Saturday, 20 October 2018

Democrats Haven’t Turned Back From 1968 | WSJ

Here we go, a democratic operative, Ted Van Dyke, admitting that it's the Dems who are breaking violent. 

/Snip:

De­mocrats and many in me­dia now ac­cuse Mr. Trump of to­tal­i­tar-ian meth­ods and ob­jec­tives. There is much to fault in the Trump pres­i­dency, but the to­tal­i­tar­ian ten­den­cies ap­pear to flow from our own party. Its present pres­i­dential as­pi­rants ap­pear to be em­u­lat­ing Robe­spierre in their over-the-top de­nun­ci­ations of Mr. Trump and all oth­ers they deem un­wor­thy.

Democrats Haven't Turned Back From 1968

https://www.wsj.com/articles/democrats-havent-turned-back-from-1968-1539904193?emailToken=0cd69b06a29cb518074a50df041fbc8dHTvIogaj6hti9OkkyEkwSnFPTffBjNIFELf2Wavl4WXZGMP1xpzYvBJ1tDurpTmedlsrLmdCRp8ntbNcm+fhVhNIn27cuIAPDjTkJzgOC9o%3D&reflink=article_email_share

Sent from my iPad

“Trump moves to stop flood of Hondurans”


LETTER TO THE FINANCIAL TIMES:

"Mateo, a two year old boy from
Honduras ...". 

So begins your story on your front page today. 

Oh dear!  That's what you choose to highlight?! A two-year old boy? 

Rather than the flowing river of young working age men making their way to the US border. 

Illegally. 

And the US should just let them in?! Because it feels good. Because it feels moral? 

Your coverage is shockingly biased.

Please... do try to have some neutrality. 

Peter Forsythe
Discovery Bay 
Hong Kong
93080799

Thursday, 18 October 2018

Nikki Haley is an odious hypocrite on rights | Alex LO | SCMP

(UNHRC condemnatory resolutions: UN Watch)

Alex Lo is upset that Nikki Haley denounced various UN bodies ("Nikki Haley is an odious hypocrite on rights", 18 October).  But she's quite right to do so.  The UN Human Rights Council is made up paragons like Angola  DR Congo, Nigeria, Afghanistan and Pakistan.  In its first ten years it passed 68 resolutions condemning Israel alone, more than the rest of the world combined.  Human rights offenders like China, Iraq, Pakistan and Russia were given a free pass.  Whatever you think of Israel, this record is grossly biased, "hypocritical" even. Haley was right to call it out.

The UN Economic, Social and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) is even "better" than the UNHRC about condemning Israel: its record is 100%. That's right, UNESCO finds nothing to condemn in Iran, Myanmar, North Korea, Syria, Somalia or Venezuela.  Just Israel.

But if these bodies are atrociously biased, they're nothing compared to the UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA).  It is grossly overstaffed with 27 times the number of staff per refugee as the UNHCR.  Worse, it has close ties to the terror group Hamas.  It hides Hamas tunnels and rockets inside its schools.  It allows Hamas to recruit children to its Islamic Bloc and to teach genocidal jew hatred.  

Without UNRWA, the Palestinian refugee problem would have been solved 70 years ago by absorption into surrounding Arab states. Just as Israel absorbed the even greater number of jews who were driven out of Arab countries on the establishment of Israel, an act supported by the very United Nations that Alex Lo holds up for praise and victimhood.

So, again, Haley was right to criticise UNRWA and stop the United States funding it.

Israel is the key ally of the United States in the Middle East and has been so, bipartisanly  since its establishment.  Again, rightly so, for it is the only true democracy in the region; a democracy that guarantees more human rights to its Arab citizens (20% of Israel) than they have in any other Arab country. 

Given all this, I vote that it's the likes of UNHRC, UNESCO and UNRWA who are the true "odious hypocrites".  Ambassador Haley was quite right to withdraw the US from them. Long overdue.  

