Disaster Interesting clickbait, op-eds, fluff pieces and other smaller stories -

What should the prefix to this thread be?

  • World

    Votes: 105 17.1%
  • Science

    Votes: 19 3.1%
  • Culture

    Votes: 129 21.0%
  • Disaster

    Votes: 362 58.9%

  • Total voters
    615

Soap Sniffer

Uninstall real life
kiwifarms.net
Here is an interesting article from the New York Times, stalwart defenders of American values, such as decrying the right to free speech which permits their existance and other unforgivable inexcusable treasonous musings. I urge you not to examine the author or his religious and ethnic origins, or else you might be tempted to commit a holocaust. That is naughty and will certainly put you on Santa's naughty list.

Shield thy heart

Remember, these people love their country.
 

PS1gamenwatch

kiwifarms.net

British businessman and his Filipina wife are kidnapped by gunmen in the Philippines as police probe 'personal grudge' motive
  • Allan and his wife Wilma Hyron are thought to have been abducted by gunmen
  • The British man and his wife taken from their beach resort, it has been reported
  • A police corporal said the attack could have been fuelled by a 'personal grudge'
By ROD ARDEHALI and EMER SCULLY FOR MAILONLINE
PUBLISHED: 13:44 EDT, 4 October 2019 | UPDATED: 13:56 EDT, 4 October 2019




  • e-mail
152shares
14
View comments



A British businessman in his 70s and his Filipina wife are thought to have been abducted by four gunmen with a 'personal grudge' in the Philippines earlier today.
Allan and his wife Wilma Hyron were targeted by kidnappers in Tukuran, the southern province of Zamboanga del Sur, Police Corporal Noriel Borromeo told CNN Philippines.
The couple were taken from a beach resort they own before their attackers fled in two directions, reports claim.
Allan and his wife Wilma Hyron were targeted by kidnappers in Tukuran (file image)


+2
Allan and his wife Wilma Hyron were targeted by kidnappers in Tukuran (file image)
RELATED ARTICLES
SHARE THIS ARTICLE
Share
The couple were taken from a beach resort they own in Tukuran, the southern province of Zamboanga del Sur,  before their attackers fled in two directions, it has been reported


+2
The couple were taken from a beach resort they own in Tukuran, the southern province of Zamboanga del Sur, before their attackers fled in two directions, it has been reported
A friend posted on Twitter: 'Hello guys. I really don't know how to say this but my mom's friend and her husband were kidnapped on 6pm earlier at Tukuran and your prayers would be very much helpful.

'Thank you all so much. God bless and stay safe everyone.'
The couple also owns the Hyron College Philippines in the same town and police say the abduction could have been motivated be a 'personal grudge', according to CNN.
A police manhunt has been launched to locate the couple, OneTVPhilippines reports. It is ongoing.

Brit man in 70s and wife ‘kidnapped from Philippines beach resort by armed gang and bundled into boats’
BREAKING
  • Georgia Diebelius
  • 4 Oct 2019, 16:20
  • Updated: 4 Oct 2019, 21:38
A HUNT has been launched to track down a British couple allegedly kidnapped from a beach resort in the Philippines.
A man in his 70s and his wife reportedly vanished after being confronted by four armed abductors in Tukuran, Zamboanga del Sur, who then fled on boats in two directions.
 The couple were last seen being targeted in Zamboanga del Sur
1
The couple were last seen being targeted in Zamboanga del Sur
Captain Clint Antipala, of the Army’s 1st Infantry Division, said the couple are believed to have been led to the two motorised outriggers before they split in different directions.
One allegedly headed towards the open seas of Yllana Bay and the other towards Sultan Naga Dimappro in Lanao del Norte.

SEPARATE DIRECTIONS
The incident happened around 6.50pm and officials are unsure which direction the couple were taken - or if they were separated.
A friend posted on Twitter: "Hello guys. I really don't know how to say this but my mom's friend and her husband were kidnapped on 6pm earlier at Tukuran and your prayers would be very much helpful.
"Thank you all so much. God bless and stay safe everyone."
According to OneTVPhilippines, police have launched a manhunt in a bid to find the couple.
 

AnOminous

I'm not mad at anyone, honest.
True & Honest Fan
Retired Staff
kiwifarms.net
Here is an interesting article from the New York Times, stalwart defenders of American values, such as decrying the right to free speech which permits their existance and other unforgivable inexcusable treasonous musings. I urge you not to examine the author or his religious and ethnic origins, or else you might be tempted to commit a holocaust. That is naughty and will certainly put you on Santa's naughty list.

Shield thy heart

Remember, these people love their country.
What a pack of traitors. [insert edgy Sam Hyde quote here]
 

neverendingmidi

it just goes on and on and on and on...
kiwifarms.net
Dental Hygienist loses license for doing a dental cleaning on fiancee.

