• Теги
    • избранные теги
    • Компании1576
      • Показать ещё
      Люди555
      • Показать ещё
      Международные организации78
      • Показать ещё
      Страны / Регионы544
      • Показать ещё
      Разное650
      • Показать ещё
      Формат14
      Издания91
      • Показать ещё
      Показатели62
      • Показать ещё
25 июня, 14:04

The weakest defense in Washington? Saying ‘I don’t recall’

Going back to Watergate, political aides have gotten themselves in legal trouble by pretending they’ve forgotten what they did wrong.

25 июня, 05:05

These Automakers Spend Billions to Bring Performance to American Roads

Building fast cars brings prestige to any automaker. From supercars to SUVs, these brands are committed to bring speed to the masses.

Выбор редакции
25 июня, 04:34

Ivanka Trump Ordered Deposed In Suit Accusing Her Of Ripping Off Shoe Designs

A Manhattan judge has ordered Ivanka Trump to give a deposition in a lawsuit by an Italian designer accusing her of trademark infringement and ripping off a shoe design. The ruling was in response to her lawyers’ arguments that Trump should be allowed to skip the deposition in part because of her “extraordinary circumstances” as a “high-ranking government employee.”  In a statement filed with the court June 16, Trump said she had “no involvement in the conception, design, production or sale of the Hettie shoe,” the sandal at the center of the suit by Florence shoemaker Aquazzura. She said her only involvement was a “final sign-off of each season’s line after it was first reviewed and approved by the company’s design team.” But the judge wasn’t buying it. “Trump’s public statements regarding active and comprehensive brand management lead to a reasonable inference that the shoe at issue would not have been released without her approval,” U.S. District Judge Katherine Forrest wrote in her decision Friday. “A deposition is appropriate.” Forrest ignored Trump’s claim that she was too busy for the deposition, but did say that questioning should be limited to two hours because of Trump’s “competing professional obligations.” Aquazzura Italia SRL filed the suit last June against Trump’s company IT Collection LLC. The action claims Trump’s Hettie sandal is “virtually identical” to Aquazzzura’s Wild Thing shoe. In demanding that Trump be deposed, Aquazzura’s attorneys quoted Trump as recently saying, “There’s not a shoe I’m not intimately involved with designing.” IT Collection shoemaker Marc Fisher Holdings is also named in the suit. Other shoes sold by Trump’s IT Collection and named in the suit also appear strikingly similar to those created by Aquazzura. The Italian company claims Trump can sell them at a fraction of the cost because she has dodged the costs of their original designs. The Hettie shoe sells for $130 while the Wild Thing has a pricetag of $785. The lawsuit accuses Trump and Fisher of “seeking the same success Aquazzura experienced, but without having to put in the hard creative work.” Trump stopped selling another shoe model similar to an Aquazzura design after the Italian company complained, according to the lawsuit. Aquazzura is seeking unspecified damages. type=type=RelatedArticlesblockTitle=Related Coverage + articlesList=591490cae4b066b42172180f,58ff48ebe4b0b6f6014aabf3,589b4c41e4b09bd304bf2c7b -- 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
25 июня, 04:34

Ivanka Trump Ordered Deposed In Suit Accusing Her Of Ripping Off Shoe Designs

A Manhattan judge has ordered Ivanka Trump to give a deposition in a lawsuit by an Italian designer accusing her of trademark infringement and ripping off a shoe design. The ruling was in response to her lawyers’ arguments that Trump should be allowed to skip the deposition in part because of her “extraordinary circumstances” as a “high-ranking government employee.”  In a statement filed with the court June 16, Trump said she had “no involvement in the conception, design, production or sale of the Hettie shoe,” the sandal at the center of the suit by Florence shoemaker Aquazzura. She said her only involvement was a “final sign-off of each season’s line after it was first reviewed and approved by the company’s design team.” But the judge wasn’t buying it. “Trump’s public statements regarding active and comprehensive brand management lead to a reasonable inference that the shoe at issue would not have been released without her approval,” U.S. District Judge Katherine Forrest wrote in her decision Friday. “A deposition is appropriate.” Forrest ignored Trump’s claim that she was too busy for the deposition, but did say that questioning should be limited to two hours because of Trump’s “competing professional obligations.” Aquazzura Italia SRL filed the suit last June against Trump’s company IT Collection LLC. The action claims Trump’s Hettie sandal is “virtually identical” to Aquazzzura’s Wild Thing shoe. In demanding that Trump be deposed, Aquazzura’s attorneys quoted Trump as recently saying, “There’s not a shoe I’m not intimately involved with designing.” IT Collection shoemaker Marc Fisher Holdings is also named in the suit. Other shoes sold by Trump’s IT Collection and named in the suit also appear strikingly similar to those created by Aquazzura. The Italian company claims Trump can sell them at a fraction of the cost because she has dodged the costs of their original designs. The Hettie shoe sells for $130 while the Wild Thing has a pricetag of $785. The lawsuit accuses Trump and Fisher of “seeking the same success Aquazzura experienced, but without having to put in the hard creative work.” Trump stopped selling another shoe model similar to an Aquazzura design after the Italian company complained, according to the lawsuit. Aquazzura is seeking unspecified damages. type=type=RelatedArticlesblockTitle=Related Coverage + articlesList=591490cae4b066b42172180f,58ff48ebe4b0b6f6014aabf3,589b4c41e4b09bd304bf2c7b -- 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.

25 июня, 03:38

Man Cited For Driving Motorcycle Through Crowd Of Trumpcare Protestors

A man was detained by police Wednesday after allegedly driving his motorcycle through a crowd blocking a San Francisco street in protest of the recently-revealed GOP healthcare bill, also known as Trumpcare. Around 20 protestors, including seniors and people with disabilities, were staging a “die-in” by laying on the street outside of the San Francisco Federal Building on Wednesday afternoon, CBS San Francisco reported. The man rode his motorcycle down the wrong way on Seventh Street, through the crowd, then turned and drove through the crowd again, activist Emily Lee told KRON4.  As seen in the video above, the man, identified by local media as Jeffrey Dillon, revved his engine as he drove through the activists who quickly jumped out of his way. He appeared to get very close to some individuals, but no one was injured in the incident. San Francisco police surrounded Dillon with their guns drawn, according to the San Francisco Chronicle, before citing him for reckless driving and releasing him. “At some point, it became clear he was going to come through the crowd and people jumped out of the way,” said Lee, a spokeswoman for Bay Resistance, one of the organizations that planned the protest. “He was definitely targeting us,” she added. “It was unclear if it was for political reasons or if he was just mentally unstable or what, but it was terrifying.” .@SFPD detain a man who tried to hit healthcare activists with his motorcycle who were blocking 7th street in #SF #AHCA pic.twitter.com/Jo3iTi8jN2— Justin Sullivan (@sullyfoto) June 21, 2017 According to multiple reports, Dillon was the administrator of a Facebook group named “White Privilege Club,” where he reportedly posted pictures of himself with the motorcycle. “This isn’t a racist site/group, it is the exact opposite. It is a celebration of our culture and who we are … I am proud of who I am and my people,” Dillon wrote to the group before the page was deleted on Thursday night, according to Asian-American news blog Next Shark. “Yell ‘White Pride’ and people look at you like ive [sic] got a clan outfit on,” another post by Dillon read. “I married a slant eye import, so you know i aint [sic] racist.” Bruce Allison, a protester who dodged Dillon’s motorcycle, told the Chronicle that Dillon had yelled during the incident, “If you want to go to the hospital, here you go,” and “You will have health care if you people stop protesting.” -- 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.

