Источник
Business news and blog articles from The Huffington Post
28 апреля, 12:11

Fitness Buff Turned Trash At The Beach Into Full-Fledged Gym

  • 0

Most people go to the beach to kick back. Not Alcindo Soares. Soares always dreamed of becoming a professional athlete, Great Big Story reported in its profile of the exercise buff. But when he couldn’t afford to join a gym in Cape Verde, an island country off the coast of West Africa, he decided to build his own. Soares, who works in construction, collects the detritus he finds on the shores of Santa Maria beach and fashions it into workout equipment. The outdoor facility is replete with many of the trappings you’d find at a standard fitness club, including weights, pull-up bars and a bench for dips. But there’s no membership fee here. There’s a dual purpose behind Soares’ mission. He’s is cleaning up his beach at a time when environmentalists are particularly concerned about the amount of pollution in our oceans. There are more than 150 million tons of plastic in marine waters today. At this rate, there will be more plastics than fish (by weight) in the oceans by 2050.  Soares is also providing a free community center to an area that’s been ravaged by poverty. In Cape Verde, 21 percent of the population lives below the international poverty line, meaning they subsist on less than $1.25 a day. “For as long as I live, I’ll continue to use it,” Soares told Great Big Story of his gym. “Train, then go swim in the ocean, and the day is complete.” type=type=RelatedArticlesblockTitle=Related... + articlesList=58fed37be4b0c46f0781d426,58ff7685e4b0b6f6014b0d03,5866c5c0e4b0d9a5945b6168,58d006e9e4b00705db51431e -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

Выбор редакции
28 апреля, 09:49

Sean Hannity And Lou Dobbs Agree: Donald Trump 'Pretty Close To Perfect'

  • 0

Sean Hannity and Lou Dobbs took turns singing the praises of President Donald Trump on Thursday night. Not surprisingly, the two Fox News personalities believe the president is doing a fantastic job. “He has done more than any president in recent history, certainly in the last half century, in the first 98 days of his presidency,” Dobbs said on Hannity’s show. “All the accomplishments of the president, keeping his promise, checking off his list,” Hannity said. “He’s not perfect, nobody’s perfect, but he’s done a really good job.”  “Well, he’s pretty close to perfect, Sean,” Dobbs said. “I’m serious.” “Pretty close,” Hannity said. “Everything he’s had to do on his own, he’s doing.” “This guy, he’s worked his tail off. Still is,” Dobbs said. “Meanwhile, taking care of national defense, national security and all the challenges that aren’t on the Trump agenda. I mean, it’s truly remarkable what he is doing and the credit that he is not receiving for what he’s done.” See the full discussion in the clip above.   (h/t Mediaite) -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

Выбор редакции
28 апреля, 07:51

Elizabeth Warren 'Troubled' Over Obama's Lucrative Wall Street Speech

  • 0

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) voiced her concerns over President Barack Obama’s plans to accept $400,000 for giving a speech to Cantor Fitzgerald LP, saying money in politics is “a snake that slithers through Washington.” The senator appeared on Sirius XM’s “Alter Family Politics” program to promote her new book, “This Fight Is Our Fight,” and she was asked about Obama’s upcoming payday.  “I was troubled by that,” she said. “The influence on dollars on [Washington] is what scares me. I think it ultimately threatens democracy ... we have to think about what the tools are to fight back against it.” Warren went on to say that politics has become a money vs. money war, which the rich will always win. “What I’m pushing for ... is the rich and powerful, they got money, and they got power ... but there’s more of us than there is of them, and we have to use our voices and our votes and fight back.” Later in the program, host Jonathan Alter also told Warren that her book, which just hit No. 1 on The New York Times bestseller list, bumped Bill O’Reilly’s “Old School” from the top spot.  “Sweet! Sweet!” she said. “You just made my morning!” Listen to Warren react in the video below. -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

