Sunday, November 30, 2014

Sheriff Clarke views on Ferguson

NATIONAL PRESS CLUB, WASHINGTON D.C. — Sheriff Clarke talks about Ferguson Missouri and how 

politicians and irresponsible groups came like vultures on a roadside carcass to exploit the situation. Eric Holder

 made a bad situation worse with self-serving rhetoric. 9-17-14

Clarke is a lifelong resident of the City of Milwaukee and in March 2002 was appointed Sheriff by Governor

 Scott McCallum, and eight months later was elected to his first four-year term, earning 64% of the vote. Sheriff

 Clarke is now in his third term, having been re-elected in November 2006 and 2010, increasing his victory 

margins to 73% and 74%.

Clarke graduated summa cum laude from Concordia University Wisconsin with a degree in Criminal Justice 

Management, and in May 2003, Concordia honored him with their Alumnus of the Year Award. Sheriff Clarke 

also is a graduate of the FBI National Academy in Quantico, Virginia. This prestigious school trains law 

enforcement executives from all over the world, and provides management and leadership instruction. In July 

2004, he completed the intensive three-week Program for Senior Executives in State and Local Government, at 

the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University.

Sheriff Clarke was honored in May 2013, with the Sheriff of the Year Award from the Constitutional Sheriffs and

 Peace Officers Association for, “demonstrating true leadership and courage. . . staying true to his oath, true to 

his badge, and true to the people he has promised to serve and protect.”

Sheriff Clarke
A gA good comment below Frederick Wilson ll, on taking responsibility


Thursday, November 27, 2014

To find encouragement beyond Ferguson


At some point while I was playing or preparing to play Monday Night Football, the news broke about the Ferguson decision. After trying to figure out how I felt, I decided to write it down. Here are my thoughts:
I’M ANGRY because the stories of injustice that have been passed down for generations seem to be continuing before our very eyes.
I’M FRUSTRATED, because pop culture, music, and movies glorify these types of police-citizen altercations and promote an invincible attitude that continues to get young men killed in real life, away from the safety of movie sets and music studios. 
I’M FEARFUL because in the back of my mind I know that although I’m a law-abiding citizen I could still be looked upon as a “threat” to those who don’t know me. So I will continue to have to go the extra mile to earn the benefit of the doubt.
I’M EMBARRASSED because the looting, violent protests, and lawbreaking only confirm and, in the minds of many, validate the stereotypes and thus the inferior treatment.
I’M SAD, because another young life was lost from his family; the racial divide has widened; a community is in shambles; accusations, insensitivity, hurt, and hatred are boiling over; and we may never know the truth about what happened that day.
I’M SYMPATHETIC, because I wasn’t there, so I don’t know exactly what happened. Maybe Darren Wilson acted within his rights and duty as an officer of the law and killed Michael Brown in self-defense like any of us would in the circumstance. Now he has to fear the backlash against himself and his loved ones when he was only doing his job. What a horrible thing to endure. OR maybe he provoked Michael and ignited the series of events that led to him eventually murdering the young man to prove a point.
I’M OFFENDED, because of the insulting comments I’ve seen that are not only insensitive but dismissive to the painful experiences of others.
I’M CONFUSED, because I don't know why it’s so hard to obey a policeman. You will not win!!! And I don’t know why some policemen abuse their power. Power is a responsibility, not a weapon to brandish and lord over the populace.
I’M INTROSPECTIVE, because sometimes I want to take “our” side without looking at the facts in situations like these. Sometimes I feel like it’s “us” against “them.” Sometimes I’m just as prejudiced as people I point fingers at. And that’s not right. How can I look at white skin and make assumptions but not want assumptions made about me? That’s not right.
I’M HOPELESS, because I’ve lived long enough to expect things like this to continue to happen. I’m not surprised and at some point my little children are going to inherit the weight of being a minority and all that it entails.
I’M HOPEFUL, because I know that while we still have race issues in America, we enjoy a much different normal than that of our parents and grandparents. I see it in my relationships with teammates, friends, and mentors. And it’s a beautiful thing.
I’M ENCOURAGED, because ultimately the problem is not a SKIN problem, it is a SIN problem. SIN is the reason we rebel against authority. SIN is the reason we abuse our authority. SIN is the reason we are racist, prejudiced, and lie to cover for our own. SIN is the reason we riot, loot, and burn. BUT I’M ENCOURAGED because God has provided a solution for sin through the his Son, Jesus, and, with it, a transformed heart and mind. One that’s capable of looking past the outward and seeing what’s truly important in every human being. The cure for the Michael Brown, Trayvon Martin, Tamir Rice, and Eric Garner tragedies is not education or exposure. It’s the gospel. So, finally, I’M ENCOURAGED because the gospel gives mankind hope.

