Wednesday, 30 December 2020

World News: China army to test Shandong aircraft carrier in three-day drill

 

China army to test Shandong aircraft carrier in three-day drill

The exercises will also feature China's Type 075 amphibious assault ship.


 , DECEMBER 30, 2020


China's aircraft carrier Liaoning  16 ( sister ship of the Shandong 17 ) takes part in a military drill of Chinese People's Liberation Army (PLA) Navy in the western Pacific Ocean.
(photo credit: STRINGER/ REUTERS)


China will hold a 10-day military exercise in the South China Sea, just off the southern Chinese Coast, in the waters surrounding Hainan.

The drill will begin on Wednesday, according to the South China Morning Post , which cited China’s maritime safety divisions.

Three simultaneous exercises, aimed at bolstering China's military presence in the contested waters, will feature one of the country's newest aircraft carriers, the Shandong, which entered into the Chinese navy last year that will be combat ready within the next few months.

The Shandong 17 aircraft carrier shortly before the commissioning ceremony. (Photo: CCTV1)


 
The exercises will also feature China's Type 075 amphibious assault ship fitted with a helicopter landing dock and "test new equipment which had joined the service over the past year."

“These exercises are arranged according to the PLA’s annual training plan signed by Xi Jinping, Chairman of the Central Military Mission, in January," a People’s Liberation Army (PLA) source told the South China Morning Post.

The drills, which have been in the works for over a month, were postponed earlier in the year due to the ongoing coronavirus pandemic. China states that out of its 2.3 million personnel, that there are currently no reported coronavirus cases within the military.

The Shandong carrier group sailed through the Taiwan Strait a day after a US warship transited the same waterway. China's military said it tailed the ship.

China's navy said the Shandong and its accompanying ships had "smoothly" transited the sensitive and narrow Taiwan Strait on Sunday, heading for exercises in the South China Sea, where China has extensive and disputed territorial gains.

The drills are part of "normal arrangements made in accordance with annual plans," it said. "In the future, we will continue to organize similar operations based on training needs."
The Shandong 17 aircraft carrier towed to the dock at the end of a sea trial campaign. (Photo: Chinese Internet)



Taiwan's Defense Ministry said the Shandong was accompanied by four warships and had set out from the northern Chinese port of Dalian on Thursday. Taiwan said it sent six warships and eight air force aircraft to "stand guard" and monitor the Chinese ships' movements.

The Shandong is China's second carrier, and was formally commissioned almost exactly a year ago.
Since then, it has successfully completed tasks such as carrier-based aircraft take-off and landing and use of its weapons, the Chinese navy said.

"The combat capability of the formation system has been continuously improved in experimental training," it added, referring to the group of warships which accompany the Shandong.

China has been working to hone its carrier operations, but has little experience compared to the United States, which has operated integrated carrier battle groups with multiple vessels for decades. 


Be sure to recommend this page and follow "The Coconut Whisperer" blog at:
https://thecoconutwhisperer.blogspot.com/

US Politics: President Trump is most admired man in 2020, Gallup poll reveals

 

President Trump is most admired man in 2020, Gallup poll reveals


By Mark Moore, New York Post, December 29, 2020

President Donald J. Trump.  Getty Images 

​President Trump tops the list of the most admired man for 2020, according to a Gallup poll released Tuesday.

The annual survey asked respondents which man and woman living anywhere in the world they admired most this year — and 18 percent said Trump and 10 percent named former first lady Michelle Obama, with Vice President-elect Kamala Harris coming in second with 6 percent.

Trump’s first-place finish unseated former President Barack Obama from atop the list — a place he held for the past 12 years.

The president and his predecessor tied last year.

Rounding out the top 10 most admired men are President-elect Joe Biden at 6 percent, Dr. Anthony Fauci at 3 percent, Pope Francis at 2 percent, with Tesla founder Elon Musk, Sen. Bernie Sanders, Microsoft’s Bill Gates, NBA star LeBron James and the Dalai Lama finishing with 1 percent each.

Both Fauci, who is on the president’s coronavirus task force, and James broke into the list for the first time.

