• Теги
    • избранные теги
    • Компании842
      • Показать ещё
      Люди641
      • Показать ещё
      Страны / Регионы650
      • Показать ещё
      Международные организации62
      • Показать ещё
      Формат37
      Издания138
      • Показать ещё
      Разное592
      • Показать ещё
      Показатели23
      • Показать ещё
28 марта, 09:43

Florida Congresswoman Tells Trump: Pay Up Or Keep Out

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); The congresswoman who represents the Florida district that includes President Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort wants the White House to help pay for his frequent official visits to the area.  “We understand the president wanting to be here every week,” Rep. Lois Frankel (D-Fla.) said on Monday, per CBS Miami. “We understand that. This is paradise, right?” However, she said presidential visits to Palm Beach County have cost $1.7 million in overtime pay and other expenses so far this year. A nearby airport shut down during presidential visits has lost $30,000 every weekend Trump was in town and it missed out on a $440,000 helicopter contract.   In a “friendly” letter also signed by Democratic Florida Reps. Alcee Hastings and Ted Deutch, Frankel urged the White House to pay for some of the costs of presidential visits.  “What we’re saying to the White House is: ‘Please step up to the plate and help us get this money back,’” said Frankel, via WPBF. “And if you’re unable to do that, consider curtailing your travel.”  Frankel represents portions of Palm Beach, where Mar-a-Lago is located, as well as parts of West Palm Beach. The president has spent five weekends in the area since his inauguration in January. Frankel suggested Camp David as an alternative destination, the Palm Beach Post reported. The letter also echoed the concerns of some local officials who have grumbled at the rapidly rising costs of Trump’s regular visits.  “I would never consider a proposal that says we’re not going to use our county resources when the president’s here. It’s our patriotic duty,” county commissioner David Kerner told the Washington Post last week. “It’s just unfair that burden should be borne alone.” The letter also noted that an upcoming visit by Chinese dignitaries was expected to cost the area’s taxpayers an additional $280,000 just to cover the sheriff and fire departments related to the trip, per The Hill.  Palm Beach Mayor Gail Coniglio ― a Republican ― said she was “hopeful” the city could get some of that money back, The Palm Beach Daily News reported. Palm Beach safety director Kirk Blouin told the paper that staffing for protests was a bigger expense than handling security for the president. He appeared less hopeful for a reimbursement.  “In the history of the protection of the Office of the President, I’m not aware of any law enforcement being reimbursed for that,” Blouin was quoted as saying. “If the money’s available, we’ll certainly seek reimbursement.” -- 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 марта, 00:01

The Three Lame Stories the Press Writes About Every President

As if powered by a celestial mainspring, the press publishes the same three basic stories about every new presidential administration. Usually up first in their rotation is a breathless beat-sweetener about the incoming vice president. Thanks to his unusual closeness to the boss, chin-stroking reporters and commentators write, the new veep is the most powerful in history. Typically, this story contains more sugar than a big bowl of Lucky Charms: If you were to read a couple of them in one sitting you might well fall into diabetic shock. Mike Pence has already been appraised in such a manner—see CBS News, USA Today, USA Today again, CNN, and the Spectator. Hedging the veep assertion—which is not much different than asserting it—was the Washington Post. “Pence’s influence will hinge not so much on his background and relationships but his job performance,” wrote Joel Goldstein. No kidding!?The second inevitable wave of stories claims that the administration is “rebooting.” If it’s true that administrations “hit the ground running,” then it follows that all stumble and fall on their fat asses. By cloaking an administration’s desperate do-overs as reboots, the press provides camouflage for incompetents in power. Right now, every soul in the Trump administration is hitting the virtual reset button in their heads in a desperate attempt to recover from the travel ban order disaster and the Obamacare repeal crackup. As if attempting to set some sort of journalistic record, a Washington Post headline had Donald Trump rebooting just three days after his inauguration. Elsewhere on the Trump rebooting front has been a reboot of the National Security Council and a reboot of the Spicer-Trump relationship. Calling for a reboot of the entire administration after just three weeks of Baby Donald’s presidency was Wall Street Journal columnist Gerald F. Seib.Monday’s Washington Post brings us, on Page 1 above the fold, the third classic of the first 100 days of reporting: A story about the coming “reorganization“ of government—this time by Prince Jared, the president’s son-in-law. Young Jared, who owes his power to 1) the womb he emerged from and 2) the princess he married, is about to be charged with “sweeping authority to overhaul the federal bureaucracy and fulfill key campaign promises,” as the Post puts it. “Viewed internally as a SWAT team of strategic consultants, the office will be staffed by former business executives and is designed to infuse fresh thinking into Washington, float above the daily political grind and create a lasting legacy for a president still searching for signature achievements.” The reorganization story is such a journalistic staple that I’ve attacked it many times, most recently in January 2012 when President Barack Obama got around to fleshing out his 2011 pledge to streamline the federal bureaucracy. Like Trump, Obama’s reorg promised savings ($3 billion!), a reduced federal workforce (1,000 to 2,000 cut jobs!) and the merger of several trade and business agencies into the Department of Commerce. Presidents have been reorganizing government since Theodore Roosevelt. Political scientist Peri E. Arnold tells us that 11 of 14 20th century presidents sought reorgs at some time during their administrations. The concept of governmental reorganization has become so musty and shopworn that Trump’s statement heralding his fresh swipe at it—“All Americans, regardless of their political views, can recognize that government stagnation has hindered our ability to properly function, often creating widespread congestion and leading to cost overruns and delays”—could have been issued by any contemporary occupant of the Oval Office. Every president boasts that new economies and innovations can be harvested. Every president claims that the bureaucratic labyrinths can be made straight as a river after the Army Corps of Engineers has its way with it. Every president insists that government can be made to run with the efficiency of a major corporation, which is exactly what Prince Jared told the Post for its story.Evidence of the Trump administration’s reorg delusions came at the end of the Post story as spokeswoman Hope Hicks invoked her boss’s success in remodeling Central Park’s Wollman skating rink as an example of the miracles to be found in his entrepreneurial trick bag. Never mind, of course, that his Wollman triumph is mostly myth, and the undertaking was tiny. Trump would have us believe that his toe loop of an achievement was a triple Salchow.Trump won’t succeed in reorganizing the bureaucracy because the bureaucracy is already following its own inertial path, disdainful of his ambitions. Many parts of governmental bureaucracies, as I’ve written before, are beholden to Congress, not the president, or to corporate interests, or to activists. Daniel Patrick Moynihan put it succinctly in Commentary in 1971, when he wrote that the bureaucracies “are usually willing to work with the president, but rarely to the point where their perceived interests are threatened. Typically these are rather simple territorial interests: not lose any jurisdiction and, if possible to gain some.” Moynihan wasn’t describing so much the power of the deep state but the inexorable force of the wide and expansive shallow state.Reorganization, whether proposed by President Jimmy Carter or captained by Vice President Al Gore, has fundamentally been about neutering power sectors the president finds politically threatening or to reap positive publicity by making good on a hoary campaign promise. Trump’s “SWAT team” may make an incendiary splash by heaving flash grenades through the windows at Veterans Affairs or knocking the doors off their hinges with a battering ram at the workforce-training program the young prince has set his eyes on. But the business of government reorganization is mostly about tossing out the current bums and importing your own bums until the next administration arrives to do the same thing.“Few modern presidents have made any impact on the federal bureaucracies save by creating new ones,” Moynihan wrote. Outside of rewriting stories their predecessors have written many times before, few Washington journalists ever get the joke.******Shafer’s First Law of Journalistic Thermodynamics states that copy cannot be created or destroyed—it can only change form. Send other physical laws to [email protected] My email alerts are the most powerful email alerts going. My Twitter feed reboots daily. And my RSS feed has been trying to disorganize government since 1981.

