News

Poll Finds 55% of Chinese in Favour of “Launching Unification War on Taiwan

According to a new survey by academics, just over half of mainland Chinese support a full-scale war to take control of Taiwan, a rare peek into popular opinion as Beijing takes an increasingly belligerent approach towards the island.

The study of 1,824 respondents indicated mixed public sentiments, with 55% in favour of “launching a unification war to completely retake Taiwan,” a third opposed, and the remaining unclear.

On Monday, political scientist Adam Y. Liu of the National University of Singapore and Associate Professor of Political Science of NYU Shanghai Xiaojun Li, published their research in the Journal of Contemporary China.

Even while authoritarian leaders are not elected in competitive elections, they have incentives to ensure that their policies align with popular sentiment in order to avoid an internal backlash, the authors noted.

“This is especially true for China, where nationalism serves as a key pillar of regime legitimacy, particularly on issues of sovereignty and territorial integrity,” the authors wrote.

Analysts believe the government may employ “sophisticated means” to alter public opinion, potentially soothing more radical voices.

Nationwide survey

The nationwide survey was performed in late 2020 and early 2021, and respondents were asked a series of questions concerning their sentiments towards Taiwan and their preferred options as of now.

Aside from the 55% who supported a full-fledged war, only 1% supported the most extreme choice of not attempting other options first.

Other options aimed at coercing Taiwan into accepting to unification received widespread support. These included “initiating limited military campaigns on the outskirts of Taiwan” (58%), “using economic sanctions” (57%), and “maintaining the status quo to increase economic and military power” (55%).

war Taiwan

Given the high sensitivity of the subject, it is perhaps surprising that 22% of respondents stated they were happy with the two sides maintaining different political systems “with unification not necessarily being the end game,” while 71% said this was undesirable.

“This basically amounts to agreeing to de facto Taiwan independence, a term we refrained from using to ensure survey feasibility in the Chinese context and to avoid inducing social desirability bias,” the authors said, addressing the political taboos surrounding this issue on the mainland.

“As a result, the estimated support for this policy option may only be the lower bound.” Regardless, this statistic calls into question the widely held belief that “regaining Taiwan is the collective will of almost everyone in mainland China.”

The study was conducted through an online opt-in panel, making it more representative of internet users’ opinions than the overall population.

High level on nationalism

Statistical sampling was employed to guarantee that the panel’s demographic make-up resembled official data, but those who participated were better educated than the general population, with the majority holding college degrees. The researchers also attempted to assess respondents’ level of nationalism by asking five questions about their sense of national pride and belonging.

They came to the conclusion that a higher level of nationalism, combined with social pressure, created a “amplifying effect” that pushed people to favour more radical solutions while pressuring more moderate voices to conform.

taiwan china war

However, they discovered that the appeal of aggressive choices was tempered by concerns about the economic, human, and reputational costs of a forceful takeover, as well as the possibility of US intervention.

Although previous research has suggested that younger Chinese are more nationalistic and hawkish, this poll found that older respondents preferred more forceful policy options such as full-scale war or military coercion.

“Perhaps the older Chinese have now become more impatient and are more willing to see the Taiwan issue resolved, presumably during their lifetime, one way or another, rather than wait indefinitely,” the authors noted.

Taiwan and China-US rivalry

The survey’s release comes at a time when tensions over the Taiwan Strait have increasingly become a critical stage in China and the United States’ acrimonious rivalry.

“For various reasons, such as the more recalcitrant Democratic Progressive Party government in Taiwan, China-US rivalry, and President Xi Jinping’s own ambition,” added Liu.

China Taiwan

However, recent signals, such as a recent speech by the Communist Party’s fourth-ranking official Wang Huning emphasising the importance of cross-strait ties, indicate that Beijing is “trying to walk back from [its] tough rhetoric,” according to Liu.

“[Beijing] shall not feel compelled to take a tougher stance on Taipei, as milder policy options are also acceptable in the eyes of the Chinese public,” he said.

According to Liu, the study could also show that armed unification is not Beijing’s only option, therefore the US “should not design its China policies as if the reunification clock is truly ticking.”

Taiwan a renegade province

Beijing considers Taiwan to be a renegade province that must be rejoined with the mainland – by force if necessary – and has progressively increased military pressure on the self-ruled island.

When then-US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi visited Taiwan in August, Beijing staged a series of extraordinary military drills that virtually blockaded the island. A meeting last month in California between Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen and Pelosi’s successor Kevin McCarthy spurred yet another round of large-scale drills.

