Ever go back to the Pensacola Chess Club? Yes, I know all about what you did there!

Hahahahaha!

<I am a dishonest hypocrite. I criticize left wingers but I have never criticized any far right person ever.

Every other day I create such a ruckus about people making sock puppets and hurling insults but I never have criticized <big pawn>/<George wallace> for making sock puppets and harassing people by hurling insults including racist , homophobic , misogynistic insults. On the contrary , if I ever see anyone criticizing <bp>/<gw> , I start huffing/puffing and bristling >

<The silencing of Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) after she called Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas a liar in a hearing has led to a pledge for a more civil House Homeland Security Committee going forward - a standard lawmakers may struggle to meet as they gear up for the secretary's impeachment.

When Mayorkas appeared before Congress this week, Chair Mark Green (R-Tenn.) accused him of intentional disruption at the border and said his answers to prior questions show "incompetence." Rep. Clay Higgins told Mayorkas it was "shameful what you brought upon our country." Rep. Eli Crane (R-Ariz.) accused him of being smug.

Numerous lawmakers accused him of lying before Congress - an argument both Mayorkas and Democrats refute.

But while others accused Mayorkas of being dishonest, Greene on Wednesday explicitly labeled him a liar, something Green determined violated House rules on impugning someone's character.

A hearing that began with a fiery opening statement from Green ended with a call to "dial the rhetoric down in the country and apparently in the committee."

"We don't have to despise someone because they disagree with us. We don't have to disparage someone because they disagree with us," he said in closing the hearing.

It was a commitment he made after a sidebar with ranking member Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), who repeatedly described the panel’s discourse that day as unbecoming for a committee with such a serious jurisdiction.

Whether that moment can be met already appears in doubt for a committee that contains many members eager to impeach Mayorkas - a process that involves holding him personally responsible for the Biden administration's approach to the border.

Green was chastised early in the meeting by Democrats, who pointed to a story in The New York Times reporting he told donors to "get the popcorn" ready ahead of Wednesday's hearing.

And Republicans on the panel have offered mixed assessments of whether they believe the tone of the hearing was inappropriate.

Greene called the decision to silence her for the rest of the hearing unfair, noting that numerous Republican speakers before her accused Mayorkas of lying to Congress, even if they did not label him as a liar directly.

"These are all impugning his character also, which is what they claimed were the rules. I think silencing me was extremely unfair. And I think it showed weakness from Republicans on the committee," she said.

Rep. Dan Bishop (R-N.C.) said calling someone a liar is "poor form," but that doing so is justified in regards to Mayorkas.

"They have been provoked to engage with Secretary Mayorkas in very severe terms," he said of some of his colleagues. "And there’s a reason for it."

Rep. Josh Brecheen (R-Okla.), however, suggested the committee members take a softer approach in their language if not in their stance, pointing to specific passages from the Bible that guide him.

"We can be unwavering without compromise, and also be gentle and reasonable. And so it hangs on my wall. It’s hidden in my heart. And that’s who I want to be as a legislator," he said, pointing to James 3:17.

"I can disagree with someone and disagree with them heartily. And that’s what makes our nation great is we have raucous debates, right? But I also want people to know that I love them and that the way I behold them in my subconscious is not through hatred, it is through love towards them as an individual who’s made in the image of God."

Mayorkas is no stranger to heated rhetoric. At one point last year during an appearance before the House Judiciary Committee, one lawmaker compared him to Benedict Arnold, suggesting he was a traitor to the country. And numerous senators this week likewise attacked his character, with Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) asking whether he had "an ounce of human compassion" about the situation at the border.

At an event Friday, Mayorkas lamented the approach of lawmakers who criticize his character.

"They are not easy to listen to," he said of the insults. "They also have ramifications that I wish individuals in positions of leadership would consider."

"I am fundamentally - fundamentally though - I'm impervious to them. Because I may make some mistakes. My decisions may be mistaken. Some may disagree with them, but I have 100 percent confidence in the integrity of my decision," Mayorkas said in response to a question from The Hill during an event at the Council on Foreign Relations....>

<....Several Democrats, meanwhile, have sought to dismiss the budding impeachment argument from the GOP.

"They can disagree with him on policy, but that is not a high crime and misdemeanor, nor does it in any way violate the Constitution and has no grounds for impeachment," Rep. Daniel Goldman (D-N.Y.) said.

Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Calif.) said while many colleagues offered similar remarks to Greene, her comments have received the most attention, undercutting the effort to focus on Mayorkas.

"I think most of the Republicans are saying the same thing. I think most Republicans were calling [the] secretary names, belittling him and not allowing him to speak, insinuating that he was lying - all things which are false," Garcia told The Hill.

"Republicans are focused - and they were clear - even in the chairman’s comments at the fundraiser that he had, that he expected today to be a circus, he expected today to be kind of a made-for-TV event, which is how they planned it. And I think it backfired on them," he said Wednesday.

