness dictates that you get her side of this story.
3. Do city census figures have such refined demographics on Chinese-Americans that we can accept Jack Wu's 90-95 percent of Irvine's Chinese residents are Taiwanese statistic? I have Chinese neighbors from Taiwan and Hong Kong alike.
And look who shows up in the photo at Jack Wu's city council launch party on Flash Report last week; that would be Stephen Choi over to the left and Councilman Chuck DeVore in the middle: http://www.flashreport.org/blog0a.php?postID=2006061612323262&post_offsetP=0
So Jack's creds here on this story is...what? He's Republican? He's Chinese (Taiwanese)?
Per the city's Wiki description, people of Asian descent make up just under 30 percent of Irvine's 170,000 residents; rounding up, that means 51,000 are Asian and per Wu's low-ball estimate, that means about 45,900 would be Taiwanese. However, per this site: http://www.epodunk.com/ancestry/Taiwanese.html
Which has this text....
"In the 2000 census, 192,973 people in the U.S. claimed Taiwanese ancestry.
Means that Irvine has nearly 24 percent of the US Taiwanese population, per Wu, instead of the 2.4 percent, per the US Census.
4. With China looming as one of the great economic powers, establishing a sister city program to encourage trade between Irvine companies and firms in Xuhui. As are sister city programs between Irvine and Taiwan are going to help companies in Irvine. Hopefully someone at the Irvine Chamber can offer better information.
Frank, I'm sorry to be a pain, but your column raised more questions for me that had no answers. And I take great offense to the notion that Irvine is the "People's Republic of" just because the Republican's don't control it. I certainly don't mind you taking shots at any politician as long as they get a chance to comment. If they decline comment, that's one thing.
I gave Marty grief for his column today too.
I'm still pissed at the headline in the Letter's section of Sunday's paper declaring Ann Coulter a Prophet (they spelled it wrong; P-R-O-F-I-T).
Dan Chm....

election day in California

Vote early. But whtever you do, vote. I will be keeping my eye on the Congressional race in San Diego. Hoping it goes Blue.

I know I am way behind. I will have more to say about quite a few things. But spend time with one of my favortie sites: www.crooksandliars.com