Open mike 09/12/2022

Written By: - Date published: 6:00 am, December 9th, 2022 - 47 comments
Categories: open mike - Tags:


Open mike is your post.

For announcements, general discussion, whatever you choose.

The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the Policy).

Step up to the mike …

47 comments on “Open mike 09/12/2022 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. dvT 1
    9 December 2022 at 8:11 am

    Say (Hope not) the baby in the blood vaccination case dies before the operation can take place, could charges be brought against those who were opposed to the blood from covid vaccinated donors?

    • Francesca 1.1
      9 December 2022 at 8:31 am

      or indeed those who were opposed to the blood from non covid vaxed donors

    • Peter 1.2
      9 December 2022 at 8:46 am

      "However, the NZ Freedom and Outdoors Party, of which the parents’ lawyer Sue Grey is co-leader, is planning a vigil for 10am."

      Lots of rain and stormy weather in Grafton this morning would be good. In that event of course some loon will suggest it's God's expressing Her displeasure about the blood being used.

      If the protestors are forced indoors maybe they can get down to planning positive steps forward. Like how to set up truly safe bloodbanks so people have a choice.

      I can see them having as many categories as possible with blood specifically from:

      those vaccinated for covid, those not vaccinated for covid, those not vaccinated with any antibodies.

      Catholics, Muslims, Atheists, blood from those with European ethnicity, from Pacifica, from Māori, from Asians, and so on down the track.

      I'm sure there'll be some in the Sue Grey and Liz Gunn camps who'd be right into that.

      https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/donor-blood-battle-vigil-planned-outside-starship-hospital/6CX5KFIWFVCKPJG7N5CIMXQUDM/

    • Shanreagh 1.3
      9 December 2022 at 9:32 am

      Why? The delays in having the op were the fault of the parents.

  2. pat 2
    9 December 2022 at 8:39 am

    While the article is not entirely correct this theme is…

    "By under-promising and over-delivering, a Labour government could present itself as both sensible and competent. Not much might be on offer, but if you said you were going to deliver – and you did – then your voters weren’t just grateful, they were impressed. The days of big dreams might be over, but Clark’s clear-headed grasp of her own and her party’s limitations, made it possible for some of the people’s smaller dreams to come true."

    https://bowalleyroad.blogspot.com/2022/12/jacindas-manic-ministry.html

    It may have been more a case of lingering capability from an earlier iteration…..there were still politicians and public servants within the system that had experience of a time when Governments had greater control/influence of the economy.

    • Alan 2.1
      9 December 2022 at 8:52 am

      Labour has passed 3 waters, nothing much else matters now in terms of their reelection hopes.

      • pat 2.1.1
        9 December 2022 at 8:57 am

        The question I am pondering (and i think the author is) is not how can Labour be re-elected but rather how/why did they make such a mess of the opportunity?

        I agree it's very unlikely they will be re-elected….though 3 Waters is only part of the story.

      • Tony Veitch 2.1.2
        9 December 2022 at 10:51 am

        Absolutely right! And when Natz equivocate about keeping water in public ownership (and we all know Act are the driving force behind the Natz) then the public will reject the right emphatically.

        After all, the Natz have a record of a) ignoring the wishes of the people and b) selling the family silver – both of which gets right up the noses of voters.

        Their opposition to Three Waters will cost the Natz the election.

  3. Belladonna 3
    9 December 2022 at 9:11 am

    It appears that OT are determined to continue their appeals process (albeit under the false flag of Moana's mother) – right up to the Supreme Court – in the 'Moana' case.

    So much for ensuring that the welfare of the child is the centre of their decision-making process.

    Ideology is clearly much more important than child welfare – which, perhaps says something about the litany of disasters over children in their care which regularly appear in the media.

    Continuing to drag the family through the courts – in an attempt at some form of vindication for the social worker involved (or the principles she was espousing) – is an outrageous abuse of power and privilege.

    The appropriate venue for a policy change (should the Minister agree that one is needed) is through Parliament. Rather than attempting to do an end run around democratic decision-making by constant appeals in the hope of finding a sympathetic (and politically activist) judge.

