Why are natural sources of fish being reduced? Pollution from industries. Solution? More industries. Not enough fish to feed the fish to feed the people? Feed them bugs. Not enough fish to feed the people? Feed them bugs.
Modern solutions to create modern problems!
0 ( +0 / -0 )
Thank you for the details. What else can you tell us about this story?
0 ( +0 / -0 )
The strangest aspect of this is the connection to Israel. An Israeli billionaire started the company that owns the ship. But that's it. Was that the connection the Houthi made? It didn't depart Israel, it didn't have Israel crew or cargo, it wasn't being operated by an Israeli firm. What did they think they were accomplishing "on behalf of Palestine?" This particular boat heist smells extra fishy.
2 ( +2 / -0 )
JA editors, thank you for updating the article to give some relevance to Israel. The jist being that the Houthi are targeting Israeli-linked ships in the Red Sea on behalf of Palestine.
The AP article is far superior in it's explanation of this event so anyone looking for actual context would be better informed by that reporting.
4 ( +5 / -1 )
Farfetched headline. Quirky story about nanotech invasive medical procedures. Yep, it's the Conversation!
-1 ( +2 / -3 )
@divinda, that's an interesting albeit tenuous relationship but nonetheless a detail that helps connect the dots.
5 ( +6 / -1 )
@obladi, that answers why this would have been reported in the Jerusalem Post and why, in that publication, the reference to Israel citizens not being aboard would be relevant. Wouldn't it be more relevant in a Japan based publication to indicate the safety of Japanese citizens especially given the nationality of the ship operator?
5 ( +6 / -1 )
Japanese Ship, British Company, other countries' crew, Iran-backed Yemeni Houthi thugs in the Red Sea. Am I missing something? What does this have to do with Israel? What's the connection?
13 ( +18 / -5 )
Im just glad the very companies that have contributed the most to polluting the environment can now trade in carbon credits to feel better about continuing their rape of the ecosystem. Us peasants will have to stop traveling and and ration our food, but at least the polluters get to keep flying on private jets.
1 ( +5 / -4 )
It's confusing because the narrative dictates that for one to be sympathetic to the discrimination against gays and lesbians, one must support everything that is pushed by the LGBTQIA... blah blah whatever. Using a child's face to falsely promote an anti-LGBT agenda is wrong. Using a child dressed in drag to promote pro-LGBT agenda is also wrong, that's my point. The reason his face was used in the hateful material at all is because he's being used as a poster child for sexualizing children.
-1 ( +3 / -4 )
Are you in support of using actual children as the poster children for adult sexuality displays? That's what this article promotes. This article is itself the reason why people conflate pro-LGBT activists as pedophile groomers. Leave kids out of it.
0 ( +7 / -7 )
Pride is about adults being secure in their personal sexual choices. Children are not able to identify with their own sexuality because they're not yet biologically developed to do so. It's not a new concept and parading around a child in drag is incredibly pedophilic. Watch out LGBTQIA2S+, the P is coming. Hence articles like this one grooming readers into sympathizing with the grotesque exploitation of children.
9 ( +14 / -5 )
@falseflagsteve, the billionaires and pharma companies are what make up GAVI and the Vaccine Alliance. It's exactly in line with what conspiracy theorists would hypothesize. It's most definitely not about saving the world and most certainly about profit. What we see as health philanthropy is actually about creating a market place where WHO unelected goons can enforce pandemic policy on nations which would require they accept drugs and administer them for free (at tax payer expense). The scam is to make the tax payer buy the drugs through government contracts. Then blow smoke in their eyes by convincing them they're doing it "for the greater good".
1 ( +3 / -2 )
Carrying a knife just to carry it is not allowed depending on the length and profile of the blade. Transporting a knife is allowed. Transporting a cooking knife is a very common task for people who cook here, and plan to cook over there. They need to get the knife to the cooking location. So if you find yourself in possession of a blade, be sure you have a good enough reason to move it from point A to point B.
2 ( +2 / -0 )
Remind me again, why is a group of unelected profit hungry bankers in charge of global monetary policy?