28 апреля, 04:34

Trump To Sign Offshore Drilling Order A Day Ahead Of Climate March

  • 0

function onPlayerReadyVidible(e){'undefined'!=typeof HPTrack&&HPTrack.Vid.Vidible_track(e)}!function(e,i){if(e.vdb_Player){if('object'==typeof commercial_video){var a='',o='m.fwsitesection='+commercial_video.site_and_category;if(a+=o,commercial_video['package']){var c='&m.fwkeyvalues=sponsorship%3D'+commercial_video['package'];a+=c}e.setAttribute('vdb_params',a)}i(e.vdb_Player)}else{var t=arguments.callee;setTimeout(function(){t(e,i)},0)}}(document.getElementById('vidible_1'),onPlayerReadyVidible); WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump will sign an executive order Friday — one day before a massive demonstration for climate action — clearly aimed at opening up now-protected areas of the Arctic and Atlantic to oil and gas development. In a call with reporters Thursday, Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke said the order, called the “America-First Offshore Energy Strategy,” will add to the “success” of the president’s first 100 days in office and puts America on track toward energy independence. The action instructs the Interior Department to review the current five-year oil and gas leasing program, finalized by the Obama administration in November, as well as the regulations and permitting process for offshore energy development. Furthermore, it instructs Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross to review all marine sanctuaries and monuments designated or expanded within the last 10 years, as well as to refrain from designating or expanding any existing marine protected areas, Zinke said. The latter portion of the order is similar to a separate order Trump signed earlier this week requiring a review of national monument designations going back 21 years. Friday’s offshore order, Zinke said, “will cement our nation’s position as a global energy leader and foster energy security for the benefit of the American people without removing any of the stringent environmental safeguards that are currently in place.” In November, citing environmental concerns, President Barack Obama’s Interior Department instituted a temporary ban on drilling in the Arctic’s Beaufort and Chukchi seas between 2017 and 2022, thereby limiting offshore drilling to the Gulf of Mexico and Alaska’s Cook Inlet. One month later, Obama used his executive authority to extend permanent protections for large swaths of the Arctic and Atlantic oceans, relying on a provision of the 1953 Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act. The permanent withdrawal encompasses the entire U.S. portion of the Chukchi Sea and significant portions of the Beaufort Sea. It also covers 31 canyons in the Atlantic, stretching from New England to the Chesapeake Bay. Although not entirely clear, it appears the order takes aim at the permanent ban. Back in December, an Obama administration official said “no president has ever acted to reverse an indefinite withdrawal” and that the permanent ban would “stand the test of time.” As he did with Wednesday’s monument order, Zinke stressed that Friday’s order simply calls for a review and that the current five-year plan remains in place. He said he understands that people will have concerns about how increased development will impact the environment, but that both he and Trump are committed to protecting the environment.  “I’ve spent a lot of time in the Middle East and it is better to produce energy here under reasonable regulations than have it be produced overseas with no regulations,” he said. “Environmentally, I can tell you we have the highest standards in the world.”  Environmentalists have their doubts about the Trump administration’s environmental stewardship — and rightly so. Since taking office, Trump has acted quickly to derail America’s actions to combat climate change, a crisis he has dismissed as “bullshit” and a “hoax,” and proposed sweeping cuts to the Environmental Protection Agency and other scientific agencies. Jacqueline Savitz, a senior vice president for the nonprofit group Oceana, said that expanding “dirty and dangerous offshore drilling” would be “a huge, bad, stupid mistake.” She noted that the order comes nearly seven years to the day after the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.  “The president’s efforts to benefit energy producers won’t make America great again. It will simply enable corner-cutting and set us up for another havoc-wreaking environmental disaster,” she said. “We need smart, tough standards to ensure that energy companies are not operating out of control. In their absence, America’s future promises more oil spills and industrialized coastlines.” Sierra Weaver, senior attorney at the Southern Environmental Law Center, called the order a “slap in the face” to the millions of Atlantic coastal residents who reject offshore drilling there.  Environmental groups Earthjustice and the Natural Resources Defense Council immediately promised to take the Trump administration to court.  “Trump is again going all-in for his Big Oil backers, with an executive order that attempts to undo President Obama’s historic action,” Earthjustice President Trip Van Noppen said in a statement. “Trump’s short-sighted order reverses climate progress and imperils coastal communities, irreplaceable wildlife, and our shared future. It is also against the law. We will go to court to enforce the law and ensure President Obama’s protections remain in place.” Asked by a reporter if the administration has been approached by any oil companies interested in drilling in the Arctic, Zinke said “no.” The order appears to threaten newly established marine monuments, including Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument surrounding the the remote Northwestern Hawaiian Islands. In August, Obama quadrupled the size of the monument, from 139,797 square miles to 582,578 square miles, making it the largest marine protected area on the planet. Thousands of environmentalists are slated to descend on the nation’s capitol and city streets across the country on Saturday to participate in the People’s Climate March, a demonstration against Trump’s environmental policies.  -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

Выбор редакции
28 апреля, 02:08

Head Of Uber's Self-Driving Car Effort Steps Down

  • 0

function onPlayerReadyVidible(e){'undefined'!=typeof HPTrack&&HPTrack.Vid.Vidible_track(e)}!function(e,i){if(e.vdb_Player){if('object'==typeof commercial_video){var a='',o='m.fwsitesection='+commercial_video.site_and_category;if(a+=o,commercial_video['package']){var c='&m.fwkeyvalues=sponsorship%3D'+commercial_video['package'];a+=c}e.setAttribute('vdb_params',a)}i(e.vdb_Player)}else{var t=arguments.callee;setTimeout(function(){t(e,i)},0)}}(document.getElementById('vidible_1'),onPlayerReadyVidible); Anthony Levandowski, the head of Uber’s self-driving car unit once described by CEO Travis Kalanick as his “brother from another mother,” is stepping down from his position for a different role at the company. Levandowski’s new job will remain in Uber’s Advanced Technologies Group, which researches self-driving technology. But he will no longer be involved in a key technology that allows autonomous vehicles to navigate, a company spokesperson told HuffPost. Eric Meyhofer, an Uber engineer and co-founder of Carnegie Robotics, will take over the division, Uber said. The shift comes as a potentially devastating lawsuit against Uber involving Levandowski heads toward trial. The suit, filed by self-driving car rival Waymo, accuses former employee Levandowski of stealing trade secrets.  Levandowski played a key role in Google’s self-driving car program, later spun off into Waymo. Central to the lawsuit is the design of a circuit board for an essential technology called LiDAR, which helps driverless cars map their surroundings. Waymo claims Levandowski brought that circuit board design with him to Uber, giving the company a critical ― and illegal ― advantage. Uber has dismissed the claim. In an email to his team on Thursday (read it below), Levandowski wrote that Uber’s technology was built “independently, from the ground up.” A court hearing is scheduled for next week. The judge potentially could halt Uber’s self-driving program until the outcome of the trial. Here’s Levandowski’s email to Uber’s Advanced Technologies Group announcing the leadership change, first obtained by Business Insider. Uber confirmed the email: Team: I want to let you know that Travis and I have decided that I will be recused from all LiDAR-related work and management at Uber, through the remainder of the Waymo litigation. This change means that Eric Meyhofer will be the head of ATG, reporting to Travis, and I will report to Eric. My other responsibilities will not change. As you know, I currently don’t provide input on detailed LiDAR design choices. But making this organizational change means I will have absolutely no oversight over or input into our LiDAR work. Going forward, please make sure not to include me in meetings or email threads related to LiDAR, or ask me for advice on the topic. We all know the hard work that Eric, James and the LiDAR team have put into independently developing our technology over the past few years. We should all be proud that our self-driving technology has been built independently, from the ground up. With this move, I hope to keep the team focused on achieving the vision that brought us all here. Thanks, Anthony -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