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/130689679/moana-decision-appealed-may-be-heard-in-supreme-court

    The best welfare for this little girl is to leave her, and her foster family, alone. All evidence (even the biased social worker) has stated that she is happy, settled, well-cared-for and loved. All of which were conspicuously missing when she was in the 'care' of her birth-mother. The one who (prompted and supported by OT) is now crusading against the foster-placement.

    • Hunter Thompson II 3.1
      9 December 2022 at 9:54 am

      Can't recall where I read it, but someone posted the view that OT is using the Moana case as part of its long-running war with the Family court judge who (justifiably) criticised a social worker for taking a two-faced stance with Moana's carers and their lawyer. That worker engaged in deliberate deception.

      The case has very nasty implications for our justice system. There was behind the scenes interference with the legal proceedings by the Principal Family court judge after a senior Maori figure alleged "bullying" of the witness (bullying is so in vogue these days).

      In my view, the judges who tried to apply pressure behind the scenes the during the family court case have breached their judicial oaths (which require justice to be delivered without fear or favour.) They should resign from office immediately.

  4. Cricklewood 4
    9 December 2022 at 9:25 am

    For me at least this and the last couple of OMs aren't visible on the home page.

    [TheStandard: A moderator moved this comment to Open Mike as being off topic or irrelevant in the post it was made in. Be more careful in future.]

  5. CAnker the pig fucker 5
    9 December 2022 at 9:53 am

    Outrageous!

    Child who was badly neglected (show fear around men, so possibly had been sexually abused) removed from her mother (who from memory had had all her other children removed).

    A loving (Pakeha) family fostered Moana with the view of it being a long term placement. Moana's health improved dramatically and she thrived with the "Smiths".

    OT (who are likely infused with CRT) decided that the Smiths weren't catering for Moana's cultural needs. They wanted her removed from the Smiths even though she was thriving.

    The Family Court judge slaimed OT for putting ideology ahead of the childs best interests. OT social worker was lying to the Judge on the stand.

    Moana's mother appealedthe decision (her complete lack of insight over her utter failures to care for her children and her complete lack of gratitude to the Smiths, speaks volumes to me).as did OT and the Maori family in Wellington Moana was to be placed with (the Judge had come up with a very elegant decision that Moana would spend some holiday time with them as Moana's brother was in their custody and also see her mother, but firmly remain with the Smiths. The Smiths fought for Moana, putting up with all sortsof crap from OT, being dragged through the court. They told the Court they loved Moana as their own).

    Mason (lawyer) is taking the case to the Court of Appeal, because "The Treaty of Waitangi provisions have not been properly interpreted".

    How f….g stupid. I hope that Court of Appeal boat the case out. This is using the Treaty of Waitangi to promote an ideology. None of these people give a dam about Moana.

    Really pissed at the idea we the tax payer may be paying for these appeals.

    One has to wonder in the first few years of her life how did Moana's mother cater for her cultural needs, given her utter neglect of all her children??

    • Anne 5.1
      9 December 2022 at 10:32 am

      Agree with all the sentiments. This case is a total disgrace. Once again a vulnerable child is being essentially abused by Oranga Tamariki. And we know there are plenty more out there.

    • Molly 5.2
      9 December 2022 at 11:04 am

      Close friend involved in case with similarities.

      Point of note: OT "professional" comment on shared cultural ancestry: – might be the same – but looks different.

      Friend is blue eyed and pale complexioned.

    • AB 5.3
      9 December 2022 at 11:40 am

      When we try to fix one problem, zealots create a different and bigger one. Happens a lot, especially in social services and education (especially primary education where various faddish 'pedagogies' sweep through like viruses).

  6. UncookedSelachimorpha 6
    9 December 2022 at 10:24 am

    I've seen this a bit in my own circles – children taken from stable, loving foster situations at the whim of uncaring biological relatives and social workers. There was a very good episode of the series "I Am" recently that covered experience of two siblings who had this happen multiple times. It is actually the norm, not an exception. Those siblings were also separated from each other (and repeatedly abused along the way of course)

    Social workers even express concern that they don't want the children forming bonds at their new 'temporary' homes, which is an appalling abuse in itself

  7. SPC 7
    9 December 2022 at 12:45 pm

    In Oz a woman has been jailed for 15 months for blocking one of five lanes in a GW protest.

    The story about how the Premier of NSW rushed through legislation to enable this. It's what happens when the neo-liberalism is bi-partisan, authoritarianism reigns.