3 ( +4 / -1 )
Fair discrimination would be to say that a man and a woman may be legally bonded in a relationship that has capacity to produce offspring and thus be protected in the bequeathing of property to their heirs. However, two people of the same sex may not because there is no capacity to produce offspring. That is fair. It's how it works, too.
-11 ( +3 / -14 )
An unpopular opinion is that marriage as an institution is mainly to ensure that generational wealth is passed on to biological heirs. Whether you agree or not or see that as being fair or not, that's pretty much the situation.
Historically marriage has not been about who you love or choose to partner with. In homosexual relationships there aren't any biological heirs related to that bond. So there really is no historical reason or need for gay marriage. It's more about crying that the world is unfair and trying to force new progressive paradigms.
Defending the institution of traditional marriage to foster biological familiar bonds is not about homophobia or preventing people from loving whomever they choose, it's simply society has no need and gains no larger value from same sex marriages.
Being homophobic is wrong and there's nothing wrong with loving who you love.
-6 ( +12 / -18 )
Hannibal Burgess was the funniest part of the show. Now it's just rote adult swim gimmicky crap. Good, but still gimmicky crap.
1 ( +1 / -0 )
More laws: the solution to every problem.
0 ( +4 / -4 )
Arbitrary decisions to censor business based on the demographics of the company is bigotry.
4 ( +16 / -12 )
Man, supporting Biden is more cringe than supporting Trump. The "Orange man bad!" obsession in the left-leaning media is so over played. Turns out it was the FBI and Hillary who plotted to lie to the American public about Russian collusion in 2016. Get over it.
-4 ( +4 / -8 )
It's mainly rich guilt-ridden Europeans who care about the long con SDG ratings given to businesses who've paid their dues to appear compliant.
-1 ( +7 / -8 )
Posted in: Right now, the support and consultation system for pregnant women only says to them, 'You need to talk to your parents.' That doesn’t help women who desperately want anonymity. See in context
The breakdown of the fundamental family unit is seen as a positive and progressive development by many people globally.
-2 ( +2 / -4 )
Please, BBC, protect us from h-h-hate speech! I go to bed every night absolutely terrified that I might open my twitter feed when I awake and see... disinformation! Please, noooo!!!
-5 ( +6 / -11 )
@virusrex, It was the same experts who said it was engineered who refuted their own claims later. Jeez, are we just making up stuff now?
The ability of the virus to bind to human receptors was not seen in that particular species and there has not been a definitive animal host discovered. It's most likely engineered unless there's a better explanation as to why it suddenly evolved the way it did.
3 ( +6 / -3 )
The virus was called out as being "engineered" by the experts very early in 2020. Then lots of activity seemingly happened behind closed doors and then suddenly no one was sure what actually happened.
I don't think it's fair to say that the wet market theory is in any way demonstrably more viable. Why were experts so sure at the beginning it was an engineered virus, likely the result of the very gain of function research being done at the WIV? Why were they then suddenly unsure without any new compelling evidence?
0 ( +5 / -5 )
"What is that you think is disinformation?"
The idea that the risk is so high for healthy people to continue living without arbitrary health control measures that it was worth putting children through a traumatic experience is not based on truth or any real substantial data. The fact of life is that people die from diseases all the time. It's sad. Some of them probably had huge potential but to assume that health bureaucrats can solve this reality of nature by dictating people's lives is arrogant beyond belief. Which, btw, they can't. Not even mRNA vaccines can stop viruses from spreading and killing people.
-1 ( +0 / -1 )
"it managed to kill a lot of people that could have had long and productive lives"
These kinds of borderline disinformation comments are why there's so little faith in the messaging from the health and medical bureaucrats and industry peddlers. It's simply not true and even most of the data suggests the opposite of this statement.
-3 ( +1 / -4 )
Well we didn't know. It was the best information we had at the time. We had to slow the spread. No one said we shouldn't ruin healthy young people's lives for an illness that would have barely caused them concern. It was to save grandma. Anyone who claimed anything different was clearly only operating on facebook group fake news disinfo.
1 ( +4 / -3 )