One doesn't have to be a pro-Beijing stooge to be fed up with the shocking violence on our streets. Violence perpetrated by a loud minority. Where is the poll of Hong Kongers to find out what our quiet majority thinks? In 2014 you commissioned a poll which showed an "overwhelming majority" (83%) wanted the Occupy protests to end.
Our own straw poll suggests the same overwhelming majority today are sick and tired of the violent protesters and their inchoate aims.
And no wonder.
Just look at the news in your own paper: retail sales plunging, property transactions tumbling, business confidence eroding, local and international commuters hindered. This can't go on.
The protesters say they are concerned about Beijing's tightening rule. If they keep going with their violent protests they're about to find out.
Let's have a new poll and be guided by the HK majority, not the minority, the self-deluded and increasingly violent protesters.
We just watched the State Council presser. One off, we believe, never done before on the subject of Hong Kong, though I’m not fully sure about that.
We were a touch concerned, though J had predicted it would be about supporting the HK government and the police, and so it turned out to be.
Yang made three points:
1. Oppose violence
2. Uphold the rule of law
3. Focus on development and livelihood issues. i.e. get back to making money.
Not much to be too worried about, though the violent protesters won’t like being called “criminals”. (Even if that’s what, to be precise, they were and are). But at least no talk of the PLA being brought out of their barracks. The one question on what conditions would be needed for them to be put on the streets, Yang parried by saying “it’s in the Basic Law”.
Yang is young. And steely, behind the bland smiley face. We can just imagine the amount of time the went into crafting the message, and Yang has been given a high responsibility of delivering it to the world. J notes Yang has some grey in his hair. A new trend amongst the leadership, who till now have been sternly blackly black-haired. But Xi Jinping started the trend to letting it go natural....
There’s much huffing and puffing on the Remainer side. If Britain “crashes out”, at the very best we simply don’t know what will happen, but likely it will be terrible, major chaos in the economy, major problems in every area of life: aviation, shipping, shopping, fishing....
But there’s never any detail and it’s all “could be”, “might be” and “calamity”.
Never have I seen such Henny Pennies.
Here I look at some of the likely outcomes, based on a summary of pros and cons, courtesy iNews, which is, far as I can see, an anti-Brexit site (as are all good Lefties and les bien pensants).
“Doom and gloom”?
The EU charges 4% on average to non-EU members. That’s already balanced by the over 4% devaluation in the GB pound. And in any case is minimal. Minimal.
The iNews article says that the price of goods in the UK will rise, but that’s only if the UK decides to apply the same level of average tariff as the EU does, and it doesn’t have to do this. in any case, around 70% of EU imports are at zero or reduced tariff, as noted above, so the impacts will be minimal. Minimal. Not “doom”. Not “gloom”. Trivial. People:
“The UK would be free to set its own controls”. Well, good, then. As to Europeans in the UK, Boris has already said that they could stay. Worst case: nasty Europeans don’t reciprocate. By why would they not, other than to be vengeful? Also: more Europeans in UK than UK people in Europe, so there’s leverage should the UK need to use it. Laws: "Relevant EU laws would be transferred over so there would be no black holes in Britain’s lawbook. Britain would no longer have to adhere to the rulings of the European Court of Justice ....” So, again, good then. I recall a number of cases where the UK had decided to deport a criminal or islamist, and the EU courts had overturned the UK decisions. That insult will be history. Money: “The Government would not have to pay the Annual £13 billion to the EU budget”. Again, good, then. “However, Britain would lose out on some EU subsidies” of about £ 3 billion. Well, so what? If all made up by the UK government, they’re still £10 billion in front. The Irish Border. Well, I’m not going to get into this, save to say if it turns out that Northern Ireland decides to leave the UK and join the Republic, well good on them. And I say that as one with way back Irish connections to County Antrim, in Northern Ireland, which I’m just about to visit for the first time. Does anyone really think that would be such a bad thing? A united Ireland? Well, I guess I’ll find out. Anyhoo, the above is my comments drawing on a site that’s clearly anti-Brexit. And it doesn’t really seem so bad at all, does it? Compared with the cleanness of getting out in one go. Done and dusted. Be done with it. No need to wait 21 months of “transition period” that would happen with a Brexit with a deal. So, get on with it Boris! No Deal, is a good Deal! LATER: [Just hearing the BBC quote the Confederation of British Industry apparently saying that everyone, every shopper will be affected. Again, so what? What sort of effect? Much or most is likely to be trivial.] Related: No deal Brexit would not be a disaster. Spectator, July 2019
Des Voeux Rd, last night. What it doesn't show is that there were just a few hundred
LETTER TO BBC
Your reporting just now on BBC World Service Hong Kong was grossly biased.