Green has said he was misquoted in the Times article, though he did not specify how, and noted the impeachment process will ultimately fall to the House Judiciary Committee.

The nearly 20-minute delay in challenging Greene's comments was a source of embarrassment for some on the committee. Thompson warned the division on display is poor signaling to adversaries who keep tabs on internal dynamics in the U.S.

"Our charge as a committee is to keep the homeland safe from foreign as well as domestic terrorists," he said.

"And if they see a committee tasked with that responsibility acting like we did today, you’re saying, ‘Well, look, we don’t have to worry anymore since it's going off the rails.'"

Green told The Hill that going forward committee members need to "just attack the problem. You don't attack the person."

But he sees the issue as one on both sides of the aisle, adding that "There better not be any of either side breaking the rules of decorum," in a nod to a sign brought by Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) criticizing Greene's effort to defund the FBI.

Greene made a similar argument, saying Thompson chaired a committee that impugned her character.

"Bennie Thompson has used his position, especially his chairmanship on the Jan. 6 committee, to literally call Republicans names every single day impugning our character, me specifically," she said, adding that Democrats have called her an insurrectionist.

Rep. Glenn Ivey (D-Md.) said he appreciated the efforts at the end of the hearing to "rein it back in," but said whether Green can ultimately do so remains to be seen.

"It varies from different Republican members. I think for some of them, this is the raison d’etre. They’re going for more quotes, more tweets, more sales, more dollars raised on the internet. They’re not going to change," he said.

"The chairman and some of the other members, I hope that they will step back from that precipice and we can actually get back to doing some reasonable work.">

Another story that is susceptible to be imaginary.>

<In the last few weeks of the school year during my senior year at a respected Catholic school in southeast Michigan, our religion teacher had our class watch “Juno.” In my Catholic community, “Juno” was seen as a pro-life story: The main character learns she is pregnant at 16 and ultimately chooses adoption.

It was during that class, watching “Juno,” that I first experienced the nausea. In the next few weeks, that nausea turned into vomiting, and then into dehydration. I was hospitalized, and soon learned the reason for these vomiting spells. I was pregnant.

I ultimately had an abortion, and I don’t regret the decision. It made me a firm believer in the importance of abortion rights — for economic mobility, for autonomy, for mental health. I did choose life when I chose to have an abortion — my own life.

That decision ended up setting me on a path where I’d spend the better part of my career committed to helping Republicans win elections as a pollster, data analyst and strategist. As a result, I know numbers, and I know politics. And I know that statistically, I can’t be that rare; many women who have supported Republicans have had abortions. Many women who agree with various conservative policies, too, have had abortions. There are men and women in the party, too, who might not have personal experience with abortion, but still have complicated feelings about the procedure.

Still, though, Republican-dominated legislatures continue to pass abortion bans with very few exceptions, and Republican politicians either ignore the issue or articulate extreme and alienating views.

The party’s lack of compassion on the topic is harmful. There is a growing mismatch between the party’s stance on abortion and the complex beliefs voters in this country have on abortion. And while we’re deep into the midterms, there is still an opportunity to pull back the rhetoric and support empathetic, commonsense ways to provide pregnant women with the care they deserve.

My own abortion is a big reason why I have complicated views on the topic, and a big reason I find myself at odds with typical Republican policies and messaging on the subject.

Despite probably realizing it on some subconscious level, it took my own pregnancy for me to accept that I was in a controlling and unhealthy relationship. My boyfriend had broken down so much of my self-worth and confidence that I didn’t have the courage to tell myself the truth about the relationship. But that pregnancy forced me to face it all. Having a child links you to their father for the rest of your life, and this link gives him control over that child in ways you can’t predict or stop. For days after leaving the hospital, all I could see were the red flags I had been ignoring, including one harrowing incident I was so ashamed of I kept it hidden. Unlike Juno, I did not have a loving, nerdy best friend as the father, and unlike her, I did not want to go through parenting or a long adoption process with him.

I had an abortion despite the shame I felt about my circumstances. I had an abortion despite a high school friend writing “baby killer” on my Facebook wall. I had an abortion despite feeling so conflicted due to my Catholic education and confused about how this choice could turn me into a bad person. I had an abortion without a supportive partner or community. I wasn’t Juno: I had an abortion.

At the time, I was scared and alone and confused. I certainly didn’t recognize the privilege I had. The clinic was two miles away from my childhood home. The procedure was affordable. The staff was kind and professional. The abortion was legal and safe and regulated. And I left for my four-year college three months later.