28 апреля, 01:56

Senate Confirms Trump’s Labor Secretary

  • 0

function onPlayerReadyVidible(e){'undefined'!=typeof HPTrack&&HPTrack.Vid.Vidible_track(e)}!function(e,i){if(e.vdb_Player){if('object'==typeof commercial_video){var a='',o='m.fwsitesection='+commercial_video.site_and_category;if(a+=o,commercial_video['package']){var c='&m.fwkeyvalues=sponsorship%3D'+commercial_video['package'];a+=c}e.setAttribute('vdb_params',a)}i(e.vdb_Player)}else{var t=arguments.callee;setTimeout(function(){t(e,i)},0)}}(document.getElementById('vidible_1'),onPlayerReadyVidible); WASHINGTON ― The Senate confirmed Alexander Acosta to be the next labor secretary on Thursday, filling an important but long-vacant role in President Donald Trump’s Cabinet. Lawmakers voted 60-38 in favor of Acosta’s nomination, with all Republicans and a handful of Democrats supporting the law school dean and former official in the George W. Bush administration. The son of Cuban immigrants, Acosta will be the first Latino to occupy one of Trump’s Cabinet posts. He will come to Washington to lead an agency in flux. Trump has signaled that he wants to dramatically reduce the budget at the Labor Department, which is tasked with enforcing the nation’s labor laws and administering federal jobs training programs. The White House clearly envisions a more limited role for the agency in the U.S. economy, having repealed or stalled several labor regulations issued by Barack Obama. While Democrats and labor groups brace for a more business-friendly Labor Department, Acosta, a former prosecutor, said in his March confirmation hearing that he was committed to enforcing wage and safety laws on behalf of workers. “Helping Americans find good jobs ― safe jobs ― should not be a partisan issue,” he told senators. And yet Acosta made clear he intends to carry out Trump’s agenda as it relates to labor issues, saying he would honor the White House’s order to review all regulations currently on the books for potential repeal. He also indicated he’s not a fan of Obama’s significant overtime reforms, which would extend new wage protections to millions of salaried workers but are currently tied up in court. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) made her case against Acosta’s confirmation on the Senate floor Wednesday. Warren chided Acosta for dodging her questions on issues like the silica rule, which would further limit the amount of cancer-causing dust that employers can expose construction workers to. Although that rule is projected to save 600 lives per year, the Trump administration has delayed enforcing it. Acosta made clear he would follow the administration’s orders on that. “Mr. Acosta has had multiple opportunities in the more than two months since he was nominated for this position to demonstrate that he would stand up for workers,” Warren said. “Time after time, he has refused.” Whatever concerns liberals have with Acosta, he is a vastly more palatable choice to them than Trump’s original labor nominee, Andrew Puzder, the former chief executive of CKE Restaurants. Puzder led the Hardee’s and Carl’s Jr. burger chains and was a sharp critic of a $15 minimum wage and more generous overtime rules. His nomination collapsed in February amid a fierce campaign by Democrats and labor groups, leading Trump to the safer choice of Acosta. Acosta is currently dean of the law school at Florida International University. He’s been through the confirmation ringer before, having been a member of the National Labor Relations Board, which referees disputes between unions and employers. He also headed the Civil Rights Division at the Bush Justice Department, which led to perhaps the blackest mark on his government record. An inspector general report found that officials at the division had politicized hiring while Acosta led it. “It happened on my watch,” he acknowledged during his hearing. “It should not have occurred.” While many of Trump’s Cabinet members are hostile to their agency’s very missions, there’s nothing in Acosta’s past to suggest he wants to dismantle the department he will lead. That said, labor groups are not expecting him to be an ally. When he sat on the labor board, Acosta frequently sided with employers over unions, though former Democratic colleagues say he does have an independent streak. The Labor Department took on a central role in the Obama administration, taking the lead on some of the White House’s most consequential reforms, such as the overtime regulations that are now in limbo. That role will be greatly reduced in the Trump era, with a White House that wants to undo the administrative state. The agency’s core responsibilities, such as investigating minimum wage violations, fall on career civil servants and will continue as usual. But they may be given fewer resources, and there have already been signs that enforcement may be less aggressive under Trump. The Labor Department has all but stopped issuing press releases when employers are caught endangering workers, which was a major deterrent tactic during the Obama years. It remains to be seen what Trump and Acosta will do regarding overtime. Obama tried to change the rules so that more salaried workers are guaranteed time-and-a-half pay when they work more than 40 hours in a week. His changes would have brought overtime protections to an estimated 4.2 million additional workers. During his hearing, Acosta said Obama’s change may have been too drastic, suggesting he would pare it back to please employers. “We now see an update [Obama’s] that is a very large revision,” he told Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.). “Something that needs to be considered is the impact it has on the economy.” -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

