• Теги
    • избранные теги
    • Компании1134
      • Показать ещё
      Люди379
      • Показать ещё
      Международные организации72
      • Показать ещё
      Страны / Регионы792
      • Показать ещё
      Разное922
      • Показать ещё
      Формат41
      Показатели93
      • Показать ещё
      Издания135
      • Показать ещё
      Сферы1
Выбор редакции
29 апреля, 13:00

Growing Fertilizer Trees in Malawi

Over at Agroforestry World:The adoption of fertilizer trees on farms is a simple and effective way to improve soil fertility, food productivity and therefore contribute to food security. Yet, there is still little empirical research that documents the impact of fertilizer trees on food security among smallholder farmer households. Researchers from the World Agroforestry Centre carried out a study in Malawi to analyze the impact of the adoption of fertilizer trees on food security among smallholder farmers. Results from the study showed that fertilizer trees improve food security for adopters in maize-based mixed farming systems through increased value of production and productivity...[more]A fertilizer factory on the farmimage viaThe World Agroforestry Centre has calculated that if half a million farmers, each with 0.2 hectares, were to plant fertilizer trees, the amount of nitrogen they would fix in a year would be equivalent to 200 kilograms per hectare.If the farmers were buying this as mineral fertilizer, it would cost them US$5.8 million a year. Little wonder,then, that Mariko Majoni of Jiya village describes the fertilizer trees that have enabled him to dramatically...[more]

Выбор редакции
28 апреля, 22:30

How Jay IDK Is Working To Build His Empire

Maryland rapper Jay IDK talks Adult Swim partnership, managing his own career, and touring with Isaiah Rashad.

28 апреля, 21:44

Diverting Attention from the Tragedy of Palestine

Paul R. Pillar Israel Palestinian Territories Iran, The United Nations always has had, and rightfully so, a strong role in handling the conflict between Arabs and Jews over land in Palestine.  When the Ottoman Empire collapsed after World War I, Britain assumed administration of Palestine under a mandate from the League of Nations.  In the aftermath of World War II, when an overburdened Britain declared that it was ridding itself of the burden of Palestine, and with the League of Nations having died, it was appropriate that the successor international organization, the United Nations, would address the issue.  A special committee of the United Nations drew up a partition plan under which Palestine would be divided into a Jewish state and an Arab state.  The UN General Assembly approved a modified version of the plan in November 1948. The plan was generous to the Jewish side, as reflected in heavy Zionist lobbying (especially lobbying in the United States) in favor of it, and Arab states voting against the plan in the General Assembly.  Although Jews constituted only one-fourth, and Arabs three-fourths, of the population of Palestine at the time, the proposed Jewish state would get over half the land.  Subsequent armed combat made the disconnect between population and land even greater.  The land controlled by the Jewish state went from 55 percent of Palestine in the original plan of the UN committee, to 61 percent in the modified version that the General Assembly voted on, to 78 percent after the armistice of 1949, to 100 percent after the war that Israel initiated in 1967. The UN partition plan remains Israel’s founding document: an international charter for the creation of the State of Israel.  This is too easily forgotten among more recent rhetoric about the United Nations being allegedly an anti-Israeli forum.  The same partition plan also was a charter for creation of a Palestinian Arab state.  With the subsequent events determined by Israel’s superior armed might, that part of the charter has gone unrealized.  It represents unfinished business.  So members of the United Nations appropriately have remained, as is said in diplomatic parlance, seized of the matter. Read full article

Выбор редакции
28 апреля, 20:34

How Jay IDK Is Working To Build His Empire

Musician Jay IDK sat down with us at SXSW to talk about the struggles of being an independent artist, and reflect on how his time in prison galvanized his musical career.

28 апреля, 19:59

Forget Andrew Jackson, The Right Thinks Trump Is Calvin Coolidge!