My abortion story, and everything that happened afterward, is the kind of story that makes political strategists’ jobs very difficult. As an expert in political data, my job is to put people in boxes. Are you a young person with an electric vehicle that you drive around an urban area? You’re likely a Democrat, and I bet you care about climate change. Are you white, male and the owner of a pickup truck that bumps down country roads? Then you probably have a Donald Trump bumper sticker on that truck, and you probably aren’t happy about rising gas prices. We can even use the most sophisticated data to find unique cross-sections of voters, those hard-to-reach boxes, such as Republicans who are pro-gun control, or Democrats who don’t believe in defunding the police. This is how my world works....>

<....The problem with these boxes is that most people are actually far more complex than they appear in even the data. Abortions polls are notoriously inconsistent and vary wildly depending on how questions are asked. Most people hold a complex set of beliefs and ideologies across a spectrum, and I fear that we can’t own this complexity out loud in general, but especially on abortion, because of how the abortion debate has become increasingly partisan in recent years. If you’re a Republican, you show up in the surveys as being anti-abortion and in favor of fewer exceptions to abortion bans than Democrats. If you’re a Democrat, you’re probably in favor of abortion rights and more exceptions to abortion bans. If you, like many Americans, fall into the very wide gray space, we might see you show up across some of the more nuanced surveys, but we likely don’t have much more specific knowledge about your views.

Republicans talk as if abortion is something only Democrats seek and undergo. Not in my home. Not in my church. Not in my community. The data tell us that at least 600,000 people get abortions annually. Statistics vary and only account for legal abortions. But some of the reddest states in the country — states that struggle to even elect Democrats to public office — still see significant numbers of abortions, even with very few clinics operating in these states. In 2019, here were some of the numbers of abortions coming out of the reddest states in America: 2,922 in Utah, just over 1,100 in North Dakota, 2,963 in Arkansas and 6,009 in Alabama. The faces and stories behind these abortions would likely surprise us. They shouldn’t.

Beyond the statistics on who gets abortions, there is also some agreement across the two parties on who should have access to abortion. According to Pew, 61 percent of voters believe abortion should be legal in some or all cases. Only 8 percent of voters believe abortion should be illegal in all cases. Given these numbers, it should seem that Democrats and Republicans in red states and blue states alike should get to work on deciding what the restrictions and exceptions should be; a law that bans nearly all abortions is unlikely to align with popular opinion, no matter how red the state.

In the community I’ve been a part of, I don’t see people coming forward to share their personal stories with abortion. And why would they? It’s clearly not safe to have had an abortion — and it’s particularly not safe to say it out loud.

If we don’t allow people access to this context about their lives and nuanced feelings on abortion, if we don’t see people step outside of these boxes in a real way, then how can Republicans meaningfully engage on the issue of abortion access? If we can’t even talk about it, how can we legislate on it? If you don’t truly think you know someone who has had an abortion, how can you empathize?

In the years since my abortion, I haven’t felt safe to tell this story. Frankly, I still don’t. I know there are many, many more people with stories like mine who don’t have the privilege to speak out. I hope we make it safe for them to do so because yes, this is happening in your home. Yes, this is happening in your church. Yes, this is happening in your community.

Perhaps you’ll find empathy for me as I step outside of this box. Perhaps you’ll even consider whether your own box is serving you and the people around you. I’m a married, white woman, who lives in the suburbs, has worked for many Republicans, and I believe in access to safe, legal abortion.>

They did for me. I'm not allowed to remove it.

They did for me. I'm not allowed to remove it.>

Had wondered what policy you posted of elsewhere.

Sounds like rather a curious way of solving a problem, when the solution is telling the offender to muzzle it and have done--although, of course, it will be remembered that last summer, when <fredthejackal> was 'away', he unleashed a band of sockies which had two purposes only: to redress fancied grievances and attack me at every turn, in even more picayune fashion than their puppet master had oft displayed, if one can imagine.

If a force was on, I have no way of knowing; I have had him in iggydumb for years.

As I have posted elsewhere, regarding <mort>, <diceman>, <ohiyuk> and <little pharisee>, as well as that poster, I will view their effluvium when <I> choose, not at their behest--they can invoke the words 'coward' or 'p****' all they wish, but they will have to face it.

<A Fox News producer’s discrimination lawsuit against Rupert Murdoch’s Fox Corp. provides a wider glimpse into the network’s alleged cultural problems, dealings with prominent Republicans and finger-pointing following a $1.6-billion defamation lawsuit.

Abby Grossberg, who has worked in TV news for two decades, sued Fox, Fox News, Tucker Carlson and several producers late Monday, alleging the network is rife with sexist, misogynistic and abusive behavior.

Grossberg’s lawsuit alleges discrimination based on gender, religion and disability. She alleges that “constant bullying and gaslighting” caused her “so much stress and anxiety that her stomach ulcers flared up and she was in excruciating pain.”

The 79-page lawsuit, filed in federal court in New York, raises questions about whether Fox News has sufficiently modernized its workplace culture since co-founder Roger Ailes was forced out in 2016 amid allegations of sexual harassment, first raised by former anchor Gretchen Carlson.

“Fox News Media engaged an independent outside counsel to immediately investigate the concerns raised by Ms. Grossberg, which were made following a critical performance review,” the network said in a statement.

