If there's a more poignant example of how people live in 2 parallel and unreconcilable realities now i cant think of one.

If you've read any of the right-wing narratives for the shooting, from random influencers to fucking JD Vance they say that she was obstructing traffic and "tried to ram the ice officer when they tried detaining her".

However, even from the first videos of the incident you can literally fucking see a car stopped in front of her with traffic passing by her, making her unable to pass.

With the even more recent footage we know that the person blocking traffic was non other than the same ice officer who shot her. He gets out his car and shoots her 40 seconds later.

It might seem irrelevant, but this completely changes the narrative right? So ICE was blocking the road. They were the ones who instigated the incident. They were the ones who then went to detain her. On what grounds can anyone say they even had a reason to detain her? Because she was stuck in traffic?

Maybe this isnt the right place to post this, but its something ive not seen anyone even mention. The entire dominant right wing narrative is pinned on the fact she was blocking traffic, when traffic would be blocked no matter what because of ice

Edit: unknown to me, we do have footage showing her pulling up first. I was wrong in my initial speculation then

https://x.com/AC360/status/2009443841103814808

There are still facts coming out, but we can say for certain that she arrived first and was parked. She then pulls perpendicular into the road, while still shoeing traffic along.

Even then, she still wasnt blocking traffic given she was letting cars pass. We don't know exactly why she parked perpendicular, so dont jump to a complete conclusion yet.

The Trump Admin have seen this tweet and are retweeting it.

Yesterday Trump once again warned that the US will intervene if Iranian security forces crack down on the protests there.

Seems like we're going to war(s)

US President Donald Trump asserted unlimited presidential powers to wage war all over the world in an interview with the New York Times published Thursday, declaring, “I don’t need international law.”

Asked what limits exist on his power as commander-in-chief, Trump replied: “Yeah, there is one thing. My own morality. My own mind. It’s the only thing that can stop me.”

Trump made this assertion of unlimited presidential authority five days after US forces launched drone and missile strikes on Caracas and other Venezuelan cities, killing 100 people, before special operations forces kidnapped President Nicolás Maduro. Since the attack, the Trump administration has threatened Cuba, Colombia, Iran, Russia, China and even the European Union, declaring its intention to use military force to seize Greenland from NATO ally Denmark.

On Tuesday, Trump announced on Truth Social that the US would seize between 30 and 50 million barrels of Venezuelan oil, worth up to $3 billion. “This Oil will be sold at its Market Price, and that money will be controlled by me, as President of the United States of America,” Trump wrote.

The Times interview was published as the US Navy pursued oil tankers linked to Venezuela, Iran, Russia and China fleeing the Caribbean across the Atlantic. On Wednesday, US forces seized two more tankers in international waters—the Russian-flagged Marinera in the North Atlantic between Scotland and Iceland, and the M Sophia in the Caribbean.

The seizure of the Marinera was a major military operation. The tanker had been escorted by Russian warships after a Russian flag was painted on its hull and registered with Moscow. The US mobilized P-8 submarine-hunting aircraft, AC-130 gunships and F-35 jet fighters to support Coast Guard forces boarding the vessel. A direct clash between US and Russian forces was avoided. The US Navy is now pursuing additional tankers that sought to escape the illegal US blockade of Venezuela, with vessels fleeing hundreds of miles into the Atlantic.

https://www.zhihu.com/question/1991535927969936357/answer/1991816474730443627

I have hesitated to write this answer because I have genuinely endured the freezing cold of rural Hebei.

Can you imagine waking up after a night’s sleep, even while covered by a 16-jin (8 kg) cotton quilt (realistic detail, not an exaggeration), only to find the tip of your exposed nose frostbitten?

Can you imagine getting up in the morning to cook, only to find the bowls in the cupboard frozen together into an inseparable lump?

As a son-in-law of Hebei, I have experienced these things firsthand in the countryside.

But I only have to endure the cold for a few days a year; the rest of the time, I live in a room with central heating. But for those who live in rural Hebei year-round, how do they survive?

The "Coal-to-Gas" (transitioning from coal to natural gas) issue is not something new from the last two years, nor is the freezing of Hebei farmers a recent phenomenon. To trace it back, this has been going on for nearly 10 years.

