Kim says 'deranged' Trump shows need for nuclear program

Kim Jong-un has said remarks by "deranged" US President Donald Trump have convinced him he is right to develop weapons for North Korea.

In an unprecedented personal statement, Mr Kim said Mr Trump would "pay dearly" for a UN speech where he threatened to "totally destroy" the North if the US was forced to defend itself.
Mr Trump responded that the "madman... will be tested like never before".
The two countries have engaged in ever more heated rhetoric in recent months.
China responded to the war of words, warning that the situation was "complicated and sensitive".

"All relevant parties should exercise restraint instead of provoking each other," said Foreign Minister spokesman Lu Kang.
Russia also urged restraint. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said Moscow was "deeply concerned by an escalation of tensions".

• 'Dotard' Trump? The story of 'rocket man' Kim's insult
• What missiles and nuclear weapons does North Korea have?

North Korea has been testing missiles at an unprecedented rate, and conducted its sixth nuclear test despite international condemnation.
North Korean Foreign Minister Ri Yong-ho, who had earlier compared Mr Trump's speech to "the sound of a barking dog", has warned that Pyongyang could test a hydrogen bomb in the Pacific Ocean in response to the US president's threat.
"It could be the most powerful detonation of an H-bomb in the Pacific," Mr Ri said, quoted by South Korea's Yonhap news agency.
However, he added: "We have no idea about what actions could be taken as it will be ordered by leader Kim Jong-un."

Our Response:

Audience
Any Nations either directly or indirectly affected by the North Korean Missile Crisis

Bias (Reader)

Since North Korea either directly or indirectly affects almost all the nations on earth I feel like as a reader I am bias against North Korea because they are like the "Bad Guys" at this point.

Bias (Author)

Since this is from BBC which is a British new agency they are also affected by missile crisis and therefore would have a bias against North Korea

Kenya election: System 'cannot be ready' for October poll

The company providing the voting system for the re-run of Kenya's presidential election says the equipment will not be ready in time, putting the planned date in jeopardy.

The Supreme Court annulled last month's vote, citing irregularities. It was won by the incumbent Uhuru Kenyatta.
French firm OT-Morpho says it needs to reinstall the complex voting system for the scheduled re-run on 17 October.
But it said the "significant amount of work" cannot be finished in time.
Details of the potential delay for October's re-run emerged in a letter from OT-Morpho to the electoral commission, obtained by Reuters news agency. An election official also confirmed the potential delay to the BBC.

The letter, dated 18 September, said two different electronic systems used in the vote would have to be reinstalled for a re-run.
More than 45,000 computer tablets were provided to Kenyan officials to identify voters - using fingerprints and photos - before allowing them to vote.
The tablets were also responsible for the secure transmission of election results, the company said in an April press release.
Irregularities in the transmission of results was one of the problems referenced by the Supreme Court when it annulled the August poll's results. But more precise details have yet to be released ahead of the court's full report, due on Thursday.
In addition to the technology problems, opposition candidate Raila Odinga - set to contest the election against Mr Kenyatta - has said he will not take part in the re-run unless members of the country's electoral commission are replaced.
The commission has reportedly arranged a meeting with both candidates on Wednesday to discuss potential problems ahead of the poll.

<http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-41313696>

My Response:

Because BBC is an external source of Kenya I don't believe I can find any significant bias, the article is basically reporting facts with reporter or journalist opinions included therefore I do not think there is any real bias. I think the audience of this article because it is really just factual could be just about anyone curious about what the current Kenyan re-election situation is, it doesn't have any emotion or specific language what would suggest it has been shot at anyone in particular.

North Korea slapped with UN sanctions after nuclear test

North Korea slapped with UN sanctions after nuclear test

The United Nations has imposed a fresh round of sanctions on North Korea after its sixth and largest nuclear test.

The measures restrict oil imports and ban textile exports - an attempt to starve the North of fuel and income for its weapons programmes.
The US had originally proposed harsher sanctions including a total ban on oil imports.
The vote was only passed unanimously after Pyongyang allies Russia and China agreed to the reduced measures.
The sanctions, which were passed at a UN Security Council meeting on Monday, were met with anger by North Korea.

