Posted on Leave a comment

US Election Results : Poll shows Canada more popular Presidential Bets

US Election Results

welcome By: Elena Grace Flores

It’s unbelievable that the exact US Election Results in the poll conducted in Washington shows that America really likes its neighbor, Canada. Much better than their presidential bets. Here’s how it is:

The latest NBC/Wall Street Journal poll of the presidential election asked Americans not only for their opinions on the candidates, the political parties, and the news media but their opinion on their neighbors.

The result: we win. Seventy-five percent had a positive view of Canada. Just 3 percent had a negative view.

That was way better than any other person or entity.

U.S. election poll

“There has always been, and always will be, an enormous amount of goodwill for Canada in the United States. And the feeling is mutual,” said Christine Constantin, spokesperson for the Canadian embassy in Washington. “We are your best friend, ally and neighbour. We see it every day and in countless ways.”

Mexico polled

Mexico polled at 38 percent positive, 26 percent negative. The news media was at 19 percent positive, 59 percent negative. President Barack Obama was at 51 percent positive, 39 percent negative. Former President Bill Clinton was at 45 percent positive, 38 percent negative.

None of the major presidential candidates was viewed favourably. Republican candidate Donald Trump was at 28 percent positive, 61 percent negative. Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton was at 37 percent positive, 52 percent negative.

Americans have long been united in their appreciation for Canada. In a Gallup poll last year, 92 percent of Americans said they had a favourable impression, a higher figure than for any other country.

Canadians also like America

Canadians also like America, but not quite as much. Sixty-eight per cent of Canadians had a favourable view of America in a Pew poll last year; 26 percent were unfavourable.

Canada even did better in the latest poll of Americans than some of the most popular figures of the recent past. According to the Journal, Canada did even better than Michael Jordan (69 percent positive) in 1997 and Pope John Paul II (65 per cent positive) in 1998.

Clinton held a six-point overall lead in the poll, 43 percent to Trump’s 37 per cent. Libertarian Gary Johnson had 9 percent, Green Jill Stein 3 per cent.

The poll of 1,000 registered voters was conducted by phone from Sept. 16 to Sept. 19. It has a margin of error of 3.1 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.


We are compliant to EU’s Cookie Policy:

Posted on Leave a comment

Zika mosquitoes sprays result to millions of bees dead

Zika mosquitoes

welcome By: Elena Grace Flores

The honey business of a family in Summerville suffered after the areal spray to kill Zika mosquitoes killed their bees instead. This is despite  the US Environmental Protection Agency or EPA’s assurance that the spray used was safe. Read the full story here:

MIAMI — Beekeeper Juanita Stanley woke up stunned Monday morning when she realized the familiar buzz at her South Carolina apiary had gone silent.

In an effort to control the spread of the mosquito-borne Zika virus, authorities over the weekend doused parts of the southeastern state with the controversial pesticide Naled — a dose that proved fatal to millions of bees.

“Our family business has been destroyed by the aerial spray,” Stanley said on the Facebook page of her Summerville, SC apiary, Flowertown Bee Farm and Supplies. “Help us share the story, don’t let our honey girls die in vain.”

Along with her plea Stanley posted photos showing the clumps of dead bees and her team burning the boxes that had housed the hives.

According to the local channel WCSC, the apiary lost 46 hives and 2.5 million bees.

Dorchester County, which manages much of the town of Summerville, ordered the August 28 aerial spraying after detecting four confirmed Zika cases in the area.

“Dorchester County is aware that some beekeepers in the area that was sprayed on Sunday lost their beehives,” said County Administrator Jason Ward in a statement, urging affected beekeepers to report their losses.

The controversial pesticide Naled has been used in the United States since 1959 as a common tool for mosquito control, despite concerns about its risks for human and environmental health.

The European Union prohibited its use in 2012, but the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) assures it is safe if sprayed sparingly.


We are compliant to EU’s Cookie Policy:

Posted on Leave a comment

Technology Problem: U.S. companies supported Microsoft in their lawsuit against government policy


welcome By: Elena Grace Flores

Opinion: Microsoft argued that the law allowing the government to confiscate computer data on third-party computers and barring companies from telling contacts that they are targets for investigation against the constitution. That made sense. Read the full report here:

Microsoft vs Government Law

WASHINGTON — Technology, media, pharmaceutical and other companies, along with major corporate lobbying groups, filed legal briefs on Friday in support of a Microsoft Corp lawsuit that aims to strike down a law preventing companies from telling customers the government is seeking their data.
Friday was the deadline for filing of friend-of-the-court briefs by nonparticipants in the case. The filings show broad support for Microsoft and the technology industry in its latest high-profile clash with the U.S. Justice Department over digital privacy and surveillance.
Microsoft’s backers included the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, Delta Air Lines Inc , Eli Lilly and Co, BP America, the Washington Post, Fox News, the National Newspaper Association, Apple Inc, Alphabet Inc’s Google, Inc, the Electronic Frontier Foundation and many others.