Apparently dentists in Ontario and dental hygienists in every other providence can perform their job on their loved ones, but in Ontario a dental hygienist can't have sex with a client. This is supposedly to avoid sexual harassment, and either he or she posted a pic showing her smiling after he treated her teeth and an anonymous complaint was filed.
 

Elwood P. Dowd

President of the Maxliam Fan Club.
kiwifarms.net
No more shit on the streets of India. The Prime Minister says so. (But some h8rs doubt him.) Interesting way to celebrate Ghandi's 150th birthday, I guess.


Modi declares India open defecation free, claim questioned
PM Narendra Modi declares India ODF on Mahatma Gandhi's 150th birth anniversary but experts remain sceptical.

New Delhi, India - Khatija, 40, a resident of JP Colony in New Delhi's Rama Krishna Puram area walks half a mile (about 1km) every day to Nehru Ekta Colony to use a community toilet.
"There is not a single toilet in our colony," she told Al Jazeera.
"Every day, there is a queue outside the toilet and people have to wait for their turns. Sometimes for more than half an hour," Khatija said. "Those who are in an emergency defecate in open. What choice do we have?" she asked.
READ MORE
Mission Clean India: Building one latrine at a time
Wednesday marks 150 years of iconic Indian freedom fighter Mahatma Gandhi's birth, a day dedicated by the Indian government to its sanitation goals.
Five years ago, when Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi launched the ambitious Swachh Bharat (Clean India) campaign, he had announced October 2, 2019, as the day India will be free of open defecation free (ODF) - a claim he made in a speech on Wednesday evening.
"In 60 months, 600 million people have been given access to toilets, more than 110 million toilets have been built. The whole world is amazed to hear this," Modi told a crowd in Ahmedabad city.
Meanwhile, in Khatija's neighbouring colony, things looked no different.
Dimple Peter, a local social worker, claimed that for a population of more than 800 people, there is just one community toilet with 10 latrines.
"The toilets are often stinky and dirty," she told Al Jazeera. "Sometimes people think it is better to defecate in open as stinky toilets may lead to diseases."
Residents said they are forced to defecate in the open as there are not enough community toilets to cater for a large number of people. They also said the toilets remain closed at night.
"The community toilets remain open from 5am till 9pm. Where will the people go during the night hours?" asked Ahsan-ud Din, 40, who runs a poultry shop.
ODF was the main objective of the Clean India campaign, which aimed to build 120 million toilets across the country by October 2, 2019.
Its other goals included cleaning up streets and other public infrastructure, achieving 100 percent door-to-door waste collection, building solid waste management plants in each town, and persuading Indians to adopt better sanitation practices.
"A clean India would be the best tribute India could pay to Mahatma Gandhi on his 150 birth anniversary in 2019," Modi had said while launching the campaign in 2014.
The next five years saw numerous politicians, sportspersons and Bollywood stars participating in a government-sponsored publicity blitz to promote the Clean India campaign, involving millions of dollars.
Before Modi's speech on Wednesday, the Indian government had already claimed constructing over 100 million of the 120 million toilets planned across the country.
Swachh Bharat Mission (Urban) director VK Jindal told Al Jazeera that toilets had been built in all urban centres and the target had been 100 percent achieved.
So why were people still defecating in the open in the national capital? Jindal blamed "the migrant population which does not stay permanently at one place".
READ MORE
Gates Foundation criticised over award to Indian PM Modi
Last week, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation gave Modi the "Global Goalkeeper" award for the Clean India campaign and for publicising the benefits of sanitation and hygiene.
The New York-based foundation was widely criticised for its decision and one of its employees quit in protest.

Experts said that while the construction of toilets has increased, lack of water, poor maintenance and slow changes in behaviour have stood in the way of ending the practice.
READ MORE
India lower caste still removing human waste
The Research Institute for Compassionate Economics (RICE) surveyed 3,235 households in four north Indian states in 2014 and 2018.
Their research, released in January this year, found that open defecation had reduced by 26 percent since Clean India was launched and access to household toilets increased from 37 percent in 2014 to 71 percent in 2018.
However, the study found that 23 percent of people who owned a toilet continued to defecate in the open, including in Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh states, which have been declared ODF.
"During our research, we saw people defecating in the open in villages that were otherwise declared ODF," said Nazar Khalid, a research fellow at RICE.
"We also found latrine construction was often accomplished through coercion. People were told that if they did not build toilets, they will not get benefits under various government schemes," he added.
Avani Kapur of the Centre for Policy Research (CPR) said it was too soon to declare India ODF as challenges remained on sustainable toilet technology, and safe cleaning and disposal of waste.
"We may lose momentum by calling ourselves completely ODF," she said.
But the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) claims the goals of the Clean India campaign have been "almost reached".
"A huge behavioural change has been witnessed among people across India since the mission was launched," BJP spokesman Shahnawaz Hussain told Al Jazeera.
READ MORE
Meet the 'toilet man of India'
"The mission has almost achieved its goal. We are close to the benchmark," he said. "The dream of Mahatma Gandhi of a clean India is being fulfilled by Prime Minister Modi."
Rejecting the BJP's claims as "bogus", Sanjay Nirupam of the opposition Congress party said people were defecating in the open even in cities such as Mumbai.
"This government is working only to create headlines," he told Al Jazeera by telephone.
"The government should provide the facility to every household and we support the government in that. But to claim that everybody has got a toilet and nobody is going in the open is completely a bogus statement."
 