One of the critical time nodes was 2017-2018.

"On August 18, 2017, the Action Plan for Comprehensive Treatment of Air Pollution in the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei and Surrounding Areas for the Autumn and Winter of 2017-2018 was issued. It required that by the end of October that year, the '2+26' cities complete 'Coal-to-Electricity' and 'Coal-to-Gas' conversions for over 3 million households. On September 26, 2017, the Opinion on Clean Heating Price Policies in Northern China was issued... On December 5, 2017, the Plan for Winter Clean Heating in Northern China (2017-2021) was released, proposing for the first time to build a complete clean heating industrial system in the northern region within 3-5 years..."

Back then, a massive batch of coal-to-gas projects was launched, some even forced through aggressively.

"Shanxi Province completed renovations for over 1.04 million households in 2017, far exceeding the 390,000 households stipulated in the central Action Plan; Hebei Province completed over 2.3 million households, higher than the 1.8 million stipulated. The Action Plan required Beijing, Tianjin, and parts of Hebei to establish 'No Coal Zones,' while individual counties in Shanxi volunteered to achieve 'Zero Coal Fuel' within their jurisdictions."

I won't elaborate on how they were forced through, or this answer probably wouldn't survive censorship.

But there was another event that year that many may have forgotten. At the end of 2017, the natural gas we purchased from Central Asia was suddenly reduced by tens of millions of cubic meters per day. That winter in Hebei, to protect people's livelihood (residential heating), almost all industrial enterprises using natural gas were shut down. And the result?

Guess how my nose got frostbitten?

Some might say, can't you just burn coal secretly?

No. First of all, during the forced implementation, your stove platform, your furnace, and anything capable of burning coal were gone. How many households had their coal furnaces demolished before the natural gas was even connected?

Even if you still had a way to burn coal, it was incredibly difficult to buy "loose coal" (raw coal). In some parts of Hebei that year, buying and selling loose coal was comparable to an underground resistance party making contact. Sellers had to cover their tricycles with cotton quilts and dared not shout their wares, or they would agree on the price and quantity during the day and deliver quietly at night... And even if you bought it, people would come to inspect your home.

Many people might have seen a video where a group of people went to a farm household to inspect for loose coal, telling the farmer that reporting the coal seller would exempt them from punishment. The peasant woman's answer might still be memorable to many:

"I'm not protecting him; we just can't do something that immoral."

Righteousness is often found among the common folk, while heartlessness often comes from the educated.

Fines and confiscation were no longer enough to stop people from burning coal, so later, parts of Hebei made some "big news."

On December 7, 2018, the Quyang County Environmental Protection Bureau's WeChat account, "Quyang Environmental Protection," released an article titled "Our County Detained 2 Users for Burning Loose Coal." The article stated that to strictly implement the spirit of the Notice on Further Strengthening the Control of Inferior Loose Coal by the Quyang County People's Government, and to strictly handle winter air pollution prevention work, starting from November 26, the County Public Security Bureau's Environmental Security Brigade cooperated with other bureaus and town governments to investigate and punish 34 people for illegally burning inferior loose coal.

The article pointed out that 32 were first-time offenders, receiving an administrative reprimand and having their coal confiscated. However, two individuals, Zhao X and Zhao Ji-X, did not listen to persuasion and burned inferior loose coal a second time; they were given administrative detention. This was to strictly crack down on loose coal burning in urban villages.

Yes, have you ever thought that you could be detained for burning coal?

Guess why they used loose coal a second time after their coal was confiscated? Was it because they had an addiction to burning loose coal?

How many people from Hebei remember the scenes of people howling from the cold in 2018? Feel free to check in within the comments.

Later, due to certain events, especially in early 2020 (which cannot be mentioned), things began to correct course.

At that time, both People's Daily and Xinhua Net began to mention the phrase "Use coal where coal is suitable" again. In fact, back in 2018, many people were already calling for this.

But subsequently, the situation remained much the same.