24 июня, 00:56

House Republicans Apparently Don't Know How To Do A Budget

WASHINGTON ― It’s been 785 days since House Republicans agreed to a budget they believed in. And if the current disagreement over spending levels continues, Republicans may walk away this year without a budget, a single standalone appropriations bill signed into law or a vehicle for their precious tax reform. House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) has long said Congress should follow “regular order,” with lawmakers setting spending levels each year in a budget and following those blueprints by passing individual appropriations bills. But the process got off to a delayed start this year when President Donald Trump didn’t release his budget until late spring. Appropriators didn’t know what numbers they should use for their fiscal 2018 spending bills, and lawmakers used up floor time for their Obamacare repeal. (Technically the health care reconciliation bill was a budget, but Republicans simply used it as a shell bill that didn’t actually lay out spending priorities.) All the budget delays are supposed to end shortly, with the Budget Committee supposedly marking up a document next week (although an official date hasn’t been set). The only problem: Republicans don’t currently have the votes to advance a budget out of the House, even if the panel moves ahead with their blueprint in the coming days. At the center of the debate is how much GOP lawmakers should put forward for military spending. For this upcoming fiscal year, defense hawks want $640 billion. Some more fiscally conservative Republicans want to go with $603 billion, which is Trump’s number. And a host of other lawmakers think everyone should just split the difference. Republicans will likely come up with something in the middle ― say, $621 billion ― but it’s unclear if there are enough votes for any number. The Budget Control Act, signed into law in 2011, set the fiscal 2018 defense budget at $549 billion. And even though Republicans are looking to spend well above that cap, they are also looking to come in below the nondefense number. The BCA set nondefense spending for 2018 at $516 billion, and Republicans appear apt to put forward a budget at $511 billion. Doing so would likely require significant cuts to safety net programs. Ryan has rued the growth of spending in programs like food stamps and Medicaid, which largely dodged the ax when Congress and President Bill Clinton reformed welfare in 1996 ― a process that left the Aid to Families with Dependent Children program a shell of its former self. “The welfare-reform mindset hasn’t been applied with equal vigor across the spectrum of anti-poverty programs,” Ryan said in 2012. “In most of these programs, especially in recent years, we’re still trying to measure compassion by how much government spends, not by how many people we help escape from poverty.” It’s all very fun for House Republicans to push big numbers, with major increases to defense spending and drastic cuts to other domestic programs. But appropriators in the Senate aren’t going to abide by those levels in their spending bills, meaning appropriations measures will just flounder. At some point, if Republicans want a defense number greater than $549 billion for next year, they will have to reach an agreement with Senate Democrats, and that likely means adding money to those nondefense programs too. Conservatives in the House Freedom Caucus had been kicking around one idea for those increases to defense and nondefense: give everyone the numbers they want for fiscal 2018 in the budget, but couple them with huge savings commands in the reconciliation instructions for tax reform to, say, the tune of $400 billion. Most of that money, conservatives say, would have to come from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, which is commonly known as food stamps and is the third-costliest safety net program in the United States. But there isn’t consensus within the Freedom Caucus on that strategy, and House GOP leadership is uncomfortable jeopardizing tax reform by asking for massive food stamp cuts. (The attack ads, claiming Republicans cut food stamps so they could pay for tax cuts for millionaires, write themselves.) Trump’s budget proposed cutting SNAP by more than 25 percent, saving $193 billion over 10 years mainly by requiring states to pay a portion of benefits while simultaneously giving them more leeway to kick people off benefits. House Republicans likewise favor delegating to states. They also lament the increase in the number of beneficiaries who are unemployed adults without children or disabilities. Such people make up only about 10 percent of SNAP recipients, according to the most recent data, and most states are already imposing a three-month time limit on their benefits due to falling unemployment rates. In other words, it won’t be easy for Republicans to cut SNAP spending without reducing benefits for households with children, disabled people or senior citizens.   But again, the Freedom Caucus doesn’t have consensus for a plan holding up the budget. Some of the group’s members want the highest defense number. (Freedom Caucus member Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.) told HuffPost earlier this week that $640 billion is what’s needed. “I don’t know what kind of a price you put on national security?” he said.) And other members feel uncomfortable giving Congress large spending increases this year for the promise of future cuts. (Freedom Caucus member Rep. Scott Perry (R-Pa.) compared the plan to getting a cheeseburger today and promising to pay for it Tuesday. “We all know it never happens,” he said.)  I don’t know what kind of a price you put on national security? Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.) Conservatives may not entirely be on the same page here, but most know they don’t want to agree to GOP leadership’s offer: a $621 billion defense number, a $511 nondefense number, and instructions for committees to find $150 billion in savings over 10 years. The Republican Study Committee ― a much larger but less conservative group ― tried to come to an official position earlier this week that would have supported those numbers. The resolution, offered by committee Chairman Mark Walker (R-N.C.), didn’t have the votes. Which is to say leadership is still negotiating with conservatives. Budgets are normally just glorified press releases, as they don’t carry the force of law. But because Republicans plan to use this budget as a reconciliation bill for tax reform, complete with instructions from committees to find savings over 10 years, this budget does have a little more power. Still, even if leaders did commit to the $400 billion in future savings ― and it’s almost guaranteed they won’t ― it isn’t a sure thing that those cuts will ever come to fruition, hence the price of those cheeseburgers tomorrow. Bob Greenstein, director of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, one of the most influential liberal think tanks in Washington, said the threat to the safety net is real, despite the many obstacles to a Republican budget. The GOP’s tax cut agenda could be a big motivator for slashing food stamps. “Those savings in the entitlements could conceivably be used to offset the cost of the tax cuts,” Greeinstein said. “I would not rule out the potential for such a reconciliation bill to move.” If Ryan ― a former Budget Committee chairman himself ― can’t shepherd through a budget this year, it will be the second time he’s been unable to get the document through his chamber. And he will be relying upon the idea that once lawmakers put together a tax reform package, he might be able to get his chamber to advance another shell budget that simply allows Republicans to move forward with reconciliation.  Short of finding some agreement, it’ll be the second year in a row that the budget and appropriations process completely broke down. And if Republicans want all that extra defense money, they’d have to strike a deal with Senate Democrats on raising the spending caps, which means even more money spent on non-defense and an even larger deficit. And that is the grand irony of congressional fiscal conservatism: When there aren’t enough votes to actually enact your vision, you end up just handing spending decisions to the 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.