Trump ends Obama's reign as 'most admired man in America', Fox News, Dec.29, 2020


First lady Melania Trump came in third among most-admired women with 4 percent, followed by media mogul Oprah Winfrey with 3 percent, and German Chancellor Angela Merkel, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Queen Elizabeth II with 2 percent.

US Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett and environmental activist Greta Thunberg both finished with 1 percent.

Republicans chose Trump as their most admired by 48 percent, and no other public figure got more than 2 percent of Republicans’ votes.

Among Democrats, Obama was selected by 32 percent — down from 41 percent last year.

Fauci was named most admired by 5 percent of Democrats but only 1 percent of Republicans.

Be sure to recommend this page and follow "The Coconut Whisperer" blog at:
https://thecoconutwhisperer.blogspot.com/

Wednesday, 23 December 2020

What You Need to Know About the Latest Coronavirus Stimulus Package

 https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/know-latest-coronavirus-stimulus-package-233317249.html





In the midst of the ongoing novel coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, which has killed more than 300,000 people in the U.S. and disrupted large swaths of the economy, Congress on Monday night passed the latest in a string of stimulus packages this year.

President Donald Trump is expected to sign the bipartisan bill, which includes some $900 billion in relief, sometime this week.

After months of gridlock — with the House of Representatives' Democratic majority passing a $3 trillion bill in May (later trimmed to $2.2 trillion) that was ignored by Senate Republicans, who likewise did not engage with the White House's $1.8 trillion proposal — House and Senate leaders reached an agreement on Sunday for both a pandemic relief package and a $1.4 trillion deal to fund the government through next September.

The coronavirus stimulus is meant to ease the financial pain caused by public health efforts to slow the spread of the pandemic, such as shutdowns and restrictions on indoor dining and events.

Politico reports that the new deal includes $166 billion in direct payments that will take the form of $600 checks to people making less than $75,000 (some people making more will get reduced amounts) as well as $120 billion in enhanced unemployment benefits and $325 billion for the businesses most hard-hit by the pandemic, including live venues that have been closed for months on end.

The legislation also extends a moratorium on evictions and earmarks billions for COVID-related funeral expenses as well as COVID testing and vaccines.

The sweeping bill combines the government funding and coronavirus relief and runs to more than 5,000 pages. It includes provisions far afield from the pandemic, such as tax breaks and other measures.

The newest wave of aid also come with plenty of criticism, rolling out eight months after Congress approved a more generous $2.6 trillion in emergency assistance money, known as the CARES Act. (Congress has passed various other coronavirus-related relief measures as well, including further funding in April for small businesses.)

Here is how the newest package all shakes out and, given its scope, how it has been both praised and criticized.

Stimulus Checks

Like the first bill, the latest package includes cash payments that will be sent directly to Americans.

Just how much individuals get depends on their income. According to text of the bill, single taxpayers who made up to $75,000 in 2019 will receive $600. Married couples who earned up to $150,000 will receive $1,200.

Payments are reduced for those with earnings above that threshold, and phased out entirely for those who earned more than $87,000 (or married couples who earned more than $174,000).

Families will receive an additional $600 for each household dependent under the age of 18.

As CBS News reports, couples who include an immigrant without a Green Card will also qualify for the checks.

The payments are not taxable.

In an interview with CNBC, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said that Americans can expect checks or direct deposits from the federal government in a matter of days.

“The good news is this is a very, very fast way of getting money into the economy. Let me emphasize: People are going to see this money at the beginning of next week,” Mnuchin told host Jim Cramer.

He continued: "People go out and spend this money, and that helps small business and that helps getting more people back to work.”

Unemployment Benefits

The package also includes enhanced unemployment benefits of up to $300 per week for 11 weeks, which will expire in March.

A $600-per-week unemployment enhancement included in the first stimulus bill ran out in July.

CNN reports that the package also extends two unemployment programs that were created with the CARES Act: the Pandemic Unemployment Assistance program, which expands jobless benefits to freelancers workers, independent contractors and the self-employed; and the Pandemic Emergency Unemployment Compensation program, which provides 13 weeks of additional payments to those who exhaust their regular federal or state benefits.

Small Business Support

The latest relief package reopened the Paycheck Protection Program so that small businesses can apply for a second loan.