You gave voice to only one side of the argument: a young lady who talked of the "heroic" protesters lined up against a cruel and uncaring government. They are fighting for a "just and fair society" she claims; well, that's what we have already and the irresponsible actions of her and her violent comrades endangers it.
The fact is the days of large peaceful demonstrations with a clear aim (anti extradition treaty) are past. That aim was achieved. Now we are left with a rump of demonstrators who do everything to provoke the police for nebulous ill-defined aims. They deface our streets with vile graffiti like "We are not China" written 我们不是支那 using the offensive Japanese imperial term for China (支那), and, in English, "Fuck Popo" (Popo = police). Yet when the police don't immediately jump to their beck and call (Yuen Long two weeks ago), they protest. And when the police do turn up (Central, last night) the protesters are enraged.
The majority of Hong Kongers are sick and tired of their shenanigans. We have spoken to a wide variety of the average resident: manicurists, dentists, shop owners, building contractors, doctors, lawyers. It's pretty unanimous: support for the initial peaceful anti-extradition treaty demos. But no support for the ongoing violent protests.
We have also seen numerous signs on our island of Lantau expressing support for the police and for the government to implement the rule of law for the stability of Hong Kong. None of those signs is defaced and all are in prominent positions in the various villages in our island, indicating local support.
The result is deep concerns that the violent protesters will bring about — deliberately or otherwise — the very thing they claim to be against: greater Beijing intrusion into our city's affairs. There's already credible talk of the PLA interfering.
About time you interviewed some of these ordinary HK folks. Ordinary Hong kongers. Not just the self-serving violent activists. Who are now just a rump.
(43 years in the city as Australian diplomat, business executive and business founder/owner)
PS: have a look at Yonden Lhatoo's article in yesterday's South China Morning Post. Lhatoo is no conservative or friend of Beijing.
I rarely agree with Yonden Lhatoo, chief editor on the South China Morning Post, but I do here. I do agree with him 100%.
I never thought I'd live to see the day. I've warned about it many times, but always assuming sanity would prevail and that day would never come.And yet here we are, talking about a complete breakdown of law and order in Hong Kong, once one of the safest cities in the world.…For months now, this protest movement and its supporters have systematically stripped our police force of its authority and credibility, demoralised frontline officers with constant abuse and bullying, and urinated all over the rule of law.
We are now paying them price. Want to add some more oil to this bonfire of hatred?
If the police are present (Government HQ), they are vilified. "What are you doing here, stopping us from destroying property?" If the police are not present (Yuen Long) it's "why weren't you here?"
Count us amongst the majority of Hong Kongers who are sick and tired of the weekly violence. And who side with the police. And the government. The demonstrators now are not for Democracy, but simply against the police. They won the case against the extradition law. So, stop already! But they don't. And people's livelihoods are being affected.
Most Hongkongers know this: that we have freedoms unavailable on the mainland. The only way it's going to go is backward. If these young extremists keep on, its bad news for Hong Kong. The dragon will strike back.
Who have we spoken to? Uber and taxi drivers, manicurists, doctors and dentists, shop owners, renovators. They all say the same. They're sick of it. Some call the demonstrators "shitholes". That very word.
And on last weekend we saw signs all over this island of Lantau, to the west of Hong Kong island, and twice its size, that supported the police and the government in maintaining the rule of law. Not a one of these had been vandalised. Indeed people pointed them out to us. But you won't see these in the western media, because they're in Chinese only and not in Cemtral.