27 марта, 21:25

The 10 Best (and Worst) TV Bosses

Rough day at work? Wish your life was more like your favorite television show? Unwind with our list of the 10 best and worst TV bosses.

27 марта, 19:19

Is Sean Hannity Really Bad For America?

Ted Koppel did this on “CBS Sunday Morning” on Sunday March 26 when he told Fox News’ star Sean Hannity he is bad for America because, Koppel says, Hannity has “attracted people who are determined that ideology is more important than facts.”

27 марта, 19:11

FROM THE NETWORK THAT BROUGHT YOU RATHERGATE: CBS’s Ted Koppel views Sean Hannity and “all these…

FROM THE NETWORK THAT BROUGHT YOU RATHERGATE: CBS’s Ted Koppel views Sean Hannity and “all these opinion shows” as “bad for America:” “You have attracted people who are determined that ideology is more important than facts,” said Koppel to Hannity. “That’s sad, Ted,” said Hannity to Koppel. “You’re selling the American people short,” he added, describing […]

27 марта, 18:21

Dan Rather: Trump Has Had The 'Worst Start' Of Any U.S. President Ever

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); “We’re roughly two months into the Trump Presidency, and it is the worst start to a time in office I have ever seen,” Dan Rather wrote in a Facebook post on Monday, noting that many historians have said the same thing. Rather, who hosted “CBS Evening News” for 25 years, called President Donald Trump’s first two months in office “chaotic” and “outrageous,” pointing to the president’s failure to repeal Obamacare, the FBI investigation into his campaign’s ties to Russia, and the federal court’s decision to block his first executive order on immigration and travel. “A weak President running a weak, ragtag administration is a prescription for trouble,” the 85-year-old veteran newsman wrote. “Trouble internationally could come from enemies and other competitors who may see opportunities for advantage and overreach.” Rather offered a four-point plan for anyone unhappy with life under the Trump administration, noting that Americans “still stand united” about core principles: ― Do not lose heart. America, as Scott Fitzgerald once wrote, is a willingness of heart. Believe in our country’s capacity to right itself and do right. Our fathers and mothers did it, and so did their ancestors, time after time. So now must we. ― Reach out and help someone. Service to other individuals and community “good deed” work is especially needed now. ― Reach out and try to talk, try to reach common ground, with someone you know that is of a different political persuasion. And don’t get discouraged if at first it doesn’t go well. Keep on trying. Even just talking, at the kids games, around school, at work, at the store helps. Just making contact and talking, about anything in common, can be more helpful than you may think. ― Get active, stay active politically. Organize and stay at it. Talking and walking (as in marches) is fine, but those who organize best and stay at it have the best chance of affecting change. “It’s all going to be all right, folks,” Rather concluded. “It may take awhile, maybe even a long while, but we’re going to be all right. If we don’t lose heart.” Rather’s sharp criticism of the 45th U.S. president has made him a viral sensation and helped garner his Facebook page more than 2 million likes. In February, Rather wrote on Facebook that Trump’s alleged ties to Russia could rival Watergate as the “biggest political scandal” of his life. How will Trump’s first 100 days impact you? Sign up for our weekly newsletter and get breaking updates on Trump’s presidency by messaging us here. type=type=RelatedArticlesblockTitle=Related Coverage + articlesList=586d7387e4b0c8575a7712a2,58a382a2e4b094a129f01597,58c15f97e4b054a0ea685de1 -- 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 марта, 14:30

Networks Censor Rape Story Involving Illegal!