People close to Fox News say the network has made moves to improve the corporate culture, installing Suzanne Scott as chief executive in 2018 — the only female chief in the network’s more than 25-year history. They credit her with increasing the number of women on her executive team.

Grossberg’s complaint contains allegations that Fox lawyers pressured her to provide misleading testimony in Dominion Voting Systems’ $1.6-billion defamation lawsuit. Fox News strenuously denies her claims.

The conservative cable news channel has been accused of knowingly promoting falsehoods by former President Trump and his surrogates about the 2020 election being stolen with the help of Dominion voting machines and software. There was a separate hearing Tuesday in Delaware to begin to weigh the merits of that lawsuit.

“Her allegations in connection with the Dominion case are baseless and we will vigorously defend Fox against all of her legal claims which have no merit,” Fox News said in its statement.

Grossberg worked at Fox News for more than three years, first as a senior booking producer for Maria Bartiromo’s show before switching to become a senior producer and head of bookings for Tucker Carlson’s popular prime-time show in September. (In the lawsuit, she claimed she “was unknowingly demoted” from her senior producer role in late November.)

In the lawsuit, Grossberg contends that she heard male executives make sexist and belittling comments about Bartiromo, including that the financial news anchor was “crazy,” “menopausal,” “hysterical” and a “diva.”

One network official allegedly tried to blame Grossberg for Dominion’s lawsuit against Fox News, accusing her that her “inability to manage a diva [i.e. Bartiromo]” created liability for the network, which resulted in the blockbuster defamation litigation.

In the Dominion case, Bartiromo’s role promoting untrue claims of widespread voter fraud has received much scrutiny. Grossberg‘s lawsuit alleged that a superior — Ralph Giordano, a vice president of news coverage at Fox Business Network — then sought to “coerce” her “into spying on Ms. Bartiromo” so that Grossberg could make “a clean start” at the network.

Fox News anchor Maria Bartiromo is front and center in Dominion’s defamation suit March 9, 2023

After working less than five months on Carlson’s show, Grossberg asked to go on medical leave in mid-January.

When she said she discussed the situation with a superior, Thomas Fox, a senior editorial producer, she alleges that she was told, “We’re all under stress. This is Tucker’s tone and just the pace of the show.”

In February, she requested to extend her leave on the advice of her therapist.

In a meeting to discuss her legal claims earlier this week, Grossberg and her attorney refused to accept a proposed settlement. Fox then sued the producer and placed her on “forced administrative leave,” according to the lawsuit. Fox has since withdrawn its action....>

<....The lawsuit described how she was startled on her first day working for Carlson’s show in September.

She arrived at the office to see “many large and blown-up photographs of Nancy Pelosi in a plunging bathing suit revealing her cleavage. The images were plastered onto her computer and elsewhere throughout the office,” the lawsuit said.

The following day, according to the lawsuit, a senior executive producer of Carlson’s program, Justin Wells, called Grossberg into an office with another colleague, Alexander McCaskill, in attendance.

Wells allegedly asked Grossberg an “uncomfortable sexual question about her former boss: ‘Is Maria Bartiromo [sleeping with] Kevin McCarthy?’ Shocked, Ms. Grossberg replied ‘No,’ and quickly left the room,” the lawsuit said.

Staff members of “Tucker Carlson Tonight” had “frequently engaged in group discussions, led by Mr. McCaskill, in which misogynistic views of women as objects to be judged solely based on their appearance were broadcasted,” Grossberg’s lawsuit claims.

“In these discussions, no woman, whether she was a Republican politician or a female staffer at Fox News, was safe from suddenly becoming the target of sexist, demeaning comments,” the lawsuit said.

The lawsuit pointed to one alleged instance in October, when Michigan gubernatorial candidate Tudor Dixon was scheduled to appear as a guest on Carlson’s show.

“Before [Dixon’s] arrival, a crass and sexist discussion in the newsroom ensued regarding whether Ms. Dixon or her opponent, Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, was ‘hotter and more [sexually desirable]’” the lawsuit said, noting that a producer “even polled the office on their views.”

When Congresswoman Kat Cammack (R-Fla.) appeared on TV in January on the House floor, “Mr. McCaskill mocked her weight and appearance by stating she was ‘fat like Kelly Clarkson,’” according to the lawsuit.

“Such disgusting remarks were never made about men appearing on” Carlson’s show, the lawsuit alleged.

In one instance, the lawsuit alleged, McCaskill commented the network’s “mother’s room,” where Fox News employees could pump breast milk, was a “waste of space.” The executive allegedly said the space should instead be converted into a “room of tanning beds for the guys to tan their testicles,” in reference to a segment by Carlson on ways for men to boost their testosterone levels.

Grossberg’s lawsuit also contains snippets of communications allegedly between Grossberg and Carlson, discussing her efforts to secure an appearance by Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Bakersfield) when he was struggling to line up votes to win the speakership of the House.