Elwood P. Dowd

President of the Maxliam Fan Club.
kiwifarms.net
Here is an interesting article from the New York Times, stalwart defenders of American values, such as decrying the right to free speech which permits their existance and other unforgivable inexcusable treasonous musings. I urge you not to examine the author or his religious and ethnic origins, or else you might be tempted to commit a holocaust. That is naughty and will certainly put you on Santa's naughty list.

Shield thy heart

Remember, these people love their country.

Archive, for those who hit a paywall.
 

BoingBoingBoi

bad weird
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
it's a good episode, and banned in china.


‘South Park’ Review: ‘Band In China’ Mocks Hollywood’s Addiction To Chinese Box Office

More sharp political satire from season 23 of South Park, as "Band In China" takes aim at China’s notoriously intolerant censorship laws, and the eagerness of corporations to cater to them.

Last week saw Randy, in the relentless pursuit of profit, ruin the joy of home-grown intoxication for the rest of the town. Now, Randy has the totally unique and original idea to enter the gargantuan market of China, along with the entire cast of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, and all the other Disney acquisitions.

When Randy’s proposition to market an illegal substance somehow doesn’t fly, he finds himself locked away in a dystopian “detention centre”, just like Kyle and Cartman during the last episode. The fact that there are so many human cages for South Park to critique this season is an incredibly depressing reflection on the modern world; perhaps the next episode will take place in India.


Today In: Business

Meanwhile, Stan and his friends who aren’t locked in cages start a death metal band, and quickly catch a movie deal, the plot of which must conform to China’s rigid censorship laws. As the script is continuously rewritten to fit the international market, Stan’s artist ‘tegrity begins to make him deeply uncomfortable.

Of course, Randy’s self-proclaimed ‘tegrity is nothing more than a marketing slogan. After a hilarious encounter with an imprisoned Winnie-the-Pooh (the innocuous bear being banned in China, due to an internet meme), Randy admonishes Chinese officials for their callousness, before enthusiastically suggesting they become business partners.

PROMOTED

This episode certainly doesn’t hold back, highlighting the scale of China’s reported human rights abuses and questioning Hollywood’s growing dependance on overseas box office. Amusingly, it’s even pointed out that these ethical qualms are never discussed with the same level of energy as other, relatively minor scandals targeted by the “PC babies.”

But selling out is nothing new for the entertainment industry, who have been softening the edges of their stories to appeal to as large an audience as possible for many, many decades. Despite Disney’s clumsy attempts to appear woke, the thirst for profit overshadows any genuine ethical intentions of their content creators. Hence, why all the bold, counterculture stuff is on television and not in the bloated blockbusters that require the might of the international box office just to break even.

By the end of the episode, Randy has made a deal with the merciless Mickey Mouse, and assassinates Winnie-the-Pooh in a scene that mirrors the disturbing sight of Anton Chigurh strangling a police officer during No Country For Old Men.

Again, Randy has decided to pursue profit over morality, while Stan makes the difficult decision to abandon fame and fortune in favor of ‘tegrity. This is South Park at its best; smart political satire, strong character development, and a healthy dose of the absurd.

While the show still has a reputation as being aimed at cynical, nihilistic teenagers, South Park is one of the few satirical shows on television willing to make bold statements; compare these last two episodes to the flaccid political commentary dripping out of SNL.

So far, season 23 is proving both hilarious, and depressingly insightful.
 

Super-Chevy454

kiwifarms.net
How much cuck Spain will do? New hotel says no men allowed.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/2019/09/30/spain-women-only-hotel-lets-women-disconnect-stress-mallorca/3820388002/ ( http://archive.fo/PL1os )

On the dreamy island of Mallorca, Som Hotels has created a new kind of getaway: A hotel for women only.

Women and female teens are welcome to stay at Hotel Som Dona, which translates to "we are women." The hotel opened officially on June 14.

The 39-room hotel will offer amenities such as massages, beauty treatments, sports and excursions to the surrounding area.

Som Hotels CEO Joan Enric Capellà told USA TODAY in a statement that the rooms were carefully designed for women who seek relaxation in a Mediterranean environment.

And Mallorca, an island that offers turquoise waters, soft sand and historic towns just a quick hop, skip and a jump from Europe's mainland, is the perfect place to kick back.
Timcast vlogged about this.

One commenter is right on target about "equality".

108johnny
"We want equality!" "You're drafted. Here's your rifle. Front line is that way, and, yes, IEDs hurt."
 