So when you watch the news of CNN, ABC, MSNBC, BBC, and the rest, all sympathetic to the "movement" bear in mind two things: 1. It's not the majority. 2. it's dangerous for the freedoms we already have.
By the way "add oil" is the direct translation of the Chinese jia you 加油, which is usually used to mean "speed up". It's also a term of encouragement. But it also has the word "oil" in it (油) so can raise the spectre of oil being added to flames. Or as Yonden suggests in his article, oil on the slippery floors of Hong Kong airports arrival hall.
Oh dear Great Spaghetti Monster: we pray for Hong Kong.
Goodness me, something right on point for a discussion of Asian Values, aka China Values. Which is stronger in China, Marxism or Confucianism? Spoiler: it's the C word wot stronger. Been around much longer, more strongly internalised.
I recall when I arrived in China in 1976 there was a political campaign going on called Pi Lin Li Kong (批林批孔), or "criticise Lin Biao and criticise Confucius".
I remember being bit baffled about the juxtaposition of Mao's ex right-hand man, putative successor to the old rogue, who had been accused of turning on Mao and been killed in a suspicious plane accident while fleeing to the Soviet Union, on the one hand, and an ancient philosopher on the other.
Turns out most Chinese were too. For when I asked about it, they were embarrassed and didn't want to talk about it, especially the "criticise Confucius" bit.
And any state that roots itself in the rites of Confucius is going to be a much better country than one that daubs itself in the doctrines of Krazy Karl.
Soon after becoming general secretary of the Communist Party of China, Xi Jinping revealed his vision for a more distinctly Chinese direction for his country and has strongly encouraged a renaissance of Confucianism in China. Yet Marxism – a European import – remains the ideological framework of the government. It would seem, then, that China is headed for an internal clash of cultures.
Part II: World War II
Part III: Open Borders 2015
That's three efforts to destroy the world. Not even counting Germanic machinations in the European project.
And now... and now...
Part IV: The Environment.
Let's destroy the environment. Decide Merkel and the Greenies.
Mad Mutti Merkel decides to close all of Germany's nuclear power. This is rather like you scrap your Merchant Navy because the Titanic hit an iceberg.
And so Germany has increased its carbon emissions.
No worry, renewables will take up the slack. Oh wait... people - environmentalists mainly - are against wind power because they kill birds and are noisy. Oh horrible irony. (And recall that when the Right made these exact critiques they were dismissed as "climate deniers").
Meantime there are reports that if Germany had spent the same amount of money it has spent on renewables on nuclear instead, it would BY NOW, be carbon neutral in electricity production.
So go figure.
It's a "climate crisis" but you don't use your single most potent weapon - nuclear - to fight it.
You're in a War, but only use your pop guns. Because you're afraid of your big guns.
Pathetic Germany. Pathetic Mad Angela. Pathetic German Greens.
China is a nation with values deeply at odds with the West. The Chinese spy, steal and bully. They don't really care about human rights yet are getting disgustingly rich, and — well, I'm sure you've heard the rest. The western media likes to depict China as the new enemy — both morally and politically. It seems as if a new iron curtain is coming down, with my country (and family) on the wrong side of the divide.
Of course, Britain is my country too: I've lived here longer than I did in China. But I have to confess that this fundamental 'clash of values' — described in such vivid terms by Mike Pompeo, the US Secretary of State — is one that passed me by. To be British–Chinese is not to be torn in two by competing value systems. Like Brits and Americans, the Chinese are family-oriented, go-getting and law-abiding with a love of learning and a sense of humour. So why are we falling out?
Just over two years ago, David Cameron was toasting a golden era of Anglo-Chinese relations over a pint of bitter in a Buckinghamshire pub with Xi Jinping. The consensus then was that Britain should get to know China better. To Chinese Brits, this was cheering. China has long been thought of as an unknown, opaque, homogeneous lump (something about dragons and tea) and the language barrier was partly to blame. But in the early Noughties, there was an increased exchange of ideas, culture and people: British people began teaching and travelling throughout China, while the Chinese came to the UK to study and work. My family moved here in 2004. Back then, it felt as if our countries were getting to know each other better.