Microsoft filed its lawsuit in Seattle federal court in April, arguing that a law allowing the government to seize computer data located on third-party computers and often barring companies from telling their customers that they are targets is unconstitutional.

The Justice Department argues that Microsoft has no standing to bring the case and the public has a “compelling interest in keeping criminal investigations confidential.” Procedural safeguards also protect constitutional rights, it contends. A Justice Department spokesman declined comment on Friday’s filings.

Microsoft says the government is violating the Fourth Amendment, which establishes the right for people and businesses to know if the government searches or seizes their property, in addition to Microsoft’s First Amendment right to free speech.

Source: CNN


We are compliant to EU’s Cookie Policy:

Posted on Leave a comment

Power Merging: Russia, China and U.S. – two is company and three’s a crowd

welcome By: Elena Grace Flores
What would it be like when the 3 powerful countries of the world would merge and unite towards the betterment of the world? Should be too good to be true – knowing that each of them has their own interests and principles. Besides, all three are observed to have the tendency of wanting to dominate the world. So, is war the answer to settle such competition? Read through this analysis:

US News reported: A team of analysts Tuesday discussed the often tense relationship between the three economic powerhouses. As Russian President Vladimir Putin last month wrapped up his fourth trip to China since Xi Jinping assumed the Chinese presidency back in 2013, he boasted of nearly 60 deals that were in the works between Moscow and Beijing, reportedly worth upward of $50 billion.

“Russia and China stick to points of view which are very close to each other or are almost the same in the international arena,” Putin said at the time.
On its face, that message isn’t exactly reassuring to American observers, especially considering the substantial amount of political tension swirling between U.S. politicians and their counterparts in China and Russia.
“The reality is that Russian and Chinese relations are probably the best [they’ve been] in modern history. … They’re both opposed to a world dominated by a source of power that isn’t one of them,” J. Stapleton Roy, founding director emeritus of the Kissinger Institute on China and a former U.S. ambassador to Singapore, China and Indonesia, said Tuesday at a Brookings Institution event in Washington. “They both feel threatened by U.S. unilateralism.”

Roy and a handful of colleagues spoke Tuesday of the complicated and winding diplomatic relationships between the U.S., Russia and China. The three countries collectively represent some of the most geographically large, economically powerful and militarily significant nations in modern history. They collectively hold a quarter of the world’s population and account for 41 percent of its gross domestic product. If all three operated on the same page, each party – and the world at large – could stand to benefit immensely. But it’s said that two is company and three’s a crowd. And given China’s and Russia’s close proximity – and a mutual frustration with American international intervention – concerns have developed that a two-vs.-one scenario is developing.

The possibility that such an alliance could undermine American authority in the world is not ideal for the U.S. And yet China and Russia have increasingly aligned themselves in international efforts that stray from Western hegemony. The BRICS group – a collective reference to the emerging economies of Brazil Russia, India, China and South Africa – has offered opportunities for China and Russia to team up to improve economic and infrastructural development, as have the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and Xi’s “One Belt, One Road” initiative.
Trade between the two countries has also exploded in recent years, as China has become a primary market for Russia’s abundance of natural resources – particularly since the U.S. and Western allies levied sweeping economic sanctions in the aftermath of Russia’s annexation of Crimea from Ukraine.

It added: “Russia and China are strategically complementary for one another. The Chinese feel Russia is good at confrontation, while the Chinese are good at maneuvering,” says Yun Sun, a nonresident Brookings fellow. “One is an energy exporter, one is an energy importer.” Attempting to clear the air, analysts at the Brookings event Tuesday were asked point blank whether rumblings in this three-way relationship could be laying the groundwork for a new Cold War in the years ahead.

Their answer: Not necessarily, though it can’t be completely ruled out.
“The Cold War was obviously driven by a very intense ideological struggle that was very clearly defined. This is much more vague in many respects,” says Fiona Hill, director of the Center on the United States and Europe. “In many respects, it’s a one-sided struggle.”
Whereas the Cold War in large part represented a showdown between capitalism and communism, Hill says the tensions at play today are more a matter of perspective than of disagreement over a nation’s ideological political structure.