[368 words]

Peter Forsythe
9 Siena One
Discovery Bay
9308 0799




Wednesday, 17 October 2018

Billionaires doing good



Paul Allen, confounder of Microsoft, died the other day. 
I heard a couple of Aussie DJ's talking about his death on Australia's ABCs Radio National. For them, the amazing thing was that Allen was worth $28 billion. "What do you do with that kind of money?", they wondered. "You buy a plane! Buy ten planes". "Buy an island!"  You've still got money left so what do you do with it all?  
This strikes me as the thinking of those who criticise capitalism for its "greed", who want the kind of socialism that makes everyone equal, because... social justice.  Because why does one, why does anyone, need so much money?
What they don't appear to realise these DJs and their ilk — and what they are profoundly incurious about — is that billionaires don't sit in their bums on top of a pile of cash surrounded by toys and islands. They use it. To invest in other companies, new or nascent.  Or, very often, to fund philanthropy. Bill and Melinda Gates are probably the most famous of the latter examples, which even envious DJs must have heard of. But it doesn't seem to have sunk in. Maybe they're not representative, they think. 
But even a teensy bit of googling would have educated those Aussie DJs about what Paul Allen actually did with his billions. 
And from today's obit in the New York Times (below) there's plenty: He "transformed Seattle into a cultural destination.... donated billions to advancement of science, technology, education, environment and the arts.... to ending elephant poaching.... to revitalising poor urban areas". How's all that for a start?!  Isn't that enough for one man in his too-short life? (He was just 65).  And that's after he cofounded Microsoft! 
Then there's Allen's ownership and promotion of various sports teams in baseball, soccer and football. 
I'd rather have entrepreneurial individuals making their investment decisions and charitable donations on their own clearly sound judgements, than giving the money to governments to spend, corrupt or fritter. 
That's so in America and it's so here in Hong Kong. 


Sent from my iPhone

Tuesday, 16 October 2018

Sweden cancels traditional Christmas concert and increases promotions for Islamic events

Hmmm...
https://voiceofeurope.com/2018/10/sweden-cancels-traditional-christmas-concert-and-increases-promotions-for-islamic-events/


Sent from my iPad

“Laugh now at Trump’s follies, but climate change isn’t funny” | Robert Delaney, SCMP

An extraordinary farrago of vitriol and ad hominem. From the Post's US Bureau chief,  no less. 
Just a selection of where Delaney is wrong:
Trump did not say the neo-nazis at Charlottesville were equivalent to the Antifa people. He said that there were "good people" on both sides of the debate over historical statues. He explicitly denounced neo-nazis the next day. 
He offered to the NFL "kneelers" that if they suggested POCs who were unjustly in prison, he would pardon them. NFL's reaction? It's "too complicated". 
Black employment is going great, but Delaney disses the result because it's due to overall economic performance". So what? How does that negate it?
In the sixties well-meaning social policies by the Democrats led to a huge jump in single motherhood and the decline of the black family fuelling large increases in black incarceration rates. These were made worse by Bill Clinton's "three strikes, you're in for life with no parole" policy. 
I watched Kimmel, SNL, and co, and, I dunno, maybe I've lost my sense of humour, but I didn't find them the lest funny. Crude and obvious, more like. 
Reference to Ye's "insanity" is not called for given his acknowledged problems with bi-polar disorder (which he then put down to lack of sleep...). 
Ye convicted Trump to take prison reform seriously. Trump has since said that he would overrule Jeff Sessions to promote it. What have Delaney and the rest of Ye's critics on the Left done today to improve America? Anything? Nothing?
All in all the Lefts antics it's hysteria over the Ye-Trump meeting has been ridiculous verging on the disgusting. 