23 июня, 17:29

Rattled by shooting, GOP lawmakers discuss beefing up security funding

House Republicans, still reeling from last week’s shooting at a GOP baseball practice that nearly killed Majority Whip Steve Scalise, are calling for flexibility to use federal funds to hire personal security and protect their homes and district offices from potential violent attacks.In a closed-door meeting of the House Republican Conference, Speaker Paul Ryan discussed allowing members to use their congressional allowances to spend as much as $25,000 apiece on security each year.Lawmakers exiting the meeting said the funds would likely help lawmakers hire personal protection, especially in districts where local police aren’t able to provide round-the-clock security. The funds could also be used to help members pay for alarms in their homes or panic buttons if they’re ever in physical danger.Spending committee leaders in the House gave initial approval Friday morning to the bill that would fund congressional operations for the fiscal year that begins in October. And while the panel did sign off on a more than $29 million bump for the Capitol Police, the committee did not include an increase for lawmaker allowances — used for things like staff salaries, members’ travel expenses and sending constituent mail.Instead, lawmakers are counting on the House Administration Committee to give the go-ahead for using up to $25,000 of each allowance on security, for both this year and again next year.In a tense political environment in which physical threats are increasingly common, lawmakers say the funding is necessary to ensure their safety and peace of mind, especially when they’re away from the heavily secured Capitol.Rep. Barry Loudermilk (R-Ga.), who was among those who dodged bullets in last week’s attack, said lawmakers were discussing “whatever preemptive measures we can take.”“I think this is a bipartisan issue,” he said.Members also discussed obtaining a blanket waiver from the Federal Election Commission permitting members to use campaign funds for security while conducting political business as well. Members can obtain individual waivers now, but lawmakers are interested in securing a broader standing waiver that wouldn’t require them to individually seek FEC permission.Loudermilk said current restrictions have left lawmakers hampered when it comes to spending on personal security, such as bulletproof glass for their offices.

23 июня, 17:24

Kellyanne Conway Says People Who Doubted Trump Interfered In The Election

Kellyanne Conway, a top adviser to President Donald Trump, attempted to spin a question about Russian interference in the 2016 election by saying people who questioned whether Trump could win had actually meddled with the campaign. “The president has said previously, and he stands by that, particularly as president-elect, that he would be concerned about anyone interfering in our democracy,” she told CNN’s Alisyn Camerota on Friday. “We saw a lot of people interfering with our democracy by saying he couldn’t win here at home.” "You're not answering": @AlisynCamerota asks Kellyanne Conway question about addressing Russia interference 7 times https://t.co/t84hz1qtC0— CNN (@CNN) June 23, 2017 There is an overwhelming consensus among intelligence officials that Russia interfered in the 2016 election, but the White House has refused to say whether Trump believes that’s true. If there was hacking, Trump said Thursday, it was President Barack Obama’s fault for failing to stop it. Conway also dodged repeated questions from Camerota as to what specifically Trump and the White House were doing to prevent Russia from hacking another election, simply saying voter integrity was an issue of concern to the president. “The president has met with his national security team many times, he has an initiative or commission on voter integrity, and he himself has used the power of the bully pulpit to express his resistance towards any type of outside interference,” she eventually said. Some members of the presidential commission on electoral integrity, to which Conway was referring, have called for it to investigate Russian interference in the election. Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach (R) has said the commission will investigate the issue if members would like to, but that it does not fall within the panel’s official charge. But part of the executive order establishing the commission says it will look at “vulnerabilities in voting systems and practices used for Federal elections that could lead to improper voter registrations and improper voting, including fraudulent voter registrations and fraudulent voting.” -- 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
23 июня, 10:09

Hackers help speeding drivers dodge fines

Australian police cancelled hundreds of speeding fines after noting their systems were infected.

22 июня, 05:45

A Democratic Blind Spot on Culture

How much do Democrats really want to defeat Donald Trump? It shouldn’t be a question, given the amount of outrage and agitation on the left over Trump, but it’s worth asking in the wake of the latest Democratic failure to notch an electoral victory for the resistance, this time in the Georgia special election. There’s no doubt that Democrats want to watch TV programs that excoriate the president. They want to give money to candidates opposing him. They want to fantasize about frog-marching him straight from his impeachment proceedings to the nearest federal penitentiary. But do they want to do the one thing that would make it easier to win tough races in marginal areas, namely moderate on the cultural issue? Not so much. In retrospect, Jon Ossoff’s loss in Georgia’s 6th Congressional District was overdetermined. He didn’t live in the district. He had no record of public service. Youthful to a fault, he looked like he should have been running for class president. Yet it didn’t help that he was an orthodox liberal who conceded nothing on cultural issues, even though he was running in a Republican district in the South. In this, Ossoff merely reflected his party’s attitude. Stopping Trump is imperative, so long as it doesn’t require the party rethinking its uncompromising stance on abortion, guns or immigration. Every old rule should be thrown out in the cause of the resistance—except the tried-and-true orthodoxies on social issues. If Democrats had to choose between opposing an honest-to-goodness coup and endorsing a ban on abortion after 20 weeks, they’d probably have to think about it. And if they dared pick opposition to the coup, NARAL Pro Choice America would come after them hammer and tongs. The Georgia special election showed the limits of the resistance, a partisan phenomenon with no crossover appeal. The idea that a significant portion of the GOP is watching CNN’s hour-by-hour coverage of the so-called Russia scandal and eagerly awaiting the opportunity to send a message to President Trump about how Michael Flynn should have been more careful about disclosing his lobbying work is otherworldly. What’s more, to the extent that the resistance is about literally ousting Trump from office, it courts a backlash to the backlash. This is what happened in Georgia—Democrats turned out in an anti-Trump backlash, while Republicans turned out in an anti-anti-Trump backlash. This is why Ossoff was right to try to downplay his opposition to Trump and try to sound like a pragmatist on fiscal issues. It just wasn’t very credible. Tens of millions of progressive dollars didn’t flood into the district to elect a polite young fiscal conservative with no strong feelings about Trump. Ossoff was easily attacked as a callow creation of the resistance and a would-be foot soldier for Nancy Pelosi. She is a national target like Newt Gingrich was in the late 1990s. Although there is a difference: Gingrich was radioactive as speaker, after winning a historic victory in 1994; Pelosi is radioactive as minority leader, after losing the House majority in 2010. The upside of having her as the speaker-in-waiting is not obvious, but certainly serves the GOP’s interests. Ossoff said he hadn’t decided whether he’d vote for her as speaker, an unconvincing dodge. A different kind of Democrat wouldn’t have been so vulnerable. Republicans never would have been able to use the Pelosi play against Sen. Zell Miller, an old blue-dog Democrat from Georgia, or even moderate former Gov. Roy Barnes. Ossoff didn’t immunize himself at all. He was down-the-line pro-choice on abortion. He didn’t dissent from typical liberal views on gun control. He parroted the usual lines about “comprehensive immigration reform.” Departures on these issues are important. They are genuine statements of independence from the national party. They signal a sympathy with the concerns of culturally conservative voters who might not support Republican economics. They take the edge off the perception of the Democrats as a high-handed coastal party. Even symbolism goes a long way—Bill Clinton got a lot of mileage out of his “Sister Souljah moment” and his mostly meaningless formulation that abortion should be “safe, legal, and rare.” It’s not just that national Democrats don’t believe any give on these issues is politically necessary—they positively oppose it. A couple of months ago, national activists brought the hammer down on Heath Mello, a candidate for mayor of Omaha (a city in the state of Nebraska) for the offense of being personally opposed to abortion and once having supported restrictions. To his credit, Bernie Sanders stood by his endorsement of Mello (who ended up losing). Such is the fever of the national party on cultural issues that the socialist is the relatively reasonable one. A senator from a small, rural state who cares only about the economy, Sanders wasn’t until recently beaten into complete agreement with Democratic orthodoxy on race, guns and immigration. In a valuable piece in the Atlantic, Peter Beinart notes how the concern that Sanders once expressed about immigrants undercutting U.S. wages used to be a fairly standard Democratic position. Beinart argues that if Hillary Clinton had expressed any worry about the effects of mass immigration or pointedly promoted assimilation, she probably would have been elected president. Democrats would do well to think about that a little more than about Russia. But they won’t. They oppose Donald Trump fiercely and vociferously. Just not enough to learn anything.

