Why does this make me think of John Bolton and Mike Pompeo?
China on Sunday defended the bloody Tiananmen crackdown on student protesters in a rare public acknowledgement of the event, days before its 30th anniversary, saying it was the “correct” policy. After seven weeks of protests by students and workers demanding democratic change and the end of corruption, soldiers and tanks chased and killed demonstrators and onlookers in the streets leading to Beijing’s Tiananmen Square on June 4 1989. Hundreds, or possibly more than 1,000, were killed, although the precise number of deaths remains unknown. “That incident was a political turbulence and the central government took measures to stop the turbulence which is a correct policy,” Chinese defence minister General Wei Fenghe told a regional security forum in Singapore.
Wei asked why people still say that China “did not handle the incident properly”. “The 30 years have proven that China has undergone major changes,” he said in response to a question from the audience, adding that because of the government’s action at that time “China has enjoyed stability and development”. Bonnie Glaser, a China expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, said she was surprised at the question on Tiananmen raised at an open forum after Wei’s speech, but the fact that the general answered it was “unusual”. People may dispute Wei’s answer “but at least I can give him credit for taking the question”, Glaser added.
Inside China an army of online censors have scrubbed clean social media, removing articles, memes, hash-tags or photos alluding to the Tiananmen crackdown ahead of June 4. Discussions of the 1989 pro-democracy protests and their brutal suppression are strictly taboo, and authorities have rounded up or warned activists, lawyers and journalists ahead of the anniversary each year. Talking privately with family and friends about Tiananmen is possible, but any commemoration in public risks almost certain arrest.
More Bolton and Pompeo. the US and China could swap “leaders” and nothing would change.
China’s defense minister warned Sunday that its military will “resolutely take action” to defend Beijing’s claims over self-ruled Taiwan and disputed South China Sea waters. Speaking at an annual security conference in Singapore, Gen. Wei Fenghe did not direct the threat at the U.S. but loaded his address with criticism of activities by Washington, including support for Taiwan and leading so-called freedom of navigation operations in the strategic waterways that China virtually claims as its own. Wei said the People’s Liberation Army would not “yield a single inch of the country’s sacred land.”
China’s ruling Communist Party maintains that Taiwan is part of China, and has used increasingly aggressive rhetoric toward the democratic island, which split from the mainland amid a civil war 70 years ago. It opposes Taiwan’s independence and formally says it seeks a “peaceful reunification” while refusing to rule out the use of force if necessary to achieve that goal. “The PLA has no intention to cause anybody trouble but it is not afraid to face up to troubles. Should anybody risk crossing the bottom line, the PLA will resolutely take action and defeat all enemies,” Wei said.
Relations between Beijing and Taipei have deteriorated since Taiwan elected a pro-independence president, Tsai Ing-wen, in 2016. China has since increased diplomatic pressure, cut off its contacts with the island’s government and discouraged travel there by Chinese tourists. “China must be and will be reunified. We find no excuse not to do so. If anyone dares to split Taiwan from China, the Chinese military has no choice but to fight at all costs, at all costs, for national unity,” Wei stressed. “We will strive for the prospect of peaceful unification with utmost sincerity and greatest efforts, but we make no promise to renounce the use of force.” Wei was addressing defense chiefs, officials and academics at the Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore.
U.S. Acting Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan, who spoke to the same gathering on Saturday, was not present at Wei’s speech. Shanahan called China’s efforts to steal technology from other nations and militarize man-made outposts in the South China Sea a “toolkit of coercion” and urged it to stop activities the U.S. perceives as hostile. China is pitted against smaller Southeast Asian neighbors in multiple disputes over island reefs, corals and lagoons in the South China Sea, where it constructed seven outposts equipped with airstrips, radar and missile stations that Shanahan said Saturday could become “tollbooths” in one of the world’s busiest waterways.
On this, China is getting nervous.
Washington’s escalating trade war with Beijing has not “made America great again” and has instead damaged the American economy, China said Sunday, warning that while it wants resolution through talks there will be no compromise on core principles. Beijing’s broadside is the latest act in a bruising conflict between the world’s top two economies that has spooked markets and sparked fears about the global economy. With trade talks stalled, the dispute has intensified in recent weeks with US President Donald Trump imposing fresh tariffs on imports from China and moving to blacklist Chinese tech titan Huawei over national security concerns.
