Yes Mao's wife and three of her compatriots, the so call gang of four techically ran China during the culural revolution when Moa was at a very old age but what I have in mind is maybe a female leader of mordern China and maybe Russia and USA would be different instead of the craziness right now
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
What the Heck?! Thread (Closed)
- Thread starter TerraN_EmpirE
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
manqiangrexue
Brigadier
But why though? You just want a female president to be progressive or you think they are less inclined to be violent? Because if they are, it's not because they are better negotiators; it's because they are less likely to aggressively push for the nation's interests (which I don't want for my country). I don't see the appeal of having a female president, especially not just to show how modern or feminist you are. What nation has taken off dramatically because of a magnificent female president? I kinda see them as either being at best moderately good like Merkel (though she did let a yuuuge number of potentially dangerous refugees into her country whom are already causing problems) or terrible like Park (and coming up, Tsai, who's just cruising for trouble all day long and whose approval has fallen to some 20-40% depending on the poll, in just a few short months since taking office). I don't see any female presidents being really shining stars that made a big difference to their counties' histories. I could be wrong though; I'm not exactly a history major or anything.Yes Mao's wife and three of her compatriots, the so call gang of four techically ran China during the culural revolution when Moa was at a very old age but what I have in mind is maybe a female leader of mordern China and maybe Russia and USA would be different instead of the craziness right now
Last edited:
Unless the bill can get past the Senate largely unchanged, it's just political theater and shouldn't be taken too seriously.
Pre-Trump and non-one-party-dominated government sure, but these days you never know.
Blackstone
Brigadier
Oh come on Pan, you're an intelligent and rational man/woman, so you know from history leaders need public support to rule and get things done. That's the case even with dictators and despots, let alone Constitutionally elected leaders like President Trump.Pre-Trump and non-one-party-dominated government sure, but these days you never know.
Tracking polls show Americans have mixed feelings on the UN, but overall they see the organization as useful and they believe America should be part of it. So, while the UN is an easy whipping boy for politicians to rail against, it nevertheless serve American interests to keep around. That's why I seriously doubt the Trump administration would spend political capital on exiting the UN.
Oh come on Pan, you're an intelligent and rational man/woman, so you know from history leaders need public support to rule and get things done. That's the case even with dictators and despots, let alone Constitutionally elected leaders like President Trump.
Tracking polls show Americans have mixed feelings on the UN, but overall they see the organization as useful and they believe America should be part of it. So, while the UN is an easy whipping boy for politicians to rail against, it nevertheless serve American interests to keep around. That's why I seriously doubt the Trump administration would spend political capital on exiting the UN.
Thereby this being in the what the heck thread, a scapegoat can easily become a sacrificial lamb.
Jura The idiot
General
it's actually quite interesting
I’ve reported on Putin – here are my tips for journalists dealing with Trump
I’ve reported on Putin – here are my tips for journalists dealing with Trump
source is The GuardianWhen you combine Donald Trump’s with Russia’s recent propaganda onslaught, it is unsurprising that many were tempted to compare Trump’s campaign to the one Vladimir Putin has been waging both domestically and internationally for several years.
The comparisons have become even more striking after and the by his press officer, , on the new president’s first day in the office. Here we have a clearly autocratic leader who, along with his aides, counsel and subordinates, is openly hostile not only to the media but to facts.
Spicer went on an angry rant against “deliberately false reporting” – while himself making statements that were patently untrue. Later, confronted about Spicer’s obvious distortion, Trump’s counsellor Kellyanne Conway : what Spicer said was not lies but “alternative facts”.
All this has led to hand-wringing among the American media: how do we treat this administration that is prepared to lie to our faces and expects to get away with it? For someone who has been covering Vladimir Putin and Russian politics from Moscow for long enough, like me, it sounds all too familiar. Watching Trump’s press conference rang a lot of bells: the evasion, the bare-faced lies, the failure of the astonished members of the press to rally around their colleagues . Before we get to the parallels between Trump’s and Putin’s treatment of the media, let’s get the obvious differences out of the way.