A statement on state news agency KNCA warned that if the US did eventually push through harsher sanctions, North Korea would "absolutely make sure that the US pays due price".

The US call last week for a total ban on oil imports was seen as by some analysts as potentially destabilising for the regime.
The new sanctions agreed by the UN include:

• Limits on imports of crude oil and oil products. China, Pyongyang's main economic ally, supplies most of North Korea's crude oil.
• A ban on exports of textiles, which is Pyongyang's second-biggest export worth more than $700m (£530m) a year.
• A ban on new visas for North Korean overseas workers, which the US estimates would eventually cut off $500m of tax revenue per year.

A proposed asset freeze and a travel ban on North Korean leader Kim Jong-un were dropped.
The US ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley, told the Security Council after the vote: "We don't take pleasure in further strengthening sanctions today. We are not looking for war."
A South Korean presidential office spokesman said on Tuesday: "North Korea needs to realise that a reckless challenge against international peace will only bring about even stronger sanctions against them."
30 November 2016: UN targeted North Korea's valuable coal trade with China, slashing exports by about 60% under a new sales cap. Exports of copper, nickel, silver, zinc and the sale of statues were also banned.

What happened next? On 14 May 2017, North Korea tested what it said was a "newly developed ballistic rocket" capable of carrying a large nuclear warhead.

2 June 2017: UN imposed a travel ban and asset freeze on four entities and 14 officials, including the head of North Korea's overseas spying operations.

What happened next? On 4 July, North Korea claimed it carried out its first successful test of an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM).

6 August: UN banned North Korean exports of coal, ore and other raw materials and limited investments in the country, costing Pyongyang an estimated $1bn - about a third of its export economy.

What happened next? On 3 September, North Korea said it tested a hydrogen bomb that could be miniaturised and loaded on a long-range missile.

My Response:
North Korea has been a common topic on many peoples' lips their recent nuclear tests have ramped up tensions across the globe. Trump has really been through all the threats he can at North Korea and it's president, Kim Jung-Un, never the less they have not budged. I feel like since North Korea is really creating world wide tensions and unless you like war, or hate the US you may actually support North Korea's actions, but on the most part I feel like this article speaks to everyone in the world since this is such a global issue, because Nuclear Warfare is in fact that dangerous and destructive. Although I definitely think that this article does not like what actions North Korea is taking, and therefore having a bias against them and promoting their negative actions against the US and surrounding nations.

Projectile thrown at Australian cricket team bus in Bangladesh

The Australian cricket team has been shaken by an incident following play on day one in Chittagong in which a projectile was thrown at the team's bus as it returned to the Australian contingent's hotel.
No players or officials were hurt in the incident, which Cricket Australia suspect was a small rock or stone thrown by a child. Only minor damage was caused to the bus, but security has been beefed up around the team on Tuesday as a result of the incident.
CA's head of security Sean Carroll – who is with the team in Chittagong – explained what happened.
"On route back to the hotel last night a window on the Australian team bus was broken. No one was injured in the incident," Carroll said on Tuesday.
"Team security personnel are currently in discussion with local authorities while they investigate the cause, which is believed to have come from a small rock or stone.
"Bangladesh authorities are taking the incident seriously and security has been increased on the route.
"To date we have been happy with with security measures that have been in place and we are comfortable with the response from the Bangladesh authorities and the increased security presence we have been provided in light of the incident."
The entire Australian contingent – including travelling media – have been getting a convoy to and from the ground both in Dhaka, where the first Test was held, and Chittagong, where the tourists are trying to level the two-Test series.
Australia cancelled a tour to Bangladesh in 2015 because of security concerns, but studied the approach taken by England during a tour last year in preparing their security operation for this tour.

Cherny, Daniel. "Projectile thrown at Australian cricket team bus in Bangladesh. Stuff. 05/09/2017. 05/09/2017. "<https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/cricket/96522923/projectile-thrown-at-australian-cricket-team-bus-in-bangladesh>"


My Response:

I feel like this incident was over exaggerated, or there is something else to the story that is not being mention. Because who gives a cricket team an entire escort and ups their security presence just because a small young child who probably didn't know what he or she was doing, threw a rock at the team's bus. Little children throw rocks and things at people and cars all the time, and to me this doesn't seem worthy of the extent of the precaution taken. Which is why it is also possible that there is another motive for the increase in security, because perhaps the little child throwing the rock was a cover up story and something else much more serious occurred, and that is the reason for taking the security action that they did, but that is just my opinion.