Выбор редакции
22 июня, 02:25

How Wonder Woman's Superpowers Can Change Your Work Life

While there’s no doubt Wonder Woman has superhuman ability to dodge bullets or lift tanks, some of her strongest superpowers are available to all of us. Tap into your inner superhero to see what you can achieve today.

21 июня, 22:41

House budget writers reach tentative agreement

The House Budget Committee is planning to unveil a long-awaited budget resolution next week calling for a spending boost to the Pentagon alongside cuts to domestic programs, despite lingering disputes within the GOP conference.House budget writers reached a tentative agreement this afternoon to move ahead with a resolution that would set spending levels at $511 billion for domestic programs and $621 billion for defense, two lawmakers confirmed. Compared to current law, that would amount to a $72 billion boost for defense and a $4 billion cut for domestic spending.The budget resolution would also instruct GOP committees to cut $150 billion from mandatory programs over a decade. Those cuts, while not specified in the budget, would be intended to target anti-poverty programs, like food stamps and disability insurance, according to members.“We’d like to mark up next week, next Wednesday,” senior member Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.) said, acknowledging the committee still has “a few i's to dot and t's to cross.”The mandatory spending cuts — which, unlike the rest of the budget proposal, would actually become law — have been among the most controversial pieces of this year's GOP budget. The cuts would be included as reconciliation instructions, alongside tax reform, which means the legislation could dodge the Senate's filibuster.Rep. Mark Sanford, who sits on the committee, said he was pushing right up until the end for members to aim for far more spending cuts. "Think about how small $150 billion over 10 years is," he told reporters after the meeting. "To say that we're doing robust work in deficit reduction I don't think is the case."The defense spending comes in above the Trump administration's proposal of $603 billion but falls short of the $640 billion members of the House Armed Services Committee demanded. Those lawmakers fought for the $640 billion spending levels in this morning's House GOP conference meeting.“It’s not everything the defense people want, but it’s certainly a substantial increase for them," Cole said. "If you’re a non-defense appropriator, you don’t like that cut, but it’s not an unreasonable cut." House GOP leaders have not yet given the official approval, Cole added, though he said he believes they will sign.A spokesman for the House Budget Committee said nothing has been finalized.

Выбор редакции
21 июня, 18:00

How To Successfully Transition From High School To College

Noodle Pro and college professor Leanne Dodge, gives advice to help students successfully navigate the transition from high school to college?

21 июня, 02:41

Al Franken Butts Heads With Interior Secretary Over Climate Change

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 — Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) clashed with Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke Tuesday on the subject of climate change, calling out the Trump Cabinet member for downplaying melting glaciers in Glacier National Park. Zinke said during a June 8 budget hearing that the park’s namesake features started melting “right after the end of the Ice Age.” “It’s been a consistent melt,” he told the House Appropriations Interior and Environment Subcommittee, adding that he’s watched glaciers thaw while “eating lunch.”  At a Tuesday budget hearing before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Franken pointed to data released last month by the U.S. Geological Survey — a bureau Zinke oversees — and Portland State University showing that the park’s glaciers have shrunk an average of 39 percent since 1966. (Dan Fagre, a USGS research ecologist, told HuffPost at the time that the glaciers “are already at the point of no return,” and will all but disappear “within 20 years.”) “We are not seeing a consistent melt. The melting is dramatically increasing,” Franken told Zinke. “I’m concerned about whether you are clear about the magnitude of warming that is occurring.” With limited time, Franken moved on to the larger climate crisis, asking Zinke if he knows how much warming government scientists are predicting by 2100 under a business-as-usual scenario.  “I don’t think the government scientists can predict with certainty,” Zinke said. “There isn’t a model that exists today that can predict today’s weather, given all the data —” “They predict the range,” Franked interrupted, pointing out that Zinke has stressed the importance of relying on science.  Asked again about the range of warming government scientists are predicting by 2100, Zinke referenced a study by scientists at Massachusetts Institute of Technology. That study, he said, showed that if all countries met the goals agreed to under the Paris Agreement on climate change, it would result in an “insignificant” 0.2-degree Celsius reduction in global temperature by 2100 — a claim President Donald Trump rolled out to announce plans to withdraw the U.S. from the historic Paris accord. In fact, the MIT study concluded that if the Paris targets were met, global warming would slow by between 0.6 degree and 1.1 degrees Celsius by the end of the century. MIT researchers have said the Trump administration’s statements about the study are “misleading.”  “The whole statement seemed to suggest a complete misunderstanding of the climate problem,” John Reilly, the co-director of the MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change, told CNN.  Franken said Zinke was “mixing apples and oranges,” and posed the question for a third time. Again, Zinke dodged, instead directing a question at Franken.  “Can you tell me, Sir, whether or not China increased its CO2 between now and [2030] under the agreement? And by what?” Zinke asked, appearing agitated. “But I will be glad to give you that answer.” “And that answer is?” Franken prodded.  ″I will be glad to give you that answer,” Zinke said again.  “So you will give it in writing then,” Franken responded, as his time for questions expired.  Zinke, a Montana congressman before Trump tapped him to lead the Interior Department, didn’t speak Tuesday about his previous statements about melting glaciers in his home state. Portland State University geologist Andrew G. Fountain, who partnered with USGS on the Glacier National Park project, described Zinke’s statement on glacier melt as “vague.” He told HuffPost that while glaciers have generally retreated since about 1850, the end of the Little Ice Age, the rate of retreat has increased in recent decades — a result of warming global air temperatures. “During the 1960s, the 1970s, [the retreat] was very slow, and since that time, particularly in the ’90s, it has accelerated,” Fountain said.   -- 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.