Trump and Putin are in many ways fundamental opposites of each other. Trump is an entitled “golden child”, while Putin was born in extreme poverty in postwar Leningrad. Trump often seems to act impulsively, while Putin idolises discipline and is always collected. Most important, though, is that unless Trump somehow manages to entirely dismantle the foundations of American democracy early in his first term (as Putin did, following up on the anti-democratic reforms of his predecessor Boris Yeltsin), it’s unlikely that the US press will end up in the same dire and worsening circumstances their Russian counterparts have endured. On paper, the Russian constitution protects the freedom of the press, but there are countless ways the state can bully the unruly media without resorting to violence.
Consider, for instance, the fate of , a tiny independent channel based in Moscow. In 2014 it was careless enough to ask an unthinkable question via a Twitter poll: “Could the sacrifices of the Leningrad siege have been averted by surrendering the city to the Nazis?”. The authorities have long been looking for a casus belli to punish one of the few independent outlets openly opposing the Kremlin’s policies at home and abroad. Russia’s official version of the second world war is sacred and not open to debate, so what followed was a hysteria whipped up by state functionaries and a loyalist media. Soon after, all of Russia’s major cable providers dropped Dozhd from their networks. Although an independent investigation later revealed that they were acting under pressure from Putin’s administration, no laws were broken – “we’re a business and we just don’t want to serve you any more” was the reason given to Dozhd, which is no longer a proper TV channel, instead reduced to web-only broadcasts. The same thing happened to its office lease, revoked without an explanation.
Aside from these brutish tactics, though, Trump seems to aping Putin, consciously or otherrwise. Putin’s annual press conferences are carefully choreographed and widely televised happenings that last for at least four hours. They’re uniquely devoid of any content though: almost no major policy announcements get made and all it boils down to is Putin’s vague and non-committal statements, his trademark zingers and lots of stats and factoids that no one will have the time or determination to fact-check. He almost never lashes out at reporters, as Trump did at BuzzFeed and CNN, but he has many other ways to humiliate you and dodge your question. If you ever get to ask one, that is.
Putin’s last one in late December last year was attended by more than 1,500 reporters, most of them from small, local publications only interested in the issues of their region, some from publications fiercely loyal to Putin, praising him, pitching softball questions and attacking his enemies. So even if you do manage to ask a sceptical question but are not satisfied with Putin’s answer, the chances of a colleague following up out of solidarity is diminishingly small.
With that in mind, consider the Trump team’s proposition to to a more spacious facility to accommodate the “off the chart” interest in the new president. And to dilute the “elite” DC press corps with bloggers and talk radio hosts: to anyone who’s ever seen the mad scramble for Putin’s attention inside that cavernous hall where his press conferences are held, the purpose is obvious.
The biggest threat to informing the public in Russia is not censorship, state pressure or fake news: it’s the chaff constantly thrown out to keep the media distracted. There are politicians in Russia that throughout their decades-long careers have done nothing but make statements aimed at raising outrage or suggesting deliberately absurd bills, with the sole reason of staying in the headlines. Putin himself and his spokesman are famous for their tendency to brazenly deny the plainly obvious – only to make a rhetorical U-turn later, completely dumbfounding everyone.
But in order to hold Putin – or Trump – accountable, you don’t need access to the Kremlin or the White House. Quite the opposite – having such access is a liability, because it’s a privilege you can be threatened with losing, or you can succumb to access bias. Investigations into corruption and mismanagement don’t require close relationships with state officials – quite the opposite. And even though Russian independent reporters can’t unseat Putin (nothing can, that’s not how elections work in Russia) defining public policy is one advantage their American colleagues have. So my message for covering President Trump’s administration is this: don’t get distracted by what they say, focus on what they don’t.
Miragedriver
Brigadier
oops! wrong thread
it's actually quite interesting
I’ve reported on Putin – here are my tips for journalists dealing with Trump
source is The Guardian
Balancing these strongmen of the information age and trying to clean up corrupt systems require a persistent and skilled press supported by conscientious insiders and the populace. An example is chronicled here of how South Korea's Park's recent impeachment came to be:
The History of a Scandal: How South Korea's President Was Impeached
The biggest scandal in South Korean history almost never made it to light.