As CNN reports, the bill also includes a provision that specifically allots $15 billion for live music venues and cultural institutions, many of which have been particularly hard-hit by the pandemic.

RELATED: IRS Warns That Texts Promising $1,200 Stimulus Checks Are a Scam

Rental Assistance

The moratorium on evictions from the first bill, set to expire at the end of 2020, will be extended through January. At that point, after the Biden-Harris administration begins, it may be extended again.

The legislation also provides $25 billion in emergency rent assistance. As CNBC explained, those funds will be administered by the U.S. Department of the Treasury, which will disperse them to specific states. Tenants will be able to apply for rental aid through state and other relief organizations.


Public Health

The legislation sets aside $69 billion for public health measures. That includes $22 billion for state tracing and testing efforts; $20 billion for vaccine procurement and distribution; and $9 billion for the the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's vaccination efforts.

The package also mandates that healthcare providers negotiate with insurance companies directly when it comes to COVID-related medical bills, rather than passing the full cost on to the patients.

In a move that was hailed by advocates, the bill ended the practice of so-called "surprise medical billing," that typically results when someone is treated by an out-of-network physician at a hospital that otherwise accepts their insurance. (The new ban has some exceptions, however.)

Non-COVID Measures

Among the bill's 5,500-plus pages are multiple non-pandemic related measures, such as the establishment of two Smithsonian museums: a Smithsonian American Women's History Museum and a National Museum of the American Latino.

Business Insider notes that the package also contains a number of more unusual provisions, such as $2 billion for the Space Force; $35 million in sexual abstinence programs for kids; and a tax break for those who own racehorses.

Among the more controversial measures is a so-called "three martini lunch" tax deduction for those writing off business lunches. The White House has said the deduction could help revive the struggling restaurant industry, though its critics (like Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders) say it's akin to "corporate socialism for the rich."

What Was Lawmaker Reaction?

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Republican, and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi posed praised the latest relief bill in different ways. McConnell framed it as the opposite party finally ceding to the good sense terms of conservatives, who had sought less money overall, while Pelosi described it as a "first step" of what she hoped would be more aid under President-elect Joe Biden. (Pelosi also noted this week that Democrats had been unable to secure as much funding for local governments but hoped to return to the issue.)

“In a few days of hard work, we’ve assembled another historic, bipartisan, rescue package. Just under $900 billion of relief targeted toward our fellow Americans who need help the most," McConnell said Monday.

Pelosi, meanwhile, told reporters that "what I'm excited about in this bill — and it is really the Democratic difference — is what it does for America's working families."

Nonetheless, the long-overdue bill has dissenters on both sides of the aisle: Six Republicans voted against it in the Senate and 53 lawmakers voted against it in the House, including Democratic Rep. Rashida Tlaib who called it "woefully inadequate."

Republicans critiqued the size of the stimulus for the reverse reason, arguing that it would worsen the debt crisis. Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul targeted conservatives who supported the bill during a speech on the Senate floor.

"When you vote to pass out free money, you lose your soul and you abandon forever any semblance of moral or fiscal integrity," Paul said, as quoted by Fox News.

Even those who voted in favor of its passage have offered criticism of the package, which was largely a compromise from earlier Democratic positions (such as the push for a larger direct payment and increased assistance for renters and small businesses). Sanders, for instance, has told reporters the $600 in direct payments isn't enough and that more aid is still needed.

Biden will likely push for more relief upon taking office. The Washington Post reports that he has said the newest stimulus package is merely a "down payment" that will set the stage for more negotiations come January, when Democrats may have control of the Senate following the Georgia runoff elections.

Lawmakers were also critical of the rollout of the legislative text, the printing and posting of which were delayed due to technical errors.

Republican Sen. Ted Cruz backed up the criticism of the rush to vote on the bill when lawmakers hadn't yet had the time to read it.

"It's ABSURD to have a $2.5 trillion spending bill negotiated in secret and then—hours later—demand an up-or-down vote on a bill nobody has had time to read," he tweeted.