Grossberg wrote that she was facing reticence from McCarthy’s staff, who were afraid that he would encounter pushback on air by prominent pollster Frank Luntz.

McCarthy, she wrote, according to the lawsuit, was “afraid, which is ridiculous. If he can’t face you, how is he going to fight Biden and the Dems? After 7 losses it can only help him.”

According to the lawsuit, Carlson replied, “He’d be a cowardly idiot not to. Which he may be.”

Carlson then continued: “I really hope he [appears on the show]. I’ll be a little mean, because that’s who I am. But I won’t be too mean. I want to help fix this.”>

<House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) may have painted himself into a corner with his own debt ceiling bill that is full of unappetizing proposals that will likely fracture his fragile caucus, according to a report.

According to an analysis by MSNBC's James Downie, McCarthy's tenure as speaker has been filled with stumbles and incompetence that will likely lead to his ouster by members of his own caucus who weren't thrilled with his ascension -- that required 15 ballots -- from the start.

Addressing McCarthy's debt ceiling proposal, Downie wrote, "The problem here isn’t the bill itself — even though it has the absence of substance you’d expect from today’s GOP. The problem is that the basic elements of what’s being requested in the bill have been public knowledge for months, and yet McCarthy and his team have dawdled on bringing it to the floor."

Add to that, he pointed out, there is no indication McCarthy has the votes he needs to get it passed and there is no way Democrats are going to bail him out.

"There is no excuse for such negligence," the analyst continued. "McCarthy’s failures in that office have been, like the rest of his career, largely inconsequential. But if the country is to raise the debt limit in an orderly fashion, then he must quickly find one of two qualities he’s never displayed before. Either he’ll need to put his country over his position and broker a bipartisan deal in the House before the Freedom Caucus inevitably replaces him. Or he’ll need to persuade a dozen or more Republicans, whose brand is just this side of 'death to Democrats,' to hold hands with Biden."

Neither of those, he suggested, look promising.

Reviewing McCarthy's job so far, Downie gave him a failing grade, concluding, "But we don’t have leadership. We don’t have selflessness. We don’t have competence. We have Kevin McCarthy.">

<Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) received an immediate fact check after she ranted about Democrats’ reported plan not to hold primary debates for the 2024 presidential election.

On Sunday, the Donald Trump-loving extremist fumed on Twitter:

“How are Democrat voters ok with this? Your own party is telling you that you have no choice and they refuse to even give you a choice. They should just go ahead and call themselves the Democrat Communist Party.”

Critics pointed out that Republicans in 2020 did the same thing, and that Trump participated in no official primary debates ahead of his failed bid for reelection>

<Xi Jinping had been on a winning streak of late, successfully rebuffing US attempts to portray China as a threat to the global order. Then an envoy in France instantly revived all those fears.

China has moved swiftly to extinguish a firestorm in Europe caused by Ambassador Lu Shaye, who questioned the independence of ex-Soviet states during an interview with a local broadcaster.

In a statement Monday night, the Chinese embassy in Paris said that Lu gave an “an expression of personal points of view” that shouldn’t be “over-interpreted.” It explicitly reaffirmed respect for the sovereignty of ex-Soviet states, adding that its position is “consistent and clear.”

Still, the damage was done. The remarks effectively echoed Russian leader Vladimir Putin’s view of Ukraine and other countries that once formed the Soviet Union, undermining Xi’s efforts to portray China as a neutral party to help end the war that began in February 2022.

Lithuania’s Foreign Minister Gabrielius Landsbergis cited Lu’s comments in a tweet to explain “why the Baltic states don’t trust China to ‘broker peace in Ukraine.’” Estonia and Latvia — nations that also suffered for decades under the harsh rule of the Soviet Union — summoned Chinese diplomats in their capitals to explain.

“Lu’s remarks and the strong reactions they sparked across Europe are a bit of an own goal,” said Ja Ian Chong, an associate professor of political science at the National University of Singapore.

“The incident is revealing of the tensions in” Chinese foreign policy, said Chong. “They want to present an image of being both open and forceful.”

The incident has added to recent investor concern over geopolitical risks given that Chinese stock traders have already been worried about China-US ties. The MSCI China Index lost as much as 2% on Tuesday, heading for a sixth day of declines, which would be the longest since October.

The market is facing “a raft of negative geopolitical noises,” including Lu’s comments and President Joe Biden’s apparent plans for an executive order restricting American investments in some areas of China’s economy, said Vey-Sern Ling, managing director at Union Bancaire Privee.

For Xi, Lu’s errant remarks appeared to mark yet another setback as he looks to revamp China’s image on the global stage after three years of isolation due to the outbreak of Covid-19.