“The (US) tariff measures have not boosted American economic growth. Instead, they have done serious harm to the US economy,” the Chinese government said in a white paper, pointing to what it described as increased production costs and consumer prices in the United States and threats to economic growth. “The trade war has not ‘made America great again’,” it said, referring to Trump’s political slogan made famous during his 2016 presidential campaign. The white paper’s release came a day after China hit $60 billion worth of US goods with new punitive tariffs ranging from five to 25 percent, in retaliation for Washington raising duty on $200 billion in Chinese goods to 25 percent.
Nervous walking back.
Chinese Vice Commerce Minister Wang Shouwen said on Sunday the United States overestimates the trade deficit between the two countries and China should not be blamed for job losses in the U.S. manufacturing sector. Wang told a news conference the U.S. goods and services deficit with China is actually closer to $150 billion and not the $410 billion quoted by U.S. officials. China’s processing trade with the United States should not be included in trade deficit calculations, he added. Wang said China should not be blamed for job losses in the U.S. manufacturing sector. He also said China does not instruct domestic companies to acquire certain projects and technology.
Wang said the commerce ministry is investigating reports of delays in customs checks, adding that the country will make efforts to cut the length of customs checks and reduce costs for importers. Wang said that it is “unacceptable” if some countries use rare earths from China to create products that limit China’s development, and he said China is willing to meet other countries’ requirements for rare earth consumption.
Hunt is just a sociopath. Britain’s class society guarantees people like him float to the top. But where are the protests from more normal people regarding Assange? Or has the country run out of normal people?
A free media is an essential “pillar of a thriving society”, Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt has insisted. Mr Hunt spoke out on the role of journalists in “holding the powerful to account, exposing wrongdoing, deterring corruption and strengthening democracy”. The Tory leadership hopeful will host the world’s first ministerial summit on media freedom in London next month. He said: “We can’t physically stop journalists from being locked up for doing their jobs, but we can alert global public opinion and make sure the diplomatic price is too high.” Mr Hunt used his speech to the World News Media Congress in Glasgow to pay tribute to murdered journalist Lyra McKee, who was shot dead while working in Northern Ireland in April.
He said the “senseless killing of a talented young journalist showed here in the United Kingdom we too have no cause for complacency”. And he also hailed Reuters journalists Wa Lone and Kyaw Soe Oo, who spent more than 500 days in jail in Burma after reporting on the massacre of 10 Rohingya Muslims. Mr Hunt is now working with Canadian foreign affairs minister Chrystia Freeland to “shine a spotlight on abuses and raise the cost for those who harm journalists for doing their jobs”.
What you get in a class system.
More than 130,000 deaths in the UK since 2012 could have been prevented if improvements in public health policy had not stalled as a direct result of austerity cuts, according to a hard-hitting analysis to be published this week. The study by the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) thinktank finds that, after two decades in which preventable diseases were reduced as a result of spending on better education and prevention, there has been a seven-year “perfect storm” in which state provision has been pared back because of budget cuts, while harmful behaviours among people of all ages have increased.
Had progress been maintained at pre-2013 rates, around 131,000 lives could have been saved, the IPPR concludes. Despite promises made during the NHS’s 70th birthday celebrations last year to prioritise prevention, the UK is now only halfway up a table of OECD countries on its record for tackling preventable diseases. The report is concerned with preventable diseases or disorders such as heart disease, lung cancer or liver problems, which can be caused by unhealthy lifestyles and habits, formed often at a young age. It finds evidence of disturbing reductions in physical activity in schools and chronic underfunding of health visitors.
The lead researcher and author, Dean Hochlaf, said: “We have seen progress in reducing preventable disease flatline since 2012. At the same time, local authorities have seen significant cuts to their public health budgets, which has severely impacted the capacity of preventative services. “Social conditions for many have failed to improve since the economic crisis, creating a perfect storm that encourages harmful health behaviours. This health challenge will only continue to worsen.”
Let him have it if no-one stands up for Assange. Corbyn is silent on the topic, which makes him a useless tool.
Nigel Farage’s Brexit party has surged into first place as voters’ favourites, according to a new poll. It is the first time the party has achieved top position in a national poll. The results suggest hundreds of Conservative seats are at risk. The Brexit party’s support increased by two points to 26% of the vote in the latest Opinium poll – for the Observer – which asked people how they would vote in the next Westminster election. Labour is in second place on 22%, but its support has fallen by seven points over the past two weeks. The Tories are third on 17%, with their support down five points, and the Lib Dems are up five points, on 16% of the vote.