By Justin Fendos
January 24, 2017
Like the layers of an onion, the many aspects of South Korean President Park Geun-hye’s impeachment have unfolded before our eyes like a live TV drama. As the Constitutional Court mulls its verdict on the impeachment vote, most of the picture is now clear, replete with various instances of bribery, misuse of power, illegal disclosure of government information, European shell companies, and a horse worth $3 million. Although foreign media have been very good at capturing the results and implications of the scandal, very little has been reported about the remarkable process through which the initial allegations were brought to the public’s attention, culminating in massive demonstrations on Gwanghwamun Square. What most foreign observers do not realize is how close this story came to going unnoticed and untold, like so many other allegations before it.
First, some context. Rarely translated into English, the first concrete allegations of corruption against Park Geun-hye and Choi Soon-sil date back to the 1990s, when Park was the chairperson of the Yook-young Foundation, a charity founded by Park’s mother before her assassination in 1974. The charity, which was established to “promote improvements in youth education,” is still functioning today and estimated to possess almost $2 billion in assets. Back in the 1990s, a number of allegations were leveled at Park and Choi Soon-sil’s father Choi Tae-min, who was alleged to have been the true administrator behind the charity, managing both the charity’s finances and fundraising activities.
The allegations suggested, among other things, that Park allowed Choi Tae-min to embezzle foundation resources. Although no concrete evidence was ever produced to substantiate the allegations, Park eventually resigned, bringing the questions to a quiet but unsatisfied conclusion. No formal investigation was ever conducted, a detail you will soon see becomes a recurring theme in the many rumors and allegations surrounding Park and her associates.
Enjoying this article? Click here to subscribe for full access. Just $5 a month.
It is important to highlight the central importance of Choi Tae-min in Park Geun-hye’s timeline. In the 1970s, Choi Tae-min was a key figure under Park Geun-hye’s father, then-president Park Chung-hee. Park Chung-hee tasked Choi Tae-min, among others, with promoting his “New Community” campaign, an ultra-nationalist movement that coupled infrastructure activities with grassroots fundraising. Choi Tae-min is believed to have employed his extensive but questionable religious credentials to great success in these latter efforts, establishing a number of religious organizations to collect funds. It is assumed that large portions of these funds were funneled into personal accounts and the many real estate holdings now owned by Choi Soon-sil and her relatives.
A swirl of rumors at the time also alleged Park Geun-hye and Choi Tae-min were lovers. These rumors continued to resurface on and off until 2011, when WikiLeaks made public a U.S. embassy memo that essentially confirmed the close relationship between the two, declaring the late pastor may have “had complete control over Park’s body and soul during her formative years and that his children accumulated enormous wealth as a result.” Interestingly, this memo went virtually unnoticed by the Korean public until the New York Times referenced it last October in light of the impeachment scandal.
Back to 2007 and Park Geun-hye’s first bid to secure the presidential nomination. The old rumors resurfaced. A particularly vocal opponent of Park’s bid was a member of her own party, Kim Hae-ho. Kim accused her, among other things, of receiving a house in compensation for preferentially awarding a lucrative construction contract while she was chairperson of Yeongnam University in the 1980s. This claim was never proven but, interestingly, Kim was suddenly imprisoned two months after making his allegations public, convicted of breaking campaign finance law.
The details of Kim’s trial were never made public, although a certain Choi Soon-sil was identified as a key witness. An associate of Kim was also imprisoned for slandering Park. The swiftness of both trials and verdicts was deemed irregular by some, leading to murmured speculation about a strong-arm tactic to silence them. Park would eventually lose her nomination bid to Lee Myung-bak, who would go on to become president. The Yeongnam University allegations were never followed up with any formal investigation.
Jung Woon-ho and the Macao Connection
The recent offenses culminating in President Park’s impeachment were first revealed through the most unlikely of paths: an investigation into overseas gambling. The target of the investigation was a member of the Korean mafia, a member of the Bum-seo-bang crime family, who operated an illegal gambling ring in Macao, China. While examining income ledgers, investigators stumbled upon a list of Koreans who used the gambling operation to front money for illegal currency transactions, a process often referred to as “structuring” or “smurfing.” One of the names on the list was Jung Woon-ho, then CEO of the popular cosmetics brand Nature Republic. Further investigation revealed other offenses, such as illegal gambling and tax evasion, resulting in Jung’s eventual arrest in October 2015.