The “big three” networks — ABC, CBS, and NBC — continued their shamefulblackout into Wednesday night of the horrifying rape of a teenage girl in a Maryland high school bathroom, allegedly by two men, including one who police say is in the U.S. illegally. https://www.infowars.com/networks-censor-rape-story-involving-illegal-immigrant-but-gave-11-minutes-in-two-days-to-fake-uva-rape/ https://www.infowars.com/rockville-school-superintendent-says-parents-response-to-alleged-rape-is-racist/ Help us spread the word about the liberty movement, we're reaching millions help us reach millions more. Share the free live video feed link with your friends & family: http://www.infowars.com/show Follow Alex on TWITTER - https://twitter.com/RealAlexJones Like Alex on FACEBOOK - https://www.facebook.com/AlexanderEmerickJones Infowars on G+ - https://plus.google.com/+infowars/ :Web: http://www.infowars.com/ http://www.prisonplanet.com/ http://www.infowars.net/ :Subscribe and share your login with 20 friends: http://www.prisonplanet.tv http://www.InfowarsNews.com Visit http://www.InfowarsLife.com to get the products Alex Jones and his family trust, while supporting the growth of our expanding media operation. [http://bit.ly/2dhnhbS] Biome Defense™ [http://bit.ly/2bnEj91] Bio-True Selenium™ [http://bit.ly/1WYw8jp] Vitamin Mineral Fusion™ [http://bit.ly/1QYBNBv] Joint Formula™ [http://bit.ly/1nNuR3r] Anthroplex™ [http://bit.ly/1ljfWfJ] Living Defense™ [http://bit.ly/1Iobcj2] Deep Cleanse™ [http://bit.ly/1DsyQ6i] Knockout™ [http://bit.ly/1Kr1yfz] Brain Force™ [http://bit.ly/1R5gsqk] Liver Shield™ [http://bit.ly/1cOwQix] ProstaGuard™ [http://bit.ly/1mnchEz3] Child Ease™ [http://bit.ly/1xs9F6t] WinterSunD3™ [http://bit.ly/1L3gDSO] Ancient Defense™ [http://bit.ly/1EHbA6E] Secret-12™ [http://bit.ly/1txsOge] Oxy Powder™ [http://bit.ly/1s6cphV] Occu Power™ [http://bit.ly/1rGOLsG] DNA Force™ [http://bit.ly/1nIngBb] X2 Survival Shield™ [http://bit.ly/1kaXxKL] Super Female Vitality™ [http://bit.ly/1mhAKCO] Lung Cleanse™ [http://bit.ly/1mGbikx] Silver-Bullet - Colloidal Silver™ [http://bit.ly/1xcoUfo] Super Male Vitality™ [http://bit.ly/1z5BCP9] Survival Shield - Nascent Iodine™ [http://bit.ly/1o4sQtc] Patriot Blend 100% Organic Coffee™ [http://bit.ly/1iVL6HB] Immune Support 100% Organic Coffee™ All available at - http://www.infowarsshop.com/ INFOWARS HEALTH - START GETTING HEALTHY BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE - http://www.infowarshealth.com/ Newsletter Sign up / Infowars Underground Insider : http://www.infowars.com/newsletter The Alex Jones Show © copyright, Free Speech Systems .LLC 1995 - 2017 All Rights Reserved. May use for fair use and educational purposes

27 марта, 14:06

Will Comcast (CMCSA) Offer Nationwide Online TV Services?

Comcast (CMCSA) has gained the rights to offer online TV services nationwide, from several unnamed cable networks.

27 марта, 11:39

GOP Rep. John Culberson Gets An Earful From Angry Voters

Rep. John Culberson (R-Texas) faced a hostile audience at a town hall meeting in his home district on Saturday and was even booed by constituents when the topic of health care came up.  A clip shared online showed members of the Houston-area audience chanting “Fix it!” at the congressman. “The only way to fix it is to replace it,” Culberson said, causing the voters in the room to erupt in jeers.  Crowd chants "fix it" as opposed to repealing ACA. @CongCulberson says replace it. Crowd says NO. This clip sums up the townhall. #fliptx07 pic.twitter.com/pJLZ9fnBwh— Sarah Bronson (@usewordsbetter) March 25, 2017 At other times, the crowd chanted, “Do your job!” CBS affiliate KHOU reported. Culberson was booed several times, including when he spoke about President Donald Trump, the Texas Tribune reported. However, Culberson also told the crowd he was opposed to Trump’s proposed budget cuts to the National Institutes of Health and the National Endowment for the Arts and vowed to use “aggressive oversight” to ensure immigration enforcement “focused on felons and dangerous criminals.”  Angry voters have been turning up at town halls held by GOP lawmakers in recent months. Some politicians have blamed “paid protesters” while others have stopped holding the events altogether.  On Twitter, Culberson said he “enjoyed hearing the thoughts and concerns” of his constituents. The expressions on some of the faces in the audience suggest the feeling may not have been entirely mutual:  Thank you to everyone who came to today's #TownHall. I enjoyed hearing the thoughts and concerns of #TX07. pic.twitter.com/7BfO7lncja— John Culberson (@CongCulberson) March 25, 2017 While Culberson easily won re-election to a ninth term in 2016, Hillary Clinton actually beat Trump by a narrow margin in his district, and some voters said their representative needs to reflect the will of a changing demographic if he hopes to keep his job. “The ideology amongst the constituents is changing, and he’s still very hard-line Republican,” Abraham Espinosa, 26, told the Houston Chronicle. Espinosa was among the audience of 700 people, with another 500 who couldn’t get into the town hall due to space. He became a citizen in November and warned that he’ll be voting soon.  -- 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 марта, 09:14

Акции Viacom могут подорожать на 40%

По оценкам аналитиков Barron's, акции американской медиа-компании Viacom могут подорожать в следующем году примерно на 40% благодаря изменению приоритетов и реинвестированию. В частности, новый СЕО компании Боб Бакиш (Bob Bakish) намерен сосредоточить деятельность на развитии студии Paramount Pictures, а также на развитии таких флагманских сетей, как Nickelodeon, MTV, Comedy Central, Nick Jr и BET. Напомним, что Боб Бакиш был назначен СЕО Viacom в декабре прошлого года, а ранее занимал должность руководителя отдела международного бизнеса. Примечательно, что новую должность он занял спустя два часа после того, как National Amusements (кинокомпания и владелец кинотеатров Cinema De Luxe) отозвала предложение о слиянии Viacom и CBS.