Laugh now at Trump's follies, but climate change isn't funny
https://sc.mp/2yDAPe7

Sent from my iPad

Sent from my iPad

Currency manipulation

Hong Kong has a peg to the US dollar.
Some may call that manipulation but it's completely transparent and benign.
The article below sets out the biggest manipulators namely Switzerland and Singapore.
Vietnam: people don't worry about because its trade is so small cf. China's.

https://qz.com/1246588/the-biggest-currency-manipulators-of-2017-in-charts/amp/

Sent from my iPhone

Monday, 15 October 2018

May and Corbyn share a divisive approach to race |The Times


This is a good article by Clare Foges.  
Societies being ripped apart, tested, strained, in the U.K. in Europe, Australia and in the U.S. because of fatuous and condescending "social justice" programs and tendentious data to make out western societies as inherently evil. 
They are not. They are the greatest force for betterment of humankind, for all the mistakes and prejudices of the past.  Shame on May and Corbyn.  In Corbyn's case whipped on by the execrable marxist Seamus Milne, above in the megaphone.
Quote:

This being Black History Month, last week was Politicians In Search Of An Eye-Catching Race-Related Policy Week. Both Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn had their own announcement, each seemingly benign and right-on, each actually destructive and wrong-headed. Though the leaders may usually have little in common, on issues of race, discrimination and British identity, they are united in folly.

May's announcement was that all public sector employers and large private companies will be required to publish their workers' pay according to ethnicity, to help create "a fairer and more diverse workforce". This is a bad idea for many reasons, not least the patronising targets and quotas it will spawn and the suspicion of tokenism that will hang around black or Asian people appointed to high-paying roles, undermining their years of hard work.

Worst of all is the simplistic picture it will paint, of a routinely discriminatory and even racist Britain. Remember the reporting earlier this year on the gender pay gap? Day after day we were told about villainous businesses paying women 20, 30, 40 per cent less than men, the implication being that women doing exactly the same jobs as men were short-changed — even though salaries were not being compared like-with-like. All salaries from all levels of all large workplaces were stirred into the same pot, giving the murky conclusion that most of Britain's workplaces are wildly sexist.

Though the government has not yet decided how the data on race is to be collected, we can expect similarly misleading statistics. Given that many in the most senior, high-paying roles will be white people whose career ascent started 30 or 40 years ago, the countless equality initiatives (and more enlightened attitudes) of recent times will barely register, and the headlines will be scandalous: "Army pays black soldiers 30 per cent less than white ones!" "White bobbies earn 15 per cent more than those from ethnic minorities!" Figures will scream from the pages without context or meaning.

There will be little discussion about some of the underlying reasons behind differing levels of pay, either. Last year the government's own Race Disparity Audit fired out some shocking statistics, such as that the unemployment rate for black, Asian and minority ethnic people is nearly double that of white British adults, and that Traveller and Gypsy children have the highest exclusion rate from school. But did this lead to probing questions about the attitudes around women and work in some cultures, or how parental lifestyle can influence a child's education?

Of course not. It was easier to blame Britain's "racial injustice" problem, as Damian Green, then first secretary of state, put it. May grimly called for organisations to "explain or change", as though all disparities were down to institutional discrimination alone, while the Equality and Human Rights Commission said the audit was evidence of "entrenched inequality".

No doubt the same inflammatory conclusions will be reached with the reporting on race and pay, and no doubt May will call it a "burning injustice", to be chucked on the pyre with all those other burning injustices. This may be politically useful for the prime minister amid Brexit woes, but taking a simplistic snapshot of the country like this is profoundly damaging. As a number of influential figures (themselves from ethnic minority backgrounds) wrote to this paper in response to the Race Disparity Audit, "All too often statistics are misused in a way that casts minorities as victims of racism and 'white privilege' ". They were concerned that "a crude and tendentious approach to evidence risks promoting a grievance culture" and felt the audit "presented an overly pessimistic picture of modern Britain". We can safely assume these words will ring true for the "race pay gap" too. The reporting will send a powerfully pessimistic message to young black and Asian people about the kind of country Britain is.

Corbyn proposes to offer up another negative picture of Britain, this time not of our present but our past. The leader announced that a Labour government would establish an Emancipation Educational Trust to help schools teach the "grave injustices" of the British Empire and the history of slavery, including how it "interrupted a rich African and black history". Corbyn is right that students should know of the hellish cruelty suffered by African slaves, the Indian famines, the Amritsar massacre, the Boer concentration camps, the Mau Mau uprising and other atrocities. But in the spirit of truth, will Corbyn's trust also teach about the longer history of slavery, with black traders selling black slaves? Will it make clear the leading role that Britain played in abolishing the trade internationally, with the Royal Navy freeing hundreds of thousands of slaves? Though the idea of colonisation may be abhorrent in 2018, will the trust acknowledge some of the good that was done under the British flag: the laying of roads and railways, the creation of canals and sewers, the spread of democracy around the world?