For example, she says the U.S. sees its promotion of democracy and its involvement in global political affairs – like America’s advocacy for the removal of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad – as “very benign.”
“That is not the view of many people in China, and it’s certainly not the view of the inner circle around Vladimir Putin,” Hill says. “There’s very much a strong view that the United States has been driving the uptick in insurgencies … which of course is not the perspective we’ve had in the U.S. at all.”

Analysts also suggested current tensions may not erupt into a Cold War-style conflict simply because all parties in the triangle aren’t standing on equal footing. Although Russian-Chinese trade has ballooned in recent years, the goods and services exchange between the U.S. and China is significantly more substantial. “A major weakness in Sino-Russia ties actually lies in their economic relations, which are fragile,” Sun says, noting that a combination of depressed energy prices, Russian and Chinese currency fluctuations and China’s broader economic slowdown all contributed to a “deterioration of the trade relations” in only a handful of months.

“The economic relationship with the United States is fundamentally more important than the one with Russia,” Roy says of China’s perspective. “The tenor of our relationship with China now, with all of the serious problems we have in the South China Sea and all our other issues, is so different than our relationship with Russia during the Cold War.” Analysts also pointed to an element of distrust that lingers between China and Russia. Hard feelings still persist in China over the Sino-Soviet border conflict of the mid-1900s and previous territory disputes in Eastern Russia that date back to the 19th century.

“It is nothing new for China that there are concerns about Russia within China and vice versa. It’s a peril of proximity and a peril of history,” Sun says. “It is Russia who took most of our lost territories. … Putin’s nationalism in China is perceived to be aimed not only at the West but also at China.” All told, though, Roy cautions American politicians about actively pushing China and Russia into an alliance against the U.S. Although they mostly avoided citing presidential candidates by name, Roy and Hill both noted that this election cycle has included some particularly strong rhetoric on the topic of Chinese trade.

Roy notes that “it’s bad diplomacy … to manipulate them instead of accomplishing something positive” and that “a bad relationship with China is not in the U.S. national interest.” But regardless of who moves into the White House in January, Hill notes that the upcoming presidential election will in some respects allow Russia, China and the U.S. to get a fresh start, even if it will take “really deft diplomacy” to make that happen. “We have an opportunity for a new chapter with our presidential election,” Hill says. “This might still be an opportunity to think afresh. And if we are concerned about getting into another Cold War relationship, which is actually avoidable, then perhaps it’s time that we start thinking about how to change [existing tensions].”


We are compliant to EU’s Cookie Policy:

Posted on Leave a comment

Can war against China be won by US’s fifth-generation aircraft

welcome By: Elena Grace Flores
Diplomatic talks are ongoing with regards to the rising friction between the United States and China. This is not only about China’s rejection to the recent international ruling that did not give them sovereignty over the disputed areas in the South China sea – but also involves economic and trade disagreements. Should there be war between them, experts have analyzed their capabilities and this is what they can say:

Yahoo wrote: A recent report from the Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies, written by Maj. Gen. Jeff Harrigian and Col. Max Marosko of the US Air Force, gives expert analysis and never before seen detail into how the US’s fifth-generation aircraft would fare in a war with China. The report starts with a broad overview of fifth-generation capabilities and their roles in the future of air combat, and it concludes with a hypothetical war in 2026 against an unnamed nemesis after “rising tensions in a key region abroad.”

However, the locations mentioned in the scenario are all in the Western Pacific and clearly seem to indicate the rival is China, whose advanced radar and missile capabilities make for very interesting challenges to the US Air Force’s force structure.

It added: As the scenario takes place ten years in the future, it is assumed that all the kinks with integrating fifth generation fighters into the force have been ironed out, and that the F-35 and F-22 work seamlessly to aid legacy aircraft via datalink.

In the opening stanza of such a conflict, the Air Force officials say that the US would send its F-35s and F-22s to a wide range of bases across the Pacific, leveraging the US’s vast network of bases and allies with some of the valuable warplanes. Such a step denies China’s ability to land a “knockout blow” as they normally could, because typically US jets stay stationed at larger bases, presenting a more attractive target. Also, by this time, the US’s fifth-generation aircraft can find airfields on their own, without the help of air traffic controllers, allowing the force to be further spread out to present less target-rich areas.

(The US would avoid large masses of airpower in the event of a conflict with China.U.S. Air Force photo/Staff Sgt. Elizabeth) Additionally, regional allies like Australia, who also fly the F-35, can quickly fill in for US airmen in a pinch. A US F-35 can land on an Australian airfield and receive much the same maintenance as it would at it’s home base, the officials claim. With the Pacific now a patchwork of small units of F-35s and F-22s, the Chinese would seek to leverage their impressive electronic warfare capabilities, but the officials contend that the fifth-gens would weather the storm.