Tucker Carlson: Congress tells struggling Americans to take their $600 and shut up

 

Our lawmakers seek to change centuries-old societies while their constituents fight to survive





After tense negotiations and multiple rounds of televised theatrics, Congress has passed a spending bill. It's 5,593 pages long, and allocates $2.3 trillion, including more than $900 billion in COVID relief. 

That's a lot of money, but on the other hand, there's a lot of need. Thanks in part to government lockdowns, more than 100 million Americans are out of the workforce. One in six restaurants is closed. Huge parts of the retail sector are in tatters. J. Crew, Pier 1, Neiman Marcus, Brooks Brothers, Century 21 and many others are in bankruptcy. 

If there was ever a time that Americans need relief, it's right now. So be glad to know there is something for you in this bill: It is entirely possible that you could get a $600 check, courtesy of the U.S. Congress.

That money, should you receive it, is yours with which to do what you wish. Buy a moderately sized television set and watch the free channels all night. Rent a Tesla for a day and drive it until the power runs out. Order two appetizers off the tasting menu at The French Laundry in Napa County (Tip not included). The sky's the limit here. Go crazy. It's good to be an American.


On the other hand, it's also pretty good to be a Jordanian. The same bill passed (but not read) by Congress allocates $500 million for border security in that country. Congress wants to help Jordan build a wall along its 275-mile long border with Syria. Apparently, Congress is worried about illegal immigration in the Middle East, which is why it allocated another $250 million for additional border security in Lebanon, Egypt, Tunisia and Oman. God knows those countries need it. Borders make a nation, remember that.

Except here in the United States, which is unique among nations through history, borders are not relevant. In fact, borders are racist. And that's why this very same bill defunds American border security. It slashes funding for ICE detention space and blocks requests to hire more deportation officials. Immigration authorities in this country will have 11,000 fewer detention beds starting this year.

There's also $33 million for what are called "democracy programs" in Venezuela, because we're experts on democracy. We're spending $231 million to help pay down the national debt of Sudan, debt being another area we know a thing or two about. And just in case you were worried that American society wasn't divided enough, this bill creates two new monuments to the interest groups that have the most political power at the moment. So the Smithsonian will create a women's history museum, as well as what's called the National Museum of the American Latino. 

There's a whole lot more for the rest of the world. This bill spends $10 million on what it calls "gender programs" in Pakistan. Now, Congress doesn't specify exactly what those are. Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., seems to know and he's thrilled about it. Here he is on "Fox & Friends" Tuesday morning.

GRAHAM: Pakistan is a place I really worry about. [In] 85 countries, a woman can't open up a bank account without her husband's signature. She can't inherit property. If you're a young girl in Pakistan, life is pretty tough. So we're trying to make life better for women throughout the world.

Suddenly, Lindsey Graham is an expert in how the people of a country 7,000 miles away whose language he does not speak and whose culture he does not understand, should be running their families. Lindsey Graham doesn't like how young people in Rawalpindi or Lahore too easily accept the customs of their elders. He'd like to shake things up in Pakistani society. He's got big ideas for how to create more enlightened Urdu-speaking households on the subcontinent, and he's going to use your money to do it.

"We're trying to make life better for women throughout the world," Graham announces, like it's an item on a "honey do" list. Take out the trash, feed the cat, pick up spaghetti sauce, make life better for women throughout the world. It's all in a day's work for an American politician.

"Overreach," I hear you say. "These are the same people who can't get the votes counted in a congressional election." Yeah, but they've got bigger aspirations than that. And those aspirations are all over this bill.


On one page, you will find tens of millions of dollars set aside to recruit and retain women in the Afghan army. Why is the U.S. paying for this? Is that something that will help the United States in some measurable way? Why are we doing this?

placeholder

The real reason Congress is spending that money, of course, is because crazy ideologues and various interest groups and the federal bureaucracy would like to change one of the world's last remaining traditional societies. Someday, some unhappy 26-year-old foreign service officer can write her master's thesis in gender studies on how she undermined the patriarchy in Southwest Asia. That's the whole point of it.

Meanwhile, no one in the State Department or Congress has paused to think about what the Afghans think. The very same people who lecture you about cultural imperialism think it's totally irrelevant what the native population might think of this. It's possible Afghans may not consider this progress. Maybe they are happy with their ancient culture, unsavory as we may find it. That culture existed a thousand years before ours, and maybe they'd like to keep it.