Editors’ note: This article originally appeared on Watson’s Facebook page. Reprinted with permission from the author.
​Benjamin Watson plays tight end for the New Orleans Saints. You can find him on TwitterFacebook, and hispersonal website. He and his wife, Kirsten, have four children and live in New Orleans.

A Fresh Approach to Ferguson



Voddie Baucham is the pastor of preaching at Grace Family Baptist Church in Spring, Texas.

[A thoughtful presentation of the problems in Ferguson, indeed of the USA and much of the world. I hope that a way out can be found by all the people entrapped by this burning rage and victimhood and that leaders can arise to question the current presentation and education of their communities]

In early August my wife and I, along with seven of our nine children, left for a month-long ministry tour in Africa (Kenya, Zambia, and South Africa). It was a couple of days before we got settled and had any access to media. As such, I was taken aback when I began to receive Google alerts, emails, and Facebook and Twitter messages either demanding that I comment on “Ferguson,” or condemning me for failing to do so. The only problem was, I had absolutely no idea what they were talking about. Who, what, or where was Ferguson? Why was it such a big deal? Why was I being condemned (along with other “high-profile” evangelicals) for “failing to speak out on such an important issue”? 
I eventually got up to speed. Or at least I found out what all the fuss was about. Over the next several weeks I viewed this issue from a unique perspective. I was an American in Africa watching an issue ignite ethnic tensions in my homeland. It was almost surreal. 

Who Am I to Speak?

My first response to Ferguson was to say nothing. I was on the outside looking in. I didn’t know what happened. I didn’t know the communities or the issues surrounding the tensions. Second, I chose to remain silent because people were demanding that I speak—even condemning me for my silence. In this age of “I sure would love to hear your thoughts on” I get tired of the sense of entitlement with which people approach those whom they deem to be popular or high-profile Christians. No one is “entitled” to my opinion. Nor is my faithfulness to God determined by how quickly I respond to “relevant” issues.
As a pastor, I have a responsibility to my flock. If those for whose souls I care (Heb. 13:17) want help thinking through these issues, I am obligated to them. I have a duty to walk them through issues like these to the best of my ability, and with sensitivity to their particular needs. What worries me is that Christians in the age of social media care more what “popular” preachers have to say on issues like this (and whether or not they agree with other “popular” preachers) than they are about taking advantage of an opportunity to work through challenges in the context of Christian community. More importantly, it worries me that so many Christians view themselves primarily as members of this or that ethnic community more than they see themselves as members of the body of Christ.

The Plight of Black Men

Rest assured, I do believe there are systemic issues plaguing black men. These issues are violence, criminality, and immorality, to name a few. And all of these issues are rooted in and connected to the epidemic of fatherlessness. Any truly gospel-centered response to the plight of black men must address these issues first and foremost. It does no good to change the way white police officers respond to black men if we don’t first address the fact that these men’s fathers have not responded to them appropriately.
There is indeed an epidemic of violence against black men.
I am surpized at the disparate comments below that I see are against him, and fortunately of course the 

ones that do agree.

Still food for thought and understanding of what may be causing these problems.

In fact I have gave much thought in taking in the differing points of view, as I was amazed at the

 comments and their points of view,

To sift a truth to the Ferguson issue

Hey Ferguson Protestors: Justice Has Been Done, But You Never Wanted Justice.

