The incident apparently embarrassed the Communist Party despite China’s long history of both animal and human rights abuse, as the state propaganda outlet Global Times claimed Chinese “netizens,” comments on communist-controlled social media outlets, criticized the video.So who squealed on this one?
“It was miserable for the animal! It’s a disgusting marketing idea to attract attention by abusing a pig!” one user allegedly wrote.
Others reportedly suggested that the theme park’s manager should “be thrown off the bungee tower to see how calm he kept.”
The animal rights organization People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) also denounced the incident, calling it “animal cruelty at its worst.”
“Pigs experience pain and fear in the same ways that we do, and this disgusting PR stunt should be illegal,” Jason Baker, PETA senior vice president of international campaigns, told BBC News. “The Chinese public’s angry response should be a wake-up call to China’s policy-makers to implement animal protection laws immediately.”
Meixin Red Wine Town has since apologized for the stunt, describing it as an “ill-conceived activity aimed to pray for pork prices to take a dive.”
Tuesday, January 21, 2020
When pigs literally fly:
Being prompt is racist, or something:
Hackman, a former professor at St. Cloud University, attended 2016’s “White Privilege Conference,” where she offered a bizarre take on American society. Hackman argued that giving grades to students, using proper English, and the simple notion that one should arrive on time to work and school are racist.You can be as lazy as you wanna be...
“[S]pecific cultural traits chosen and emphasized to favor whites to the detriment of non-white groups,” Hackman argued in 2016. “Individual assessments, competition, outcome over process (I care more about your grades than how you’re doing), ‘discipline’ where we care more about your attendance and making sure you’re not tardy than we care about your relationships … proper English must be spoken (which is just assimilation into standard U.S. dialect), hierarchical power structure, and heavy goal orientation.”
She wants it all:
“If Jeff Bezos wants to be a good person, you turn Amazon into a worker cooperative,” she said to cheers. “You know, like what do I do with all this money that I have created with this unjust system?”It's for the people, she said...
“And if — usually if you’re a billionaire, that means that you control a massive system. It means that you own oil supplies. It means that you control textiles. It means that you have a massive labor force under your control,” she continued.
“And to be ethical, if you’re a billionaire today, the thing that you need to do is give up control and power. So I don’t want your money as much as we want your power. The people. Not me,” she clarified.
Your body is racist, or something:
The “Redefine CRS” campaign calls Chinese Restaurant Syndrome “an outdated term that falsely blamed Chinese food containing MSG, or monosodium glutamate, for a group of symptoms.” Merriam-Webster has already responded, saying they are now “reviewing the term and revising accordingly.”Don't blame it on the buffet?
“We’re constantly in the process of updating as usage and attitudes evolve, so we’re grateful when readers can point us toward a definition that needs attention,” they said. Even so, a company that produces the product they are defending as their central interest is a poor source of consumer confidence.
But despite the dubious nature of the source, they may be right. Original findings on the health risks of the popular amino acid were the result of some very insubstantial research in the late 1960s. Furthermore, people often do not realize that not only is the compound naturally occurring, it is found in much of what we consume on a daily basis. Regardless of the hype, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) still officially believes MSG is safe.
Why won't Democrats play by their own rules?
The Democrats’ complaints about procedure come after they themselves were accused of running an impeachment inquiry that not only broke with every existing precedent, but also violated the due process rights of the president:Not if they have their way...
The House inquiry began without a formal vote by the full House authorizing an impeachment inquiry, as had been done in every prior impeachment of the president, as the White House trial memorandum pointed out Monday.
The House inquiry began in a secretive process, in hearings closed off to the public and to most of the other members of the House, abusing the powers of the House Intelligence Committee to review evidence that was not classified.
The resolution that the House finally approved — in a party-line vote — gave primary fact-finding responsibilities to the House Intelligence Committee, rather than the House Judiciary Committee, which usually handles impeachment.
The House resolution also broke with precedent by allowing the majority party to object witnesses called by the minority but not vice versa. It also refused to allow the president legal representation throughout the investigation.
The House resolution gave Schiff additional power to decide when and how transcripts would be called, and which witnesses who had already testified in private would be called to testify in public (and some important ones were not).
Schiff not only refused to call the so-called “whistleblower” to testify, as he had once insisted he would do, but also blocked Republicans from asking any questions about the “whistleblower,” or even about the flow of information.
Schiff lied to the public about his committee’s prior contact with the whistleblower, and claimed falsely that the whistleblower had a statutory right to anonymity, when in fact he enjoyed no such legal protection whatsoever.
The House impeachment inquiry denied the president any legal representation, or the right to question witnesses, until the fact-finding had already been done, by which time there was no point to having a legal representative in the room.
The House Intelligence Committee produced a report that was not only one-sided, but which also included the phone records of the Ranking Member, the president’s lawyer, and a journalist, without any legal authority for doing so.
The House Judiciary Committee held a hearing on the legal and constitutional issues at which Democrats were allowed to call three expert witnesses, while Republicans were only allowed to call a single legal expert witness.
The House Judiciary Committee broke House rules by denying the minority party the ability to call a hearing for its own witnesses. Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) never provided a satisfactory reason for breaking those rules.
The House Judiciary Committee did not require Schiff to show up in person to defend his Intelligence Committee report, instead allowing him to send a Democrat staffer, who refused to answer questions about the phone snooping.
The House Judiciary Committee allowed a staff counsel, Barry Berke — also a generous donor to the Democratic Party — to testify without taking an oath, and then allowed him to begin the questioning of Republican staff counsel.
The House Democrats spoke endlessly about bribery, then failed to allege bribery in the articles of impeachment against the president — and failed, in fact, to allege that he had committed any violation of any statute whatsoever.
The articles of impeachment made the false allegation that the president had previously been involved with foreign efforts to interfere with U.S. elections, after Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s inquiry proved exactly the opposite.
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) argued that impeachment was an urgent necessity — then withheld the articles of impeachment from the Senate for four weeks while attempting to influence the trial’s procedural rules.
The Senate trial opened on Tuesday afternoon, with Chief Justice John Roberts presiding, and with arguments on the Senate floor from Schiff and Cipollone about the trial procedures, and whether new witnesses would be called.
Monday, January 20, 2020
At a campaign event in Iowa Sunday afternoon, CBS News reporter Zak Hudak asked the presidential hopeful if it's disqualifying for a presidential candidate to lie to the American people about anything. Warren's response was priceless.She said all that needed to be said...
"How could the American people want someone who lies to them?" Warren said, seemingly unaware of her own fibbing. Based on a video posted on Twitter, it does not appear that Zudak asked Warren any follow-up questions.
That's a lot of chicken feed:
Since the city council voted to exclude Chick-fil-A from airport plans last March, the city has been hit with two lawsuits and an investigation by the state's attorney general.For want of a decent chicken sandwich...
In response to the original decision to ban Chick-fil-A, Texas lawmakers passed a "Save Chick-fil-A" law, which "prohibits government entities from taking "adverse actions" against businesses or individuals because of their religious beliefs or moral convictions," according to NBC News.
Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, in addition to signing the "Save Chick-fil-A" bill, supported state attorney general Ken Paxton in opening an investigation into potential religious discrimination by the San Antonio City Council.
"The Constitution's protection of religious liberty is somehow even better than Chick-fil-A's chicken," Paxton wrote in a letter to the council. "Unfortunately, I have serious concerns that both are under assault at the San Antonio airport."