“Heavy radar and communications jamming confront US and coalition forces, but fifth generation aircraft leverage their networked multi spectral sensors to detect and target enemy aircraft, while supporting a common operating picture through data links and communication architectures,” the Air Force officials write. (China’s military installations in the South China Sea create a huge area that could possibly be turned into an air identification and defense zone. CSIS ASIA MARITIME TRANSPARENCY INITIATIVE)
Meanwhile, legacy platforms like F-16s, F-18s, and F-15s provide a critical layer of defense closer to the US mainland. China’s formidable surface-to-air missile capabilities keep these older, more visible fighters off the front lines until the stealthier platforms, like the F-35, F-22, B-2, and the upcoming B-21 do their job.


We are compliant to EU’s Cookie Policy:

Posted on Leave a comment

Accidental Gunshot can Ignite U.S.-China War amidst Tension

welcome By: Elena Grace Flores
U.S.A Today reported: There’s never an ideal time to antagonize the world’s largest army. But this week — when China is seething over perceived American aggression — is a particularly bad moment to rile up Beijing. Yet that’s exactly what the U.S. Republican Party is doing. At its ongoing convention in Cleveland, led by nominee Donald Trump, the party is doubling down on China bashing. According to the new Republican platform, China is guilty of “cultural genocide,” “barbaric population control” and a state-backed “hostile takeover” of American businesses. Worse yet, China’s military is growing more intimidating thanks to — you guessed it — the “complacency of the Obama regime.” This bluster comes at an extremely tense moment in US-China relations. last week, an international tribunal at The Hague sided with the United States and eviscerated one of China’s most contentious claims of sovereignty. For years, Beijing has insisted that practically all of the South China Sea — a vital waterway that supports one-third of the world’s shipping trade — is the “blue national soil” of China. Unsurprisingly, other nations who look upon the sea from their shores (namely Vietnam and the Philippines) have never agreed.

It continued: The U.S. has urged both Vietnam and the Philippines to stand tall against China. All the while, the U.S. military has deployed its superior fleet of drones and warships into the sea to scare China into submission. China’s response? Transforming minuscule islands into remote military bases armed with powerful missiles. Once little specks of rock, these islands have swelled as Chinese barges dump mountains of sand around their edges.
Beijing has always paired its military maneuvers in the sea with rhetorical bombast printed in state-run media, which offers a window into the Communist Party’s thinking. But in the wake of the Hague tribunal’s verdict, the government’s mouthpiece media have spoken more forcefully about the prospects for war. One op-ed from a state-run outlet asks, “Is there any chance of war in the South China Sea?” The same piece suggests that, if the United States did battle China over the sea, America may be vanquished: “The 21st century has witnessed a series of failures of U.S. military actions.”
Another column compares the tribunal’s South China Sea ruling to the U.S.-orchestrated campaign to convince the world that Iraq possessed “weapons of mass destruction” — thus making the case for invasion.

According to the op-ed, this is the “same trick” played by the U.S., which “believes in nothing but ‘might makes right.’” (For good measure, the state-run paper adds that former President George W. Bush should be charged as a war criminal.) In the view of Chinese communist stalwarts, the tribunal’s verdict is“radical and shameless” and will be disregarded as “nothing but a piece of paper.” Yet they concede this piece of paper “may bring the China-U.S. contest to a new climax” — and offers the U.S. “a great opportunity to humiliate and contain China.” There is a common thread between the screeds coming from Beijing and Cleveland. Both parties, Communist and Republican, hope to project uncompromising power while satiating the nationalistic fervor that surges through their follower base. On the Republican side, this anti-China drumbeat appears to have grown much louder with the ascent of Trump, a candidate who insists that “we can’t continue to allow China to rape our country.” Trump’s Democrat rival Hillary Clinton hasn’t matched that level of outrageous rhetoric. But in Beijing’s halls of power, she too is regarded as overly hostile. As U.S. secretary of state, she routinely castigated China. If elected, she could more forcefully challenge Beijing in the South China Sea than President Obama ever did. No matter who takes the U.S. presidency, the odds of a naval war with China remain low — at least in the near future. The two nations are simply too intertwined to rush headlong into conflict. A Chinese state-run paper rightly points out that “only maniacs would start a war between China and the U.S.” But nationalistic bluster is intensifying in both countries. And each year, an increasing number of warships, missiles and drones are brought to the sea to jockey for supremacy. The sea is primed for an unintended event — a drone shot down, a game of chicken between warships gone too far — that would demand extraordinary tact from a future U.S. president seeking to avoid war.
As China’s state-run Global Times puts it: “An accidental gunshot might put policymakers in both countries under huge pressure from public opinion, which could unexpectedly escalate the situation and lead to a grave crisis”; the report said as per link below:


Posted on Leave a comment

US’s tanker on Stingray takes care of China’s missiles


welcome By: Elena Grace Flores
China and Russia’s long-range weapons are now matched with the US’s tanker on Stingray which is a carrier-based vehicle. Since anti-access area denial has been the US’s problem to pursue the enemies, they need carrier-based aircraft to increase the range of their tanker indefinitely without limitations. Continue reading for the details:

Yahoo wrote: The US Navy just named the first carrier-based Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) the MQ-25A Stingray. The Navy has been pursuing a carrier-based drone since 2006 — first as a long-range stealthy bomber, then as a surveillance and strike craft, and finally as a flying tanker. Though air-to-air refueling is hardly a breakthrough, having a carrier-based tanker provides the Navy with a possible solution to one of their most pressing problems — anti-access area denial (A2AD). Both China and Russia have developed ranged platforms capable of locking US forces out of key locations in their respective areas, but the Stingray could increase the range of US carrier-based aircraft indefinitely, allowing them to burst enemy A2AD bubbles.

It added: For instance, China’s famous DF-21D “carrier killer” ballistic missile has a range of about 810 miles. The US’s longest-range carrier-based aircraft only have a range of about 550 miles, which forces the US to either operate carrier-based aircraft outside of their effective range or risk bringing an entire carrier, with 6,000 sailors and about 70 aircraft, within range of the DF-21D. The Stingray, once integrated into carrier fleets, will extend the range of US carrier’s existing F-18s, allowing them to effectively operate from a safe distance. Once fielded, the Navy will look to increase the role of the Stingray.


Posted on Leave a comment

South Korea Deploying American Missile Shield can Spark Nuclear War

Nuclear War

welcome By: Elena Grace Flores
It has been decided in South Korea to deploy a US advanced missile defense system in the country’s southeastern region called Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system – following years of controversy over the weapon system’s effectiveness against North Korea’s increasing missile capability.
The U.S. spearheaded a sophisticated missile-defense system in South Korea could trigger a nuclear showdown similar to the Cuban missile crisis 60 years ago. The defense system is designed to counter the increasing threat from North Korea’s missile and nuclear program. The system’s radar coverage can also be extended to monitor Beijing’s missiles – the reason why protests arise with local residents fearing the potential health hazards caused by the system’s radar.

According to NBC News: “The negative influence of the deployment of THAAD … is similar to that of the Cuban missile crisis,” warned a commentary piece in government-run China Daily. Another editorial described the anti-missile system as a “clear, present and substantive threat to China’s security interests.” “THAAD can be target of surgical strike,” echoed the Global Times, another state-run newspaper, in an implicit threat to South Korea.

It added: State-run outlets like Global Times and China Daily are often used to reflect the government’s position on issues. During the Cuban missile crisis in October 1962, the U.S. and Soviet Union engaged in a tense 13-day standoff after Soviet nuclear-armed missiles were installed in Cuba, just 90 miles from American shores, prompting fears of all-out nuclear war.


Posted on Leave a comment

China can Inflict serious Damage to its Neighbors during War with the U.S.


welcome By: Elena Grace Flores
Military analysts worldwide may not think that China can surpass the war capability of the United States – but with its continues upgrades in armaments and hi-tech military facilities, it can inflict serious damages into its neighbors like in the Philippines which is the subject of their fury as the international tribunal awarded the sovereignty over the disputed West Philippine Sea to the Filipinos. Another one is Vietnam that turned their back on them, plus Indonesia that returned their bullying techniques by doing the same to China – and most of all, the head on collision with another Asian giant that is also into nuclear weaponry, India. Read this analysis as to who will win:

AFR wrote: If it came to a war over the South China Sea, who would win?
Ten years ago, the answer would have been a resounding nod to the United States. While the odds are still well in the super power’s favour today, military experts say the costs would be high and China could inflict some serious damage. Of course, this is an extreme scenario. Most analysts agree that the chance of a conventional war between China and the US over the South China Sea is low, precisely because the consequences are so serious.

It added: It would pit a rising military power against the most established fighting force in the world, which would ostensibly be acting in support of its regional allies and to maintain its influence in the region.