Of course it won't. For Corbyn, hand-wringing about white western oppressors is not just a personal passion, it is politically useful. Focusing on the negative aspects of Britain's history reinforces the notion that racism is Britain's original sin. The Labour Party styles itself as the defender of ethnic minority interests — and sweeps up the votes.

May and Corbyn might kid themselves that they are being "progressive", but in portraying Britain, past and present, as a racist, discriminatory country they do their cause no good at all. If young black and Asian people grow up thinking their path to success will be strewn with rocks, they could limit their own ambitions. If they feel alienated or angry about Britain they may feel conflicted about their identity, loathe to love a nation that seems set against people who look like them.

I'm not suggesting we live in a discrimination-free country, or that there are easy answers to inspiring a strong national identity across people of all races, cultures and religions. But a more positive approach to these issues is possible, based on some simple principles. Treat people as individuals first and members of a minority second. Celebrate the achievements of black and Asian Britons rather than focusing on skewed statistics and simplified narratives that foment upset. Aim for equality of opportunity through outstanding education for all, mentoring and outreach programmes — not equality of outcome through quotas and targets.

It may be appealing to politicians to call out Britain's flaws endlessly so that they might cast themselves as champions of racial justice, but it is destructive. You do not do black and Asian people a service by continually emphasising difference. Yes, take steps to remedy unfairness where it exists — but the overall message must be that Britain is not a collection of competing racial groups but a nation — and there are few nations on Earth with a prouder record of fighting discrimination in all its forms.

Thursday, 11 October 2018

Carbon-free world with a Nuke-free planet? Fuggedabout it!

How greenies caused climate change and ruined the planet

The UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has come out with its latest scary report (its sixth) predicting all manner of catastrophe if we don't immediately reduce Carbon dioxide emissions, while dissing nuclear power as "not relevant " in the mix.  Huh? This strikes me a just this side of insane. Correction, the other side of insane.
The media have reported it breathlessly, urging alarm.  Yet delving into the report, the only real difference from the Fifth is that the warming by 2 degrees C, is now predicted to come a bit later than then predicted.  In other words, the only substantial part of the report is actually, pace the press, good news, though you'd never know that from the media coverage.
Moreover, to the extent that there are dire predictions in the Sixth, they are made with only "medium confidence", which is set at 50/50, or a toss of the coin. A toss of the coin that an increasing number of  insects and some animals may find less habitat, for example.
But for the IPCC this is calamity staring us in the face. Despite which they dismiss the single quickest, most secure and safest way to achieve a significant reduction in carbon dioxide output, namely nuclear.
They diss nuke for three reasons: 1.  It can lead to proliferation 2.  It's polluting, especially to water and 3. It's hard to get rid of waste.
But what's the consensus on each of these three question?  Are they really problems?
The answers are: No, No and No. It's pretty much as simple as that.  None of these is a problem.  None.
Meantime, the latest Nobel laureate, the climate economist William Nordhaus, says that costs and benefits of any anti-CO2 policies need to be measured. Only if the cost of doing nothing is greater than the cost of doing something should something be done. That number is at around 2 degrees C of warming.
Yet greenies are parading both the IPCC report and Nordhaus' Nobel as if they're both saying the same thing: we need urgent -- urgent -- Carbon reduction measures, up to and including the destruction of capitalism. Just as greenies have already ruined the planet and have caused climate change.
Clearly this report is agenda-driven, not driven by any proper assessment of carbon abatement policies.
Bjon Lomborg, of the Copenhagen Consensus think tank, makes the case in more detail in the WSJ.
Below the fold is the full article.