    Both the government and opposition dismissed criticisms on Monday, with Perrottet saying the jail sentence was “pleasing to see”.

    The NSW Labor leader, Chris Minns, said he did not regret supporting the laws, a move which angered some on his backbench at the time.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/dec/06/documents-reveal-scramble-to-rubber-stamp-nsw-bill-targeting-climate-protests

    The climate activist had made an entire city suffer with her selfish emotional actions, Magistrate Allison Hawkins said. You do damage to your cause when you do childish stunts like this.

    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-63883430

    • SPC 7.1
      9 December 2022 at 12:58 pm

      The city suffered because one lane of 5 was blocked for 25 minutes.

    • weka 7.2
      9 December 2022 at 1:36 pm

      the question for NZ is 'what would Mallard do?'

      How far is it from parliament using sprinklers and persistent noise to disrupt protestors, to supporting a law that bans some forms of protest?

      • Nic the NZer 7.2.1
        9 December 2022 at 1:56 pm

        Its absolutely clear Mallards inhuman torture program was much much worse. While these protesters may be locked up for 15 months (having been prosecuted for a law introduced after their arrest), they won't be forced to listen to Baby Shark by their government even once.

        Mallard on the other hand implemented a completely inhumane torture program to which we otherwise only subject many parents and anybody who enters the wrong shopping mall.

        Also (for the Guardian) just for consistency sake, kindly retract all your smears of, and call for the release of Australian citizen Julian Assange.

        • Shanreagh 7.2.1.1
          9 December 2022 at 3:02 pm

          Mallard on the other hand implemented a completely inhumane torture program to which we otherwise only subject many parents and anybody who enters the wrong shopping mall.

          We also face Mother Nature turning her sprinklers on, sometimes without warning and sometimes this happens when we are camping outdoors legally. To imitate this by doing it to people who are camping somewhere illegally is as cruel as the music.

          to supporting a law that bans some forms of protest

          So it is wrong to ban overnight protest at Parliament Grounds? I cannot see the argument actually. The ban on camping there has been well known for ages. It was deliberately defied by the protestors.

          As for the results the Aus results are very much more severe. The NZ protestors so far seem to have been dealt with by ubiquitous access to a large wet bus ticket despite the damage and injuries caused.

          Thank you Nic

          • weka 7.2.1.1.1
            9 December 2022 at 8:15 pm

            So it is wrong to ban overnight protest at Parliament Grounds? I cannot see the argument actually. The ban on camping there has been well known for ages. It was deliberately defied by the protestors.

            The argument is that the right to protest should be protected as one of our highest priorities in a democracy. Progressives wanting to pick and choose which protest is legitimate based on their own politics is dangerous. Are you ok with Nact doing this when they are in power? Banning some forms of climate activism for instance?

            Oh look, they already started last time they were in power.

            https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/high-seas-protest-law-passed/H25ELJO4UMYHUQZHLFY4YWSLKU/

            Whatever bullshit the protestors were doing on parliament grounds, if we say it's ok for parliament to treat them badly, then we have to accept that happening to the protests we support.

            NZ's law, the Australians, and in the UK, right wing governments are moving to remove core democratic rights. It doesn't help with the left support that.

            • newsense 7.2.1.1.1.1
              9 December 2022 at 8:36 pm

              Clear thread derail. There’s no comparison between the two events.

              This is Australia providing no bail and 8 months in jail to someone who had the temerity to remind them of their coal addiction hurting people around the globe.

              We are not talking anyone threatening violence, falsifying claims about science, acting out militaristic fantasies and having a philosophy of death to politicians. As well as threatening people at their place of work.

              It’s a protest with a clear set of aims and a desired outcome. Rather than an occupation without coordination and rational goals, or an end date.

              This would be like giving Groundswell 8 months without bail for holding up traffic.

              A better target would be the lack of transparency being snuck into bills. And a number of other things.

              • weka …
                9 December 2022 at 9:01 pm

                I wasn't comparing the events, I was talking about what is happening when the centre left supports right wing moves to restrict rights to protest. There is a shift in culture happening, and it is dangerous.

                But thanks for confirming that you are ok with protest being limited for the protests you disapprove of.