JosephStalin

Vozhd
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Is China Heading For Crisis?

https://bt24news.com/analysis-comment/opinion-is-china-heading-for-crisis/


Yup, just remains to be determined how long it takes to get going.

Many people see just parts of China's outside shine and ignore reality. China has problems we should be glad not to have. You've heard this before from me.

China isn't evenly developed. Go thirty miles out of a mega-city and you go back maybe forty years.

The "one child policy" is biting China in the ass with fangs or steel. The authorities are relaxing this policy, but don't seem to have that many takers. You could have two breadwinners (husband and wife, each the only child) trying to support themselves, their child, and providing at least some support to as many as four in-laws. China has no Social Security system, at least as we have one. Children are intended to be the parent's primary support in old age.

The "one child" policy made having boys a priority. Lots of abortions of female fetuses, lots of infanticides. Now you have millions of Chinese men in their prime productive and reproductive years who will never be able to find a wife. And an increasing number of young Chinese women prefer a career to being a housewife. Some women come from North Korea and other neighboring countries, but nowhere near enough.

Much is made about China's military. See...they have a lot of troops. They have a lot of tanks. They have planes. They have some naval vessels. Seem to able to march in formations okay. And their last real combat experience was...forty years ago. And how much experience do the Chinese have in true combined-arms operations? What power projection capabilities do the Chinese have? If it isn't on a contiguous land frontier, the PLA's gonna have to swim.

The Chinese Communist Party has to devote an ungodly amount of resources to suppress dissent and dissenters. Lots of money, equipment, facilities, people. But people are endlessly inventive, and devise countermeasures for every measure taken. The CCP has a huge Muslim problem in the west. Running camps now.

There is plenty more, but you get my drift.

The CCP simply refuses to realize that rising economic standards cause people to want more freedom, to choose their own leaders. This happened, not without some bloodshed, in South Korea and Taiwan.

Xi's regime appears strong, but is brittle. Undoubtedly he knows it. Undoubtedly Xi and his regime are perplexed about Hong Kong - no-win situation for them any way you go. They are also perplexed at the continuing trade war with the USA. Trump isn't folding. Xi is the guy standing tall, saying "I must maintain this rigid position or all is lost!" And you know how that works out.

So you may be shocked, but shouldn't be surprised by anything that happens in China. And don't be surprised if things happen very quickly. You see, Xi and his regime truly do live in interesting times.






Opinion | Is China Heading for Crisis?

By Bret Stephens October 3, 2019

In 2001, Gordon Chang, an American lawyer who had spent many years in Hong Kong and Shanghai, published a book forebodingly titled “The Coming Collapse of China.” At the time, the thesis seemed improbable, if not preposterous.

It looks a great deal less improbable now.

China — or, rather, the Chinese regime — is in trouble. Tuesday’s gigantic parade in Beijing to celebrate the 70th anniversary of the People’s Republic looked like something out of the late Brezhnev era: endless military pomp and gray old men. Hong Kong is in its fourth straight month of protests, marked and stained by this week’s shooting of an unarmed teenage demonstrator. The Chinese economy is growing at its slowest rate in 27 years, even when going by the overstated official figures.

Meantime, capital is fleeing China — an estimated $1.2 trillion in the past decade — while foreign investors sour on Chinese markets. Beijing’s loudly touted Belt-and-Road initiative looks increasingly like a swamp of corruption, malinvestment and bad debt. Its retaliatory options in the face of Donald Trump’s trade war are bad and few. And General Secretary Xi Jinping has created a cult-of-personality dictatorship in a style unseen since Mao Zedong, China’s last disastrous emperor.

Remember the “Chinese Dream” — Xi’s vision of China as a modern, powerful, and “moderately well-off” state? Forget it. The current task for Chinese leadership is to avoid a full-blown nightmare of international isolation, economic decline, and domestic revolt.

The question is whether that’s still possible.

China’s presumptive trajectory once seemed clear. In domestic affairs: rapid economic reform; slow political opening. Lather, rinse, repeat. In international affairs: peaceful rise; burgeoning clout. It was to be a model of managed development, a Middle Kingdom fit for the 21st century.

That’s not what happened, for reasons that Chang and others saw coming long ago. Rapid growth is easy when labor and capital are plentiful and cheap. But most developing countries inevitably fall into what’s called the middle-income trap, when they no longer have the cost advantages of poor countries but haven’t yet acquired the legal, educational, or technological advantages of rich ones.

It turns out to be a trap few countries escape: Of 101 countries defined as “middle income” in 1960, only 13 rose to high-income by 2008, according to a World Bank report. And some of these countries, like Greece, are prone to slip backward.

Beijing’s dilemmas go deeper. Economic reforms generate sudden riches that are ripe targets for extravagant graft, particularly by powerful state actors. Graft creates incentives for further self-dealing, which distorts economic decision-making and breeds public cynicism. Aggressive anti-corruption drives of the sort carried out by Xi since coming to power often amount to power plays between political factions competing for booty.