But things have changed pretty fast in the past few years. I've noticed that conversations about China (I end up having quite a few of them) are now morally charged. British people seem angry with the regime and quick to accuse anyone who defends it of being in the pocket of the Chinese embassy. So, how to handle such situations? Even though I'm — sadly — not in receipt of a penny from the embassy, I usually make a self–deprecating joke about receiving orders from high command, to defuse some tension and draw some nervous laughter.
Things have changed in the past few years. I've noticed that conversations about China are now morally charged
There's no doubt that Beijing has done its bit to mess things up. The former president Hu Jintao's 'peaceful rise' narrative has been supplanted by Xi's more assertive, ambitious projects. These include the Belt and Road Initiative, 'Made in China 2025' which aims to transform the country into a tech superpower, and social credit.
We can add to that the detainment of up to a million Uyghur Muslims for what's euphemistically called 're-education', and the consistent erosion of 'one country two systems' that's causing such anger in Hong Kong. All this has contributed — justifiably — to the biggest reputational damage to China since Tiananmen Square.
But some of the backlash goes too far. Take social credit, for instance, which aims to use technology and surveillance to give citizens a social credit score. Most of the stories about it fail to acknowledge that the system (as it currently exists) is a patchwork of rudimentary trials across the country.
China has always been hard for westerners to understand. For Donald Trump, there was nothing to agonise about: CHAI-NA was the enemy. Those who once mocked his China-bashing now try to outdo his hawkishness. 'The Commies are back' — but this time, we are told, they are Chinese rather than Russian.
But China is not one-dimensional and the Chinese people are not the Chinese government. I've met many cynical Chinese who have a healthy level of scepticism for the government, no different to us in the West. Every year when I visit my family in China, my journalist uncle and his wife, a professor of film history, take me to see a student play at her college. The themes are invariably edgy. One play was about the failed Hundred Days Reform, a forgotten attempt to create a constitutional monarchy out of the Qing dynasty; another was about the lives of ordinary people during the Cultural Revolution.
In general, there's little appetite for democracy in China. The Chinese look at Brexit and see a bemusing mess. Chaos is anathema to them, and stability tends to matter more than lofty ideals. Who can blame them? They had enough idealism during the 20th century.
China is evolving fast and it still wants to get to know Britain. It remains a communist one-party state, but the China that people wanted to make friends with a few years ago — whose language so many British parents wanted their children to learn — is still there. It is a country where old ladies meet in the evenings to dance and exercise together in public squares; where the young dye their hair cobalt blue or strawberry blond, inspired by Japanese anime and Korean pop music. In the evenings, 150 million viewers tune in to watch Jin Xing, a talk-show host who has become a national treasure, who happens to be a trans woman. It would be a shame to lose sight of all of this, and replace it instead with a Trumpist caricature of an evil empire, out to hack the world.
Perhaps it's too late. Trump is now joined by most senior American politicians of left and right in talking as if a new Cold War is beginning. If this is the new script, Britain may have no choice but to follow it. Meanwhile, those of us who want to talk about a more nuanced China, home to a billion and a half very different people, should resign ourselves to being laughed off as spies or apologists.
As I was saying [sigh] … democrats had been doing a fine job of shooting themselves in the foot, what with AOC suggesting Pelosi is a racist, and all. Then along comes T. "Me too!" Look st me, I'm a bigger racist than you lot!
As Shapiro has repeatedly said, all Trump has to do is shut up and point at the inanities of the Dems. But he can't do it. Even republicans and conservatives can't defend his tweets …
We're optimists about American democracy in the long run, but nowadays the long run looks longer all the time. The bonfire of inanities in the last two days between Donald Trump and Democrats over who's the bigger racist, or real anti-Semite, or greater disgrace to the nation is a new low even by recent standards.
Mr. Trump started the bonfire, as he so often does, with a Sunday Twitter barrage telling "'progressive' Democrat Congress-women" who are critical of the U.S. to "go back" to the countries from whence they came. He seemed to be targeting the four hard-left Members of Congress, all minority women, who've been brawling with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi over the direction of the Democratic Party.