China Taiwan

This more confrontational approach has also raised concerns that Beijing may try to accelerate its schedule for reunification, with former US Indo-Pacific Command chief Philip Davidson warning in 2021 that it may move “within the next six years.”

The United States, like most other countries, does not officially recognize Taiwan as a sovereign state, but it opposes any attempt to change the status quo through force and is legally obligated to assist the island in defending itself.

One China principal

According to a public poll done by the Global Taiwan Institute, a Washington-based non-profit, a majority of Americans, particularly Democrats, support the US safeguarding Taiwan.

Beijing is particularly concerned as more countries claim that Taiwan’s future as a key producer of semiconductors is a “global” one, despite Taiwan’s assurance that the topic is solely internal.

The International Crisis Group’s Amanda Hsiao, a senior China analyst, said there appeared to be “growing pessimism” about the odds of a peaceful resolution and cautioned that strong levels of nationalism in China could reduce the range of potentially acceptable solutions.

“What Chinese elites perceive to be the politically correct parameters of the Taiwan discussion can be shaped by public opinion,” she noted.

She did, however, say that China had “sophisticated means” of manipulating public opinion in its favour, adding that “if policymakers wanted to tamp down on public calls for more extreme responses to Taiwan in order to give themselves more political space to manoeuvre, they can.”

According to Sung Wen-Ti, a political scientist at Australian National University, the Chinese people has minimal influence over policy making, particularly on sensitive matters such as Taiwan, due to the party’s and Xi’s focus on the core leadership.

“This could imply that Beijing’s continued preference for peaceful unification has staying power despite shifts in public opinion,” he said.

News

Trudeau’s Gun Grab Could Cost Taxpayers a Whopping $7 Billion

Trudeau plans to purchase 2,063 firearm from legal gun owners in Canada - Rebel News Image

A recent report indicates that since Trudeau’s announcement of his gun buyback program four years ago, almost none of the banned firearms have been surrendered.

The federal government plans to purchase 2,063 firearm models from retailers following the enactment of Bill C-21, which amends various Acts and introduces certain consequential changes related to firearms. It was granted royal assent on December 15 of last year.

This ban immediately criminalized the actions of federally-licensed firearms owners regarding the purchase, sale, transportation, importation, exportation, or use of hundreds of thousands of rifles and shotguns that were previously legal.

The gun ban focused on what it termed ‘assault-style weapons,’ which are, in reality, traditional semi-automatic rifles and shotguns that have enjoyed popularity among hunters and sport shooters for over a century.

In May 2020, the federal government enacted an Order-in-Council that prohibited 1,500 types of “assault-style” firearms and outlined specific components of the newly banned firearms. Property owners must adhere to the law by October 2023.

Trudeau’s Buyback Hasn’t Happened

“In the announcement regarding the ban, the prime minister stated that the government would seize the prohibited firearms, assuring that their lawful owners would be ‘grandfathered’ or compensated fairly.” “That hasn’t happened,” criminologist Gary Mauser told Rebel News.

Mauser projected expenses ranging from $2.6 billion to $6.7 billion. The figure reflects the compensation costs amounting to $756 million, as outlined by the Parliamentary Budget Office (PBO).

“The projected expenses for gathering the illegal firearms are estimated to range from $1.6 billion to $7 billion.” “This range estimate increases to between $2.647 billion and $7 billion when compensation costs to owners are factored in,” Mauser stated.

Figures requested by Conservative MP Shannon Stubbs concerning firearms prohibited due to the May 1, 2020 Order In Council reveal that $72 million has been allocated to the firearm “buyback” program, yet not a single firearm has been confiscated to date.

In a recent revelation, Public Safety Canada disclosed that the federal government allocated a staggering $41,094,556, as prompted by an order paper question from Conservative Senator Don Plett last September, yet yielded no tangible outcomes.

An internal memo from late 2019 revealed that the Liberals projected their politically motivated harassment would incur a cost of $1.8 billion.

Enforcement efforts Questioned

By December 2023, estimates from TheGunBlog.ca indicate that the Liberals and RCMP had incurred or were responsible for approximately $30 million in personnel expenses related to the enforcement efforts. The union representing the police service previously stated that the effort to confiscate firearms is a “misdirected effort” aimed at ensuring public safety.

“This action diverts crucial personnel, resources, and funding from tackling the more pressing and escalating issue of criminal use of illegal firearms,” stated the National Police Federation (NPF).

The Canadian Sporting Arms & Ammunition Association (CSAAA), representing firearms retailers, has stated it will have “zero involvement” in the confiscation of these firearms. Even Canada Post held back from providing assistance due to safety concerns.