21 июня, 02:03

Senate Republicans Don't Really Care About The Loathed AHCA Process

WASHINGTON ― Senate Republicans are speeding toward a vote next week on their Obamacare replacement bill, even as GOP lawmakers can’t answer simple questions about the legislation, express frustration with the brazenly secretive and closed process, and don’t appear to have the votes yet for passage. Republicans expected to get more details on their Affordable Care Act rewrite during a closed-door meeting Tuesday with Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price. Instead, they got more vague happy talk from Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and a speech from Price on what HHS has been doing to rein in Obamacare. With Senate Democrats badgering Republicans about how they’re ramming this bill through ― no hearings, no markups, hiding the bill from members ― some GOP lawmakers are now acknowledging that the process has been less than stellar. When Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) was asked whether this bill should be a template for lawmaking in the future, he sarcastically answered that “this is exactly the kind of legislative process our Founding Fathers had in mind,” going on to explain that he was obviously concerned the Senate may be voting on a health care bill next week that members won’t have seen. But when reminded that he could withhold his support for the legislation until the process had improved, McCain said he couldn’t “say no to something I haven’t seen.” It was a similar story with Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), who told reporters that he’s advocated for an open process from day one. “But again,” Corker said, “when you’re dealing with things which are being done here in a totally partisan way ― which is understandable ― I mean, that’s the way reconciliation works.” After all their complaints about the way in which Democrats passed a second part of the Affordable Care Act in 2010 ― the first part of the legislation passed with 60 votes and was the product of more than 100 hearings ― Republicans have turned around and proceeded to use a legislative process that the Senate historian says has not been so secretive nor so partisan since World War I. And if any Republican actually cared that the Senate GOP was acting in this manner, the senator could stand up and refuse to vote for the bill until the process improves. Conversely, part of the reason the Senate is in this procedural position is because Democrats have been clear that none of them will vote for this bill, and even with the brazen GOP attempts to shut them out of the process, Democrats have struggled to mount an effective response to the legislative railroading, resorting to stunts and dilatory tactics in hopes of blocking a bill they have not seen. On Tuesday, Democratic Sens. Chris Murphy of Connecticut, Cory Booker of New Jersey and Brian Schatz of Hawaii took a cab to the Congressional Budget Office to search for the legislation. They ended up, as they expected, empty-handed. At a late-night Senate session Monday, Democrats decried the process on C-SPAN2, but it seemed to do little to win over their Republican colleagues or whip up the kind of outrage Republicans managed in 2010. In fact, even as Senate Republicans acknowledged the poor process, they maintained that their process was still somehow better than the Democrats’ in 2010 ― a blatant mischaracterization of how Obamacare was actually passed. But all the GOP congressional shenanigans will be for naught if McConnell can’t get the bill through his chamber. And if McConnell really is intent on a vote next week, he will have to work expeditiously to build a coalition of 50 votes ― a coalition he doesn’t appear to have at the moment among the Senate’s 52 Republicans. McConnell faces vote problems from both conservatives and moderates. Sens. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), Mike Lee (R-Utah) and Ted Cruz (R-Texas) have all expressed frustration with a number of provisions that they deem insufficient toward repealing Obamacare. They want a quick phaseout of the Medicaid expansion, the removal of certain regulations (like the protections for people with pre-existing conditions) to lower premiums and the abolishment of the taxes created under the Affordable Care Act. Paul has also resisted the creation of new tax subsidies to help pay for health insurance, a signal that his vote may not ever be gettable, though he and his staff have worked hard to not be written off in the negotiations. If the three conservatives stick together, they alone have the votes to sink the Senate’s chances of an Obamacare repeal. But giving in to those demands would jeopardize many more votes from other parts of the GOP conference, and McConnell has basically said the pre-existing condition protections will not be dropped from the Senate bill as they were in the House version ― a condition for the support of many Senate moderates. McConnell is basically gambling that he can get Paul, Cruz and Lee (or at least one of them) to accept a partial repeal as a step in the right direction, and he may, at least partially, be right. None of those conservatives has taken a hard line on what he needs at a minimum to support the bill. Cruz repeatedly told HuffPost on Tuesday that “the most important issue” with the health care bill is that it lower premiums. “That’s my No. 1 priority on Obamacare, because it’s the biggest reason that people are unhappy with Obamacare,” Cruz said. But asked repeatedly whether he would vote against a bill that didn’t lower premiums and kept those so-called community rating provisions that ensure sick people are charged the same as healthy people, Cruz dodged the question, again and again, coming up with new ways to restate that his central focus was on lowering premiums. That unwillingness to take a firm stance on any issue could be gamesmanship, as conservatives seek to avoid marginalizing themselves, but it also may be a recognition that they ultimately won’t be the ones who derail an Obamacare repeal. Asked if he would really stand up to President Donald Trump on this health care bill, Cruz returned to his central focus: “From the beginning, I have been very clear with the president, the vice president and with members of both houses that our focus has to be on lowering premiums.” Cruz’s refusal to be tied down may be a reflection of the political reality. He is up for reelection in 2018, and, despite his popularity in Texas, he faces stiff competition in Rep. Beto O’Rourke (D-Texas), meaning he will need the Republican base’s support ― something that may have already been jeopardized with his up-and-down relationship with Trump. Lee and Paul may have more latitude to vote against the president’s wishes, but they also may be withholding support just to force the legislation further to the right. As Cruz noted Tuesday, Senate GOP leadership hasn’t decided how much of the Obamacare taxes will be repealed, and it’s still in flux how fast the Medicaid expansion would be phased out. Senators desperately want a seat at the table as those questions are sorted out. On the other side of the conference, some moderates may also be playing a similar game. From the beginning, Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) has looked like one of the toughest votes to win over, and yet she has seemed more amenable in recent weeks, narrowing some of her problems with the legislation to its cuts in Planned Parenthood funding and its quicker phaseout of the Medicaid expansion. Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) has also expressed similar reservations, along with some Alaska-specific issues, but she hasn’t ruled out voting for the bill. “You don’t know until you see it, right?” Murkowski said Tuesday about specifics in the bill. “What we’re trying to do is get a health care system that’s not only good for Alaska, but it’s also good for the country.” And then there are the concerns of other senators ― particularly the ones from states that greatly benefited from the Medicaid expansion. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) and Rob Portman (R-Ohio) have both shown willingness to end that expansion, but they want to do it over seven years, not the three that McConnell and conservatives favor. Just how long they would go for, and whether a shorter timeline might cost McConnell their votes, is unknown, but they, too, want a seat at the table. Which is all to say there are many Republican senators who could potentially vote no, especially if it’s clear McConnell doesn’t have the votes. Would Sen. Dean Heller (R-Nev.), perhaps the most vulnerable Republican up for reelection in 2018, really vote for the bill if it’s going down? McConnell has said he will put the bill on the floor with or without the votes. But a failed vote would almost certainly make it more difficult for senators to change their votes later ― a fact that may cause McConnell to pull the bill at the last minute next week. Part of the reason the House was successful in passing its health care bill was that Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) didn’t force members to go on the record until leaders were sure they had the votes. In fact, the bill may have gotten through the House because Democratic opposition let up after Republicans didn’t seem to have the votes, with leaders then able to speed the bill through the chamber once they had an agreement between conservatives and moderates. In the end, that may be the real legislative template McConnell is using. Jonathan Cohn contributed to this report. -- 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.