These results come after a poll last week put the Lib Dems in first place, in another sign that parties with a clear position on Brexit are gaining support while the Conservatives and Labour continue to grapple with their stances on leaving the EU. Both parties are under pressure to set out their pro-Brexit or pro-Remain positions more unequivocally. According to a seat predictor by the Electoral Calculus website, the result would leave Farage 20 seats short of a majority, with 306 MPs. The Conservatives would be reduced to 26 MPs, suggesting they could be the minor party in a coalition with Farage. However, inconsistent swings in different seats make any such predictions very difficult.
Ed Davey is the MP for Kingston and Surbiton. He’s been in a coma for the past 3 years. And failed to see how toxic Brexit has become.
First, this backbench coalition must come together to prevent an incoming Tory leader proroguing parliament and forcing a no-deal Brexit on an increasingly doubtful public. If Boris Johnson tried that, it would be an effective putsch or coup d’etat against parliament. MPs who vote to stop such a hard Brexit no-deal coup would, in effect, self-select as supporters of a national government. This is no attempt to gain power through coalition. Such a government of national unity would be short-lived and have one policy: to deliver a referendum. Even if more policy agreement could be found, there would be no point: as Theresa May has demonstrated, government currently lacks bandwidth to deliver Brexit, let alone more.
After a referendum, there would soon have to be a general election. Other MPs could return to their parties, and as Liberal Democrat leader I would take my party back into opposition and fight to win that election. But in parliament today we should recognise that Brexit has broken the party system. And just as one party proved incapable of delivering Brexit, so we will need more than one party to stop Brexit. Meanwhile, we need pro-European Labour figures who voted LibDem in their thousands to join us to give this move momentum (in the genuine sense of the word). I disagreed profoundly with Alastair Campbell and co over Iraq, but on the great issue of today we are on the same side against hard-right, dangerous nationalism.
Maybe it takes the New York Times for people to wake up. It’s not a software problem.
The fatal flaws with Boeing’s 737 Max can be traced to a breakdown late in the plane’s development, when test pilots, engineers and regulators were left in the dark about a fundamental overhaul to an automated system that would ultimately play a role in two crashes. A year before the plane was finished, Boeing made the system more aggressive and riskier. While the original version relied on data from at least two types of sensors, the ultimate used just one, leaving the system without a critical safeguard. In both doomed flights, pilots struggled as a single damaged sensor sent the planes into irrecoverable nose-dives within minutes, killing 346 people and prompting regulators around the world to ground the Max.
But many people involved in building, testing and approving the system, known as MCAS, said they hadn’t fully understood the changes. Current and former employees at Boeing and the Federal Aviation Administration who spoke with The New York Times said they had assumed the system relied on more sensors and would rarely, if ever, activate. Based on those misguided assumptions, many made critical decisions, affecting design, certification and training. “It doesn’t make any sense,” said a former test pilot who worked on the Max. “I wish I had the full story.”
[..] At first, MCAS — Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System — wasn’t a very risky piece of software. The system would trigger only in rare conditions, nudging down the nose of the plane to make the Max handle more smoothly during high-speed moves. And it relied on data from multiple sensors measuring the plane’s acceleration and its angle to the wind, helping to ensure that the software didn’t activate erroneously. Then Boeing engineers reconceived the system, expanding its role to avoid stalls in all types of situations. They allowed the software to operate throughout much more of the flight. They enabled it to aggressively push down the nose of the plane. And they used only data about the plane’s angle, removing some of the safeguards.
[..] The current and former employees, many of whom spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the continuing investigations, said that after the first crash, they were stunned to discover MCAS relied on a single sensor. “That’s nuts,” said an engineer who helped design MCAS. “I’m shocked,” said a safety analyst who scrutinized it. “To me, it seems like somebody didn’t understand what they were doing,” said an engineer who assessed the system’s sensors.
In case of a next accident, they want to spread the blame.
Airlines urged regulators on Sunday to coordinate on software changes to the Boeing 737 MAX in a bid to avoid damaging splits over safety seen when the aircraft was grounded in March. The International Air Transport Association (IATA), whose 290 carriers account for 80 percent of world flying, said trust in the certification system had been damaged by a wave of separate decisions to ground the jet, with the U.S. last to act. Airlines are worried further differences between regulators over safety could confuse passengers and cause disruption. “Any rift between regulators is not in anyone’s interest,” IATA Director General Alexandre de Juniac told an annual meeting of the association in Seoul.