Выбор редакции
27 марта, 03:29

Ted Koppel tells Sean Hannity he is 'bad for America'

Veteran newsman criticised Fox News host during interview about fake news and the polarisation of the USVeteran newsman Ted Koppel has told Fox News commentator Sean Hannity that he is “bad for America” in an interview that aired on CBS. The discussion on the network’s Sunday Morning show focused on the polarisation of politics and the media in the US. Continue reading...

27 марта, 01:00

Watch Ted Koppel Tell Sean Hannity He's Bad For America

When it comes to Sean Hannity’s political contribution to America, Ted Koppel doesn’t mince words. The “Sunday Morning” senior contributor squarely told the Fox News talk show host that he’s “bad for America” when asked if he is in an interview aired on CBS Sunday. The response left Hannity in clear disbelief, and later upset. During a back and forth on the difference between factual news and political opinion, and its impact on society, Hannity accused the former Nightline news anchor of being cynical, which he didn’t disagree with. .@seanhannity: “Do you think we’re bad for America? You think I’m bad for America?”Ted Koppel: "Yes." More here: https://t.co/HIiWcfVPTb pic.twitter.com/FmAYCFXvwU— CBS Sunday Morning (@CBSSunday) March 26, 2017 “Do you think we’re bad for America? You think I’m bad for America?” the conservative television host asked him while wearing an American flag pin over his heart. “Yeah,” Koppel twice replied, leaving Hannity shaking his head and calling his belief “sad.” “You are selling the American people short,” Hannity added. “You have attracted people who are determined that ideology is more important than facts,” Koppel continued.  Shortly after the interview aired, Hannity took to Twitter to slam his encounter with Koppel as “fake ‘edited’ news.” “I did about a 45 minute interview with CBS. They ran less than 2. Why did Ted cut out my many examples of media bias?” he tweeted. Fake "edited" news. I did about a 45 minute interview with CBS. They ran less than 2. Why did Ted cut out my many examples of media bias? https://t.co/prynzE2yLQ— Sean Hannity (@seanhannity) March 26, 2017 Koppel’s entire piece, which ran nearly 11 minutes, included commentary from a range of top media figures, a media expert and President Donald Trump’s press secretary, Sean Spicer. It also included Hannity sharing a belief to Koppel that “liberalism has to be defeated.” “Socialism must be defeated in a political sense. We don’t want a revolution in this country,” he said. Hannity, in statements posted to Twitter, took issue with the selected quotes that were aired. “I gave a example [sic] after example of why I say ‘journalism is dead’. I also gave many examples of how liberalism has failed,” he argued. type=type=RelatedArticlesblockTitle=CHECK OUT THESE RELATED STORIES BELOW: + articlesList=58c260ebe4b0d1078ca5c8a3,58cb0093e4b0441601be5478,58d1fe9ae4b0b22b0d18138c,58c6e916e4b0349394b24cce -- 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 марта, 00:46

The Death Of Trumpcare Is The Ultimate Proof Of Obamacare's Historic Accomplishment