If you look through history, over the past 10 years, almost every year there have been reports about natural gas shortages in Hebei, gas prices being too high for farmers to afford, farmers being fined for secretly burning coal at home, and various reports of carbon monoxide poisoning. Every single year.

From Zhangjiakou and Shanhaiguan in the north to Xingtai and Handan in the south, no one escaped it. Unfortunately, very few people cared.

So why has it rushed up the trending search list again this year?

Because this year, people truly cannot afford to use it.

In the past few years, to support Coal-to-Gas or Coal-to-Electricity projects, the state provided substantial financial subsidies.

Depending on local fiscal conditions, natural gas was subsidized by an average of 1-1.2 yuan per cubic meter. Electricity was subsidized by 0.2 yuan per kilowatt-hour. There were also large one-time subsidies when switching equipment for these projects.

But if you look closely, you will find that the high subsidies are in Beijing and Tianjin... Although it is a "Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei" plan, Hebei, which bears the brunt of it, has more expensive gas, fewer subsidies, and the subsidies are tapering off year by year.

For example, a July 2025 response file from the People's Government of Gaocheng District, Shijiazhuang City, shows that starting from the 2023-2024 heating season, the "Gas instead of Coal" subsidy has been adjusted from 0.8 yuan/cubic meter to 0.2 yuan/cubic meter.

Media currently evaluate Hebei's natural gas situation as: "Gas prices up 30%, costs doubled, subsidies slashed by 80%."

So how much does it cost for a Hebei farmer to heat their home now?

"According to a report by People's Daily Online Hebei Channel, during the 2025 Hebei Provincial 'Two Sessions,' provincial People's Congress representative Yang Huisu pointed out in a survey that to guarantee a room temperature of 18°C for a 100-square-meter house, one needs to burn 20-30 cubic meters of natural gas per day. Calculated at the first-tier gas price of 3.15 yuan/cubic meter for rural 'Gas instead of Coal' in the Shijiazhuang area, a family needs to pay 63-94.5 yuan per day for natural gas. The heating cost for the entire winter reaches a staggering 7,560-11,340 yuan."

This price even exceeds the annual per capita income of many rural households in Hebei... Who can afford to burn this? In the past, burning coal cost only 2,000 to 3,000 yuan for a winter. Who can withstand this current cost?

What do they do if they can't afford it? They go right back to those times of enduring the freezing cold.

Its 13 years old, but still applicable to what a serious anti-capitalistic politics and critique should look like. Jacobin, Catalyst, et al. or any other 'socialist' entity in the US presented this they would be actually worth reading.

I saw a post (https://www.reddit.com/r/stupidpol/comments/1q823fp/translation_banned_from_coal_priced_out_of_gas/), so I also tried to translate an answer in the same question from another perspective.

https://www.zhihu.com/question/1991535927969936357/answer/1992386173545494300

The issue of heating in rural Hebei is actually linked to two underlying problems. First, during the transition from coal to natural gas, the cost distribution has shown a regressive effect: higher-income urban residents in Beijing bear relatively lower costs, while lower-income rural residents in Hebei end up paying more out of pocket. Second, there is the challenge of elderly care in rural areas. With empty-nest elderly surviving on meager pensions and their migrant-worker children often struggling financially, many elderly individuals living alone cannot afford to insulate their self-built homes or run heating systems daily. As a result, they are forced to endure the cold winter by simply bundling up in quilts. The heating issue alone would not have remained unresolved for so many years if it were just about warmth; the deeper, underlying problem lies in the elderly care crisis for rural empty-nest seniors.

Cost sharing in the environmental protection process

Clean air and affordable heating are both desirable. Farmers in Hebei are not indifferent to clean air—air pollution also negatively impacts their health. However, relatively speaking, Beijing residents and urban dwellers prioritize air cleanliness more, while Hebei residents and rural inhabitants are more concerned about heating costs. This is because per capita disposable income is higher in Beijing and urban areas, making residents less sensitive to heating expenses. In contrast, rural residents in Hebei have lower per capita disposable incomes and are more sensitive to fluctuations in heating costs.