28 апреля, 00:44

Facebook's New Anti-Fake News Strategy Is Not Going To Work – But Something Else Might

  • 0

Paul Ralph, University of Auckland Have you seen some “tips to spot fake news” on your Facebook newsfeed recently? Over the past year, the social media company has been scrutinized for influencing the US presidential election by spreading fake news (propaganda). Obviously, the ability to spread completely made-up stories about politicians trafficking child sex slaves and imaginary terrorist attacks with impunity is bad for democracy and society. Something had to be done. Enter Facebook’s new, depressingly incompetent strategy for tackling fake news. The strategy has three, frustratingly ill-considered parts. New products The first part of the plan is to build new products to curb the spread of fake news stories. Facebook says it’s trying “to make it easier to report a false news story” and find signs of fake news such as “if reading an article makes people significantly less likely to share it.” It will then send the story to independent fact checkers. If fake, the story “will get flagged as disputed and there will be a link to a corresponding article explaining why.” This sounds pretty good, but it won’t work. If non-experts could tell the difference between real news and fake news (which is doubtful), there would be no fake news problem to begin with. What’s more, Facebook says: “We cannot become arbiters of truth ourselves — it’s not feasible given our scale, and it’s not our role.” Nonsense. Facebook is like a megaphone. Normally, if someone says something horrible into the megaphone, it’s not the megaphone company’s fault. But Facebook is a very special kind of megaphone that listens first and then changes the volume. The company’s algorithms largely determine both the content and order of your newsfeed. So if Facebook’s algorithms spread some neo-Nazi hate speech far and wide, yes, it is the company’s fault. Worse yet, even if Facebook accurately labels fake news as contested, it will still affect public discourse through “availability cascades.” Each time you see the same message repeated from (apparently) different sources, the message seems more believable and reasonable. Bold lies are extremely powerful because repeatedly fact-checking them can actually make people remember them as true. These effects are exceptionally robust; they cannot be fixed with weak interventions such as public service announcements, which brings us to the second part of Facebook’s strategy: helping people make more informed decisions when they encounter false news. Helping you help yourself Facebook is releasing public service announcements and funding the “news integrity initiative” to help “people make informed judgments about the news they read and share online”. This – also – doesn’t work. A vast body of research in cognitive psychology concerns correcting systematic errors in reasoning such as failing to perceive propaganda and bias. We have known since the 1980s that simply warning people about their biased perceptions doesn’t work. Similarly, funding a “news integrity” project sounds great until you realise the company is really talking about critical thinking skills. Improving critical thinking skills is a key aim of primary, secondary and tertiary education. If four years of university barely improves these skills in students, what will this initiative do? Make some Youtube videos? A fake news FAQ? Funding a few research projects and “meetings with industry experts” doesn’t stand a chance to change anything. Disrupting economic incentives The third prong of this non-strategy is cracking down on spammers and fake accounts, and making it harder for them to buy advertisements. While this is a good idea, it’s based on the false premise that most fake news comes from shady con artists rather than major news outlets. You see, “fake news” is Orwellian newspeak — carefully crafted to mean a totally fabricated story from a fringe outlet masquerading as news for financial or political gain. But these stories are the most suspicious and therefore the least worrisome. Bias and lies from public figures, official reports and mainstream news are far more insidious. And what about astrology, homeopathy, psychics, anti-vaccination messages, climate change denial, intelligent design, miracles, and all the rest of the irrational nonsense bandied about online? What about the vast array of deceptive marketing and stealth advertising that is core to Facebook’s business model? As of this writing, Facebook doesn’t even have an option to report misleading advertisements. What is Facebook to do? Facebook’s strategy is vacuous, evanescent, lip service; a public relations exercise that makes no substantive attempt to address a serious problem. But the problem is not unassailable. The key to reducing inaccurate perceptions is to redesign technologies to encourage more accurate perception. Facebook can do this by developing a propaganda filter — something like a spam filter for lies. Facebook may object to becoming an “arbiter of truth”. But coming from a company that censors historic photos and comedians calling for social justice, this sounds disingenuous. Nonetheless, Facebook has a point. To avoid accusations of bias, it should not create the propaganda filter itself. It should simply fund researchers in artificial intelligence, software engineering, journalism and design to develop an open-source propaganda filter that anyone can use. Why should Facebook pay? Because it profits from spreading propaganda, that’s why. Sure, people will try to game the filter, but it will still work. Spam is frequently riddled with typos, grammatical errors and circumlocution not only because it’s often written by non-native English speakers but also because the weird writing is necessary to bypass spam filters. If the propaganda filter has a similar effect, weird writing will make the fake news that slips through more obvious. Better yet, an effective propaganda filter would actively encourage journalistic best practices such as citing primary sources. Developing a such a tool won’t be easy. It could take years and several million dollars to refine. But Facebook made over US $8 billion last quarter, so Mark Zuckerberg can surely afford it. Paul Ralph, Senior Lecturer in Computer Science, University of Auckland This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article. -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