In March, shortly after Xi unveiled a vague blueprint for peace in Ukraine and met with Putin in Moscow, his government brokered a deal for Iran and Saudi Arabia to restore diplomatic ties. That lent credibility to Beijing’s role as a potential mediator in conflicts far beyond its shores....>

<....Then Xi hosted the leaders of France and Brazil, both of whom made comments that upset the US. Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva called for closer economic ties with China and a diminished role of the dollar in trade, while French President Emmanuel Macron said that Europe must forge its own path independent of the US.

Following Lu’s comments, Macron reiterated his solidarity with the countries in question, and the European Union’s top diplomat, Josep Borrell, called the comments “unacceptable.”

The episode in part shows China’s struggle to balance more assertive diplomacy with the need to project soft power, particularly as the nation’s reputation has fallen. A Pew Research Center poll last year found four-fifths of respondents in the US, Japan, South Korea, Australia and Sweden had unfavorable opinions of China.

While China has appeared to recognize the problem, and sought to play nicer of late, outbursts from diplomats still occur fairly regularly. Lu has created controversy in the past, accusing Canada of “white supremacy” during the saga over the detention of a Huawei Technologies Co. executive.

At the same time, the episode is unlikely to hurt China more broadly among the so-called Global South, a broad term referring to developing nations across parts of Asia, Africa, the Middle East and Latin America.

Last year, China kicked off a conversation about BRICS expansion when it was chair of the bloc, part of a wider effort to present an alternative to US leadership. Since then, 19 countries expressed an interest in joining just before the bloc holds an annual summit in South Africa in June, said Anil Sooklal, South Africa’s ambassador to BRICS.

The incident may also blow over quickly in some smaller nations in Europe, said Neil Thomas, a fellow at the Asia Society Policy Institute’s Center for China Analysis.

“Many European leaders are likely to accept Beijing’s walk-back of Ambassador Lu’s comments and continue to pursue their economic and diplomatic interests with China, especially those of smaller and poorer EU nations that especially value commercial exchanges with the country,” he said.

Apart from the embassy statement distancing China from Lu’s comments, the reaction in Beijing has also been to take shots at the press. In a regular briefing on Monday, Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Mao Ning blamed the media for trying to “sow discord between China and the countries concerned.”

Lu’s remark also played well among social media users, some of whom linked the issue to Taiwan. China has recently made the argument that taking Taiwan wouldn’t violate international law because the island isn’t recognized as a country.

“If you have enough power, you can write international law,” one Chinese social media user wrote on a post about Lu’s comments. “Haven’t Western politicians been spewing enough nonsense about Taiwan?”>

Hmmm...>

Yes--freedom of speech, as well as every other right, <his> way.

You object? Straight to perdition for you, cos you must be a godless, evil heathen! S'okay, though to selectively deny others' freedoms when their ideas are different than yours.

<Under the leadership of President Joe Biden, the White House and the Federal Reserve have started to lay the groundwork for a programmable, trackable, easily manipulated digital currency. It might sound like something from a dystopian science-fiction novel, but it’s all too real, and it could soon change life in America forever.

In March 2022, the Biden administration released a sweeping executive order that directed numerous federal agencies to crack down on digital assets, including on popular cryptocurrencies, as well as to study the potential development of a central bank digital currency (CBDC).

A CBDC would not be a digital version of the existing paper-based dollar, but rather an entirely new currency that would exist exclusively in a digital (meaning an electronic, non-physical) form.

In September 2022, the White House announced the completion of the CBDC reports. Although the administration did not officially propose a CBDC following the release of the reports, it did announce that it had developed "policy objectives" for a U.S. CBDC system.

Biden also directed the leadership of the National Economic Council, National Security Council, Office of Science and Technology Policy and the Treasury Department to "meet regularly" with the Federal Reserve to further design a potential CBDC.

Since the flurry of action in September, the administration has worked tirelessly – and quietly – to advance the creation of a CBDC, through various working groups, speeches and coordinated efforts with non-government groups.

Under the various CBDC proposals floated by the Biden administration and Federal Reserve, a U.S. CBDC would be programmable, traceable and designed to promote various left-wing social goals, such as improving "financial inclusion" and "equity." It would also be designed to help with "transitioning to a net-zero emissions economy and improving environmental justice."

Unlike with decentralized cryptocurrencies, such as Bitcoin, every transaction made using a CBDC could be easily traced to individual users by financial institutions, government agents and/or the Federal Reserve (depending on the details of the final design).

Additionally, because a CBDC would be digital and programmable, rules could be imposed that limit spending on approved activities. So, if the federal government or Federal Reserve were to determine that Americans are buying too much gasoline, for example, it could stop people from using CBDCs at gas stations with a few clicks on a computer.

Perhaps most disturbing of all, however, is that under most of the CBDC designs discussed by the Biden administration and Federal Reserve, nearly all forms of ownership of CBDC money would also be strictly limited. Only large institutions such as banks, the federal government, and/or the Federal Reserve would actually have ownership of CBDCs. Everyone else would be prevented from having absolute control over their digital money.

That means in Biden’s future, you will not own CBDC money, and you’ll have no privacy either.