20 июня, 23:08

Sean Spicer Says Nothing Useful In First On-Camera Briefing In Over A Week

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); White House press secretary Sean Spicer’s first on-camera press briefing in over a week was full of non-answers and promises to “touch base” with President Donald Trump at a later date. When asked Tuesday if Trump believed Russia interfered with the 2016 presidential election, as the U.S. intelligence community determined in January, Spicer said he wasn’t sure. “I have not sat down and talked to him about that specific thing,” Spicer said. “Obviously, we’ve been dealing with a lot of other issues today. I’d be glad to touch base.” It’s been six months since the FBI, CIA and National Security Agency released a joint report outlining the Kremlin’s efforts to tip the election in favor of Trump. Spicer acknowledged that he’s personally seen the reports, but he apparently hasn’t been able to gauge where Trump stands on the issue. “I have not sat down and asked him about a specific reaction to it,” Spicer said. “So I’d be glad to touch base and get back to you.” Spicer also failed to answer questions on several other topics, including health care and North Korea. The press secretary said he didn’t know whether Trump or anyone on his staff has read the Senate health care bill that GOP lawmakers are currently drafting behind closed doors. “I don’t know if he’s seen the legislation or not, but I know that they’ve been working extremely hard,” Spicer told reporters. “I don’t even know where we are in terms of a final plan.” He also didn’t offer much when asked what action the Trump administration plans to take following the death of Otto Warmbier, an American college student who died Monday just days after being released from a North Korean prison. “We have been very forceful in our political and economic pressure that has been applied in North Korea,” Spicer said. “I think we will continue to apply that.” “I’m not going to get ahead of where we may or may not go,” he added. Spicer sidestepped questions regarding rumors that he will soon leave his post as press secretary to pursue a different position within the administration. “We’re always looking for ways to do a better job of articulating the president’s message and his agenda,” Spicer said. “We’ll continue to have those discussions internally. And when we have an announcement of a personal nature, we’ll let you know.” Spicer has given this kind of tight-lipped performance before. During a briefing in May, he spent nearly 11 minutes describing Trump’s first presidential trip overseas before dodging nearly every other question from reporters in the remaining 20 minutes. “I haven’t asked him,” he told a reporter who wanted to know whether Trump accepts the widespread scientific consensus that human activity contributes to climate change. “I can get back to you.” type=type=RelatedArticlesblockTitle=Related... + articlesList=59482cfde4b07499199ddcaa,594915bee4b07499199e7a40 -- 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
20 июня, 14:08

Пчелы попали в ДТП в Арагацотнской области

Оригинальная автоавария случилась накануне в Арагацотнской области Армении: перевернулся автомобиль, полный пчелиных ульев. Об этом пишут СМИ. Примерно в 22:00 по местному времени (21:00 мск) нагруженная ульями машина марки Dodge …

20 июня, 10:07

Macron under-fire aide quits French government for 'strategic' parliament post

PARIS (Reuters) - Richard Ferrand, a close aide of Emmanuel Macron who was named a minister weeks ago, said on Tuesday his move out of government to a job as leader of his party in parliament was "strategic", and he dodged questions as to whether he had been sidelined by the French president.

19 июня, 07:45

Financial Details You Should Keep Secret (Even From Your Family)

When it comes to your finances, it's perfectly reasonable to keep some secrets, especially when your family enters the equation.