27 апреля, 23:49

Youth Suing Trump Bring Climate Fight To Washington

  • 0

function onPlayerReadyVidible(e){'undefined'!=typeof HPTrack&&HPTrack.Vid.Vidible_track(e)}!function(e,i){if(e.vdb_Player){if('object'==typeof commercial_video){var a='',o='m.fwsitesection='+commercial_video.site_and_category;if(a+=o,commercial_video['package']){var c='&m.fwkeyvalues=sponsorship%3D'+commercial_video['package'];a+=c}e.setAttribute('vdb_params',a)}i(e.vdb_Player)}else{var t=arguments.callee;setTimeout(function(){t(e,i)},0)}}(document.getElementById('vidible_1'),onPlayerReadyVidible); WASHINGTON — Back home in Hawaii, Journey Zephier is a vocal opponent of the genetically modified crop industry and its extensive use of toxic pesticides. But today, the 17-year-old activist finds himself at the center of a much larger fight: climate change.  Zephier, a member of the Yankton Sioux Tribe, is among 21 children and young adults from around the country involved in a landmark lawsuit that accuses the federal government of violating their constitutional rights to life, liberty and property by promoting fossil fuel production and by failing to take action to combat climate change. On Thursday, Zephier and roughly a dozen other plaintiffs, joined by their attorneys and several Democratic senators, brought their call for a healthy environment to the steps of the U.S. Supreme Court, which could ultimately hear their case.  “It’s time to stop talking about the problem” and figure out a way to stop it, Zephier told HuffPost.  Youth suing US govt over climate change hold rally outside Supreme Court #youthvgov pic.twitter.com/7BDhXeH4QG— Chris D'Angelo (@c_m_dangelo) April 27, 2017 The lawsuit, originally filed in 2015 against the Obama administration, now targets President Donald Trump and his team, who have acted quickly to derail U.S. actions to combat climate change and to roll back numerous environmental protections.  Kelsey Juliana, a 21-year-old activist from Oregon and the lead plaintiff in the case, told roughly 100 people gathered in front of the Supreme Court that the lawsuit is not about money, but rather about forcing the government to implement a  science-based climate recovery plan. “We are suing because none of us and none of you have time to wait,” she said.  Plaintiff Xiuhtezcatl Martinez, a 16-year-old climate activist from Colorado, said it’s easy for young people to feel alone, given the weight of the climate crisis and the Trump administration’s environmental policies. But the lawsuit has brought together a community of young people who will not stand idly by, he said. “We stand united. We stand at a time when the world critically needs a voice that is championing for the voice of the unheard, the marginalized, people across the nation that are facing the impacts of climate change immediately,” Martinez said. “We are that voice, as a younger generation that is standing in our streets and now in our courts to demand justice for our generation and every generation to follow.” The plaintiffs, who now range in age from 9 to 21, had an important victory in November when U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken of Oregon rejected the government’s request for the case to be dismissed. “Exercising my ‘reasoned judgment,’ I have no doubt that the right to a climate system capable of sustaining human life is fundamental to a free and ordered society,” Aiken wrote in her decision. “Just as marriage is the ‘foundation of the family,’ a stable climate system is quite literally the foundation of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress.” The Trump administration has since filed an appeal of Aiken’s ruling, as The Washington Post reported. Joining the young plaintiffs in front of the Supreme Court were Julia Olson, lead counsel and executive director of Our Children’s Trust , an Oregon-based advocacy group leading the lawsuit; Philip Gregory, counsel for the plaintiffs; and Sens. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Sheldon Whitehouse (D- R.I.) and Ed Markey (D-Mass.).  Whitehouse said the fossil fuel industry has constructed “a barricade of lies and dark money” in Congress. “That’s why this lawsuit is so important; because when you get to court, facts matter,” Whitehouse said. “When you get to court, witnesses must tell the truth or they can be punished. When you get to the court, lawyers even have to tell the truth, at least to the court. When you get to court, spin and industry nonsense can be cross-examined.” The courts, he added, “will surface the truth from the swamp of lies and calculated misinformation in which the fossil fuel industry traffics.”  Gregory said he’s never been so proud to represent a group of clients, whom he called “unlikely heroes.”  “This is not about us; this is about our country,” Gregory said. “This is about the science and the epic battle between youth versus government. This will be the trial of the century. Our future is at stake.” On Saturday, the plaintiffs are scheduled to participate in the People’s Climate March, a demonstration against Trump’s environmental policies that is expected to draw thousands to the nation’s capital.  -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