                • Sacha …
                  9 December 2022 at 10:43 pm

                  Now now. Protest was already limited at parliament for decades, regardless of the kaupapa.

                  • weka …
                    9 December 2022 at 11:25 pm

                    protest is limited in lots of places. There are various norms we have for managing that and things that overstep the boundaries. Mallard pushed those boundaries and a big chunk of the left cheered because they disapprove of and disagree with the protestors. Which basically says, we support the right to protest when it suits us.

                    For instance, newsense said,

                    It’s a protest with a clear set of aims and a desired outcome. Rather than an occupation without coordination and rational goals, or an end date.

                    This is very similar to what conservatives and those in favour of the status quo have said about Occupy, or XR.

                    I'm not arguing that the protestors should have been allowed to occupy parliament and no action be taken. I'm pointing out that the ethos is being changed and the left are part of that.

                    • Nic the NZer …
                      10 December 2022 at 8:27 am

                      IMO, this description picks up far to much of a media narrative which involves anti government (because Labour) biases.

                      All I think happened is that an occupation of parliament was planned from the beginning, and is what happened. The police plan from the beginning was to wait them out, but eventually a decision was undertaken that they had to be removed. The police were extremely cautious in their treatment of the protesters.

                      Now some details which support this,

                      1) The protesters turned up from day 1 with camping and occupation equipment.

                      2) It was communicated that camping (e.g occupation) was not allowed from day 1.

                      3) Attempts were made early on to enter parliament requiring a significant on going police presence to bolster parliament security. Never the less the occupation was allowed to continue.

                      4) There was media discussion indicating an expectation the protest would pack up during the torrential rain storm (which they didn't).

                      5) The police needed to bring in officers from other parts of the country to continue their stance re the protesters (so reducing available officers from other areas).

                      6) The police eventually started shrinking down the area occupied by vehicles.

                      7) There was a reasonable expectation, given their rhetoric and social media communications, that the protesters had weapons.

                      8) The police started looking for weapons held by the protesters.

                      9) Over the course of this many officers (and probably a lot more protesters) were catching Covid-19 and bringing it home to their families (which was reducing available officers). This is the main reason the police force have decided the occupation needed to be removed.

                      Mallard really had very little to do with any of this, and other than some trivial tit bits which the media (+TDB) have focused the narrative on, no speaker would have done any different. This was a demonstration of routine de-escalation tactics in action.

                    • weka []
                      10 December 2022 at 9:53 am

                      I agree with most of that, except for two points.

                      1. you appear to have missed my argument. I’m talking about how the left views the right to protest and the tendency to devalue it when the protestors aren’t left approved.
                      2. Mallard instructed parliament to turn sprinklers on the protestors, and to play incessant music. Obviously this was a stupid tactic, but it was also not his place to do that because of the importance of parliament not suppressing the right to protest. It was for the police to remove the protestors. I can’t see how it was routine de-escalation, nor am I convinced that any Speaker would have done the same, but precedent has certainly been set (which is my point).

                      Newsense said,

                      It’s a protest with a clear set of aims and a desired outcome. Rather than an occupation without coordination and rational goals, or an end date.

                      It’s the wrong argument. If that were Occupy or XR or indigenous protest, then an end date should not be on the left’s list of acceptable protest. Think Bastion Point for instance. Likewise, Occupy was often criticised for not having a coherent plan or goal, but this was largely because critiques didn’t understand the processes being used.

                      The anti-mandate protest was a hot mess. Some of the people were just outright arseholes, some were politically naive, some where aligned with the alt right manipulation, some were dangerous, some were simply disenfranchised and fucked off. That’s not a complete list. But despite that, they had a right to protest. There is plenty of room to criticise how they did various aspects of the protest, but the tendency for people to frame the protest as illegitmate is tied up with the beliefs of those people about the validity of the cause and that just takes us to the erosion of the right to protest. We cannot say that the right exists as long as we approve of what they are protesting. Because then the right can say the same thing, and they already have by banning some oil protests.

                      We can look to the UK and Australia to see just how bad this can get, but it’s dangerous to assume that NZ is immune to such shifts. We have a current reprieve because of our centre left government, but that won’t last forever.

                    • newsense []
                      10 December 2022 at 3:56 pm

                      Long bow.
                      If there is no clear purpose to a protest other than intimidate and change the government, partly through fear, that is not a protest in a democratic society.