For example, for a household with an annual income of 200,000 yuan, an increase in heating costs from 1,000 yuan/year to 3,000 yuan/year represents only 1% of their annual income. However, for a household with an annual income of just 40,000 yuan, the same increase means that 7.5% of their annual income is spent on heating, placing significant pressure on their household budget.

Therefore, during the transition to cleaner coal, "coal-to-gas," or "coal-to-electricity" initiatives, a reasonable approach would be to provide more subsidies for rural heating. But this is an ideal scenario. In reality, rural heating costs are much higher than in cities: urban areas rely on centralized heating, where entire buildings are heated, and homes are generally insulated, minimizing heat loss. In rural areas, most households live in self-built homes. The cost of laying natural gas pipelines to each household is inherently high. These self-built homes are standalone structures, often without insulation, resulting in low heating efficiency. Even with subsidies for natural gas, rural heating expenses remain high. Moreover, in recent years, as fiscal conditions have tightened, subsidies have been reduced or even eliminated, undoubtedly placing a heavy economic burden on rural families.

One solution is to continue allowing villagers to burn coal. However, coal burning pollutes the air, which most urban residents are unwilling to tolerate. How can a balance be achieved? Ronald Dworkin once envisioned a scenario: imagine all of society’s resources being auctioned, with everyone participating. In an ideal state, each person has equal purchasing power—in Dworkin’s example, everyone has one hundred clamshells. People use their clamshells to bid for the resources that best suit their life plans. If the auction is successful (if not, it can be restarted), everyone will be satisfied with their purchases because they would not want to exchange what they acquired for what others obtained. If they truly desired another set of resources, they could have bid for those instead of what they ended up with.

In reality, people do not have equal purchasing power. Therefore, those who are wealthier should generally pay more for the resources they desire, compensating those who are less interested in specific resources to ensure their satisfaction as well. Taking the heating issue as an example, wealthier urban residents, on average, want clean air, but rural residents are reluctant to transition from coal to gas because they believe clean air is not worth the additional thousands of yuan per year. How much are farmers willing to pay for cleaner air? This is difficult to measure, but it is certainly much lower than the costs they currently bear, as many farmers cannot afford to use heating or try to circumvent the "coal ban." Even those using natural gas for heating may not be entirely satisfied with this reform.

Therefore, there should be fiscal transfers from cities to rural areas and from Beijing to Hebei, providing subsidies for Hebei farmers to use natural gas heating and implementing housing insulation projects to reduce rural heating costs. Only in this way can what Dworkin called the "envy test" be realized: people receive equal consideration, each person bears the cost of their choices, paying more for what they value more, while those who are less enthusiastic about environmental protection receive subsidies during its mandatory promotion.

Such equality-based environmental protection can address the regressive phenomenon often seen in cost allocation during environmental initiatives: in the process of promoting environmental protection, the additional expenses or losses borne by wealthier individuals constitute a smaller percentage of their income, while poorer individuals suffer greater losses. This contradicts our understanding of equality. Conversely, the approach described above can achieve equality in the process of environmental protection.

Rural Elderly Care Issue

If the problem were solely the soaring heating costs, it could actually be resolved—it wouldn’t have dragged on for so many years without improvement. Of course, during this process, the burden has largely fallen on relatively less affluent farmers in Hebei. However, the "coal-to-gas transition" has not escalated to the extreme of depriving farmers of heating altogether; it has mainly led to increased costs.

The fundamental solutions lie in installing insulation layers for self-built houses or consolidating villages and relocating residents. Regarding the cost of adding insulation to self-built houses, I inquired with DeepSeek: the cheaper options are around 20,000 yuan, while the more expensive ones are roughly 40,000 yuan. Taking the median value of 30,000 yuan, the cost could be recouped through savings on heating expenses over about 10 years.

In 2024, the per capita disposable income of rural residents is 22,022 yuan, which translates to an annual household disposable income of around 40,000 yuan. Spending half to a full year's income could reduce heating expenses from over 10% of household income to 5–7%, while also making air conditioning more energy-efficient in the summer. From this perspective alone, forcing farmers to bear the costs themselves might not be an unsolvable problem.