Wednesday, 10 October 2018

Kavanaugh hearings conclusion: another case of two movies on the same screen

Blogger: Althouse - Post a Comment

I screenshot this comment to This Post on Ann Althouse's blog.
I too have noticed this write up of history. As Scott Adams says, we are often watching two different movies on the same screen, and boy, is this a case of that.
Here in Hong Kong we followed the Kavanaugh hearings very closely and on all channels: CNN, CNBC, BBC and FOX.   As well as taking print editions of the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal and the South China Morning Post.  In short, covering the waterfront in terms of ideology, or at least in terms of leanings, Left and Right.
We could not come to the conclusion above. And -- watching out carefully for our own confirmation bias -- we think the above conclusion is not warranted by what we actually saw happen.
For there is only one truth, not two.  Or, at the very least, only one that is more true than the other.  One which one has to lean to, if judiciousness is to have the day.
Nevertheless, this will be the truth for the Democrats.  Namely:
- Kavanaugh lied under oath- The accusation against kavanaugh was not investigated and was credible- Kavanaugh's behavior was not an ordeal and he was wrong to get emotional about it- The GOP has totally alienated women through this process- There is a republican mob [I add: but there is no Democrat mob]
By the way, Ann Althouse is a Law Professor Emeritus, and is my twin, born on 12 January 1950.
I love her blog.
She writes, she says, with "cruel neutrality".

Monday, 8 October 2018

Fathom – ‘Understanding the Jews of the Middle East and North Africa is the key to understanding the whole Middle East conflict’: an interview with Lyn Julius

This is the reality of the Jewish presence in the Middle East to counter the views of the obnoxious Jew-hater, Malaysia's geriatric PM, Mahathir Mohammad, who told BBC's Hard Talk last week that all the problems in the Middle East are due to the founding of Israel. 
They are not. 
They are due in large part to vicious Jew-hatred inherent in Islam.  See, for example, the meticulously researched The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism: From Sacred Texts to Solemn History, by Andrew G. Bostom.
From the Fathom article:
Earlier this year Fathom's Grant Goldberg interviewed Lyn Julius about her new book, Uprooted, which documents 3,000 years of Jewish civilisation in the Arab world and explains how and why that civilisation vanished in a single generation in the middle of the 20th century. Julius describes what brought Nazi Germany, the Muslim Brotherhood and the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem into an alliance and how this impacted Jews in the Middle East and the formation of the State of Israel.
Download a PDF version here. Or Read ON....

Sunday, 7 October 2018

The Jews who are signing up to Germany’s far-right AfD  | Financial Times


The first sentence in this article in the Financial Times is supposed (I assume) to shock you and make you think "how on earth could anyone say something so islamophobic?" 
But if you know the issue a bit better than leftist headlines only, you know that it's true. 
The best reference to this is the meticulously researched book by Islamic scholar Andrew G. Bostom "The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism, From Sacred Texts to Solemn History". 
Jew-hatred is deeply embedded in the Koran. 
Yet here in the FT, they slid by the issue. Try to discredit the link. Slyly. 
And — I've written elsewhere — that AfD is not "far-Right".  Its policies are, if anything, socialist. The only thing they differ from the Left are that they have a concern about bringing in undocumented and unchecked immigrants who hew to a culture, Islam, inimical to the liberal values of the West. 

  • LATER (11 October): I'm going to resile a bit from the comment that AfD are not "far right".  Rather, I'll say, not they're Left -- though it's true that they have a few policies that are of the Left, like better wages and pensions for workers -- but a raft of other policies are conservative, so let's grant that they're of the "Right". They're against same-sex marriage, though I don't know why anyone bothers with that fight any more, it's lost; and they are against gay folks adopting, which is probably arguably arguable...  and a few others.

So... AfD are Right.  But not "Far Right".  I think that's too much of contumely, right there.
The article:
It is the only political party in Germany that declares "Jew-hatred" as "inseparable" from Islam, and says out-loud that Islamic religious dogma is "incompatible with the German constitution". [my emphasis]

Rest below the fold...

Friday, 5 October 2018

Althouse: The intemperance of the law professors' "judicial temperament" letter. (Re Kavanaugh SCOTUS nomination)

TO THE BBC:

Ann Althouse is a law professor, emeritus. This is her take on the law professors' "intemperance" letter: https://althouse.blogspot.com/2018/10/the-intemperance-of-law-professors.html

Rather more substance-ful than the nonsense you just aired from lawyer Aziz. 