The result: more corruption, more cynicism, more repression. How long that can keep going is an open question.
But scholars such as Larry Diamond and Minxin Pei have noted that dictatorships tend to have a roughly 70-year lifespan. At some point, the revolutionary fervor that sustains the first generation of leaders and the will to power that sustains the second gives way to the policy failures, mounting discontents, outside shocks and inner doubts that prove the undoing of the third.

Especially when the regime experiences some kind of blunt trauma, either in the form of a foreign-policy fiasco, an economic shock, or a moral outrage. In its attempts to respond to Hong Kong’s protests, Beijing risks all three.
A policy of hoping the protesters discredit themselves or simply run out of steam shows no sign of working. A Tiananmen-style crackdown would underscore the regime’s brutishness and incompetence, destroy Hong Kong as a global financial capital, and spur China’s neighbors to arm to the teeth and draw closer to Washington.

Accommodating the protesters’ demands, above all the granting of genuine universal suffrage, is the right thing to do, but introduces a democratic principle fatal to the regime’s self-preservation.

Hence the looming crisis. It could be defused, if Beijing guarantees amnesty for all nonviolent protesters and removes the troops it has brought in from the mainland in exchange for a meaningful process of negotiation. Or it could be “solved” through some form of hyper-aggressive policing that stops short of an outright massacre. But that only puts a lid on discontents that will continue to boil.

Skeptics will note that China’s profound cultural aversion to the prospect of political disunity and chaos may incline the mainland Chinese to approve a hard government line with Hong Kong. And nothing in Xi’s actions or manner suggests he suffers from Gorbachev-like misgivings about the nature of the regime he rules or of his right to exercise power by whatever means necessary.

But if the regime’s travails prove anything, it’s that China’s current despot is no more enlightened than despots elsewhere, and China’s people are no less eager to have what people have elsewhere: justice, fairness, rights, freedom from fear, freedom itself. In China’s looming crisis, the human condition shines through.

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.
Bret L. Stephens has been an Opinion columnist with The Times since April 2017. He won a Pulitzer Prize for commentary at The Wall Street Journal in 2013 and was previously editor in chief of The Jerusalem Post.
 

Jasonfan89

Ki ki ki ma ma ma
kiwifarms.net
So I couldn't find a thread on this but apparently even a creature that's been dead for 65 million years isn't immune from virtue signaling

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.them.us/story/sue-the-t-rex-is-a-nonbinary-icon/amp

Sue got her name more or less from Sue Hendrickson the paleontologist who found her as stated in this earth article which isn't as painful as the them one, which also mentions it's possible sue was really female, but when it comes down to wire, Sue is a Fossil that we may never be able to tell exactly what gender it was when it was alive but there's no hiding the fact that the museum housing her is using their invaluable find of a nearly complete T-rex skeleton to virtue signal to the left.
 

theshep

True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
'Final response - SCREW YOU': Doctor struck off over paranoid husband

A doctor accused of running an unusual nocturnal practice has been struck off after a court found she was under the influence of her "paranoid" and "delusional" husband.

Gina Windsor, a general practitioner, came to the attention of the Health Care Complaints Commission following an anonymous complaint that she was sleeping in her car or the nursing homes where she practised, eating dinner at those homes, wearing the same clothes for a week and working all through the night.

It was alleged that she sometimes saw nursing home patients late at night when they were asleep.

But it was her response to the complaint that prompted the health watchdog to seek her deregistration.

According to a judgment in the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal, Dr Windsor responded by letter to the HCCC that the complaint against her was based on "blatant lies and malicious libels written with spiteful intent".

But in a follow-up phone call she largely confirmed aspects of the complaint, explaining that she was on call 24-hours and sometimes slept in her car or at a nursing home if she was too tired to drive, the judgment said.

The Medical Council then requested that she attend a health interview with a panel that included two psychiatrists. She brought along her husband Neil Windsor who, the panel would later report, "answered questions on her behalf, spoke over her and refused to allow her to speak".

However, before he terminated the interview - striking his wife on the shoulder in order to make her stand up and leave - the panel learned that he had written Dr Windsor's response to the complaint, which he believed was part of a larger plot against him because he had written about "Atlantian genocide" on his web page.

He believed that his phone, and those in the interview room, were bugged.

"Mr Windsor was belligerent, paranoid and angry," the panel reported. "He raised his voice and seemed preoccupied by the persecutory and somewhat bizarre beliefs outlined above, which appeared to be of a delusional nature."

The panel raised concerns that Dr Windsor was "unduly influenced" by her husband and that this could place the public in danger if she acted on his delusional beliefs. She appeared to share his belief that her phone was bugged.

A psychiatrist given access to interview transcripts and letters formed the opinion that there was a strong suggestion of a severe mental illness in Mr Windsor, and recommended that Dr Windsor not practise medicine until she could be interviewed separately from her husband to ascertain what was going on. The panel suspended her registration in September 2016 after a hearing she declined to attend, and referred the matter to the HCCC.