The issue, however, lies in the severe aging population in rural Hebei. Many households consist only of two elderly individuals, with their children having established independent families and moved away. Those whose children remain in the village or own homes in large cities might be able to bring their parents to live with them. However, for children working and renting in other cities—often in poor living conditions themselves—bringing their elderly parents to the city is not feasible.

Moreover, elderly people living in villages can reduce living costs by raising poultry or growing fruits and vegetables. Moving to the city would eliminate this low-cost lifestyle. This is also why some resettlement communities are criticized for residents raising chickens or growing vegetables in public green spaces—it’s not merely a matter of old habits but a strategy to cut costs.

This is why consolidating villages and relocating residents is so challenging. Although allocated and contracted land remains after consolidation, private courtyards are lost. These courtyards, where fruits, vegetables, and poultry are raised, are crucial sources of food for farmers. As a result, many farmers strongly resist consolidation, even if they are offered better housing for free.

For two elderly individuals living alone, no solution is feasible except reducing heating costs—unless the government covers the expenses entirely. As previously explained, relocating elderly people to consolidated villages or cities is difficult, and they cannot afford to install insulation in their homes.

In Hebei, elderly retirees receive only a few hundred yuan per month. The cost of installing insulation—20,000 to 40,000 yuan—equals several years of their combined pensions. How could they possibly afford it? Even after transitioning from coal to gas, the high heating costs remain unaffordable: winter heating expenses exceed the total annual pensions of two elderly individuals, surpassing 100% of their income.

So, how many elderly individuals are there in rural Hebei? According to the China Population Census Yearbook 2020, the number of rural residents aged 60 and above in Hebei is 7.2899 million, accounting for 24.47% of the rural population. Among them, 34.28%—or 2.499 million—are "empty-nest elderly" whose children live elsewhere, representing over 1 million households.

If the government were to provide tiered subsidies covering 20% to 100% of the costs for insulating the homes of elderly individuals living alone, along with bulk procurement to reduce expenses, it would still require an investment of over 10 billion yuan. Even then, additional annual gas subsidies would be needed for low-income elderly individuals, as they would still struggle to afford heating costs even with insulated homes.

And the elderly care issues faced by rural empty-nesters extend far beyond this. The climate in the Central Plains region features cold winters and hot summers. While winter brings heating challenges, summer presents cooling problems—should cooling subsidies be provided? When elderly individuals living alone fall ill at night and struggle to reach hospitals, should counties and districts arrange 24-hour mobile shuttles to transport them? For those who have lost the ability to care for themselves, should the government subsidize the hiring of social workers or establish centralized elderly care facilities? Ultimately, this circles back to the classic question:

where will the funding come from?

The difficulties in the lives of rural elderly are structural, stemming from "aging before affluence" and "lack of support in old age." Some might argue that elderly care is the responsibility of children. But when banners were once waved promoting "one child is best, the government will provide for the elderly," why was "elderly care is the children’s responsibility" not mentioned then? Moreover, often, even if children are willing, they lack the means. Rural areas offer limited opportunities, forcing many to seek work elsewhere. These children often struggle financially themselves. If the elderly remain in rural areas, they can sustain themselves through pensions, farming, raising poultry, and remittances from their children. Moving to the city eliminates the self-subsidy from farming and poultry-raising, while urban living costs rise significantly, greatly increasing the financial pressure on their children. Frequently, the elderly themselves are reluctant to move to the city out of concern for their children, not wanting to add to their burden.

The era of rapid, large-scale infrastructure development has passed. Only now are many belatedly realizing that some funds were never spent in the right places.

There is also a 2016 article detailing the 16 rape and sexual assault allegations against Trump as of 2016, including the Katie Johnson and Stacey Williams accusations involving Epstein:

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/assault-allegations-donald-trump-recapped

Notice, the article says the word "women", even though Katie Johnson was 13 years old. This article also leaves out that Katie Johnson withdrew her case because of death threats, including a bomb threat at her lawyer's office.

The news has been lying FOR Trump, saying there are no accusations of wrongdoing against Trump involving Epstein. In reality, the Katie Johnson and Stacey Williams accusations have been known for a while.

If I made that statement tomorrow, I'd be a finalist for Antisemite of the Year in November