Please, please, someone at the BBC needs to read around a subject a bit more, before airing biased reporting from one side only — invariably the Left.

Peter Forsythe
Hong Kong 


Thursday, 4 October 2018

Tolerance: Not really a thing in Islam





We are told it is only civil to respect or at least tolerate other peoples' beliefs, even if you do not agree with them – a sort of "live and let live" attitude.  As a general principle, this position is admirable.  Yet there are exceptions.  A case in point is when people say, "Let Muslims believe what they want."  I strongly disagree with letting Muslims believe what they want to believe when they hold that I, as a non-Muslim, have no right to live.  Or if I am to live, I must live a subservient life to that of Muslims.  Wherever they are in power in the world, Muslims do everything they can to make non-believers' lives dreadful and deadly.
I don't tolerate the belief and practices of Islam, in the same vein as I reject fascism and all other exclusionary oppressive systems of belief.As they say, tolerating evil is not tolerance.  It is a crime.

Sunday, 30 September 2018

Is this the world’s costliest tweet?


I can still remember lying in bed going through my Twitter feed and seeing this tweet pop up from my hero Elon Musk.
I was startled and said so to dear wife. As in "what on earth is Elon doing making announcements this serious on Twitter for goodness sake!"
The subsequent jump in Tesla share price savaged Tesla short-sellers, who'd been bugging him. That alone would make the Tweet very dodgy. 
Anyway, it turns out the SEC were not amused. They've just fined him and Tesla USD $20 million each. And Elon has to step down from Chairmanship. 
That led to a 10% 14%* drop in the share price wiping $5 (US$ 7) billion from its value. 
So, total it up and the tweet cost Tesla shareholders and Elon Musk $5.08 $7.08 billion or $565 $786 million for each of its nine words. 
If there's a tweet that's cost more money I'd like to know it.

*[UPDATE 1 October:  News that the drop in Tesla share price was actually 14% of its US$50 billion valuation]

“In China puzzle, Australia knows itself. The UK hasn’t a clue” | SCMP



Australia has always treated China seriously. I know from being part of the Australian government in China (Beijing, Shanghai, Hong Kong) from the mid-seventies to the late nineties, that we put a lot of effort into understanding China. Our diplomats were known (are known, to this day) as being deeply trained in Chinese politics, language and culture. 
And those of us in the business, the business of Australia-China relations, never thought that China was aiming to become another Jeffersonian democracy. Sure the politicians may have harboured such fantasies, but not us. And that's there in our writings at the time: the ambassadorial dispatches, especially by our first ambassador to China, Stephen FitzGerald, with whom I served; in the embassadorial memos and "cables" (as they were then); in our talks and speeches and briefings. 
So, this article is talking about the politicians when it talks "original aims" as being China the democracy on the hill. We were never so deluded and that's in the record. 
And we must ask if it's such a bad thing that China is a hybrid and plans to remain so. Corruption, censorship, being horrid to Muslims in the west, don't have to be part of the model, even if Xi Jinping is making it so now. 
But the article is mainly about how Australia tracks its relations with China and public perceptions of them, whereas Britain is complacent towards China "verging in indifference". 
/Snip:
China under President Xi Jinping is clearly not on an easy path to becoming a multi-party democracy – at least not any time soon. At most, it wants "democracy with Chinese characteristics". And like the "socialist market economy with Chinese characteristics", that is going to be a hybrid, novel product – not the one any American or European who was keen on promoting engagement to see political reform happen in the 1980s might recognise as a successful fulfilment of their original aims.