How, exactly, would the Biden administration prevent most forms of private ownership of digital money? To best understand the answer to that question, you first need to know important details about the existing banking system....>

<....Currently, when you go to the bank and deposit money into a checking or savings account, you immediately cease to own the money. The cash becomes the property of the bank. In most situations, the bank is required to return the money you provided to it at your request, but the cash ultimately belongs to the bank until you remove the money from your deposit account.

Under the current system, there is a way to regain control of your money, by withdrawing cash from a deposit account, and privacy laws prevent banks in many situations from giving away details about your financial accounts to third parties, including the government.

But because CBDCs would only exist in digital form in a deposit account, and because they would be programmed to feed data to government, there would be no way for you to physically take CBDCs out of a depository account, store them privately, own them directly, or use them without being surveilled by a large institution.

The Biden administration has directly acknowledged that a future where you don’t own CBDCs is exactly what it and the Federal Reserve are now considering. For example, in a 2022 report about CBDCs, the Treasury Department stated, "There are two general architectures for CBDC intermediation: (1) a single-tier (i.e., direct) CBDC with the central bank, and (2) a two-tier CBDC where intermediaries (potentially banks or nonbank financial intermediaries) would onboard and manage payments while the central bank records account balances."

In other words, there’s no scenario in which you would be able to store your digital money in a local hard drive or private storage account. All of your money would be kept by a bank or the Federal Reserve directly, which means they would own all of your CBDC money.

Regardless of where your CBDCs are held, it’s likely the federal government would have access to data about your purchases and other information – a design choice CBDC supporters say is necessary so that officials can limit criminal activity. The only significant privacy questions that remain in the minds of those who support CBDCs are about the extent of the data collection.

For example, Biden’s under secretary for domestic finance, Nellie Liang, explained in a March 2022 speech about CBDCs that "one way of reconciling privacy with illicit finance concerns in a retail CBDC might be to have a tiered structure in which less data are collected for small dollar transactions or small volume accounts."

Note that Liang says "less data" "might" be collected for small dollar accounts. She doesn’t say no data will be collected.

If a programmable CBDC is rolled out in the near future, you won’t own money and you’ll have very little privacy, if any at all. That’s great news for those who advocate for bigger government and want more power for large financial institutions, but it could prove to be a catastrophic loss of freedom for the rest of us.>

<The Foreign Secretary’s Mansion House speech on China may go down in history, but for all the wrong reasons. In remarks released ahead of his set-piece address on Tuesday night, he urged China to come clean about its “biggest military build-up in peacetime”, warning of the risks of a “tragic miscalculation”. Yet, bizarrely, he also argued that Britain must continue to engage with China. “To give up on China would be to give up on addressing humanity’s biggest problems,” he stated.

It suggests that the British Government has learned nothing from the litany of Chinese Communist Party (CCP) lies and abuses exposed during the pandemic; from the fate of Tibet, Inner Mongolia, Hong Kong and Xinjiang; from Beijing’s crude imperialist ambitions to annex Taiwan, a de facto sovereign democracy; and from their crucial economic support for Vladimir Putin and his atrocities in Ukraine.

The CCP, a vastly wealthy, unelected gang of Marxist revolutionaries, is busily pursuing asymmetric warfare with the US and the rest of the free world, while building up arsenals of everything from drone swarms and lasers to nuclear warheads and hypersonic missiles capable of winning or forestalling full-on nuclear hostilities. The only reason one would acquire these weapons is the expectation of future confrontation with the West; it plainly shows who they perceive the real enemy to be.

“Peacetime” and “peaceful co-existence” are not in the Communist dictionary. Some commentators might argue that nuclear proliferation cannot be solved without China. But the CCP’s bid for world domination in place of the declining West is backed by massive nuclear proliferation. Can Britain alone alter this by continuing to “engage”?

The same disconnection from reality informs the notion that solving global warming requires cooperation with Beijing. Xi Jinping is heavily dependent on coal – his idea of cleaner energy involves geostrategic quantities of imported oil and gas from Russia and Iran. With Xi in power, the chances of a serious reduction in China’s emissions seem slim.

The UK Government is also keen to emphasise the importance of working with China to prevent future pandemics. Yet when the Covid-19 outbreak started, the CCP deliberately ignored its obligations under the International Health Regulations, misleading the World Health Organisation about the fact of human-to-human transmission long enough for the virus to spread across the globe. The CCP still refuses to share vital Covid data, and there is every chance that the next pandemic will originate in China, and that the CCP will again try to cover it up.

In short: Britain appears to be in wilful denial of the ruthless truth of Xi’s regime.

And that’s before one even considers its brutality at home: years before their putsch in Hong Kong, Beijing assured a very senior UK visitor that torture was illegal in the Chinese judicial system. They did not respond when he handed them a Chinese police gazette recording hundreds of cases of torture the previous year in a single province.