The consultant previously assessed that retailers are sitting on almost $1 billion worth of inventory that cannot be sold or returned to suppliers because of the Order-In-Council.

“Despite the ongoing confusion surrounding the ban, after four years, we ought to be able to address one crucial question.” Has the prohibition enhanced safety for Canadians? Mauser asks.

Illegally Obtained Firearms are the Problem

Statistics Canada reports a 10% increase in firearm-related violent crime between 2020 and 2022, rising from 12,614 incidents to 13,937 incidents. In that timeframe, the incidence of firearm-related violent crime increased from 33.7 incidents per 100,000 population in 2021 to 36.7 incidents the subsequent year.

“This marks the highest rate documented since the collection of comparable data began in 2009,” the criminologist explains.

Supplementary DataData indicates that firearm homicides have risen since 2020. “The issue lies not with lawfully-held firearms,” Mauser stated.

Firearms that have been banned under the Order-in-Council continue to be securely stored in the safes of their lawful owners. The individuals underwent a thorough vetting process by the RCMP and are subject to nightly monitoring to ensure there are no infractions that could pose a risk to public safety.

“The firearms involved in homicides were seldom legally owned weapons wielded by their rightful owners,” Mauser continues. The number of offenses linked to organized crime has surged from 4,810 in 2016 to a staggering 13,056 in 2020.

“If those in power … aim to diminish crime and enhance public safety, they ought to implement strategies that effectively focus on offenders and utilize our limited tax resources judiciously to reach these objectives,” he stated.

Millennials in Canada Have Turned their Backs on Justin Trudeau

Millennials in Canada Have Turned their Backs on Justin Trudeau

News

Google’s Search Dominance Is Unwinding, But Still Accounting 48% Search Revenue

Google is so closely associated with its key product that its name is a verb that signifies “search.” However, Google’s dominance in that sector is dwindling.

According to eMarketer, Google will lose control of the US search industry for the first time in decades next year.

Google will remain the dominant search player, accounting for 48% of American search advertising revenue. And, remarkably, Google is still increasing its sales in the field, despite being the dominating player in search since the early days of the George W. Bush administration. However, Amazon is growing at a quicker rate.

Google’s Search Dominance Is Unwinding

Amazon will hold over a quarter of US search ad dollars next year, rising to 27% by 2026, while Google will fall even more, according to eMarketer.

The Wall Street Journal was first to report on the forecast.

Lest you think you’ll have to switch to Bing or Yahoo, this isn’t the end of Google or anything really near.

Google is the fourth-most valued public firm in the world. Its market worth is $2.1 trillion, trailing just Apple, Microsoft, and the AI chip darling Nvidia. It also maintains its dominance in other industries, such as display advertisements, where it dominates alongside Facebook’s parent firm Meta, and video ads on YouTube.

To put those “other” firms in context, each is worth more than Delta Air Lines’ total market value. So, yeah, Google is not going anywhere.

Nonetheless, Google faces numerous dangers to its operations, particularly from antitrust regulators.

On Monday, a federal judge in San Francisco ruled that Google must open up its Google Play Store to competitors, dealing a significant blow to the firm in its long-running battle with Fortnite creator Epic Games. Google announced that it would appeal the verdict.

In August, a federal judge ruled that Google has an illegal monopoly on search. That verdict could lead to the dissolution of the company’s search operation. Another antitrust lawsuit filed last month accuses Google of abusing its dominance in the online advertising business.

Meanwhile, European regulators have compelled Google to follow tough new standards, which have resulted in multiple $1 billion-plus fines.

Pixa Bay

Google’s Search Dominance Is Unwinding

On top of that, the marketplace is becoming more difficult on its own.

TikTok, the fastest-growing social network, is expanding into the search market. And Amazon has accomplished something few other digital titans have done to date: it has established a habit.

When you want to buy anything, you usually go to Amazon, not Google. Amazon then buys adverts to push companies’ products to the top of your search results, increasing sales and earning Amazon a greater portion of the revenue. According to eMarketer, it is expected to generate $27.8 billion in search revenue in the United States next year, trailing only Google’s $62.9 billion total.

And then there’s AI, the technology that (supposedly) will change everything.

Why search in stilted language for “kendall jenner why bad bunny breakup” or “police moving violation driver rights no stop sign” when you can just ask OpenAI’s ChatGPT, “What’s going on with Kendall Jenner and Bad Bunny?” in “I need help fighting a moving violation involving a stop sign that wasn’t visible.” Google is working on exactly this technology with its Gemini product, but its success is far from guaranteed, especially with Apple collaborating with OpenAI and other businesses rapidly joining the market.