“Why China’s richest flock to Australia, even if they’re not always welcome” | SCMP


Out of 10,000 high-net worth immigrants to Australia (10,000!) — those bringing in AUS$5 million or more — 9,000 are from China. 
As an Aussie Chinese friend says "that's good and bad". 
Yin yang. One divides into two. 一分为二.  Balance....
Go into a Chinatown anywhere in the world. Have a meal. Buy some goodies at the Chinese deli. You're welcome. You're at ease. Same at the Little Saigons or whatever they're called. In Sydney one in Cabramatta suburb is known as "Vietnamatta". Again, you are welcome. You're at ease. 
By contrast try going into the "Islamtowns" (what do we call them? "Shariaburbs"? "Muslimattas"?), in Tower Hamlets or Birmingham, or western Sydney. I've been. You are definitely not welcome. Not even as a clean-shaven man. Let alone an unveiled woman. That's a difference. Not all migration is equal. Not all cultures are equal. You don't need to go to racism. Different culture will do it. Different cultures will give you uncomfortable and unwelcoming environments. 
So, me, I don't mind at all the "Chinese invasion" of Oz. Though for sure there's valid concern about the upward pressure on house prices. Maybe something like we have here in Hong Kong could be instituted in Oz: namely restrictions on foreign property ownership. Higher sales taxes, duties, limits on numbers and so on. 
Here in Hong Kong that "foreign" includes Chinese from our motherland aka "the mainland". If we can do it, why not Oz?  And add into that a tax on unoccupied properties, one of the big and valid concerns being millionaires buying property and never living it. 
/Snip
Australia was the world's No 1 migration destination for millionaires last year, according to the 2018 Global Wealth Migration Review from AfrAsia Bank. More than 10,000 high-worth individuals migrated to Australia last year, mostly from China, India and the UK. And about 90 per cent of the visas Australia issued to high-worth investors – those who invest more than A$5 million (US$3.6 million) locally – were for Chinese nationals.
Read on, below: 
********

Kavanaugh. Dateline London


So three Dateline Londoners promote the accuser's veto. Simply making a "credible" accusation — unsupported by ANY other evidence — is, or should be according to them, enough to ruin a man. And we should all cheer, another victory for #MeToo.
Pity the only sensible one on the panel - the man to the moderator's left - was not more forceful and a better advocate.
The Bloomberg woman thinks Kavanaugh was "unbecoming". Wouldn't you be if you'd  been smeared and were innocent. Wouldn't you be angry? [*]
As for "unbecoming" — thy name is the Democrats on the committee. Especially Weinstein, Whitehouse (yuk!), Booker and Harris. 
As for the "two other accusations" the Ramirez one is so flimsy that even the NYT won't run it and the Swetnick one is simply absurd. What next? cabalistic satanic animal orgies? Les get a grip and treat these ludicrous accusations with the scorn and derision they deserve. 
The simple measure of an accusation: "Trust, but verify". 
Meantime the FBI investigation will do nothing that's not been done. Will not change any minds: the Democrats had made their minds up from the outset. 
And Kavanaugh will be confirmed. As, on the basis is current evidence, he should be. 
PF
Hong Kong

[*] She also quotes a survey showing 18% drop in female Republican support for K. But another poll — by HuffPo / YouGov— shows an *increase* of 12 points to a net 77. 

Thursday, 27 September 2018

As China-U.S. feud enters uncharted territory, Beijing can only blame itself - The Washington Post


Trump addressed the United Nations in New York 25/10/18.
(Peter Foley/EPA-EFE/Shutterstock)

This from WaPo a left of centre paper. Owned by Jeff Bezos. 

It's agreed then. China deserves the approbrium. 
As China-U.S. feud enters uncharted territory, Beijing can only blame itself

“How Trump made being tough on China the new normal” | SCMP




I've spoken of the Overton Window before. And Trump, like him or hate him, has certainly shifted the Window. Not just the Window of discourse but of action as well. 
On China for example. I can well remember Bill Clinton's tough rhetoric on China in the campaign; followed up by nothing in office. Except to get China into the WTO, which they promptly set about cheating on. 
As Kristin McGuire says:
By taking action to rectify US-China economic relations, Trump may have raised the bar for future American presidential candidates. To be electable, candidates on the left and right may need to step onto the campaign trail with a plan for challenging China's harmful economic policies.
Moreover, once in office, future presidents might feel greater pressure to live up to their tough campaign rhetoric for fear of damaging their odds of re-election.