It sort of puts into good words my understanding, and perhaps allows one to guide or help any others to sort out a future path in their difficult lives, even if it may take a generation.
Nov. 25, 2014 10:07am
Matt Walsh is a blogger, writer, speaker, and professional truth sayer.
Hey protestors in Ferguson and around the country, along with all manner of other agitators, demonstrators, race baiters, looters, rioters, media sensationalists, and everyone else in the Michael Brown Fan Club across the nation and the world:
You claim you want justice, so what are you protesting now?
Justice was done, friends, justice was done.
There won’t be a public trial because this is America, and in America we don’t put people on trial just to satisfy the vengeance of the mob. We don’t bring someone up on charges if the facts do not support those charges.
So Officer Wilson was not indicted. The facts reigned supreme last night. Well, first the facts, and then the arson.
Officer Wilson will not be charged because the entire outrage was built on fabricated witness testimony. Witness testimony, in some cases, from people who weren’t even witnesses. Officer Wilson was not indicted because the physical evidence, forensics, and ballistics all supported his story. Officer Wilson was vindicated because the most consistent witnesses were the ones who validated his version of events (and most of those witnesses were black).
That’s the truth. That’s the reality. It’s rock solid, folks. Plain as day. Michael Brown was not a civil rights hero; he was a belligerent and violent young man who lost his life because of his own actions. It is sad that he’s dead

Wednesday, November 26, 2014

Doctored dolphin numbers

A guest post by Keith Mawson of Egmont Seafoods:
Scientists telling fibs about Maui’s dolphins
In 2003 the government banned  in the Maui’s dolphin habitat off Auckland and Waikato.  No Maui’s have been recorded as harmed by  since then.
Yet this is not what the experts in the International Whaling Commission were told as they voted against New Zealand at the IWC meeting in Slovenia.
The IWC relied on a paper presented to its Scientific Committee in 2013 which stated there was a yearly documented death rate of the endangered Maui’s from fishing.
It was written by Dr Barbara Maas, who works in London for NABU International, a conservation organisation. 
She reported to the IWC that there was not only a recorded Maui’s death rate from fishing, but that in 2008 it increased.
Since the 2008 protection measures were introduced, the number of stranded and reported bycatch cases has increased slightly (Slooten 2013). Between 1970 and 2008 an average of 1.00 entangled Maui’s dolphin was recorded per year. This figure increased marginally to 1.33 dolphin deaths per annum between 2009 and 2012.
Maui’s are clearly threatened subspecies of dolphin. Though the well-known number of 55 Maui’s adults is an estimate, the real population total is probably not too far off this.
Were Maas’ figures to be true, (though she states the figures come from Otago academic Liz Slooten but Maas provided no footnote reference) there would have been eight dead Maui’s dolphins from fishing since 2008, and nearly another 40 back to 1970.
If fishing was killing them at the stated rate, and expanded into a theoretical and often cited multiplier total of 4.97 per year, then something would need to be done.
But the figures, though worked out to the seemingly scientific second decimal point, are bogus.  A Slooten paper which is the probable source, states the numbers are taken from a DOC database. 
But the DOC database has no such information.  The IWC has been misled.
The information DOC holds is that in four cases, between 1921 and 2002, fishing may have killed a Maui’s.  Two were ‘possible’, one ‘probable’ and one ‘known’.
There is no yearly rate at all.  There are only four instances of fishing possibly killing Maui’s since records were first taken 93 years ago.  It is actually the confirmed reason in only one of these four cases.

Russian considerations

Q&A with the Saker by Controinformazione in Italy
Dear friends,
I was recently contacted by Anacronista from the website Controinformazione in Italy and we agreed to do a short Q&A which was published today here in Italian. I am posting the original English text of our exchange below.


The Saker

Anacronista: Today the contrast between Russian and US foreign policies is striking: on one side moderation, common sense, respect for sovereign states; on the other side coups d'etat, threats, sanctions and lies. Is the contrasting behaviour of the two powers due to incidental political calculations or to a different underlying view of life?