A Google spokeswoman referred to a blog post from last week in which the company unveiled ads in its AI overviews (the AI-generated text that appears at the top of search results). It’s Google’s way of expressing its ability to profit on a changing marketplace while retaining its business, even as its consumers steadily transition to ask-and-answer AI and away from search.

google

Google has long used a single catchphrase to defend itself against opponents who claim it is a monopoly abusing its power: competition is only a click away. Until recently, that seemed comically obtuse. Really? We are going to switch to Bing? Or Duck Duck Go? Give me a break.

But today, it feels more like reality.

Google is in no danger of disappearing. However, every highly dominating company faces some type of reckoning over time. GE, a Dow mainstay for more than a century, was broken up last year and is now a shell of its previous dominance. Sears declared bankruptcy in 2022 and is virtually out of business. US Steel, long the foundation of American manufacturing, is attempting to sell itself to a Japanese corporation.

Could we remember Google in the same way that we remember Yahoo or Ask Jeeves in decades? These next few years could be significant.

SOURCE | CNN

News

The Supreme Court Turns Down Biden’s Government Appeal in a Texas Emergency Abortion Matter.

(VOR News) – A ruling that prohibits emergency abortions that contravene the Supreme Court law in the state of Texas, which has one of the most stringent abortion restrictions in the country, has been upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States. The United States Supreme Court upheld this decision.

The justices did not provide any specifics regarding the underlying reasons for their decision to uphold an order from a lower court that declared hospitals cannot be legally obligated to administer abortions if doing so would violate the law in the state of Texas.

Institutions are not required to perform abortions, as stipulated in the decree. The common populace did not investigate any opposing viewpoints. The decision was made just weeks before a presidential election that brought abortion to the forefront of the political agenda.

This decision follows the 2022 Supreme Court ruling that ended abortion nationwide.

In response to a request from the administration of Vice President Joe Biden to overturn the lower court’s decision, the justices expressed their disapproval.

The government contends that hospitals are obligated to perform abortions in compliance with federal legislation when the health or life of an expectant patient is in an exceedingly precarious condition.

This is the case in regions where the procedure is prohibited. The difficulty hospitals in Texas and other states are experiencing in determining whether or not routine care could be in violation of stringent state laws that prohibit abortion has resulted in an increase in the number of complaints concerning pregnant women who are experiencing medical distress being turned away from emergency rooms.

The administration cited the Supreme Court’s ruling in a case that bore a striking resemblance to the one that was presented to it in Idaho at the beginning of the year. The justices took a limited decision in that case to allow the continuation of emergency abortions without interruption while a lawsuit was still being heard.

In contrast, Texas has been a vocal proponent of the injunction’s continued enforcement. Texas has argued that its circumstances are distinct from those of Idaho, as the state does have an exemption for situations that pose a significant hazard to the health of an expectant patient.

According to the state, the discrepancy is the result of this exemption. The state of Idaho had a provision that safeguarded a woman’s life when the issue was first broached; however, it did not include protection for her health.

Certified medical practitioners are not obligated to wait until a woman’s life is in imminent peril before they are legally permitted to perform an abortion, as determined by the state supreme court.

The state of Texas highlighted this to the Supreme Court.

Nevertheless, medical professionals have criticized the Texas statute as being perilously ambiguous, and a medical board has declined to provide a list of all the disorders that are eligible for an exception. Furthermore, the statute has been criticized for its hazardous ambiguity.

For an extended period, termination of pregnancies has been a standard procedure in medical treatment for individuals who have been experiencing significant issues. It is implemented in this manner to prevent catastrophic outcomes, such as sepsis, organ failure, and other severe scenarios.

Nevertheless, medical professionals and hospitals in Texas and other states with strict abortion laws have noted that it is uncertain whether or not these terminations could be in violation of abortion prohibitions that include the possibility of a prison sentence. This is the case in regions where abortion prohibitions are exceedingly restrictive.

Following the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, which resulted in restrictions on the rights of women to have abortions in several Republican-ruled states, the Texas case was revisited in 2022.

As per the orders that were disclosed by the administration of Vice President Joe Biden, hospitals are still required to provide abortions in cases that are classified as dire emergency.

As stipulated in a piece of health care legislation, the majority of hospitals are obligated to provide medical assistance to patients who are experiencing medical distress. This is in accordance with the law.

The state of Texas maintained that hospitals should not be obligated to provide abortions throughout the litigation, as doing so would violate the state’s constitutional prohibition on abortions. In its January judgment, the 5th United States Circuit Court of Appeals concurred with the state and acknowledged that the administration had exceeded its authority.

SOURCE: AP