Mr Windsor sent an email to the Medical Council. "Final response: SCREW YOU," it read. "All 19 members of the Medical Board of NSW, all employees, all contractors ... are on a WATCH LIST! ... Enjoy life while you still can."

Police were notified, but formed the opinion that he was not capable of carrying out violence against the board.

The HCCC prosecuted Dr Windsor in the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal, alleging that she had a mental impairment that affected her ability to practise medicine, that she had diminished control over her autonomy and a lack of insight into the effects of her relationship with her husband.

The tribunal was unable to find that she suffered from a mental impairment because she had not been assessed by a psychiatrist, but it found last week that she was not competent to practise as a general practitioner and ordered her registration to be cancelled.
 

JosephStalin

Vozhd
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
President Trump's only crime - winning the 2016 election. Hanson hits yet another home run.


https://amgreatness.com/2019/10/06/the-madness-of-progressive-projection/



The Madness of Progressive Projection

The only Trump “crime” was in his winning an election he was not supposed to win. So after the election, prior illegal acts were redefined as legal, and legal ones as illegal.
Victor Davis Hanson October 6, 2019


Strangest among all the many melodramas of the last two weeks were the blaring headlines that President Trump had dared to talk with the Australian Prime Minister—and referenced the role of foreign governments and in particular Australia in U.S. electoral politics in 2016.

Given the hue and cry of Democrats in the last three years, they should have been delighted that the president was peremptorily warning foreign nations to cease to currying favor with presidential candidates and asking them to hand over what information, if any, they had of past “collusion.” In fact, they were outraged and once again returned to “collusion” charges, as if Trump were subverting the 2020 election.

I Accuse You of Doing What I Did!
Unfortunately, projection is now an encompassing explanation for almost everything the Left alleges. After all, the Australian government’s own connection with U.S. elections is only on the American political radar because in 2016 its former foreign minister, Alexander Downer, who had steered a large Australian donation to the Clinton Foundation, may have colluded with intelligence agencies to entrap George Papadopoulos, a minor and transient Trump campaign employee, to find dirt on the Trump campaign. Bringing up Australia is like the Left leaving a scented trail to its own past miscreant behavior.

Take the Ukraine. It would be hard for any Democrat politico to argue that Ukraine was not involved in 2016 to feed faux-charges of “collusion” to Hillary Clinton—a fact even the liberal press once repeatedly conceded. Ukrainians were only too happy to meet and consult with U.S. intelligence officials when they assumed Hillary Clinton was to be elected, and their yeoman service in frying the sure loser Trump would somehow be appreciated and awarded.
When Joe Biden makes the accusation that Trump was colluding with the new Ukrainian president to reopen investigation of the Biden influence-peddling conglomerate, naturally we knew that Ukraine in general had been leveraged in the past to help the Clinton campaign, and by Biden himself in particular to enrich his own son. Poor contorted Ukraine now backpedals as fast as it can—from trying to help destroy Trump in 2016 to suggesting in 2019 that it regrets having done so. And soon it will hedge its cooperation in 2020—unsure whether the Democrat colluders of 2016 will return to power and it can expect to be punished for renouncing them in 2019.

In surreal fashion, every charge that Biden levels against Trump’s supposed thought crimes amounts to more evidence of his own real wrongdoing in using threats to cut off aid to a foreign nation in exchange for dropping investigation of his wayward son. The latter’s only apparent qualifications for employment are shameless readiness to play on his father’s position.

Projection as a Leftist symptom came to the fore during the Mueller investigation when Mueller’s dream team of progressive attorneys began pressuring a number of minor Trump former campaign officials, and eventually his national security advisor, on trumped up charges—from leaking sensitive documents, to obstruction of justice, to lying to federal officials, to collusion (whatever that non-legal term denotes) with foreign governments and in particular Russia. In each case, Mueller ended up hunting down possible misdemeanors while ignoring likely felonies.

Leaking? By James Comey’s own admissions he had leaked confidential presidential memos he composed for the expressed purpose of later using them as insurance policies against Trump, some of which material was classified as secret.

As far as lying to federal officials, Mueller simply ignored that Andrew McCabe was under federal referrals for lying to investigators about his own strategic leaking of FBI investigatory material. Both McCabe and Comey likely lied to a FISA court by not apprising judges that their prime evidence, the Steele dossier, was not verified, its foreign author severed from FBI contractual employment, and many of its assertions known to be demonstrably untrue.

The Left has accused critics of Biden of indulging in supposition and hearsay and using unnamed sources—despite the fired Ukrainian prosecutor’s insistence that he was dismissed due to Biden’s interference and demands to end the investigation into the likely criminality of Biden’s own son Hunter. Yet, the so-called “whistleblower” complaint admittedly is without any firsthand evidence, and rests entirely on two nothings—second and third-hand information the complainant claims he heard, and sources within the White House for such rumors that remain anonymous, in other words accusers of the president who refuse to identify themselves.