The Saker: The first thing to point out is that Lavrov and Putin are extremely well educated men who come from elite institutions: Lavrov from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Putin from the former external intelligence directorate of the KGB. They are far better educated that modern US diplomats. In the past the US also had distinguished diplomats like James Baker, but now they are either total idiots (like Psaki) or arrogant liars (like Powers). The second this is that the USA truly does not have a "diplomacy". After all, US "diplomacy" is just a combination of demands, promises, threats and bombings which do not require any real diplomatic skills. Third, Russia has greatly suffered from the costs of empire, both under the Czars and under the Soviet rule. As a result, Russia does not want to be an empire, or a super power, or a world policeman or a hegemon. All Russia wants is to be a *normal* but, and this is important, a *truly sovereign* country. In order to achieve that Russia has a few basic fundamental rules she really believes in:

  1. Turn your enemies into neutrals, your neutrals into partners, your partners into friends and your friends into allies. The US can only conceptualize two categories: vassals and enemies.
  2. Security is always and necessarily collective. If your neighbor does not feel safe, then you also are not safe. The US only feels secure then it can threaten everybody, as a result of which, everybody feels threatened.
  3. International law really matters to the Russians. Why? Because they want a multi-polar world and that, in turn, mandates that the "rules of the game" (international law) be upheld. The US wants a unipolar world which, therefore, has no need for international law.
  4. For Russia, the use of military forces is the last resort and a failure of diplomacy. For the US the use of force is an integral part of what it calls "diplomacy"
What we are dealing with here is a deep civilizational conflict. These are two fundamentally incompatible views of the world, two mutually exclusive civilizational models which cannot coexist, much less so collaborate.

Anacronista: What are the substantial differences, if any, between Western capitalism and Russian capitalism? Is Russia run by "markets"?

The Saker: No, Russia has a deeply dysfunctional economy. First, Russian interest rates as so high as to completely inhibit most credit for the creation of small to medium size companies. In fact, interest rates in Russia are higher than the profitability of entire sectors of the economy. Second, a huge amount of Russian money leaves Russia every year into offshore accounts and is then returned to Russia in form of "foreign investments". Combine that with the fact that most Russian corporations are incorporated outside Russia (in the UK typically) and you will immediately conclude that the entire economic/financial system in Russia is designed to prevent Russia from diversifying the Russian economy and get off the "energy needle". Russia is also poorly regulated, has a very erratic taxation system, very limited government investments and corrupt courts (hence the use of arbitrage). The Russian market has clear signs of being an oligopoly and this is a major inhibitor to the real potential of the Russian society. Some economist say that the Russian economy is barely turning at 2/3-1/2 of its true potential.

On a very different level I would also note that true capitalism has never been part of the Russian culture. Russian culture is far more collective and Russian people are not inspired by worldviews which offer little besides hopes of self-enrichment and the monetization of everything. Russian culture has always been social and social justice is an ideal which still is strong in Russia today while unbridled greed is frowned upon.

Thursday, November 13, 2014

Global Cooling, Global warming, Global Change, Global Pause


A Dozen Facts Debunking Global Warming Obama Can't Answer (Despite The Phony China Deal)

The news was announced early Wednesday November 12, a pseudo climate agreement between the U.S. and China.
Under the deal, the United States would cut its carbon emissions between 26-28% -- from levels established in 2005 -- by 2025. China would peak its carbon emissions no later than 2030 and would also increase the use of non-fossil fuels to 20% by 2030.

"As the world's two largest economies, energy consumers and emitters of greenhouse gases, we have a special responsibility to lead the global effort against climate change," Obama said Wednesday.

Notice in the deal China doesn't have to start cutting back till 2030 and no cut is outlined just a 20% increase. How could they not agree to that. Their biggest economic competitor has to cut back 25-28% by 2025 and they don't have to even start cutting for another five years. This isn't a deal it's a scam the President can use to sell his executive fiats about climate change. According to Poltico , the President is about to embark on two years of climate-related executive orders, guaranteed to trash the economy.
Does the President really understand what is going on with the climate or is he just promoting the hypothesis because it will result in a worldwide redistribution of income between rich and poor nations?  Either way this President is denying the climate facts.