Boeing’s best-selling jet was grounded after two crashes, in Indonesia and Ethiopia, over five months killed a total of 346 people. The Federal Aviation Administration initially resisted the decisions led by China, but later followed suit. Airline officials say any new bout of staggered decisions could cause problems in operations and code-sharing. “Obviously for us to operate the MAX, the approval from the Singapore authorities is not enough. We have to operate somewhere … Indonesia and China are two important markets for us,” Singapore Airlines CEO Goh Choon Phong told Reuters. But the European Union’s top transport official said bloc’s regulator, the European Aviation Safety Agency, reserved the right to carry out its own separate review at its own pace.
The European Union will work with other regulators on the approval of new software for the Boeing 737 MAX but reserves the right to take its own decision on when to return the grounded jet to service, the bloc’s transport chief said on Sunday. “Certainly EASA will take a very close look at the results (of proposed design changes) and then make a decision and that message was very clearly passed,” Transport Commissioner Violeta Bulc said, referring to the European Aviation Safety Agency. “We always work together with other regulators and we certainly will take joint moves, but EASA will reserve the right to take an individual look at the results and then of course engage with the rest of the regulators,” she told Reuters. Asked how long it would take to resolve the Boeing crisis, she said, “I hope as soon as possible because we do need to restore order and trust and move on”.
We recently learned that a young woman falsely posing as a freelance BBC reporter at one of the Roundup cancer trials was in fact a “reputation management” consultant for FTI Consulting, whose clients include Monsanto. The woman spent time with journalists who were covering the Hardeman v Monsanto trial in San Francisco, pretending to do reporting while also suggesting to the real reporters certain storylines or points that favored Monsanto. Lawyer Tim Litzenburg, who represents several plaintiffs suing Monsanto over claims Roundup causes cancer, told me that he has traced what he calls a “dark money project” by Monsanto aimed at winning favorable public opinion.
The project includes planting helpful news articles in traditional news outlets; discrediting and harassing journalists who refused to parrot the company’s propaganda; and secretly funding front groups to amplify pro-Monsanto messaging across social media platforms. “We now know they had pet journalists who pushed Monsanto propaganda under the guise of ‘objective reporting,’” Litzenburg, a partner with the firm Kincheloe, Litzenburg & Pendleton, told me. “At the same time, the chemical company sought to amass dossiers to discredit those journalists who were brave enough to speak out against them.” According to the internal Monsanto documents Litzenburg has received through discovery, pro-Monsanto narratives are disseminated by individuals and groups that promote the work of journalists who follow Monsanto’s desired storylines while seeking to smear and discredit journalists whose work threatens Monsanto.
The extinction of all that you don’t know.
Solenodons are some of Earth’s strangest creatures. Venomous, nocturnal and insectivorous, they secrete toxins through their front teeth – an unusual habit for a mammal. More to the point, the planet’s two remaining species – the Cuban and the Hispaniolan solenodon, both highly endangered – have endured, virtually unchanged, for the past 76 million years. Other related species have become extinct. And that makes solenodons very important, according to Professor Sam Turvey, of the Zoological Society of London. “They are the last fruits on an entire branch of the tree of evolution,” said Turvey, who was last month awarded one of the most prestigious awards in zoology, the Linnean medal, for his work on evolution and human impacts on wildlife.
“There are no close counterparts to solenodons left on Earth, yet they have been on the planet since the time of the dinosaurs.” Solenodons have been brought close to extinction by the mongoose, the carnivore introduced to their native islands to kill snakes and rodents. They are classic examples of an “Edge” – evolutionary distinct and globally endangered – species. This means they have no close relatives and represent our last chances to preserve entire branches or trunks of the evolutionary tree. Other examples include the critically endangered vaquita, a species of porpoise from the Gulf of California, and the Sumatran rhino.
“A lot of attention is paid to other threatened rhino species,” said Turvey, “but the Sumatran, which is down to only a few dozen survivors, is the only woolly rhino left on the planet. It is special.” These animals stand in contrast with other threatened species which have close relatives that fill similar ecological niches. The polar bear, for example, is closely related to the grizzly. Should the former die out, the latter could provide a fair amount of genetic substitution, say scientists. By contrast, there is no species that could do the same for solenodons.
The endangered Sumatran rhino, Hainan gibbon, Bactrian camel and solenodon. Composite: Alamy, Getty
It is not true that people stop pursuing dreams because they grow old, they grow old because they stop pursuing dreams.
– Gabriel Garcia Márquez