Conservative jour-nalist Brit Hume of-fered a succinct summary in calling Mr. Trump's comments "nativist, xenophobic, counterfactual and politically stupid." Three of the four women were born in the U.S., and "go back" is a taunt immigrants have heard in America for more than two centuries. It was used against Catholics, against the Irish, Germans and Italians, against Chinese and Japanese, and in our day most often against Mexican-Americans. A President of the United States shouldn't sink to such a crude nativist trope, but then we repeat ourselves.
… not a great idea!
WTF is he thinking?! Doesn't help those who could-maybe-might-perhaps vote for him, and who he needs in 2020…
His base is secure. He doesn't need to keep feeding them this sort of nasty meat…
(So says me, brilliant political strategist that I am). Not.
Bushehr Nuclear power station, southern Iran, 2010
Some of the drawbacks of the Iranian nuclear deal, and there's more at the link below.
So Trump could have been getting out of it because it was flawed. And Lindsay Graham, not a T supporter, backed the pull out. Which the British ambassador has called "an act of vandalism" to spite Obama. There's more to it…
Graham has a positive suggestion…
Under the Iran nuclear deal, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, the Iranians could ramp up quickly and easily from the enrichment levels necessary for peaceful nuclear power to levels needed to make a bomb. The 10-year sunset clause allowed Iran to go back to enriching uranium at any level.
The British ambassador to the United States says Trump ditched the Iran deal because he "wanted to spite Obama" in an "act of vandalism". How does the good ambassador know this? Did Trump say this in tweet or to his officials? No, he did not.
Trump said he was getting out because it was a bad deal. Many supported him in this assessment.
(Me, I don't know. And I doubt anyone not intimately involved knows if it's good or bad. And no, not even Trump).
So the ambassador was simply reading Trump's mind. Or thinking he could. And he has the gall to call Trump's action "personal". And the MSM repeats the slur.
And no, I'm not a Trump supporter. Just that this is dishonest reporting. Or at least ignorant. No one can read minds.
A tale of two Somali refugees to America.
1. Professor Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a Somali refugee, was taken in and protected in the United States when she was forced out of Holland by death threats which the supine and pusillanimous Dutch government refused to protect her against. She is now a scholar at Stanford university. She regularly expresses gratitude for a country that has protected her and given her access to the highest offices in the academy.
2. Congresswoman Ilhan Omar. Also a Somali refugee to the United States at age 12 and now elected to the House of Representatives in the US Congress. A Congress which, by the way, passed a special a law to allow her to wear the hijab. Until that time even Jewish skullcaps had not been allowed. Is Ms Omar the least, just st the least bit grateful? Why, no, she is not. She constantly rails against the United States: it's racist, bigoted, misogynist and xenophobic. The 4th of July for her was not a celebration of the establishment of the country which had given her succour and opportunity. No, it was time for another tweet calling out racial inequity. She has a particular animus for Jews, and especially American Jews, who, she says, are "all about the Benjamins, baby!"
Tucker Carlson of Fox News recently criticised Omar and praised Hirsi Ali. Two high achieving Somali born women. For that Omar called him a "racist fool". Carlson pointed out he was criticising views, not race, hence contrasting with another Somali woman, Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Omar ignored this, of course, because it's easier to smear with the word "racist".
Omar has become a well known anti-Semite in her short time in Congress. Ayaan Hirsi Ali tries to explain that in an excellent article below.
Short version: she was brought up to hate Jews.
In any event, I am living proof that one can be born a Somali, raised as an anti-Semite, indoctrinated as an anti-Zionist—and still overcome all this to appreciate the unique culture of Judaism and the extraordinary achievement of the state of Israel. If I can make that leap, so perhaps can Ms. Omar. Yet that is not really the issue at stake. For she and I are only two individuals. The real question is what, if anything, can be done to check the advance of the mass movement that is Muslim anti-Semitism. Absent a world-wide Muslim reformation, followed by an Islamic enlightenmemt, I am not sure I know.