For those of you who want to think for themselves rather than simply listen to the scary speeches of the global warming proponents, I have created a list of a dozen facts about global warming, that those those folks making the scary speeches cannot respond.

Everything below is a fact and I invite the POTUS and /or his climate friends to respond. But they wont. Instead they will call me names like denier or member of the Flat Earth Society (actually there really is a Flat Earth Society and its president believes in the global warming hypothesis so who is the real "flat-earther?)

1) Through Halloween of 2014- The Global Warming Pause has lasted 18 years and one month. Heartland Institute analyst, Peter Ferrara, notes“If you look at the record of global temperature data, you will find that the late 20th Century period of global warming actually lasted about 20 years, from the late 1970s to the late 1990s. Before that, the globe was dominated by about 30 years of global cooling, giving rise in the 1970s to media discussions of the return of the Little Ice Age (circa 1450 to 1850), or worse.” So there was thirty years of cooling followed by 20 years of warming and almost 18 years of cooling...and that's what the global warming scare is all about.

2) Antarctic Sea Ice is at record levels and the Arctic ice cap has seen record growth.  Global sea ice area has been averaging above normal for the past two years. But to get around those facts, the global warming enthusiasts are claiming that global warming causes global cooling (really).

The earth recycles it's own garbage

By Ron Ewart
November 5, 2014
"Only the ignorant will buy into an irrational or fraudulent premise." —Ron Ewart
Although there were some good sides to environmentalism, the truth is, environmentalism was created by the world elite to enslave a planet for the purposes of controlling the population with millions of environmental regulations and re-distributing the wealth from the rich countries to the poor countries. This is the dream of those who promote social justice, like Obama and the progressives, but social justice cannot be realized without imposingenvironmentalism on all the people. Environmentalism is imposed on the people through the policy known as the United Nations Agenda 21 accord, established at the Earth Summit in 1992 in Rio de Janeiro. President George H. W. Bush signed that accord. Learn a lot more about Agenda 21.
Here are some excerpts from the Agenda 21 Preamble. We have highlighted some of the more suspicious passages.
"Humanity stands at a defining moment in history. We are confronted with a perpetuation of disparities between and within nations, (it's America's fault) a worsening of poverty, hunger, ill health and illiteracy, and the continuing deterioration of the ecosystems on which we depend for our well-being. However, integration of environment and development concerns and greater attention to them will lead to the fulfillment of basic needs, improved living standards for all, better protected and managed ecosystems and a safer, more prosperous future. No nation can achieve this on its own; but together we can - in a global partnership for sustainable development.

Agenda 21 addresses the pressing problems of today and also aims at preparing the world for the challenges of the next century. It reflects a global consensus and political commitment at the highest level on development and environment cooperation. Its successful implementation is first and foremost the responsibility of Governments.
The developmental and environmental objectives of Agenda 21 will require a substantial flow of new and additional financial resources to developing countries, (wealth re-distribution) in order to cover the incremental costs for the actions they have to undertake to deal with global environmental problems and to accelerate sustainable development. Financial resources (read from America) are also required for strengthening the capacity of international institutions for the implementation of Agenda 21.

In the implementation of the relevant programme areas identified in Agenda 21, special attention should be given to the particular circumstances facing the economies in transition. (poor countries)
From the UN Conference on Human Settlements held in Vancouver, BC Canada in 1976.
"Social, economic, ecological and environmental deterioration which are exemplified at the national and international levels by inequalities in living conditions, social segregation, racial discrimination, acute unemployment, illiteracy, disease and poverty, the breakdown of social relationships and traditional cultural values and the increasing degradation of life-supporting resources of air, water and land."
From that same conference the conferees wrote:
"Land...cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market. Private land ownership is also a principal instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth and therefore contributes to social injustice; if unchecked, it may become a major obstacle in the planning and implementation of development schemes. Public control of land use is therefore indispensable...."
The UN meets all the time on the issue of Human Settlements and their plansare diametrically opposed to the foundation of American freedom and sovereignty. The UN met again in 2001 and produced a policy paper that would curl your hair.