In truth, the “whistleblower” is no such thing. He or she is a disgruntled and partisan intelligence bureaucrat, who violated the whistleblower statutes by first going to Rep. Adam Schiff’s (D.-Calif.) staff on the House Intelligence Committee to get help in translating his narrative into Mueller/Steele dossier legalese, and in strategizing the timing of his accusations. Expect a series of John Brennan-surrogate intelligence agency whistleblowers to follow once it is established that now hearsay is admissible and there is no downside to violating the statutes by first conferring with Adam Schiff’s staff.

Conflict of What?
Conflict of Interest? We are hearing allegations that Attorney General Barr cannot investigate any of the whistleblower’s accusations because he is mentioned as interested in learning from the Ukraine any information available concerning 2016 interference into the U.S. election—this coming at a time when a nondescript, mostly unethical and quite disturbed Hunter Biden parlayed his ignorance about foreign affairs, the oil business, and Ukraine into a lucrative “consultantship,” predicated on the wink and nod reality that his dad, who knew quite well what his heretofore miscreant son had landed upon, was overseeing U.S.-Ukrainian aid.

But conflict of interest is in fact the entire basis of the last three years of endless investigations of the 2016 election and purported Trump “collusion.” Do we remember the contortions taken by Andrew McCabe to ignore the fact that he was “investigating” Hillary Clinton emails, shortly after Clinton-related funds were given to his own wife, a candidate for the state legislature in Virginia?

A blatant conflict of interest was the intertwine of Lisa Page and Peter Strzok, two of Mueller’s investigators and previously at the nexus of investigating almost every alleged wrongdoing of Trump. Neither disclosed that they were conducting FBI business as supposed independent investigators while conducting an affair.

Neither disclosed that they were investigating supposed Trump crimes while communicating daily their disgust for Trump, their disdain for his supporters, and their boasts about stopping the Trump candidacy and later his presidency. Neither disclosed why and when they were fired from the Mueller team, perhaps in deference to Robert Mueller’s unethical gambit of staggering their departures, claiming each was merely “reassigned,” and not disclosing their absences until weeks after they left.

Their conflicts of interest turned to farce when we learned that the two helped reclassify their former boss James Comey’s secret memos of presidential conversations as non-felonious “confidential”—a sort of replay of Strzok’s earlier rewording of the Comey assessment of the Clinton email scandal to ensure she would not be charged with a felony.

The locus classicus of conflict of interest was the Loretta Lynch/James Comey investigation of candidate Hillary Clinton. Comey has admitted he handled the Clinton examination in expectation she would win the presidency (and thus become his new boss). Lynch has confessed (but only after being caught by the media) that she met secretly with Bill Clinton at a time when the Justice Department was supposedly investigating his wife. We are asked to believe that their respective private jets actually bumped into each other on the Phoenix tarmac (someone should count the nation’s average daily landings of private jets and compute the possibility of such a happenstance meeting) and that they suddenly decided to have a chat about their grandchildren and other mutual family gossip.

The Collusion Boomerang
Collusion? Mueller found no proof that Trump colluded with Russian officials. But to come to such a conclusion, by needs he had to ignore all the evidence leading to an open and shut case, that Hillary Clinton used three firewalls—the Democratic National Committee, the Perkins Coie legal firm, and Fusion GPS opposition research team—to hide her payments to British national Christopher Steele, an admitted Trump-hater, who hired Russian fabricators to find dirt on Trump, and then created a mostly mythical “dossier” on Clinton’s opponent.

In turn, the dossier was seeded among fellow traveler Trump haters in the DOJ, FBI, DNI, and CIA like Bruce Ohr, John Brennan, James Clapper, James Comey, and Andrew McCabe. These partisan allies of the Democrats working in government made sure that it was leaked to the media before the 2016 election.

Obstruction? Trump was not referred for wrongdoing on obstruction, because even the partisan Mueller team believed that they could never indict him after his tenure was over, given the paucity of actionable evidence. After all, it is hard to obstruct justice if a crime did not take place. But given that a FISA court was deluded, classified documents leaked, government officials caught lying, and foreign governments found to have compiled dirt on a presidential candidate, and no one yet has been charged—the question arises, “Why?”

Who made the decision to quash the investigation of Hillary Clinton after she destroyed over 30,000 emails under subpoena? Who excused Obama officials after they knowingly misled federal FISA court justices? Who leaked information about a surveilled phone call between Michael Flynn and the Russian ambassador? Who decided that it was acceptable for Samantha Power to request over 260 times the unmasking of names of American citizens swept up in government surveillance, many of which were illegally leaked to the press and most of which Power denied requesting and alleged others had used her name to do so? Somewhere, somehow there was a great deal of obstruction and distortion of justice that so far has prevented the pursuit of these criminal acts.

