Thanks for taking time to read my piece and consider its points, and though I gather you didn’t enjoy the satirical aspect to it – - it does seem to have stirred healthy debate about the status of Taiwan and her mutual interests with the U.S.
Stirring debate on an otherwise calcified foreign policy topic was the only “intended purpose” of the piece.
I have a huge respect for the people of Taiwan and her brave military forces, and I was not advocating one way or another, only that the subject deserved a “multi-directional” review and discussion.
Most policy writing is literal, and usually, very “in-the-box” and un-original. Most pieces advocate this way, or that way. I did neither. The piece was intended to stir discussion without any preconceived positions of givens or fixed points of departure.
You might re-read The Atlantic’s Jame Fallow’s piece on the mix of serious with facts, irony and Swiftian satire. Satire is not humor or intended as a joke. It is a useful literary technique. Swift never said in his pieces they were satire, but gave tiny nods or hints. That was why I said, most people would consider it impractical and absurd.
But it does seem the piece has succeeded in stirring debate. Always, a healthy thing in any democracy, eh?
Cheers and thanks for reading the piece. – - Paul V. Kane作者: 種哥 時間: 2011-11-24 10:04