                      It’s not non-violent direct action. It’s violent action. The kind which usually, even in a punitive democratic culture gets bail. Where there is no potential negotiation and no one to negotiate with, there is no protest in a democratic society.

                      This girl is an Australian political prisoner for protesting.

                      And if these are the bs discussions going on in the Green Party, they are going to love a Luxon/Rimmer/Peters arrangement, with Mark Mitchell as police minister and the factions in the police who were already illegally trialing monitoring software given free license. Still bet there’s a good chance ram raids will magically cease to be the major issue…

                      The harm principle is still a fairly good one. Apply it to both situations and let me know how you go.

                    • weka []
                      10 December 2022 at 6:22 pm

                      I would apply it to both situations if I knew what you were talking about. Where did the NZ Greens come into this?

                      If there is no clear purpose to a protest other than intimidate and change the government, partly through fear, that is not a protest in a democratic society.

                      It’s not non-violent direct action. It’s violent action. The kind which usually, even in a punitive democratic culture gets bail. Where there is no potential negotiation and no one to negotiate with, there is no protest in a democratic society.

                      Your points here are more on target than earlier.

                      But the protest wasn’t unified behind violent direct action, that came from some of the factions. It was a hot mess of a range of people and purposes. Some legitimate, some not. We should be pulling apart the hot mess and protecting the right to protest alongside condemning the parts of the protest that were anti-democratic and violent.

                      And again, my point was that the left applauding Mallard for the sprinklers and incessant music legitimises the right to do worse next time. We can’t have it both ways.

                • newsense …
                  10 December 2022 at 4:09 pm

                  Yes, I’m happy with protestors with no defined goal who are carrying signs calling for the death of elected representatives, who have routinely spouted violent gibberish defending their alleged rights, to not be allowed to sit in my front garden. Or that of my elected representatives. Who were threatened.

                  This is not opposition within a democratic framework. It’s opposition attempting to limit the legitimacy of a democratic framework and restrict democracy in action.

                  Compare Groundswell as a (partially astroturfed ) protest group. They’ve attracted support and had some success. They haven’t used violent rhetoric, they have leaders who express what their protest is about to the media, they meet with politicians. They haven’t burned anything and then without evidence blamed the police on a broadcast. Launching a social media career doesn’t seem to be a factor for them.

                  They shouldn’t be imprisoned for 8 months without bail.

                  Can’t see Trevor being Trevor and not rolling out the red carpet and bringing them tea and bikkies being part of a vast right wing anti-protest movement. But again, call it as you see it.

                  • Sacha …
                    10 December 2022 at 4:16 pm

                    Yes, we do not need another lesson of where tolerating the intolerant leads. Turning the other cheek should be restricted to whakapohane.

                  • weka …
                    10 December 2022 at 6:25 pm

                    Can’t see Trevor being Trevor and not rolling out the red carpet and bringing them tea and bikkies being part of a vast right wing anti-protest movement. But again, call it as you see it.

                    Again, what are you on about?

                    Labour in Australia supported the laws that have put the woman in jail for 15 months for protesting. How can you not see the problem with that?

  8. joe90 8
    9 December 2022 at 2:03 pm

    Fuck the mullahs.

    Iranian security forces are targeting women at anti-regime protests with shotgun fire to their faces, breasts and genitals, according to interviews with medics across the country.

    Doctors and nurses – treating demonstrators in secret to avoid arrest – said they first observed the practice after noticing that women often arrived with different wounds to men, who more commonly had shotgun pellets in their legs, buttocks and backs.

    […]

    One physician from the central Isfahan province said he believed the authorities were targeting men and women in different ways “because they wanted to destroy the beauty of these women”.

    “I treated a woman in her early 20s, who was shot in her genitals by two pellets. Ten other pellets were lodged in her inner thigh. These 10 pellets were easily removed, but those two pellets were a challenge, because they were wedged in between her urethra and vaginal opening,” the physician said. “There was a serious risk of vaginal infection, so I asked her to go to a trusted gynaecologist. She said she was protesting when a group of about 10 security agents circled around and shot her in her genitals and thighs.”

    https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2022/dec/08/iranian-forces-shooting-at-faces-and-genitals-of-female-protesters-medics-say?