Come to think of it, why would anyone in Pakistan ever take advice from us on how to organize a society? "You must allow market forces to destroy your gender roles," says a civilization that's become miserable by doing the exact same thing. Maybe they'll tell us to keep our money. But no matter what they say, we will not stop sending them our money.


Foreign aid is the most effective possible way for the academic left to export its poisonous social programs to the rest of the world. The Roman Empire built roads. We demand poor countries become woke. Before long, our aid budget will consist entirely of advanced weapons systems for the Middle East and taxpayer-funded gender reassignment surgeries for Africa, and Lindsey Graham and the State Department will be happy about that.

But how will you feel about it? Well, who cares how you feel about it? You get $600, so shut up.

This article is adapted from Tucker Carlson's opening monologue on the Dec. 22, 2020 edition of "Tucker Carlson Tonight."


Saturday, 19 December 2020

Not black enough? British actress Naomi Ackie scores Whitney Houston role, sparking woke American meltdown over her nationality

 

Not black enough? British actress Naomi Ackie scores Whitney Houston role, sparking woke American meltdown over her nationality

Not black enough? British actress Naomi Ackie scores Whitney Houston role, sparking woke American meltdown over her nationality

It appears some black Americans are far less enthusiastic about the Ackie landing the role, however, because she’s from ‘across the pond’.

Writer and film producer Brooke Obie fired off a series of impassioned tweets about her disappointment over Ackie’s new acting job.

“I just find it funny how ‘the best person for the role’ of a Black American icon is never a Black American. It’s giving me white supremacist excuses,” she wrote. Obie went on to suggest that not casting a black American for the part of Houston was a betrayal of “interracial solidarity.”

Her sentiments were echoed by other commentators who argued that black Brits are more “privileged” than African Americans. 

“Maybe if the various black diaspora groups start acknowledging their privileges we can start to quash diaspora wars,” one upset Twitter user wrote. 

There was plenty of pushback against the outrage, though. One observer noted that it’s possible that it’s simply less expensive to hire black British actors, which would actually suggest that black American actors are more ‘privileged’. 

“Conversations about Black British actors getting work in Hollywood could be a conversation about cheapness of labour but instead its people highlighting that Black people that exist outside America are not ‘Black enough’ to play AAs,” read one critique of the social media drama.

Others accused black Americans of selectively using the concept of black “solidarity” to further their own, selfish interests. 

“I thought we ‘stood in solidarity’? Or does that only work when the attention is on American causes?” asked a British Twitter user. Black Americans aren’t the only black people in the world, she added.


China and the West: signs of a relationship in decline

 China and the West: signs of a relationship in decline

https://dailyfriend.co.za/2020/12/19/china-and-the-west-signs-of-a-relationship-in-decline/

Australia may be the bellwether of China’s foreign relations with Western nations – and their relationship is on the decline. 

As reported by the Daily Friend, a senior spokesman in China’s Ministry of foreign affairs, Zhao Lijian, tweeted a doctored picture of an Australian soldier holding a knife to the neck of an Afghan boy. The picture outraged the Australian government, with Prime Minister Scott Morrison criticising it harshly and calling on China to apologise. This is nothing new in the deterioration of relations between the two countries, but Australia’s more hawkish stance on China says a lot about how democratic nations might deal with China in the future.

Australia – a wealthy, developed economy – has seen remarkable economic growth. Despite being a developed country with high GDP per capita, Australia has not had a recession since 1991. While the rest of the world struggled through the 1997 Asian financial crisis, the Dot-com bubble and the Great Recession of 2009, Australia’s economy has powered on without ever experiencing more than two consecutive quarters of GDP decline. It took government-mandated lockdowns and a global pandemic to finally knock the Aussie economy into recession (along with the rest of the world).

Australia is the 8th largest country in world, but is home to just 25.7 million people. The vast Australian Outback is sparsely inhabited, but highly rich in natural resources such as oil and industrial metals. Australia is the world’s top producer of iron ore and bauxite, the second largest producer of gold and the third largest producer of uranium and cobalt.