Wednesday, November 12, 2014

Understanding what Progressivism means

The State of Progressive America

Email Print
{"uid":4,"hostPeerName":"","initialGeometry":"{\"windowCoords_t\":0,\"windowCoords_r\":1920,\"windowCoords_b\":1046,\"windowCoords_l\":0,\"frameCoords_t\":281.77081298828125,\"frameCoords_r\":789.3771362304688,\"frameCoords_b\":531.7708129882812,\"frameCoords_l\":489.37713623046875,\"styleZIndex\":\"auto\",\"allowedExpansion_t\":281.77081298828125,\"allowedExpansion_r\":528.6228637695312,\"allowedExpansion_b\":152.22918701171875,\"allowedExpansion_l\":489.37713623046875,\"xInView\":1,\"yInView\":1}","permissions":"{\"expandByOverlay\":true,\"expandByPush\":false,\"readCookie\":false,\"writeCookie\":false}","metadata":"{\"shared\":{\"sf_ver\":\"1-0-0\",\"ck_on\":1,\"flash_ver\":\"15.0.0\"}}"}" scrolling="no" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" width="300" height="250" data-is-safeframe="true" style="max-width: 100%; border-width: 0px; vertical-align: bottom;">
America is dying from an idea she only dimly understands, so-called “progressivism.”  Progressivism is an ideology with no basis in fact or logic.  Its original proponents believed it to be a scientific approach to politics.[1]  That is “nonsense on stilts,” to quote back at them a sneer about natural law by the proto-progressive Jeremy Bentham.  Progressivism was not subjected to any sort of scientific testing before it became the ruling ideology in America around 1900.  Nor have its many policy revolutions ever been tested scientifically.  Rather, a bad idea was propagated, spread and was installed as the dominant guide to policy and dramatically changed the nature of America for the worse.  America will continue its downward spiral until this false and destructive ideology is fully understood and rejected.
Progressivism may be initially defined as the strong presumption that democratic government intervention (force) will produce a better result than voluntary society. Hence the root of the word “progress”.  However, the “progress” element of progressivism is aspirational, not factual.  The term begs the question by assuming as true that which has not been proved: that progressive ideas will lead to progress.  In fact, while progressives portray themselves as scientific, pragmatic, result-oriented and fact-based, there is little evidence, scientific or otherwise, that progressive programs have improved society.  See, Chapter 4.
Progressivism has been the dominant political force since at least 1912 when all three major candidates for President were progressives.  Major elements of the progressive program were installed shortly thereafter.  The income tax amendment took effect in 1913.  The Federal Reserve was also created in 1913.  These two acts combined had the impact of allowing the federal government direct access to the nation’s income and wealth either by taxation or inflation of the money supply.  These complementary means of wealth acquisition would allow the federal government to pay for the numerous progressive programs rolled out in the ensuing 100 years and presently.
Progressive Era programs were built on the foundation laid by the Civil War which was the federal government’s first great leap forward in establishing dominance over the states and the people.  The New Deal added several new programs including Social Security, the minimum wage, agricultural subsidies and public housing and granted unions the power to force businesses to bargain with them.  The Great Society began to socialize medicine with Medicare and Medicaid and vastly expanded the welfare state. Throughout the entire period, coercive regulation of business and everyday life by federal, state and local government steadily increased.
“Regulation” in this context is one of those words whose mellifluent sound belies its ugly reality.  Regulations ban peaceful voluntary behavior that is neither criminal, tortious nor violative of any contract.  A regulation is a tax on non-monetary wealth: time, energy, and property.  The sum total of all regulations destroys untold amounts of wealth and does so in such a stealthy manner that only the most discerning economists and policy analysts even notice.