27 апреля, 22:46

These CEOs Wanted To ‘Fix The Debt’ Until Trump Proposed A Massive Corporate Tax Cut

  • 0

function onPlayerReadyVidible(e){'undefined'!=typeof HPTrack&&HPTrack.Vid.Vidible_track(e)}!function(e,i){if(e.vdb_Player){if('object'==typeof commercial_video){var a='',o='m.fwsitesection='+commercial_video.site_and_category;if(a+=o,commercial_video['package']){var c='&m.fwkeyvalues=sponsorship%3D'+commercial_video['package'];a+=c}e.setAttribute('vdb_params',a)}i(e.vdb_Player)}else{var t=arguments.callee;setTimeout(function(){t(e,i)},0)}}(document.getElementById('vidible_1'),onPlayerReadyVidible); Fix the Debt exists for one reason: to argue for less U.S. government debt. It is an organization explicitly founded on the idea that lots of government debt is bad, there is already too much of it, and more is worse. To help push the economically dubious idea that debt is going to cripple the U.S. government, Fix the Debt coats its core mission in the usual content-free D.C. catchphrases ― “bipartisan plan,” “common belief,” “long-term challenges,” “people all across America.” The group also enlists a platoon of former politicians to sit sternly on panels and say that the only way forward is tax reform along with cuts to Social Security and Medicare. There’s also a Fix the Debt CEO Fiscal Leadership Council, which is a 22-person steering committee made up of 22 men. Surely now that there is a businessman in the White House and his two top economic advisers, both ex-Goldman Sachs executives, have rolled out a rudimentary tax plan that slashes taxes for corporations, heirs and heiresses, investors, and rich people ― while increasing the national debt by somewhere between $3 trillion and $7 trillion and making no serious attempt to offset the cost elsewhere ― these CEOs are issuing outraged statements, right? Haha, of course not. HuffPost asked every single member of Fix the Debt’s CEO council for a response to the president’s tax outline, and as of press time, not a single one of the executives denounced it. Why won’t executives who want less government debt condemn a proposal that dramatically increases government debt? Most of the executives on Fix the Debt’s CEO council either declined to comment or did not respond to HuffPost’s requests. But the executives who were willing to go on the record are pretty clear-cut about what is going on: It’s a corporate tax cut, so they think it’s good. For instance, a Deere & Company spokesman said on behalf of CEO Samuel Allen that the company “supports efforts to improve the corporate tax code to make U.S. business and investment more competitive in today’s global marketplace.” That’s a not-even-well-disguised way of saying “it’s a tax cut, so it’s good.” Trump’s plan is not real tax reform, and anyone who says it is is trying to sell you a tax cut. Like, for instance, the CEO of General Electric, Jeff Immelt. A GE spokesman referred HuffPost to a comment from the American Made Coalition, an industry group the company belongs to, that lauds the White House for its “commitment to move forward on comprehensive tax reform.” Some of the responses were even more direct. The spokesman for Airlines for America, the main airline industry group that is headed by former Citigroup executive and Bush administration official Nicholas Calio, said, “Generally speaking, we support reducing the corporate tax rate and implementing additional reforms needed to simplify the tax system.” So what’s the point of Fix the Debt’s CEO council if its members won’t criticize a tax plan that increases the national debt? They don’t seem to care enough about national debt to say anything critical when what’s at stake is a tax cut for themselves, their companies and their descendants. That, at least, is instructive silence. For years, progressives’ critique of the fiscal hawk movement ― which Fix the Debt’s founders Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson as well as funder Pete Peterson sit at the center of ― has centered on the argument that all this worrying about the debt is a stalking horse to cut social programs and taxes for the rich. While Fix the Debt put out a tepid statement about Trump’s tax plan, calling for responsible legislation, and a related group called the Committee For A Responsible Federal Budget was harsher, the refusal of Fix the Debt’s CEO council members to denounce Trump’s tax outline in any way is proving the group’s critics right. CORRECTION: An earlier version of this story stated Trump’s tax plan would increase the national debt by $3 billion to $7 billion. The correct figure is $3 trillion to $7 trillion. Sign up for the HuffPost Must Reads newsletter. Each Sunday, we will bring you the best original reporting, long form writing and breaking news from The Huffington Post and around the web, plus behind-the-scenes looks at how it’s all made. Click here to sign up! -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