    Iran has conducted the first known execution in relation to the anti-government protests that have rocked the country, hanging a man who was found guilty by a revolutionary court of “waging war against God”.

    Mohsen Shekari was accused of blocking a street and wounding a member of the pro-regime Basij militia on 25 September, during the early phase of the protests triggered by the death in custody of Mahsa Amini.

    State media published a video of what it said was Shekari’s confession, which showed him with a bruise on his right cheek.

    His family waited outside the jail where he was executed, seeking news of his fate.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/dec/08/iran-executes-man-23-mohsen-shekari-allegedly-stabbing-pro-regime-officer

    edit: btw, remember Elnaz Rekabi, the Iranian rock climber who competed in Seoul without wearing her headscarf? CNN reports her family’s home was demolished by the mullahs

    https://edition.cnn.com/2022/12/02/middleeast/iran-climber-home-intl/index.html

    • RedLogix 8.1
      9 December 2022 at 2:36 pm

      Thank you joe for highlighting this. I was just about to add in this ABC article as well.

      About two weeks ago I had an extended conversation with a young Iranian guy here in Australia, who could rightly be described as an activist. There is so much going on that our media is not reporting on. Indeed it was the wall of silence that frustrated him the most. Quite large and persistent protests have taken place in various Australian cities – he showed me the pictures – that have had exactly zero news coverage.

  9. aj 9
    9 December 2022 at 2:59 pm

    It's common knowledge that the USA was built with slavery, on land stolen from native Americans, but I wasn't aware the USA was also deeply involved in the Chinese opium trade in the early 19th century. The accumulation of this wealth helped the industrialization and the development of the United States.

    Recently I read a review of James Bradley's book “The China Mirage: The Hidden History of American Disaster in Asia” and found a (2015) video, Meet the Author program, featuring James Bradley, presenting his fourth book, “The China Mirage: The Hidden History of American Disaster in Asia”

    It's an impressive talk on the history of USA – China relations from the Opium wars through to the Vietnam War, with eye-opening research detail.

    This is slightly long perhaps for many at 1.05hr but he tells a great story, as one comment says "American people misunderstand China at so many levels that their mental images of China have little bearing on reality"

    Summary:
    The China Mirage is a riveting history of U.S.-China relations from the 19th-century opium trade through World War II and on to the Vietnam War. From both Roosevelt administrations to today, Bradley traces a troubled relationship between two nations, showing how the West has often profoundly misunderstood and underestimated the East.

    The China Mirage: The Hidden History of American Disaster in Asia is the latest book by James Bradley, author of the consecutive New York Times bestsellers Flags of Our Fathers, Flyboys, and The Imperial Cruise. With each of his books, Bradley has exposed hidden truths behind America’s military engagement in Asia, pivoting around the central searing image and story of his father raising the flag on Iwo Jima. With The China Mirage, he seeks to answer one basic question: How did his father end up on that island beach?

    The answer can be found as early as the 1840s, when prominent Americans—including Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s grandfather—made their fortunes in the Chinese opium trade. As they profited off addicting millions, American missionaries arrived seeking to westernize Chinese peasants. The myth of a country longing to be Christianized and Americanized and soon to become the United States’ best friend in Asia is the so-called China Mirage, a misperception that American media eagerly propagated, with far-reaching implications through the present.

    Bradley opens with a provocative premise: While most Americans trace the roots of World War II to Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor, few know why the attack occurred. It had little to do with the Axis agenda in Europe and was in fact a reaction to U.S. restrictions on oil exports to Japan—a move calculated to force Japan out of China, freeing China to westernize and ally with the United States.

    When Mao Zedong rose to power after World War II, Americans lamented that they had “lost” China, when in fact they had never “had” it—only the dream of a nation conjured in the collective imagination. It was a dream that cost millions of Asian and American lives in World War II, Korea, Vietnam, and other Asian conflicts.

    The China Mirage shows how the gap between American perception and reality in Asia has had disastrous repercussions. Focusing on the presidencies of Theodore Roosevelt and Franklin D. Roosevelt, Bradley explores the distorted domestic and foreign policy that has defined U.S.-China relations to the present day.

    https://www.chinausfocus.com/society-culture/the-china-mirage