Destruction of evidence? House Democrats are demanding that the supposed transcript of the Trump phone call to the Ukrainian president be kept safe, as if it might “disappear.” This in the aftermath of revelations that Hillary Clinton bleach-bitted over 30,000 of her emails under subpoena, and had her mobile devices crushed. This in the aftermath of the Mueller teams and FBI sheepishly conceding that hundreds of text messages between Lisa Page and Peter Strzok simply “disappeared.” This in the aftermath of the hard drives of the supposed hacked DNC computer never being turned over to the FBI but instead to the Ukrainian connected Crowdstrike, and whose current whereabouts are not really known to this day.

Recently David Gergen warned that if the “whistleblower” were injured, it would be Trump’s fault. I am assuming Gergen knows that three presidential candidates have boasted of their desires to beat up the president or see him disappear for good in an elevator. Rhetorically killing the president is a favorite pastime of Hollywood celebrities. Does Gergen remember the fate of Rep. Steve Scalise (R.-La.) and the attempted take-out of the many Republican congressional leadership by an unhinged Bernie Sanders zealot? Or the threats issued by Rep. Maxine Waters (D.-Calif.) to hound and harass Trump officials throughout their daily routines?

The Nature of Projection
A cynic might conclude that the last past wasted three years were really not about Trump at all. He was entirely irrelevant, and was referenced largely as a means to preempt investigation of massive Obama-era illegality in 2016, which centered on warping the law to destroy his supposed widely detestable and dangerous campaign that threatened Democratic control of the government. As a result, in almost every instance of alleged Trump wrongdoing the accusers only bring attention to themselves and their own actual wrongdoing.

What is behind this strange collective psychological condition of projecting one’s own guilt on to another? In part, out of embarrassment that Hillary Clinton blew an election despite having the edge in money, the media, and the popular culture, Trump was recalibrated as a cheater. Otherwise it was impossible to accept that the Manhattan wheeler-dealer had outsmarted, out-campaigned, and out-hustled the progressives’ best and brightest—and worse yet might have every intention of keeping his campaign promises to undo the entire Obama agenda.

For tens of thousands of government careerists, by and large political partisans of the Democrats, using any means necessary was justified by the supposedly noble ends of ending the coarse Trump. Groupthink ensued that led to mass hysteria, as the fantasies needed to invoke the 25th Amendment, the Logan Act, and the emoluments clause, meant that their own “collusion” and “obstruction” simply no longer mattered. One would have thought Trump got caught on a hot mic offering a quid pro quo to Vladimir Putin or monitoring the communications of Associated Press reporters.

Instead the zeal and loudness with which one advanced Trump collusion narratives brought both careerist and psychological rewards. The old scandals like Uranium One, the shenanigans around the Iran Deal, the hot mic Obama quid pro quos, and the Hillary email fix were shrugged off, as proof of progressive zeal put to a good cause. To raise the question of unequal application of the law is now dismissed as “whataboutism.”

In sum, had Trump just lost the election, the illegal use of the intelligence agencies by Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama’s administration would have been an insider topic of pride. A now defeated and humiliated Trump would never have been charged with collusion and obstruction during the 2016 campaign. Instead, he would be written off a naïf who never understood leftwing warnings analogous to Senator Chuck Schumer’s (D.-N.Y.) later admonition, that Trump was being “really dumb,” given that, “You take on the Intelligence Community, they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you.” Or Samantha Power’s postelection smirk, “Not a good idea to piss off John Brennan.”

The only Trump “crime” was in his winning an election he was not supposed to win, which then “pissed” off the wrong people and of course amounted to acting “dumb” with the intelligence agencies. So after the election, prior illegal acts were redefined as legal, and legal ones as illegal.
https://amgreatness.com/2019/10/06/the-madness-of-progressive-projection/
 
Tags
None

About Us

The Kiwi Farms is about eccentric individuals and communities on the Internet. We call them lolcows because they can be milked for amusement or laughs. Our community is bizarrely diverse and spectators are encouraged to join the discussion.

We do not place intrusive ads, host malware, sell data, or run crypto miners with your browser. If you experience these things, you have a virus. If your malware system says otherwise, it is faulty.

Supporting the Forum

How to Help

The Kiwi Farms is constantly attacked by insane people and very expensive to run. It would not be here without community support.

BTC: 1DgS5RfHw7xA82Yxa5BtgZL65ngwSk6bmm
ETH: 0xc1071c60Ae27C8CC3c834E11289205f8F9C78CA5
BAT: 0xc1071c60Ae27C8CC3c834E11289205f8F9C78CA5
LTC: LSZsFCLUreXAZ9oyc9JRUiRwbhkLCsFi4q
XMR: 438fUMciiahbYemDyww6afT1atgqK3tSTX25SEmYknpmenTR6wvXDMeco1ThX2E8gBQgm9eKd1KAtEQvKzNMFrmjJJpiino