In Korea, it’s a common practice to obtain leniency in criminal trials by hiring a lawyer who is a friend or alumnus of the presiding judge. This is a practice especially prevalent in appellate courts, something called “jun-gwan-ye-woo,” roughly translating as “politely lobbying the bench.” The lawyer Jung hired was Choi Yu-jeong, an ex-judge. Choi was paid at least $5 million in fees to obtain a more lenient sentence. When the desired leniency was not obtained, Jung demanded a portion of his fee returned during a prison visit by Choi. Choi refused and was physically assaulted during this visit. Choi filed suit, bringing added attention to the substantial size of the fee in question.
It is important to emphasize a sum of several million dollars is unheard of for Korean lawyers. In fact, there are normally strict regulations limiting the amount lawyers can charge. Given the substantial sum in question, it was natural for the media and public to speculate whether a portion of this fee was meant as a bribe to be passed on to the presiding judge and his associates. Choi’s lawsuit and public attention prompted the Prosecution Service (PS) to investigate further, revealing evidence of other lobbying activities through Choi’s network. The mounting evidence implicated other lawyers and judges, including one Hong Man-pyo.
...
Cont'd next post
Cont'd from previous post
Cont'd next post
...
Hong Man-pyo is noteworthy for two reasons. First, he was a lawyer who helped defend Jung in a previous gambling case. The details of this 2012 case were almost identical to the 2015 one. In 2012, Jung had also been caught gambling illegally in Macao, spending some $3 million. Even though the charges were identical and the evidence similar, the 2012 investigation was quietly called off in 2014, citing a lack of evidence, contrary to earlier reports made to the media. Hong was the primary defense lawyer for Jung, interacting directly with PS agents throughout the investigation. Not only this, Hong had himself been a senior prosecutor in the PS until 2011, allowing him to have close personal relationships with investigators.
Much like the “polite lobbying” of courts, Korea has long had an alumni tradition wherein senior members of a group exert influence over junior members. In this tradition, referred to as “sun-hoo-be-gwan-ge,” senior members look after the interests of the junior members, sharing benefits and influence in exchange for loyalty. This is such a common occurrence it goes unspecified in English-language news authored by Koreans because it is an assumed element of the culture. In Hong’s situation, not only were the PS agents in charge of Jung’s 2012 case his juniors in the workplace, many were also fellow university alumni. Although never proven, this left many in the media to quietly speculate Hong may have had an advantage in lobbying the PS to discontinue the 2012 gambling case.
This suggestion of tampering was supported by testimony from the Choi Yu-jeong case, which confirmed various examples of bribery perpetrated by Nature Republic. Testimony and money trails eventually led to the arrest of a judge who had presided over another case against Nature Republic in 2014. This judge had received a new car and over a million dollars in bribes. A separate but related case also revealed Nature Republic had bribed Lotte executives to permit the sale of Nature Republic products in Lotte duty-free spaces. The case resulted in the eventual suicide of one Lotte executive.
The Link to the Blue House: Woo Byung-woo
The second notable aspect about Hong Man-pyo was his association with Woo Byung-woo, the secretary for civil affairs under President Park. Both Woo and Hong had been senior prosecutors of the PS working on the investigation of ex-president Roh Moo-hyun, the same investigation resulting in Roh’s suicide. Based on testimony from an unidentified lawyer involved in Jung’s 2015 case, Hong was quoted as saying he had secured Woo’s assistance in obtaining a lenient sentence and that “you didn’t need to worry about the outcome.” Woo had quit the PS around the same time as Hong and worked with him as a lawyer from 2013 to 2014 before being picked to serve in Park’s administration in 2014. This meant Woo was a high-ranking Blue House official when Hong made the comment, suggesting the office of the president was being accessed to intervene in Jung’s criminal trial. Not only this, Woo had been a member of Jung’s defense team during the 2012 gambling case, implicating him further in previous bribery.