Such vast reserves of natural resources, coupled with its location in the region, mean Australia is in a prime position to sell to rapidly emerging markets in East Asia. Of these, none has been so voracious a consumer as China.

It is perhaps no surprise, then, that the 28 years in which Australia steamed ahead without a recession coincided with China’s most rapid economic growth rates of the 1990s and 2000s. China is by far Australia’s largest trading partner. In fact, China trades more with Australia that Australia trades with its next eight largest trading partners combined. Indeed, the extent to which the Australian economy is invested in China is quite staggering. In 2019, China purchased 32.7% of the value of all Australian exports.

With statistics like these, it’s easy to see how any economic decoupling or trade war between the two would bring great harm to Australia’s economy – which is why the recent decline in diplomatic relations between Canberra and Beijing is notable.

Trump’s rhetoric and actions

It’s hard to say where it all began with Australia, but no doubt Donald Trump’s rhetoric and actions on China have had a large influence. In late 2018, Huawei was banned from Australia’s 5G network. In 2019, the Hong Kong protests erupted, galvanising a great deal of anti-CCP rhetoric from governments around the world, with American lawmakers arguably taking the lead in passing the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act. In November 2020, Australia signed the Reciprocal Access Agreement (RAA) with Japan which would allow shared military training and operations between the two nations’ armies. Again, this angered China.

Australia, however, does not seem to be backing down. In a move that perhaps angered China the most, Australia led a coalition of 62 countries in calling for an independent enquiry into the outbreak of the Covid-19 pandemic. Though the statement did not mention China by name, it was received particularly badly in China, where state-run media lashed out at the Morrison government for the move.

A mini-trade war might even seem to be on the horizon following China’s imposing heavy tariffs on Australian agricultural products. Tariffs have since been levied on barley, beef, and, just recently, Australian wine, in this case a massive tariff of up to 212%. Though agricultural products do not account for the bulk of Australia’s exports to China, the tariffs hit home for Morrison, as a lot of his voter base is in rural Australia.

This recent tweet from Zhao Lijian elicited an angry response from the Australian government, with Morrison labelling the image ‘repugnant’ and calling for an apology. Criticism was levelled across the board by the Australian government. 

China is not a democracy. It is a run by a one-party authoritarian government, it has a poor record on human rights and its citizens’ civil liberties are curtailed – especially with regard to criticism of the government. This has often earned criticism from liberal democratic governments around the world, but particularly in the West. As China’s economy grows, however, so does its power and influence on the world. Should any country criticise China on political grounds, economic retaliation such as tariffs or other trade restrictions could have a devastating effect on it. One might say that the economic cost of having a bad diplomatic relationship with China increases as China’s economy grows.

Louder political message

Australia is hugely economically invested in China and thus its willingness to risk economic hardship through diplomatic incidents projects a much louder political message.

Though Australia is a Western-style liberal democracy, it has for a long time pursued a more amicable relationship with China. That began to change in the 2010s, but the relationship has taken a massive dive since 2018. Given the great economic costs to Australia if a trade war were to ensue, what should this teach political analysts? The willingness of the Morrison government to contemplate such a risk shows how priorities have shifted of late.

If anything, it shows the extent to which political issues involving China are now becoming so dire as to be worth the risk of economic decoupling. Though the United States, Canada and the EU all trade a great deal with China, none compares to Australia.

An Australian decoupling from China would be momentous – it would signal the point at which political priorities outstrip economic benefit. With diplomatic tensions mounting, Australia has an enormous amount to lose – economically that is. Politically, more conflict with China will simply add Australia to the list of democratic nations already unafraid to criticise China and bear the economic consequences. One should therefore take note of the recent spat between the governments of the two countries, as it shows a significant change in their relationship.

A recent article in China’s state-run newspaper Global Times had the following to say about the relationship’s deterioration:

‘Canberra is treading a hazardous path that has no prospects for a U-turn during the Covid-19 pandemic, and likely for a long time afterward.’

Canberra is in all likelihood fully aware of this. The fact it is pressing on is not a sign that the China-Australia relationship is insignificant, but that the political costs of staying silent on China are becoming too much to bear. If even Australia can no longer keep its mouth shut, what can be expected from other democratic nations?