Ryan Sproull (7,230 comments) says: 
I don’t know if you’ve ever worked with the public sector, but it’s no picnic. One of the more frustrating experiences in life.
Here’s my artist’s impression:
YOU: We should turn off the heaters in that abandoned room that no one’s using. It’s a waste of power and money.
FRANK: Great! We’ll just have to run it by Harry.
HARRY: Great! We’ll just have to run it by Judith.
JUDITH: Great! Now, it’s possible that senior citizen might walk into that room by accident and be cold, so we need to ensure inclusivity by putting up clear signage that the room will no longer be heated.
HARRY: Frank, Judith says we can turn off the heaters, but we need to put up signs.
FRANK: Hey you, you can turn off the heaters, but we need to put up signs. Get in touch with Larry from Signs.
YOU: Larry, can you make me a sign for the unused room that won’t be heated any more?
LARRY: Can do! What do you want the signs to say?
YOU: The signs should say, “Beware: Unheated Room”.
LARRY: Okay, get that copy signed off by Frank.
YOU: Frank, can you sign off this copy?
FRANK: Larry, here’s the copy for the sign.
LARRY: Nathan, can you run your eyes over this sign copy?
NATHAN: Seems okay, but we’ll need it to be translated into Te Reo and Mandarin, and we’ll need a braille version too. Get it to Susan in Translation.
LARRY: Frank, get it to Susan in Translation.
FRANK: Hey you, take it to Susan in Translation.
YOU: Susan, can you translate this copy?
SUSAN: Sure! But the word “unheated” can be offensive in certain dialects of Mandarin. Can you change the copy?
YOU: Can’t you change it in Mandarin?
SUSAN: If I start doing things that aren’t in my job description, I can get in a lot of trouble. Get Nathan to approve your change and I’ll translate it.
I could go on.

Tuesday, November 4, 2014

Who pays who and do you see independence or dependence propaganda

Lucia Maria (2,487 comments) says: 

Here you go EAD and Reid, job opportunity for you guys.
Thriving on Forums, Paid Kremlin Trolls Move Into New Offices 18:46 (GMT)
The independent Russian news site (Delovoy Peterburg, or “Business St. Petersburg”) published an article October 28 about the “Kremlin Troll Army.”
(We’ve covered these paid trolls flogging the Moscow line in past issues.) says the trolls, based in Olgino, a historic district of St. Petersburg, are now moving into new offices in a four-story building, somewhere along tree-lined Savushkina Street.
The trolls needed more space as they have a growing staff already at 250, working round the clock to produce posts on social media and mainstream media comment sections, mainly in Russia, but also in the West.
Some are getting professional salaries as high as 10 million rubles a month (US $229,594) to manage the stream of invective against targets from President Barack Obama to Ukraine’s President Petro Poroshenko. was able to get an interview with a former paid Kremlin blogger who worked at International Research, Ltd (Internet Issledovaniya OOO), the name of the company created to perform this task.
EuroMaidan Press has translated most of the article here:
Around 250 people work 12-hour shifts, writing in blogs 24/7, working mostly in the Russian blogging platform Livejournal and a Facebook-esque social network Vkontakte. This is a full-cycle production: some write the posts, others comment on them. Most often they comment each other in order to boost the ratings. The refrain is always the same: the good Putin, the bad Poroshenko and the ugly Obama. The former workers at the Internet loyalty factory told about its inner workings.
They sit at an ordinary kitchen in an ordinary apartment. No portraits of the leaders on the walls. There’s a smell of soup. A cat gets under everyone’s feet. A young man and woman who met there and quit on the same day. They don’t regret this decision one little bit
W: We worked 12-hour shifts for two days with two days off. A blogger’s quota is 10 posts a day, 750 characters each, a commenter has to write 126 comments and two posts. A blogger has three accounts to manage. You have to distribute the 10 assignments between them. An assignment consists of a talking point, most often news, and a conclusion you should reach. So you have to fit the solution to the answer. Roughly, you write that you’ve baked tasty pies which means that life in Russia is great and Putin is a good guy. Visit Russia Today’s website – all our assignments are there.
Read more at The Interpreter