Like the many accusations before it, Woo’s potential involvement was not followed up by the PS. The possible link would likely have faded from public consciousness had not two other accusations about Woo surfaced around the same time, in June of last year. The first involved his son. In South Korea, military service is mandatory for men. Some of the conscripts can be assigned to become military police, stationed throughout the country in civilian quarters to handle simple duties like traffic control. This is considered one of the most comfortable positions in the military. Around the time Woo’s connections to Nature Republic were being revealed, separate reports surfaced indicating Woo’s son had been illegally transferred to a military police division. Normally, conscripts cannot be transferred until they have served a minimum of four months. Woo’s son was transferred after only two. Also, Woo’s son never had an interview scheduled, suggesting he bypassed the normal selection process. As before, no formal investigation was launched, although various military sources anonymously confirmed the facts.
The second accusation leveled at Woo was a little more serious. It involved a piece of land Woo’s sister-in-law had inherited from her deceased father. For two years, Woo had tried to help sell it without success. Suddenly, in 2011, the computer game company Nexon purchased it at a price well above market value before leaving the land undeveloped and selling it. What is curious about this case is that one of Woo’s juniors in the PS, Jin Kyung-joon, was caught taking bribes from Nexon even while serving as the senior investigator of a user information mishandling case against them. The mishandling case was quietly discontinued because of “a lack of evidence” and both Nexon and Jin were acquitted of bribery charges this last December due to “a lack of evidence,” despite publicized money trails to the contrary. A civics group formally requested an investigation into Woo’s possible involvement with Nexon but the request was never honored by the PS.
Amid this questionable conduct by both the PS and courts, the press forged ahead with its spotlight on Woo and the Blue House, unveiling another set of journalist investigations into the Mir and K-sports Foundations, institutions we now know were fronts for Choi Soon-sil’s bribery operations. The reports at first did not implicate Woo directly, only offering Woo as one of several possible links between Choi, the Blue House, and the many corporations who made mysteriously generous donations to the foundations. Although the Woo connection has yet to be proven, the amount of attention generated was enough for the Blue House to launch a scathing defense of Woo, criticizing the media for trying to undermine the office of the president by “spreading false rumors” to create a “vegetative administration.”
As a Scandal Grows, the Blue House Strikes Back
Part of the Blue House’s defense took direct aim at the editor-in-chief of Korea’s largest newspaper, the Chosun Ilbo. In a surprisingly public affair, a close supporter of President Park, MP Kim Jin-tae, held a series of press conferences in August, unveiling evidence of a possible corruption relationship between a “high-ranking journalist” in Chosun Ilbo and Nam Sang-tae, the ex-CEO of Daewoo Shipbuilding who had was just come under investigation for bribery. For four days, Kim referred to the “high-ranking journalist” anonymously. In retrospect, many now speculate this was the Blue House’s way of warning Chosun Ilbo and other news outlets to back off on their reporting. When the Chosun Ilbo persisted in publishing stories about Mir, K-sports, and Woo Byung-woo, MP Kim publically named the journalist as Chosun Ilbo’s editor-in-chief Song Hee-yung, precipitating Song’s resignation.
Apparently taking the hint, reporting about Mir, K-sports, and Woo from the major newspapers virtually ceased in September. We now know a number of news outlets, including the TV news network MBC, were suppressed internally, resulting in subsequent demonstrations by journalist labor unions. Despite the drop-off, two outlets persisted. One was Hankyoreh, which was the first to present evidence linking Choi Soon-sil to Mir and K-sports. The second was JTBC, the TV news subsidiary of JoongAng Ilbo.
...
Cont'd next post
Cont'd from previous post
Cont'd next post
...
The Scandal Hits Home: Choi Soon-sil in the Cross-hairs
In early October, JTBC, likely recognizing the political assassination of Song, assembled a special team to perform a more thorough investigation of Mir and K-sports. Their first big catch was a series of interviews with an ex-employee who worked with the foundations. This individual, who still remains anonymous, provided both testimony and evidence showing Choi met frequently with the various heads of Mir and K-sports. Then, on October 18, the all-important Choi Soon-sil tablet was discovered. JTBC maintains the tablet was found abandoned but one must wonder if it was purposely supplied.