Выбор редакции
27 апреля, 22:37

Schumer Trolls Trump Tax Plan: You're Doing It Wrong

  • 0

function onPlayerReadyVidible(e){'undefined'!=typeof HPTrack&&HPTrack.Vid.Vidible_track(e)}!function(e,i){if(e.vdb_Player){if('object'==typeof commercial_video){var a='',o='m.fwsitesection='+commercial_video.site_and_category;if(a+=o,commercial_video['package']){var c='&m.fwkeyvalues=sponsorship%3D'+commercial_video['package'];a+=c}e.setAttribute('vdb_params',a)}i(e.vdb_Player)}else{var t=arguments.callee;setTimeout(function(){t(e,i)},0)}}(document.getElementById('vidible_1'),onPlayerReadyVidible); WASHINGTON ― Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) had a tart message for President Donald Trump on his tax reform proposal Thursday: You’re doing it wrong. Schumer pulled out the old internet meme after Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin said he couldn’t guarantee that the tax cuts would benefit the middle class. The one-page outline of the plan released Tuesday would definitely represent a large cut for the wealthiest Americans.  “The president’s outline yesterday is a direct assault on the middle class,” Schumer told reporters on Capitol Hill. “If on one piece of paper you can guarantee that the wealthy and special interests will pay less, but can’t guarantee that for the middle class, you’re doing it all wrong,” Schumer said. He added that the blueprint looks more like a self-interested ploy to aid Trump and the billionaire and millionaire members of his cabinet. “What President Trump unveiled yesterday is not the Trump tax plan, it is the plan to lower President Trump’s taxes, the taxes of his Cabinet and people as wealthy as they are,” Schumer said. Republicans have hailed the president’s outline as the right path to reform the nation’s complicated tax laws, arguing that increased economic activity will offset any revenue lost due to the cuts. Many analysts said there was not enough specificity to the short document to say exactly how large the tax cuts would be. But based on Trump’s campaign platform, the cuts could add some $8 trillion to the deficit, according to a New York Times tally. Schumer suspected ill intent lies behind such a proposal from a party that complains about deficits when it comes to things like disaster relief and helping 9/11 responders, but not when it comes to giving the wealthy tax breaks. “The Trump tax breaks blow such a gigantic whole in our deficit, it could endanger Medicare and Social Security, which may well be the nefarious ultimate goal of the hard right,” Schumer said. “You can be sure a few years down the road that our Republican colleagues on the hard right will come to us and say the deficit is so big, we have to reduce Medicare and Social Security.” The Senate minority leader described Trump’s tax ideas as a “non-starter” for Democrats. -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

27 апреля, 22:36

United Airlines Settles With Passenger Who Was Dragged From Plane

  • 0

function onPlayerReadyVidible(e){'undefined'!=typeof HPTrack&&HPTrack.Vid.Vidible_track(e)}!function(e,i){if(e.vdb_Player){if('object'==typeof commercial_video){var a='',o='m.fwsitesection='+commercial_video.site_and_category;if(a+=o,commercial_video['package']){var c='&m.fwkeyvalues=sponsorship%3D'+commercial_video['package'];a+=c}e.setAttribute('vdb_params',a)}i(e.vdb_Player)}else{var t=arguments.callee;setTimeout(function(){t(e,i)},0)}}(document.getElementById('vidible_1'),onPlayerReadyVidible); United Airlines announced Thursday it has reached a settlement with a passenger who was injured and bloodied after officers dragged him from his seat on a flight earlier in April.  Dr. David Dao’s lawyer said he reached an agreement for undisclosed terms over the incident in which his nose was broken and several teeth were knocked out after he refused to give up his seat for a United employee on a flight from Chicago to Louisville, Kentucky.  Dragged United passenger Dr. David Dao has settled with the airline for an undisclosed amount, his attorneys say pic.twitter.com/zEw0Shl888— Bradd Jaffy (@BraddJaffy) April 27, 2017 As part of the deal, Dao agreed not to sue the city of Chicago, whose Department of Aviation police officers physically removed him, his lawyer told Crain’s. The airline took full responsibility for the ordeal, according to Thomas Demetrio. In a statement, United said that it had “reached an amicable resolution of the unfortunate incident that occurred aboard flight 3411.” “We look forward to implementing the improvements we have announced, which will put our customers at the center of everything we do,” the statement added. The settlement with Dao came the same day that United announced new policies to handle similar situations when flights are overbooked. Passengers can receive up to $10,000 in incentives if they get bumped from their seat.  “Dr. Dao has become the unintended champion for the adoption of changes which will certainly help improve the lives of literally millions of travelers,” said Demetrio, his attorney, in a statement.  Other passengers recorded video of Dao screaming before police at Chicago O’Hare International Airport dragged him through the plane’s aisle. Some passengers could be heard complaining about how Dao was treated.  @united @FoxNews @CNN not a good way to treat a Doctor trying to get to work because they overbooked pic.twitter.com/sj9oHk94Ik— Tyler Bridges (@Tyler_Bridges) April 9, 2017 The flight was not technically overbooked, but United staff demanded that four travelers who had already boarded, including Dao, give up their seats for employees needed in Louisville the next day.  No volunteers aboard flight 3411 accepted United’s offer of $800 to forfeit their spot. Dao and three others were then selected at random for removal. United bungled its response to the altercation with a series of statements that criticized Dao and contained industry jargon that rang hollow. “After our team looked for volunteers, one customer refused to leave the aircraft voluntarily and law enforcement was asked to come to the gate,” the airline said in one statement.  Later, CEO Oscar Munoz followed up by saying on Twitter that “I  apologize for having to re-accommodate these passengers.” -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