Mr. Nader is perhaps best known for his 2000 campaign, which some Democrats blame for siphoning votes away from then-Vice President Al Gore and costing him the election against then-Gov. George W. Bush (R., Texas). Mr. Nader ran as a Green party candidate that year in part because he believed that Mr. Gore and his Democratic party colleagues were insufficiently committed to the environmental agenda.
"Some Democrats"?? [....blame Nader for Gore losing the 2000 election].
More like anyone who could do simple maths. Nader took ~93,000 votes in Florida in the 2000 election. Gore lost Florida by ~95 votes on a dubious recount and dubious SCOTUS decision. Given that Nader was representing the Green Party, and that if they hadn't participated those Green votes would have gone to the Democrats, there cannot be a shadow of doubt that Nader cost Gore the presidency. Winning Florida meant taking all its Electoral College votes and that meant winning the national election.
I've written elsewhere that this Nader decision to run in Florida did harm to the environment. Gore would have done more than W Bush to tackle climate change.
And Gore would not have started wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Gore had said that the response to 9-11 should have been sending in the Special Services to hunt down Bin Laden. He said that at the time, not in retrospect. Can we doubt that that would have been a better policy than Bush's endless wars?
And now Nader is advising the Democrats?! They should tell him to take a long hike in the woods he so loves.
Take a hike, Ralph!
And I’m glad to see that my own country Australia, is among those 22 who have condemned China for imprisoning innocent Uygur. I say “innocent” save for the fact that they’re Muslims. Regular readers will know my views in Islam, but even I, stern critic of the ideology of Islam that I am, can’t condone this gross violation of basic human rights.
I think China is just thumbing its nose at the world when it calls these detention camps “vocational training centres”. It doesn’t care if we believe them or not. They’re going to do it.
And shame on the 57 members of the Organisation of Islamic Conference. Not one has called out China. Money having something to do with it, no doubt.
What this headline means is that "most Tory members" have been paying attention.
Poll after poll shows attitudes of British Muslims are at odds with those of broader British society. A plurality of British Muslims want Islamic sharia law to replace British law. I'd say that's pretty much "a threat to the Bristish way of life".
Just one poll's example: Trevor Philips, the ex chair of the Human Rights Commission, commenting on disturbing poll results, said that Britain risked having a "nation within a nation". A nation within a nation is surely a threat to that nation, is it not?
Yet to the compliant MSM, stating this clear and obvious fact, this poll-based research, is just so much " islamophobia".
Glenn Hubbard is delusional if he thinks "The Promise Of Trump's Mideast Plan"  will be successful. The Marshall Plan worked because the recipients of the aid were willing participants. The Palestinians not only refuse to accept the aid plan but imprison and harass Arabs willing to listen to the Trump proposals. The Marshall Plan assisted capitalist nations to rebuild after World War II. In the Middle East we are dealing with ideology and religious fanaticism far more powerful than economic needs. We made this mistake in Iraq and President Trump is making the same mistake. Many in Israel also believe that economic needs will rule over religion. The 19 hijackers on 9/11 were middle- to upper-class Muslims. Poverty didn't motivate their attack on New York and Washington.
While the economic conditions in Gaza and the Palestinian territories are a disaster, financial assistance won't bring peace, and more likely will be used to fuel more terrorism.
Michael Shellenberger is a Time Magazine "Hero of the Environment," Green Book Award Winner, and President of Environmental Progress, a research and policy organization. His writings have appeared in The New York Times, Washington Post and Wall Street Journal, Scientific American, Nature Energy, and PLOS Biology. His TED talks have been viewed over 1.5 million times.
And Der Spiegel is the largest circulation weekly magazine in Europe, known for its investigative journalism.
For the proposed cost of $4 trillion on renewables, mention d in the article, which will actually not be enough to wean off coal, Germany could build twice as many reliable nuclear power stations, as it needs. In other words money left over, after installing clean and reliable long term energy.
But no. Mad Mutti Merkel has set Germany on a path to get OFF nuclear power entirely. This is insanity of the first order.