18 июня, 02:00

Deadlocked: Being Female In America

I don’t know what it’s like to be black. I don’t know what it’s like to be gay. I don’t know what it’s like to be Muslim, Mexican, African, or Jewish. To be terrorized, tyrannized, marginalized, or oppressed. I don’t know what it’s like to be shot in my car, hung from a tree, bombed in my bed, or whipped in the town square. I don’t know the hardship of backbreaking labor that affords little but poverty while being denigrated for my immigration status. I don’t know the anguish of putting my child in a rickety boat to sail a treacherous sea to be turned away by those terrified of our ethnicity. I don’t know what it’s like to be judged harshly for my skin color, the shape of my eyes, the letters in my name, the gender of my lover, or the religion I believe. What I do know? I know what it’s like to be a woman. Specifically, a woman in America. While the assignation may not typically engender tragedies like the above, it does come with its own list of degradations and diminishments, “isms” and marginalizations; mitigating and dismissing factors. Being a woman in America is a full-time audition. The history of sexism, misogyny, and patriarchal oppression is long and well-documented. From whatever angle viewed, it’s clear women have endured minimization, harassment, and violence throughout time in their quest to simply BE... be anywhere near a level playing field with men. They’ve had to transcend stereotypes and cliches of the most ignorant and egregious kind just to accomplish what men have systemically taken for granted: getting the vote, advancing in a job; even getting a job. Legally asserting their independence from and equality with their spouses. Maintaining their dignity. Being seen as valued and contributing members of society throughout their lives. Being judged for who they are and what they’ve accomplished rather than the chromosomes of their DNA. And while — as with many marginalized groups — improvements have evolved; changes have been implemented, and new laws have forced society toward higher consciousness, being a woman in America remains a challenging status, one set on shaky foundation that is daily buffeted by persistent deficits in cultural and political empathy. Understanding and accepting what it’s like to be a woman in this country is demonstrably difficult for some men, too many men, but even some women have trouble stoking empathy for fellow females who may live a different lifestyle, follow a different God, or vote a different party. If fact, during Election 2016 I’m not sure I’ve ever seen as many women rip apart, annihilate, or otherwise flay the predominant female candidate in ways that went far beyond, “I just don’t agree with her politics.” It was ugly and often irrational, and when far-left women like Susan Sarandon and Rosario Dawson sneered that female supporters of Hillary Clinton were just “voting with their vaginas,” or, conversely, liberal women who found Sarah Palin or Carly Fiorina offensive were judged for “betraying one of their gender,” there was no arguing that sexist thinking is not specific to men. But while women have been broad-stroked for those cliched tendencies toward in-demographic “cat-fighting”; for jealousies, envy, gossip, and competitiveness (bitchiness) toward other women, the behemoth in the room is, and will likely always be, the way men view, treat, and marginalize women... sometimes without even realizing it, sometimes couched in philosophical rationale; sometimes under the misguided notion that sexism doesn’t exist, doesn’t apply, or is otherwise a “cry wolf”... and sometimes with the full, blatant, and obvious perspective that they, as men, are more powerful, more worthy; more entitled, valuable, and dominant than the “weaker sex.” When the Cosby trial deadlocked and the judge declared a mistrial, the outpouring of response — as it has been throughout this story — swung from the trolling, “Those women were a bunch of gold-diggers looking for a payday,” and “If any of this was true why didn’t they come forward sooner?” to the defeated anger of, “Women are guilty until proven innocent,” “Bill Cosby’s mistrial is the reason I never reported,” and “Victim blaming in a rape trial...what else is new?” I, of course, am in the latter camp. Because I’m a woman in America. And I have experienced, witnessed, tangled with, debated, fought, defended, and suffered through the conundrums of what that status entails. And I know, as any honest woman willing to face unvarnished truth knows, that most women face some measure of sexism and misogyny in their lives, sometimes in such ingrained, accepted ways that they don’t or won’t admit it: “It’s just the way it is.” “It’s men being men.” “It’s women being oversensitive.” “It’s... (fill in the blank).” But you can’t fool me. I’ve been there. I’ve seen it. I’ve experienced it. I’ve dealt with it. I’ve helped other women deal with it. It’s real, pervasive, and demoralizing. Certainly there are aspects of the issue that spark differing opinion and perspective, even amongst women. For example: I may be a feminist who strongly believes in gender equality, but I don’t subscribe to an extremist view of men and their maleness. As a woman with five brothers, a son, a husband, and loads of male friends, I have deep attachment to and respect for the male gender, and sometimes find women with perspectives harsher than my own to be off-putting: My “baby coach” had such a pejorative view of men that, as a woman about to give birth to a son, I stepped away in defense of my defenseless progeny. Charming actress, Mayim Bialik, might be sick of people calling women “girls,” but, to be perfectly honest, I like the term myself (if used as an endearment), and have heard men snarl “women/woman” with enough vitriol to know it ain’t the word, it’s the intent. I have female friends who bristle at any suggestion of male flirtation, labeling it as harassment, while I maintain it’s the intent and nuance that decides the line between playfulness and manipulation. But still. Sometimes a duck is a damn duck. Sometimes a man is an abuser, a harasser, a crude, crass sexist. Sometimes changes in cultural norms make it difficult for people of one generation to understand what women of another experienced and were pressured by. Sometimes subliminal acceptance of women as “less than” makes it harder to believe sixty different women of substance, with sixty similar stories, than a man who admits to criminal behavior yet holds the “celebrity card.” Being a woman in America means facing everything from those big moments of litigious abuse to the drip-drip-drip of confusing sexism that makes traversing life an exercise in dodge & parry. I’ve known many women who would agree with that statement; here are just some of their experiences: A young actress gets flustered about how to respond to a producer who puts his hand down her pants during an audition then tells her “you gotta be freer if you want to succeed in this business.” She attends the callback (because she’s determined to succeed and he’s a powerful figure), resists further attempts at assault; doesn’t get the job nor any future audition possibilities. A model, willing to shoot “art shots” with a known photographer, finds herself fending off attempted rape when said photographer crosses the line. She’s advised to keep it to herself, given their disparate statures. A waitress is commanded to “sit and have a drink” with her male boss just to get him to hand over her paycheck. A husband demands that his wife quit her singing job because he “knows what male musicians are like.” A writer whose face appears nowhere on her work and who maintains current skills and awareness of trends is fired for “aging out” of the online writing demographic. A smart, middle-aged women on social media is berated by a 20-something male who feels entitled enough to admonish her to be “ashamed” for criticizing a troller attacking her post about pay-parity. A record producer dismisses an experienced older singer in lieu of a younger one, remarking, “but I bet you were hot in the 80s.” A 70-something, male, Bernie Sanders’ supporter jeers that Hillary Clinton should “sit down and shut up because she’s a loser and has-been,” despite the fact that it’s the older man who lost the primary that’s out giving speeches as a matter of routine. Up-and-coming senator from California, Kamala Harris, is repeatedly interrupted and dismissed by male colleagues as “hysterical,” simply for being dogged in her questioning. The same is not inflicted about any male senators. A group of largely middle-aged men regularly sit in the chambers of Congress determining laws that impact women’s ability to control their reproductive decisions. A female TV host is insulted and verbally denigrated on tape by a man who boasts about grabbing women’s genitals simply because he can... that man currently resides in the White House. Sixty strong, capable women who, at a younger time in their lives (see #1), allowed themselves to be manipulated and assaulted by Bill Cosby, have repeatedly been called liars, cheats, and gold-diggers for finally having the courage to stand up and speak their truth. The jury deadlocked. The list goes on. Those reading this will likely have their own lists, their own truths. Others will dismiss all points as whining and weakness. But I know. We know. And, luckily, many men know too. We saw hundreds of them carrying signs of solidarity at the Women’s March; we work with many of them, share life, love; marry and help make the world a better place with them. Many wise, caring, fierce women — and the spouses with whom they’re having families — are raising sons to be compassionate, ethical men of integrity and fairness, and daughters to be self-protective, smart, independent women of courage. At some point the critical mass of all that cultural evolution will tip society to a place of gender equality and respect. With a government that’s fair and principled. With men who view women as equals. And women who are exceedingly clear on that concept. It can’t come soon enough. Photograph by Alexa Mazzerello @ Unsplash Related articles: Has America Really Become Less Tolerant Of Sexual Harassment? Women, Sex, and the Fear of Offending: A Post-Cosby Conversation ___________________________________________________________ Follow Lorraine Devon Wilke on Facebook, Twitter and Amazon. Details and links to her blog, photography, books, and music can be found at www.LorraineDevonWilke.com. -- 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.

09 июня 2015, 19:50

Пикапы Chevrolet. История начинается.