Six days later, JTBC first revealed its possession of the tablet. Perhaps following the same strategy used by MP Kim, JTBC chose not to reveal everything at once. Instead, they declared the evidence on the tablet would be revealed slowly over a 20-day period. The first tidbits of disclosure showed sensitive government information on the tablet, information that should never be in the hands of a civilian. JTBC took its time, suggesting various members of the Blue House who may have been capable of supplying the information, pretending at first not to know exactly who it was. This gave time for Choi to go on the record with a Korean newspaper, Segye Ilbo, flatly denying she had ever seen or used the tablet.
For several days, JTBC focused its attention on showing how President Park’s speeches appeared to have been edited directly on the tablet, contradicting the original drafts supplied by ex-Blue House staffers. Several of these ex-staffers came forward to declare their knowledge of Choi’s involvement, adding fuel to the fire. On October 25, President Park gave her first public apology, saying in vague terms she sometimes “relied on Choi in times of hardship.” Park neither addressed nor denied the speech editing allegations, even though JTBC had already handed the tablet over to PS agents the night before. Even with the evidence continuing to accumulate in the media, the PS declared they did not see a reason to investigate Choi. They also stated they did not know where Choi was so could not summon her for questioning.
Once the official statements by Park and Choi were in, the trap slammed shut on October 26. JTBC revealed digital evidence including email trails of where the tablet files came from and registration information for the tablet, showing Choi likely received it from a Blue House staffer named Kim Han-soo, who incidentally, was a close friend of Choi’s in-law. JTBC also showed convincing digital evidence proving the tablet had to have been used by Choi and that she had connections to the “doorknob triumvirate.” Like before, JTBC played its hand carefully, giving just enough to disprove official denials. Evidence of Choi’s tablet use was later confirmed and expanded on by the PS in December.
Also on October 26, the German police first announced they had already been in the process of investigating Choi’s German businesses and were trying to track her down for questioning over illicit business practices. The same day, JTBC ran a live broadcast of a reporter outside one of Choi’s abandoned homes in Germany, knocking on the door and interviewing neighbors. Choi had apparently left in a hurry. This led to a belated admission by the PS they had been aware of both her foreign residences and the overseas investigation, contradicting their previous claim of not knowing where she was. Why the PS would fail to disclose this knowledge remains a mystery.
We now know from recordings of phone calls released during the recent parliamentary hearings in December that Choi, in Europe at the time, made contact with various members of her network, working feverishly to portray JTBC’s story as fabrication. Likely because of the pressure she was feeling from German police, Choi eventually reentered Korea on October 30. What is inexplicable about her return is that the PS allowed it. In a number of other high-profile corruption scandals, potential suspects had always been apprehended at the airport, often with media crowds to record the triumph. But this time was different.
Even though the PS later admitted they were aware of her return, they still allowed her to remain free for 31 hours after her return before finally arresting her on November 1. This delay created uproar in the media, who accused the PS of giving Choi time to destroy evidence and prepare her defense. In fact, Choi’s return to Korea would have gone undetected had not a civilian bystander at the airport accidentally caught sight of her and submitted photos to the press. This fueled more public outrage by lending credence to idea the PS was quietly aiding Choi.
The lackadaisical nature of PS activities did not end there. On October 26, a whopping 27 days after an official PS case for the Mir and K-sports allegations was opened, PS agents finally conducted their first raid on Mir and K-sports offices. Not only was the raid recorded by the media but the agents were caught carrying empty evidence boxes into the offices and the same boxes, still empty, out, indicating they had not collected anything at all. These unexplained deficiencies in perceived competence are largely credited for having motivated the burgeoning demonstrations witnessed in late October and early November. As a continuous flow of new evidence was unveiled by JTBC and other news networks, the PS finally began calling suspects in for questioning, beginning with Choi Soon-sil on November 1.
By this point, Woo Byung-woo was again in the crosshairs of the media and public as the most likely suspect to have facilitated any PS tampering on Choi’s behalf. The claim of such tampering remains to be proven but it should be noted Woo’s mother-in-law now appears to have been one of Choi Soon-sil’s golf buddies, increasing the likelihood of some level of interaction.
...
Cont'd next post
- Status
- Not open for further replies.