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); The Affordable Care Act overcame the tea party protests of 2009 and the Democrats losing their filibuster-proof Senate majority in 2010. It survived two challenges in front of the Supreme Court and the calamitous rollout of healthcare.gov. Now it has withstood the attempt to replace it with the American Health Care Act, better known as Trumpcare. Somehow, despite the intense political forces arrayed against it, and the mind-boggling policy problems it tries to solve, the 2010 health care law keeps defying efforts to wipe it out. That says something about the people who wrote it ― and what they have achieved. Obamacare has never been hugely popular, and it has never worked as well as its architects hoped. Millions of Americans don’t like it and, even now, there are parts of the country where the markets are struggling to survive. But the program has provided security and access to care for millions of others. More importantly, it has shifted the expectations of what government should do ― and of what a decent society looks like. This week’s defeat of the Republican repeal effort shows just how hard it is to undo those changes. And it won’t get any easier. What Obama And Pelosi Did (And Trump And Ryan Didn’t) On Friday, hours before President Donald Trump and House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) formally conceded their bill lacked the votes to pass, White House press secretary Sean Spicer signaled what was coming. Trump, he said, had “left everything on the field.” The statement was preposterous. Trump and the Republicans in Congress had spent all of 63 days trying to pass their Obamacare repeal ― less than three weeks of which were spent actually debating the text of the AHCA. They held votes before Congressional Budget Office evaluations were ready, and were about to ask the full House to decide on the proposal just hours after making major changes to it. Over in the Senate, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) had already indicated he intended to bypass his committees altogether and take legislation directly to the floor ― perhaps with a quick House-Senate negotiation, a fast vote and a signature from the president. By contrast, it took former President Barack Obama, former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) more than a year to pass Obamacare ― a politically tortuous period that many people later blamed for Democrats losing their House majority in 2010. At the time, every apparent error loomed large ― from taking on health care at all, to letting the process drag out for more than a year, to slavishly crafting a proposal as CBO specified, to cutting unpleasant deals with health care’s special interests. Lost amid the recriminations was the talent each player brought to his or her task ― and the Democrats’ single-minded focus on avoiding mistakes of the past in order to achieve something their party had been trying to do since the days when Franklin Roosevelt was in the White House. I am not saying we needed 14 months to do this. But I think a more careful and deliberate approach ... would have gotten us further down the path to a solution. Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) The work had begun long before Obama even ran for president. In the aftermath of the defeat for Bill Clinton’s 1994 health care plan, activists, advocates and intellectuals regrouped ― and then spent literally years hashing out their ideas for achieving universal coverage in a politically viable way. When Obama did run, he borrowed their work for his own plan. When he was elected, the most pivotal committee chairman of the process, Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.), was ready with his own blueprint that looked nearly identical. Baucus had done something else: Working with then-Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.), he had convened meetings with virtually every health care stakeholder, from hospitals to unions to insurers to patient advocacy groups, exchanging ideas and negotiating over principles. It meant that when the actual legislating started, the channels of communication were already open and the groundwork for a common vision was already in place.  And still it was a nearly impossible task. Like the Republicans this year, Democrats found consensus difficult to achieve ― among the outside groups, and within their own ranks as well. Liberals wanted a more generous program, and a public option. Moderates wanted to avoid too much government spending and too much meddling with the way independent businesses operate. But unlike the Republicans, the Democrats’ reaction was to work with the different groups and slowly bring them along ― most vividly, by negotiating with a handful of moderate Republicans, in the hopes that one or two (or maybe more) would sign onto the plan. It never happened, but the effort to woo those members helped secure moderate Democrats who needed to tell their constituents that, yes, they had tried to be bipartisan. One reason Democratic leaders were able to preserve legislative momentum was that they understood, at all times, where they were trying to go ― and they were fluent enough in the policy to handle direct negotiations on their own. One of the enduring images of Obama during the Affordable Care Act fight was his visit to a Republican Party policy retreat in Baltimore, where he fielded questions and parried criticisms from the assembled members for roughly 90 minutes. The work that led to Obamacare had begun before Obama even ran for president. Trump, by contrast, seemed to lack anything beyond a superficial understanding of the bill, to the point where allies worried about letting him negotiate details. “Either doesn’t know, doesn’t care or both,” a Capitol Hill aide told CNN about the president. As for Pelosi, her job was easier than Ryan’s in one important sense. Nobody in her caucus was as extremist or nihilist as the Freedom Caucus, partly because Democrats had done so much prep work and hammered out a rough consensus before the hard legislating work began. But Pelosi didn’t try to jam through “slapdash” legislation, as Harold Pollack, writing in Politico, recently called the AHCA. And she didn’t flinch when her political task looked utterly hopeless. When Kennedy’s seat went to Scott Brown, depriving Democrats of a filibuster-proof majority to approve a final compromise, she told Obama she would get the votes for the Senate’s bill ― and she did, taking charge of the whip count personally ― and working her caucus, one member at a time, until she had a majority. On Sunday, during an appearance on CBS’s “Face The Nation,” Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), conceded that maybe the Democrats knew what they were doing. “When the Democrats came to power in 2009, for 60 years at least, they had been pursuing a national health care system, yet they didn’t introduce legislation for eight months, and they didn’t pass it for over a year of Barack Obama’s first term,” Cotton said. “I am not saying we needed 14 months to do this,” he added, “but I think a more careful and deliberate approach, which we now have time to do because we are going to have to revisit health care anyway, would have gotten us further down the path to a solution.” The Resilience Of Obamacare But the Republican failure wasn’t just about process. It was also about policy ― and