Here and now, Xi and Putin are colluding to disunite and overthrow the democratic, law-based international order. To do so, they use everything from cyber and human espionage to bribery and influence operations, threats to key national infrastructure, “grey zone” operations, coercive diplomacy, theft of key military and security technologies, collusion with tyrannical regimes, subversion of international institutions to industrial-scale black propaganda and disinformation campaigns.

In the well-chosen words of Rishi Sunak, “China is consciously competing for global influence using all the levers of state power.” But despite the obvious implications of this statement, the British Government persists in a contradictory and weak approach to confronting the greatest security challenge the international community has ever faced.

Baudelaire was right: “The smartest ruse of the devil is persuading you that he doesn’t exist”. It’s time for a genuine policy refresh: one combining honest dialogue and a big stick.>

<Panic-inducing cultural crusades that include banning books involving sexual orientation from classrooms and cracking down on drag performances, are missing their mark, according to a strategist writing for The Bullwark Tuesday.

The problem is that swing voters are simply not tuned into this Republican cause — and are even actively turned off by it, wrote Rich Thau, the president of the research firm Engagious.

"We talked to seven Republicans, four Democrats, and three Independents across two sessions on April 11," he wrote. "The short answer is: The war on woke still isn’t resonating."

These voters, wrote Thau, often didn't have a definition of "woke," and when they did, it was unfavorable to the GOP. One voter identified as "Scott," for example, defined "woke" as "a term that was initiated by right-wing media to try to stop the progressive movement under the age of 30" and "a scare tactic."

When asked about specific policies, these swing voters' positions were more complicated but by no means highly favorable to the GOP. They were open to restricting "classroom instruction" on sexuality for young children and limiting transgender athletes from competing in their gender category — two issues the GOP has pursued — but were not on board with other GOP "anti-woke" policies like banning books, opposing "critical race theory," and cracking down on cities that "defund the police."

"And the vast majority of them saw it as negative if a candidate endorses all five policies, with some calling it "pandering" and saying politicians should "focus on things that actually matter."

This tracks with polls broadly showing that most voters actually see "wokeness" as positive and don't support Republicans attacking businesses that celebrate diversity.

"The anti-woke platform may play well with Republican base voters," concluded Thau. "But come the general election in 2024, it’s hard to see combating wokeness driving vote choice.">

<Failed Arizona candidate Kari Lake sent the clearest signal yet that she is considering a run for Senate in her state.

During an appearance on Steve Bannon's War Room podcast, Lake seemed to be coming to terms with the fact she might lose her lawsuit to overturn the 2022 election for governor.

"We do plan to take this all the way to the United States Supreme Court," she explained. "However, we know that will take a long time potentially."

"So if we're not victorious," she continued, "and I pray that we will be in Arizona, I pray that the justices and judges will do the right thing, I will strongly consider a move forward on this Senate seat because I am afraid to death of people like Kyrsten Sinema and Ruben Gallego."

Lake insisted Sinema and Gallego were "radical leftists."

"So that is on the back of my mind, but on the front of my mind is our case, and we are forging forward on that as hard as we can," she said.>

<According to the executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas' avalanche of ethical problems may not bring him down, but the ensuing cover-up could.

The longtime conservative justice who has been on the court since 1991 is currently facing massive scrutiny over having his lifestyle supplemented with "gifts" and trips paid for by a conservative billionaire, as well as real estate transactions and payments that are raising eyebrows.

Starting with ProPublica's report on the relationship the conservative justice and his wife Ginni have with Texas billionaire Harlan Crow, calls have grown for a Senate investigation and for Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts to testify before Congress about what he plans to do about Thomas' ethical transgressions.

According to CREW's Noah Bookbinder, efforts by Thomas to explain away and "cover-up" his activities could end up being a bigger problem.

Writing for MSNBC, he suggested, "Thomas’ actions place him in potential legal jeopardy, and further undermine the Supreme Court’s legitimacy in the eyes of a public that has become increasingly skeptical of its ability to act as an apolitical arbiter of the law," before noting the former President Richard Nixon resigned when his Watergate cover-up caught up with him.

"That’s a lesson that the country learned from the Watergate scandal. The revelation that some Nixon campaign employees broke into the Democratic Party headquarters didn’t cause a generation of Americans to lose their faith in government," he wrote before adding, "Time and again the cover-up is what ultimately causes the downfall."

He continued, "This is poison for the Supreme Court. It is an institution built on a foundation of public trust: It does not have the power of the purse or the authority to enforce the laws that it interprets. Credibility is its currency. And that foundation of credibility is already eroding," and then added, "Thomas has an ethical duty, and he failed to live up to it. As a result, he has caused greater harm to himself, his legacy and the Supreme Court as an institution than disclosing his conduct would have done. And in doing so he learned the same lesson that many before him have been forced to learn: Honesty may be painful or uncomfortable, but the alternative is worse. And once again, our democracy may end up paying dearly for that lesson.">