27 апреля, 22:10

No, ESPN's Layoffs Aren't A Result Of Its 'Politicization' Of Sports

  • 0

function onPlayerReadyVidible(e){'undefined'!=typeof HPTrack&&HPTrack.Vid.Vidible_track(e)}!function(e,i){if(e.vdb_Player){if('object'==typeof commercial_video){var a='',o='m.fwsitesection='+commercial_video.site_and_category;if(a+=o,commercial_video['package']){var c='&m.fwkeyvalues=sponsorship%3D'+commercial_video['package'];a+=c}e.setAttribute('vdb_params',a)}i(e.vdb_Player)}else{var t=arguments.callee;setTimeout(function(){t(e,i)},0)}}(document.getElementById('vidible_1'),onPlayerReadyVidible); ESPN’s decision to lay off as many as 100 people on Wednesday, while expected, set off rounds of media commentary about the company’s future. Some on the political right saw the layoffs as a symptom of a specific problem: what they perceive as ESPN’s “politicization of sports” and its “too liberal” political stances. In this view, ESPN’s coverage of events like LGBTQ athletes coming out and Colin Kaepernick’s national anthem protest and its occasional refusal to “stick to sports” have turned off droves of viewers looking for an escape from the real world. No one trumpets this view louder than Clay Travis, a Fox Sports writer who was back at it on Wednesday morning. ESPN’s collapse, Travis wrote, has been “aided” by its turn toward liberal politics. “Middle America wants to pop a beer and listen to sports talk, they don’t want to be lectured about why Caitlyn Jenner is a hero, Michael Sam is the new Jackie Robinson of sports, and Colin Kaepernick is the Rosa Parks of football,” Travis wrote. “ESPN made the mistake of trying to make liberal social media losers happy and as a result lost millions of viewers.” But Travis is wrong on this point. There’s a much simpler explanation for the cuts. The self-proclaimed “Worldwide Leader in Sports” has indeed lost more than 12 million subscribers since 2011, according to Nielsen estimates, and those losses have accelerated in recent months. In October and November alone, ESPN lost more than 1 million subscribers. But such losses aren’t abnormal at cable channels as Americans’ television viewing habits change. In 2016, 70 percent of cable channels lost subscribers, with average declines between 2 and 3 percent, meaning ESPN exceeded the average but not drastically so. For sports channels in particular, the outlook is just as dire. In October and November 2016, when ESPN lost those million-plus subscribers, just three of the sports cable channels that Nielsen monitors each month ― the NFL Network, the Golf Channel and BeIN Sport Espanol ― gained subscribers. The rest ― everyone from NBC Sports to the MLB Network and NBA TV ― suffered, with many of them taking proportionally larger hits than ESPN. The fate of Fox Sports was no different. Over those two months, Fox Sports 1 lost 573,000 subscribers, according to Nielsen. Fox Sports 2 lost 1.4 million. In February of this year, ESPN lost 422,000 subscribers. FS1, which was already in fewer homes, exceeded that drop, losing 565,000. FS1 had spent much of the last few years gaining on ESPN, but that trend reversed itself recently: February was the third consecutive month in which FS1 lost more subscribers than ESPN (though FS2 has been gaining subscribers). And over the last two years, Fox Sports has undertaken multiple rounds of job cuts itself.  In other words, cable networks that aren’t allegedly seeking to spread the liberal gospel through sports are losing too. Still, National Review Online’s Dan McLaughlin attempted to build on Travis’ argument, lecturing ESPN about its supposed political leanings. “‘Stick to sports’ is not just good manners for sports journalism,” McLaughlin wrote Wednesday, “it’s good business advice.” “ESPN’s layoffs demonstrate that the network understands it has a business problem,” McLaughlin concluded. “It’s too soon to tell if it also understands it has a politics problem. ... But its business model allows subscribers to vote with their feet in a way that has an immediate bottom-line impact. Maybe it should start listening.” Like Travis, McLaughlin is projecting his own beliefs onto ESPN and ignoring the basic reality facing the network and the broader cable industry. Set aside the fact that ESPN is not particularly “liberal” ― and hardly monolithic ― when it comes to political issues and their intersection with sports, even if some of its loudest and most prominent voices are. Just run the numbers on its business. The company, which charges cable providers roughly $7 a month per subscriber just to carry its flagship channel, derives as much as two-thirds of its annual revenue from subscriber fees, so the departure of those subscribers is a direct hit on its bottom line. Advertising rates are also falling. Meanwhile, ESPN is paying more to broadcast live sports. It will spend $7.3 billion on broadcast rights fees to major sports leagues this year. ESPN got some major gambles wrong, and with revenues dropping and costs increasing, something had to give. On Wednesday, that something was 100 employees ― even if, as Deadspin’s Tom Ley noted, it won’t be enough mathematically to do anything more than temporarily reassure ESPN’s corporate overlords at Disney. ESPN’s losses are bigger and have a bigger impact than those of other channels in part because of its own business decisions and in part because ESPN is a bigger company that has a bigger impact on the industry around it. Sure, it’s possible a handful of people saw Michael Sam kiss his boyfriend and, instead of celebrating with him, decided that was too much for them. A few other viewers may have cut the cord because certain ESPN personalities actually discussed the meaning of Kaepernick’s protest instead of simply blasting him. But half-baked theories about the politicization of sports really only work for those who prefer to ignore that big-league sports has an inherently political side. The reality is that ESPN is facing the same uncertain future as the rest of the cable industry for many of the same reasons. -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.