a failure to realize just how profoundly the Affordable Care Act has changed public expectations for how the U.S. health care system operates. The end product of that long, cantankerous debate in 2009 and 2010 wasn’t pretty. Keeping the health care industry on board meant heeding their demands to ratchet back aggressive cost controls. Holding moderate Democrats in the coalition meant putting a tighter lid on what the program would spend. Passing the Senate bill meant accepting statutory language that its authors had hoped a conference committee would clean up before enactment. These compromises and concessions made implementation difficult. The sloppy language from the Senate bill exposed the program to the lawsuit King v. Burwell, which, if successful, would have destroyed the exchanges. The deals to secure support from individual members, like the “cornhusker kickback” that helped reel in Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), stained the whole effort with a tinge of corruption. The stingy funding meant that some middle-class people wouldn’t get much financial help, despite high premiums. Republicans proved exceptionally adept at turning these problems into political advantages. But more frequently than not, they attacked the law because it wasn’t living up to liberal ideals ― because it left middle-class people on the hook for premiums, or because the plans had onerous deductibles, or because it was insufficiently harsh to the health care industry. McConnell was fond of pointing out that the law had left some 25 million people uninsured. The message was unmistakable: The health care law had failed because it had made health care harder for people to get, and the GOP had a better way. These arguments helped Republicans grab and hold congressional majorities, and they helped put Trump in the White House. But McConnell wasn’t interested in covering more people any more than Ryan wanted to lower people’s deductibles. And the need to write legislation exposed their real policy preferences ― which were lower taxes, fewer regulations and less government spending on the poor. The combination meant that more people, not fewer, would be exposed to crippling medical bills. When the CBO finally did weigh in, the number of people predicted to lose their insurance, 24 million, was so big that even Republicans couldn’t spin or lie their way out of it. “All politicians overpromise,” Jonathan Chait, of New York magazine, observed. “But the Republicans did more than overpromise. They delivered a policy directionally opposed to their promises.” Republicans had also convinced themselves that nobody who had insurance through the Affordable Care Act liked it. The media coverage made it easy to believe this. Stories of people losing their old plans or paying more for new ones were all over the press for the first few years of the program. Stories of people saving money, or getting insurance for the first time, were much harder to find. But as surveys showed, the majority of people getting coverage through the Affordable Care Act were actually satisfied with it ― and quite a few were deeply grateful. In the last few months, finally, their stories became part of the conversation. They showed up on television, in the print media, and especially at town hall meetings ― forcing Republicans to answer questions they’d successfully dodged for years by tapping into anger with “Obama” and glossing over details about the “care.” “If it wasn’t for Obamacare, we wouldn’t be able to afford insurance,” an Iowa farmer told Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa). Recalling Grassley’s 2009 false warning that the Affordable Care Act had “death panels,” the farmer said, “With all due respect, sir, you’re the man that talked about the death panel. We’re going to create one big death panel in this country if people can’t afford insurance.” At a CNN town hall, in front of a live national audience, an Arizona man with cancer told Ryan that the health care law was paying for his cancer treatment. “I want to thank President Obama from the bottom of my heart because I would be dead if it weren’t for him,” the man said, adding that he was a Republican who once opposed the law and had volunteered in GOP campaigns. The backlash left Republicans visibly rattled. And although leaders tried to write off such incidents as paid activists making trouble, they couldn’t explain why nearly every group connected to health care ― from the American Medical Association to AARP ― was making the same arguments. Nor could Republicans explain plummeting public support for the legislation. By the end, the GOP bill had support from just 17 percent of the population ― much less than Obamacare, at its worst, ever polled. Depriving people of health insurance because they have a pre-existing condition is no longer acceptable. Up until the end, Republicans had the votes to pass the House bill or something like it, and deliver Trump the big win he craved. It’s not so difficult to imagine a scenario with slightly better leadership, and slightly less obstreperous Republican factions, in which the legislation would have gone through both chambers and eventually to the White House. But doing so would have almost surely produced a massive political backlash, because taking health insurance away from millions of people ― depriving people of health care because they have a pre-existing condition, or because they don’t have enough money to pay for it ― is no longer acceptable. It was the status quo until 2010. That was seven years ago and there is very little enthusiasm for going back. As Sen. Bill Cassidy, a conservative doctor who represents the conservative state of Louisiana, told The New York Times, “There’s a widespread recognition that the federal government, Congress, has created the right for every American to have health care.” What Happens Now Obamacare remains a shaky enterprise, with markets in several states down to two or even one insurance company. And Trump, who has already taken some actions to sabotage the program’s performance, might make it even a shakier. “Bad things are going to happen to Obamacare,” Trump said from the Oval Office on Friday, making what sounded to a lot of people like a threat. “There’s not much you can do to help it.” Nobody questions that Obamacare requires reinforcement and repair ― or that someday it might need total replacement. Conservatives and liberals each have plenty of ideas along those lines. But the standard for judging any of these proposals, or some bipartisan combination of them, will be the same one that Trumpcare failed to meet: Does it protect the people who need protection? Does it improve access to care? Does it reduce financial insecurity? Does it move the U.S. closer to a system where all Americans truly have a way to get the medical care they need ― at a price they can afford? This, in the end, is what Obama, Pelosi and their allies achieved with the Affordable Care Act ― not the creation of a jury-rigged system of regulations and tax credits, or the expansion of an overtaxed Medicaid program, or any of the myriad smaller policy initiatives the Affordable Care Act. The true legacy of Obamacare is the principle that everybody should have health insurance. Erasing that is not something that can happen in 63 days. And it may never happen at all.  -- 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
26 марта, 23:56