Пикапы - самые американские и самые, на мой взгляд, интересные автомобили. Я их люблю и хочу о них рассказать. А чтобы меня не обвиняли в "монетизации" сделаю это на примере марки, больше не представленной на нашем рынке. Не думаю, что GM хотя бы поблагодарит меня за эту публикацию.По некоторым данным, несколько самых первых пикапов Chevrolet были произведены еще в 1914 году. Они предназначались не для продажи, а для перевозки всевозможных грузов по территории автомобильного завода. так сказать, для внутреннего пользования! Понято, что ни один такой автомобиль не сохранился. Первые серийные пикапы были построены в городе Флинт, штат Мичиган, 22 ноября 1916-го и отгружены с завода 2 декабря того же года. Эта дата считается официальным выходом Chevrolet на рынок легких грузовиков. Машина, которую вы видите на фото, это современная реплика одного из первых пикапов Chevrolet 490.1918 модельный год ознаменовался выпуском сразу двух грузовых моделей. Обе они представляли собой грузовое шасси с металлическим капотом, под которым был установлен четырехцилиндровый бензиновый двигатель. В то время покупатели обычно сами оснащали автомобили деревянными кабинами, грузовыми платформами или кузовами, в зависимости от своих потребностей. На картинке вверху, пассажирская модификация модели Light Delivery. Я где-то читал, что в те годы за такой автомобиль просили $595. Немало, ведь это были другие, полновесные доллары, не те, что сейчас... Более тяжелая модель, построенная на той же базе, носила индекс T (Truck). Она отличалась усиленным шасси и ее грузоподъемность достигала одной тонны - вдвое больше, чем у Chevrolet 490. На машину устанавливался 37-сильный двигатель. Его мощности хватало, чтобы грузовик развивал скорость до 40 км/ч. В 1918 году чтобы купить такое транспортное средство нужно было выложить более 1000 долларов!В 1930 году на смену грузовым шасси пришли полноценные пикапы заводского производства. Компания Chevrolet приобрела кузовную фирму Martin-Parry и начала сама производить пикапы со стальной кабиной и установленным на заводе кузовом. Сердцем новых пикапов стал рядный шестицилиндровый двигатель. Его конструктивная особенность заключалась в верхнем расположении клапанов. Такие моторы стали характерной чертой практически всех пикапов Chevrolet следующих десятилетий.На фотографии модель Chevrolet Roadster Delivery, который впервые "засветился" в музыкальной кинокомедии "Follow Thru", вышедшей на экраны в 1930-м году. Видимо, в этом фильме что-то было связанно с гольфом, не случайно же сидящие в кузове актрисы держат в руках клюшки!К середине 1930-х полутонные автомобили с заводскими стальными кузовами стали основой рынка пикапов, где фирмы Mack, Studebaker и International конкурировали с Chevrolet, GMC, Ford и Dodge.В середине 1930-х годов, когда экономика США начала восстанавливаться после Великой депрессии компания Chevrolet вывела на рынок новые модели легких грузовиков обтекаемой аэродинамической формы, которая до сих пор считается эталоном дизайна той эпохи. Помимо прочих усовершенствований, модели образца 1937 года обрели усиленный кузов и более мощный 78-сильный двигатель.Этот пикап Chevrolet образа 1937 года с честью выдержал изнурительное путешествие длиной 10 245 миль по Соединенным Штатам, проходившее под наблюдением Американской автомобильной ассоциации (ААА). Кстати, средний расход топлива составил 11,3 л/100 км - неплохо даже по современным меркам!В начале 1947 года Chevrolet представила легкие грузовики серии Advanced Design – первые среди всех автомобилей корпорации General Motors, полностью обновленные после Второй мировой войны. Замысел рекламщиков и производителей состоял в том, чтобы сделать утилитарные машины более яркими, выразительными и привлекательными для потребителей. Дизайнеры компании, действую по команде маркетологов, шире расставили фары, установив их на крылья, а также подчеркнули решетку радиатора пятью горизонтальными планками. Получилось неплохо! На фото - полутонный пикап Chevrolet Advanced Design 1947-го модельного года.Машины, выполненные в этой, удачно найденной, стилистике, продержались на конвейере с 1947 по 1953 год, а затем, в начале 1955 года, был обновлен дизайн передней части (на фото вверху).После выхода на рынок моделей серии Advanced Design предпочтения американских покупателей стало постепенно смещаться в сторону пикапов. Если перед войной соотношение между продажей пассажирских автомобилей и легких грузовиков составляло примерно 4:1, то 1950 году уже 2,5:1. Пикапы стремительно набирали популярность! В середине 1950-х годов, полностью восстановившаяся после войны Америка переживала потребительский бум. Покупатели стали еще более разборчивыми и требовательными к дизайну и техническим характеристикам автомобилей. В связи с этим, в 1955 году Chevrolet представила публике совершенно новую линейку пикапов Task Force, дизайн которых перекликался с престижной легковой моделью Chevrolet Bel Air. А в качестве опции на пикапы стали устанавливать более мощные двигатели V8.В 1955 году была выпущена специальная версия пикапа Cameo Carrier. Это была уже не "рабочая лошадка", а стильный автомобиль, более уместный на подъездной дорожке к роскошному особняку, чем на ферме или заводской площадке. Можно считать, что именно с этого момента большие американские пикапы перестали быть чисто утилитарными транспортными средствами. Модель Cameo Carrier производился относительно недолго, всего лишь до 1958 года. Но ей на смену уже шли новые еще более роскошные пикапы. 1959 год. Красавица Chevrolet El Camino просто очаровала публику эффектным дизайном с характерными для того времени «килями» как у легковых моделей Chevrolet и функциональностью полутонного пикапа. Впрочем, грузить в такую машину сено и солому вредил кто-то стал. "Фермерской" эта машина могла быть только на постановочных рекламных фотографиях а в повседневном использовании ее практичность, как говорится, оставляла желать... Вскоре это поняли и покупатели. Восторги поутихли и производство El Camino по-быстрому свернули, для того... чтобы возродить через три года! Но уже в новом качестве. С мощным двигателем V8 под капотом Chevrolet El Camino 1964 модельного года стала одним из первых маскл-каров компании. Еще за два года, до появления легендарного Camaro! А в 1968 году появилась спортивная версия пикапа. Ее назвали El Camino Super Sport. С тех пор все самые "заряженные" модели Chevrolet стали носить индекс SS.Но я как-то забежал вперед. Помимо El Camino в 60-е годы встречались еще более причудливые пикапы. Например Chevrolet Corvair Rampside 1961-го года.Интереснейшей особенностью этой модели стал второй откидывающийся борт, находящийся сбоку, как дверь у микроавтобуса. Да и внешне пикап Chevrolet Corvair здорово напоминал автобус. А еще он был заднемоторным - шестицилиндровый опоенный двигатель находился под полом. Конструкция получилась слишком уж оригинальной и покупатели ее не оценили. Источники утверждают, что таких машин было выпущено всего-то около 800 штук. Тем не менее, своей страницы в истории пикапов Chevrolet модель Corvair достойна!На этом мы пока остановимся. Продолжение следует!