The dangerous and costly decision in 2015 to allow in millions of undocumented migrants, regardless of claims or background.
The decision after Fukushima meltdown to take nuclear power out of the mix.
The headline above, of an editorial a few days ago is balanced and neutral, but as soon as you know that it's in the New York Times you know that it's going to be a smear job. Because the subject is Jared speaking on behalf of Donald-in-law.
And so it turns out.
Kushner's project is "slick" (if it'd been an Obama proposal it might've been "visionary"). It's a "fantastical New York real estate promotion" (and?…so…?) which "touted" (Obama version: "highlighted") what is "supposed" to be an economic foundation. "Supposed"? Why not "proposed" to be, as it indeed is?
The project's tone is "patronising " the editorial board worthies assure us. (Obama version: "provisional")
These worthies wonder why Trump is proposing $50 billion in projects when it has cut aid funding to Gaza. They wonder disingenuously as they must surely know that that cut was to funding for the crooked and corrupt UNWRA which supports Hamas in its war crimes, using human shields, often children, who fire rockets at Israelis citizens, dig terrorist tunnels… in short who use the funds for terrorism. This had to stop.
Economic development could indeed lead to political solutions and even a two state solution. If only the Palestinians would take part and if only they would acknowledge the existence of Israel. But they haven't done so in seventy years. And have alr day rejected this latest proposal. Way to go Palestinian leadership.
They love death more than life, as they say themselves. And they hate Israel more than they love a country of their own for their children to prosper in.
And shame on the New York Times for continuing to hammer the wrong side.
Does Trump need to know the ins and outs of America's busing legislation? Well, I do, so why doesn't he? I know the policy, at least somewhat, and remember how controversial it was in the seventies, so surely so should he. He oughta know unless he was brain des at the time.
But he hasn't a clue. And he watched the testy debate exchange between Kamala Harris and Joe Biden. If he didn't know what they were talking about, which seems the case, why didn't he ask?
This article is a damning indictment of Trump's lazy bullshit.
Sure, often it doesn't matter. But usually it does.
Outside the trashed Legislative Council building, Central, Hong Kong
Garden Road, Central, HK
If you tweak the tail of the dragon…… eventually it will turn and bite you. Hard. Remember 1989. The troops held back, until they didn't. It strikes me as dangerous and boneheaded for the demonstrators to storm Legco (HK's parliament) vandalise the interior and especially to fly British flags. Crazy, silly, juvenile, counterproductive and dangerous.
I hope we don't find ourselves in ten years' time saying "remember the good old days before 2019? How free, how open…", as we suffer under the dread heel of Beijing's baleful boot.
For the first time since I came to Hong Kong in 1976, I'm worried.
Keep up the demos, but for chris'sake stop the vandalism.
The rest, the peaceful, the many…
An "unconventional detente". I like that… and I can't help thinking that Trump stepping across the line yesterday at the Korean DMZ into North Korea is a good thing. After all wouldn't we rather have a detente, unconventional or not?
"… an unconventional detente between the U.S. and North Korea, longtime adversaries whose leaders have struck a personal connection. The prelude to Sunday's meeting was an exchange of letters that Mr. Trump called "beautiful" and Mr. Kim described as "excellent."
PS: I googled "trump North Korea" to get a pic. You think you'd get the photo of him crossing into the DMZ yesterday. A photo that every media outlet carried. But no, it's some old photos. And so google " trump at DMZ" and I gotta say the selection is the worst of what I saw live yesterday. The one I chose above I had to search for. Even though it was the major picture on the front of the print editions this morning of the New York Times and South China Morning Post.
This straight after we've heard of the determination of google employs to swing the vote against Trump. In short, to hack the election. And YouTube has now taken down the video reporting this.
A thoughtful article by someone living on the mainland but understanding rather more about Hong Kong than the average citizen behind the Great Firewall.
As someone who calls Guangzhou — the Cantonese-speaking city neighbouring Hong Kong — home, it is heart-wrenching to witness the deterioration, bit by bit, of the relationship between the two sides over the past decade. The result is that cultural, emotional and information gaps have widened significantly.