Акции Viacom могут подорожать на 40%

По оценкам аналитиков Barron's, акции американской медиа-компании Viacom могут подорожать в следующем году примерно на 40% благодаря изменению приоритетов и реинвестированию. В частности, новый СЕО компании Боб Бакиш (Bob Bakish) намерен сосредоточить деятельность на развитии студии Paramount Pictures, а также на развитии таких флагманских сетей, как Nickelodeon, MTV, Comedy Central, Nick Jr и BET. Напомним, что Боб Бакиш был назначен СЕО Viacom в декабре прошлого года, а ранее занимал должность руководителя отдела международного бизнеса. Примечательно, что новую должность он занял спустя два часа после того, как National Amusements (кинокомпания и владелец кинотеатров Cinema De Luxe) отозвала предложение о слиянии Viacom и CBS.

Выбор редакции
26 марта, 23:32

ОПЫТНЫЙ ПИСТОЛЕТ ГЕРАСИМЕНКО ВАГ-73 (СССР)

        Что мы вспоминаем когда речь заходит о безгильзовом оружии? Интересующийся человек сразу скажет о немецком автомате G11, может быть ещё вспомнят о том, что под тот же патрон немцы разрабатывали пистолет-пулемёт класса PDW и лёгкий пулемёт с магазином на 300 патронов. Очень въёдливый (вроде вашего покорного слуги) товарищ ещё приведёт конкурента этой системы - автомат фирмы «Маузер» и припомнит, что и фирма «Diehl» участвовала в этом же конкурсе. Это -одна схема, когда боеприпас представляет собой пулю, запрессованную в параллелепипед из взрывчатого вещества. Второй вариант - это так называемые реактивные пули в системах типа американского пистолета «MBA Gyrojet». Но есть и ещё вариант - это когда пуля состоит из металлической головной части и полой тонкостенной задней части, имевшей форму цилиндра (стаканчика). Задняя часть патрона служит гильзой, внутри которой располагается метательный пороховой заряд и заряд воспламеняющего вещества (сгорающий капсюль). Патроны этого типа используются например в итальянском пистолете-пулемёте Benelli CB-M2 и в экспериментальном казахстанском пистолете-пулемёте конструкции Жетёсова ППЖ-005, о котором я позже собираюсь сделать материал.   Подводя итог : когда речь заходит о безгильзовом оружии вспоминаются многие страны, кроме СССР. А ведь это несправедливо - и в СССР разрабатывались подобные системы. И именно об одной из них - пистолете ВАГ-72 (73) (под патрон третьего, мною приведённого типа) киевского конструктора, инженера авиационного завода, Владимира Алексеевича Герасименко (1910-1987) я хочу немного рассказать. Герасименко с 1942 года занимался конструированием спортивных и боевых пистолетов. В начале 70-х годов уже прошлого века он разработал и изготовил  7,62-мм безгильзовые пистолетные патроны и два варианта автоматических пистолетов под них : ВАГ-72 и ВАГ-73. Пистолеты отличались ёмкостью магазинов: на ВАГ-72 был 24-х зарядный, а на ВАГ-73 48-ми зарядный магазин.  Патрон Герасименко представляет собой выточенную из стали относительно тонкостенную пулю с округлённой головной частью и полой задней частью (для пороха) и резьбой для завинчивания капсюля. Пистолет имеет довольно внушительный вес - 1,2кг и размеры (235х135х28). УСМ позволяет вести стрельбу как самовзводом так и с предварительным взведением курка. Пистолет не имеет внешнего предохранителя, но оснащён двухсторонним переводчиком режимов огня, так как может вести огонь не только одиночными выстрелами, но и очередями. Для обеспечения точности при автоматической стрельбе пистолет оснащён пневматическим замедлителем, тормозящим затвор при его движении в крайнее заднее положение. Интересен и магазин для ВАГ-73. Он действительно вмещает 48 патронов и представляет из себя по сути два магазина с отдельными подающими пружинами, размещёнными в одном корпусе один за другим. Сначала расходуются патроны из заднего магазина, а потом подаватель личинки не встречая на своём пути патрона работает вхолостую, а передняя часть личинки при каждом цикле подаёт патрон из переднего магазина. Магазины такого типа применяются, например в современном российском пистолете-пулемёте ОЦ-53 и у них есть большое будущее. Некоторые выдвигают мнение, что дескать, это нежизнеспособная конструкция, так как стальные пули очень быстро «съели» бы ствол. Я же могу возразить, что это были опытные образцы, предназначенные для выверки УСМ и серийные образцы (если бы они были) получили бы уже вполне нормальные пули. Сама по себе история этого оружия показательна тем, что в советские времена велась вполне  гласная разработка оружия в инициативном порядке человеком без оружейного образования.   автор статьи: Александр Райгородецкий                   В настоящее время два сохранившихся экземпляра пистолетов Герасименко ВАГ-72 и ВАГ-73 хранятся в фондах Центрального музея Артиллерии, Инженерных войск и Войск связи в Санкт-Петербурге, куда они были переданы из УКГБ Украинской ССР в середине 1980-х годов.  

26 марта, 19:44

GOP Senator Concedes Democrats Had A Better Process When Passing Health Care Law

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 ― Ever since President Donald Trump and Republicans failed spectacularly on Friday in their efforts to repeal the Affordable Care Act, they have been busy finding people to blame. Republicans who opposed the bill have argued that the process was rushed, laying the blame on House GOP leaders like Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) for cobbling together the bill behind closed doors. Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), who has repeatedly argued that the House should have spent more time on the bill, credited Democrats on Sunday for a “careful and deliberate approach” when they drafted the Affordable Care Act back in 2009. .@SenTomCotton: I think the House moved a bit too fast. 18 days is simply not enough time for such major landmark legislation. pic.twitter.com/lALOvXOvV4— Face The Nation (@FaceTheNation) March 26, 2017 ”I think you can’t expect to try to solve a problem that addresses one-sixth of the country’s economy and touches every American in a very personal and intimate way in 18 days,” Cotton said on CBS’ “Face the Nation.” “When the Democrats came to power in 2009, for 60 years at least, they had been pursuing a national healthcare system, yet they didn’t introduce legislation for eight months, and they didn’t pass it for over a year of Barack Obama’s first term,” he said. “So it went through very public hearings and took testimony, developed fact based foundation of knowledge, President Obama traveled around the country, held town halls and spoke to a joint session of Congress,” the senator added. “I am not saying we needed 14 months to do this, but I think a more careful and deliberate approach, which we now have time to do because we are going to have to revisit healthcare anyway, would have gotten us further down the path to a solution.” It was a stark contrast from what Republicans have previously said about the process of passing the law. In their seven-year effort to repeal the ACA, the GOP frequently claimed former President Barack Obama and Democrats rushed through their bill. In reality, Obama and his aides spent more than a year working on specific proposals, meeting with various experts and stakeholders and convening a bipartisan group of lawmakers to gather ideas and feedback. By contrast, Trump spent only a few weeks on the GOP bill, even though Republicans have promised for seven years to repeal Obamacare. Trump and top Republicans have even blamed Democrats for the bill’s failure, even though Democrats say they were never even consulted.  -- 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.