My Bias:

I feel like I am bias against the media wanting to  blow everything out of proportion and make everything sound so much worse than it really is just so that you keep looking for such news.

Who supports same-sex marriage in Australia? And who doesn't?

Ahead of the postal survey on same-sex marriage, much is being written about the relative chances of a Yes or No outcome, and the strategies both sides need to influence public opinion.

However, the bulk of the public debate seems to be based on intuitive or speculative perceptions of the traits of people who are likely to oppose or support same-sex marriage, or on anecdotal evidence.
We used data from the Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia Survey (HILDA) to assess trends in the degree of support for same-sex marriage, and to ascertain the characteristics of those Australians who do, or don't, support it.

The data

In 2005, 2008, 2011 and 2015, the HILDA Survey asked its national panel to rate their degree of agreement with the statement "Homosexual couples should have the same rights as heterosexual couples do" on a scale from one (strongly disagree) to seven (strongly agree).
The HILDA data has strengths and weaknesses compared to recent poll data.
The drawbacks are that they are relatively old (July 2015-February 2016), and do not collect information about views on same-sex marriage specifically.
However, they are collected with much more statistical rigour (probability sampling, population representativeness), feature sample sizes that dwarf those of opinion polls (>15,000 respondents), and encompass rich demographic information.

Degree of support

We find a pronounced trend between 2005 and 2015 in the degree to which Australians agree with the notion of same-sex couples having the same rights as different-sex couples.
As seen below, the percentage of people who "strongly agree" (the highest point in the scale) rose from 19.2 per cent in 2005 to 46.3 per cent in 2015.
In contrast, the percentage of people who "strongly disagree" (the lowest point) fell markedly from 26.7 per cent in 2005 to 12.9 per cent in 2015.
The percentage of people who chose any of the five intermediate responses either remained stable, or decreased slightly.

Who supports equal rights?

Examination of the 2015 HILDA Survey data revealed marked differences in the degree of support for equal rights for same-sex couples across population subgroups.
Such support was significantly greater among:

• women;
• non-heterosexual (gay/lesbian, bisexual) people;
• younger people;
• people with degree-level or year 12 as their highest educational qualifications (compared to lower than year 12, or a professional qualification);
• non-religious people;
• people born in Australia or an English-speaking country (compared to people born in a non-English-speaking country);
• people with higher incomes; and
• people living in major cities (compared to those living in regional/remote areas).

Once these factors were accounted for, there were few and small differences across Australia's states and territories.

Social Change

The longitudinal nature of the HILDA Survey data enabled us to compare trends over time in support for the rights of same-sex couples between population segments.
Between 2005 and 2015, support rates increased across all of the population subgroups under scrutiny. This was even the case among groups that expressed the lowest levels of support.
For the most part, the group differences in support rates reported before remain reasonably constant over time.
Interesting exceptions included a reduced "support premium" associated with holding university-level qualifications, and increasing religious disparities.

What does all this mean?

The figures reveal an overwhelming tide of support toward the rights of same-sex couples within Australian society.
However, certain population groups are clearly lagging behind in their support. This includes male, older, and religious Australians, and those from non-English-speaking backgrounds.
These same traits are also predictive of being undecided on the issue. This implies campaigners for a Yes vote should redouble efforts in putting forward arguments that appeal to these groups.
Even with a favourable outcome, the moral scrutiny to which the LGBT community is being subjected will likely have long-term negative consequences.
Social friction and debates about the rights of same-sex couples are unlikely to disappear after the survey. Our results point toward population groups that will need further convincing.
Francisco Perales is a senior research fellow at The University of Queensland's Institute for Social Science Research.
Alice Campbell is a PhD student at The University of Queensland's Institute for Social Science Research.
Originally published in The Conversation.