26 марта, 19:28

Warner, Schiff supportive of inquiry into Trump-Russia ties

Sen. Mark Warner and Rep. Adam Schiff, the two top congressional Democratic leaders on government intelligence, on Sunday backed calls for an independent commission to investigate ties between the Trump campaign and Russian officials. "I do think the events of this week call out the need for an independent commission quite separate and apart from what we do in Congress," said Schiff on CBS' "Face the Nation." Schiff first called for such a probe on Twitter on Saturday. Warner echoed Schiff's call during a later appearance on NBC's "Meet the Press," while noting that creating such a commission would be an uphill battle politically. "Listen, if we could get an independent commission, I'm open to that," he said. "That means you've got to pass a bill, [and] the President's got to sign it."Warner and Schiff, the ranking Democrats on the Senate and House intelligence panels, respectively, were also heavily critical of House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes' handling of his panel's probe. Nunes has faced strong criticism for publicly announcing, without notifying his Democratic counterparts, that Trump transition officials were put under inadvertent surveillance following November's election — and briefing President Donald Trump and the White House on the subject."I am totally mystified by what Mr. Nunes has said," Warner (D-Va.) said. "I think it's fairly mystifying, if not outrageous, that he’d make these claims, then goes down and briefs the White House. "Following Nunes' press conference on Wednesday unveiling his claims of surveillance, Schiff (D-Calif.) accused the chairman of acting a "surrogate of the White House."“The chairman will need to decide whether he is the chairman of an independent investigation into conduct which includes allegations of potential coordination between the Trump campaign and the Russians, or he is going to act as a surrogate of the White House, because he cannot do both,” Schiff said. On Sunday, Republican House Intelligence Committee member Trey Gowdy disputed Schiff and Warner's assessments of the events, however, arguing that Nunes had every right to brief the president on the surveillance intelligence because it was not germain to the Russia probe. "The chairman of House Intel briefed the commander-in-chief on something that has nothing to do with the Russia investigation," Gowdy (R-S.C.) said on "Face the Nation" on Sunday. "So if the commander-in-chief cannot be briefed by the chairperson of the House Intel Committee on a matter that has nothing to do with the FBI investigation, then I don't know what they can talk about. Nunes himself reportedly apologized Thursday "for not sharing information about the documents he saw with the minority before going public.”

26 марта, 17:32

Новости США: пустующий Госдеп, драка сторонников и противников Трампа, ликвидация лидера «Аль-Каиды»

Советник Трампа покинул Белый дом без объяснения причин, Байден жалеет, что не стал президентом Америки, Маккейн посоветовал Трампу набрать персонал в Госдеп, в Калифорнии подрались сторонники и противники президента, ликвидирован один из лидеров «Аль-Каиды».

26 марта, 09:21

Майк Пенс: Дональд Трамп намерен значительно снизить налоги

Вице-президент США Майк Пенс заявил, что президент США Дональд Трамп намерен работать с Конгрессом для того, чтобы добиться проведения реформы, предполагающей снижение налогового бремени для американских граждан и корпораций. «Работая с Конгрессом, президент Трамп собирается провести реформу по самому значительному снижению налогов со времен Рональда Рейгана, мы намерены заставить американскую экономику вновь работать»,— приводит ТАСС его слова.Господин Пенс также прокомментировал провалившуюся отмену законопроекта об обязательном медстраховании Obamacare. «Как мы все выяснили, Конгресс не был готов. Когда абсолютно все демократы в Палате представителей и несколько республиканцев встали на пути плана Трампа по отмене и замене Obamacare, мы снова вернулись к этапу разработки законопроекта»,— заявил он.Напомним, господин Трамп отозвал законопроект об отмене Obamacare. По подсчетам CBS, сторонникам новой реформы здравоохранения не хватает 22 голосов для принятия. Источники предполагают…

Выбор редакции
26 марта, 07:54

Американцу, застрелившему свою умирающую собаку, предъявили обвинения

Полицейские США предъявили обвинения 65-летнему жителю города Вирджиния-Бич Майклу Уэлену в жестоком обращении с животными после того, как нашли тело его собаки на пляже. По информации CBS News, мужчина застрелил своего 15-летнего питомца по кличке Алли из-за тяжёлого заболевания, которое ветеринары признали смертельным. Уэлен похоронил собаку на близлежащем пляже. Полицейские обнаружили тело гончей и обвинили его хозяина в жестоком обращении с животными. Сам американец признаётся, что не смог отвезти собаку на эвтаназию потому, что не был готов психологически. Вместо того, чтобы усыпить питомца, Уэлен давал ему обезболивающее. В один момент у Алли случился приступ, и мужчина застрелил его. — Это было так непросто эмоционально. Не могу сказать, сколько раз я вспоминал этот момент. Иногда просто начинаю плакать, — рассказал журналистам Майкл Уэлен. Полиция не стала брать во внимание слова хозяина собаки и предъявила ему обвинения. Суд по делу состоится в июне.

05 июля 2016, 13:00

Победил ли Глазьев Набиуллину?

Набиулина согласилась на целевую эмиссию для кредитования реального сектора (план Глазьева) Сразу скажу, что я совершенно согласен с планом Глазьева, НО 1. Я не верю, что Набиулина такая глупая и не понимала раньше, что Глазьев прав. так же как я не верю, что крестоносцы взяли Константинополь "случайно", а не в силу сознательного решения уничтожить Православную […]

28 сентября 2015, 04:38

Владимир Путин: Интервью американскому журналисту Чарли Роузу для телеканалов CBS и PBS

В преддверии своего участия в юбилейной 70-ой сессии Генеральной Ассамблеи ООН в Нью-Йорке Владимир Путин дал интервью американскому журналисту Чарли Роузу. Поскольку наше интервью выйдет перед моим выступлением, то мне кажется, было бы нецелесообразно подробно излагать всё, что я собираюсь сказать, но в общих чертах, конечно, я вспомню об истории Организации Объединённых Наций. Уже сейчас могу сказать о том, что решение о создании ООН было принято как раз в нашей стране, в Советском Союзе на Ялтинской конференции. Советский Союз, Россия, как правопреемница Советского Союза, является страной – учредительницей Организации Объединённых Наций и постоянным членом Совета Безопасности. Конечно, нужно будет сказать о дне сегодняшнем, о том, как сегодня складывается международная жизнь, о том, что ООН остаётся единственной универсальной международной организацией, которая призвана поддерживать мир во всём мире. И в этом смысле у неё нет никакой альтернативы сегодня. Ясно также, что ООН должна приспосабливаться к изменяющемуся миру, и мы все постоянно дискутируем на этот счёт: как она должна меняться, какими темпами, что качественно должно измениться. Разумеется, придётся сказать, и даже не то что придётся, – нужно будет воспользоваться этой международной трибуной для того, чтобы дать российское видение сегодняшних международных отношений и будущего этой организации и мирового сообщест