Republican Calvin Coolidge, who in 1923 ascended to the presidency following the death of the corrupt and dunderheaded Warren Harding, was a man of few words. But some of the most famous of the few were, “The chief business of the American people is business.” Donald Trump, on the other hand, is often a man of many words, but rarely do they fit together to make a coherent sentence or complete thought. And we know for sure that he, too, believes the chief business of America is business, especially when it’s his business. Oh, and Jared and Ivanka’s, whose junkets on Dad’s behalf appear to be merchandising missions for The Trump Empire. And his two safari-loving sons still holding forth from the family palace in New York, putatively running Pop’s business while protected by a moat of barriers and security guards ― take that, you huddled masses. Coolidge was known as “Silent Cal.” When a dinner party hostess told him, “You must talk to me, Mr. Coolidge. I made a bet today that I could get more than two words out of you,” Coolidge replied, “You lose.” The last thing our current president would be described as is silent. Trump can’t stop tweeting and gibbering. And he doesn’t like losers. The taciturn Coolidge has been described as the most conservative president in American history. No one is quite certain what Trump is, as his opinions and moods shift depending on the last person to whom he has spoken or something he’s just seen on Fox & Friends or heard from conspiracy theorist Alex Jones. They point rightward for sure, but as with so many conservative spokesmen these days, tinged with lunacy and utterly devoid of reason. And yet there on the august pages of The New York Times, Charles R. Kesler, a senior fellow of the right-wing Claremont Institute, gushes, “Mr. Trump remains the kind of conservative president whom one expects to say, proudly and often, ‘the chief business of the American people is business.’ Although Calvin Coolidge said it first, Mr. Trump shows increasing signs of thinking along broadly Coolidgean lines, and of redirecting Republican policies toward the pre-New Deal, pre-Cold War party of William McKinley and Coolidge, with its roots in the party of Abraham Lincoln.” Oh brother. Professor Kesler is projecting onto Trump a consistency of thought and belief that thus far seems unproven. Comparing him to McKinley is a stretch, and to Lincoln — well, absurd. Really now, does this remotely sound like Donald Trump? “We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.” On the one hand, Kesler’s adoration of Trump makes sense, given that last September it was the Claremont Institute that published a pseudonymous and now-notorious essay titled “The Fight 93 Election,” basically telling conservative Republicans that if they did not support Trump’s presidential candidacy, their world was doomed. Why? Because Republican opposition to Trump, the author warned, “is the mark of a party, a society, a country, a people, a civilization that wants to die. Trump, alone among candidates for high office in this or in the last seven (at least) cycles, has stood up to say: I want to live. I want my party to live. I want my country to live. I want my people to live.” Clunky pearls of wisdom from what passes today for conservatism. Where have you gone, George Will, now that they need you? Next thing we know, Ann Coulter will be running the Library of Congress. Calvin Coolidge would never have gone for such histrionics. Yet it’s worth taking a moment to consider what did occur during his administration. His years in office were the height of “The Roaring ‘20s” ― a time of economic whoopee marked by wild financial speculation, extravagant bank loans and debt that contributed to the 1929 market crash and the Great Depression. Coolidge himself was the epitome of frugality and respectability but like Donald Trump (who fancies himself “the king of debt,” by the way — a real conservative, no?) he favored enormous tax cuts, slashing spending, high tariffs on imports and cramming regulatory agencies with pro-business types. Unlike Trump, he favored a low profile and as far as policy goes preferred inertia to action. Here’s what the noted columnist Walter Lippmann said at the time: “This active inactivity suits the mood and certain of the needs of the country admirably. It suits all the business interests which want to be let alone.... And it suits all those who have become convinced that government in this country has become dangerously complicated and top-heavy....” At that last part, you can just see all Trump’s plutocratic Cabinet members and advisors nodding their heads in vigorous agreement. When he died, Calvin Coolidge’s net worth was less than a million in 2016 dollars and he left it all to his wife Grace. Trump, who says his net worth may be as much as $10 billion (how can we hope to know if he won’t release his tax returns?), and his family are using the White House to make the family fortune multiply, as if the presidency were a perpetual goose laying golden eggs. Each news cycle brings more stories of conflicts of interest, and the tax cut plan announced on Wednesday is a sweeping bow to the rich. “It is striking,” Neil Irwin at The New York Times noted, how much the proposal favors Trump and his kin: “He is a high-income earner. He receives income from 564 business entities, according to his financial disclosure form, and could take advantage of the low rate on ‘pass-through’ companies. According to his leaked 2005 tax return, he paid an extra $31 million because of the alternative minimum tax that he seeks to eliminate. And his heirs could eventually enjoy his enormous assets tax-free.” So conservatism under Trump and his cronies now running government has brought back a revised version of the gold standard: How much gold you can mine from privatizing the mother lode of government is the mark of your success. No wonder Trump admires Vladimir Putin so much: They are the Midas and Ali Baba of autocracy. But conservatives they are not, unless to conservatives greed has become the coin of the realm. One more thing: President Trump doesn’t sleep much at night, reportedly getting about five hours of shut-eye (obviously, the cause is not a guilty conscience). President Coolidge loved to sleep, as much as twelve hours at a time. When he awoke from a White House nap he often would ask his butler, “Is the country still there?” He meant it as a joke. Today, the question isn’t funny. -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

28 апреля, 15:29

How hard work paid off for the brothers who run Tyler Perry Studios

Growing up in a predominantly Cuban community in Los Angeles, Ozzie and Will Areu never would have dreamed they would become media executives running a film and television empire.

Выбор редакции
28 апреля, 15:00

Did Ellen's coming out episode really change TV for LGBT characters?

It’s 20 years on from the landmark network TV moment that saw Ellen DeGeneres tell 42 million viewers that she’s gay, but progress remains slow Related: No more Mr Nice Gay: how TV representation changed from Will & Grace to Empire Twenty years ago, 42 million viewers watched the now famous Puppy Episode of Ellen DeGeneres’ sitcom, Ellen. That night her character finally admitted what DeGeneres herself had recently revealed on the cover of Time magazine – when the fictional Ellen told Susan (Laura Dern), the woman she had the hots for, that she was gay – all over an airport Tannoy. In reality, the declaration reverberated even more loudly. Though the episode was a ratings success and subsequently won a Peabody award, the backlash was vicious and so damaging that for a long time DeGeneres thought her career might never recover. Dern has said that her part in the episode lost her work. There were advertising boycotts and protests. ABC renewed the show for another season, but took the decision to slap a “parental advisory” warning at the beginning of each episode, despite the fact that the comedy was gentle, to say the least. It was criticised for being “too gay”, even by people within the LGBT community. And then it was cancelled. “We called it the Puppy Episode because Ellen Throws Her Career Away seemed too on the nose,” DeGeneres recently joked, a rare sharp moment in her typically warm and fuzzy talkshow. Continue reading...

Выбор редакции
28 апреля, 14:08

China publishes addresses of corruption suspects abroad

Beijing’s most wanted may be holed up in a Staten Island cul-de-sac or a suburb of California’s Inland Empire. Others could be hiding in a waterfront condo in the Carribbean or the east end of London.

28 апреля, 06:19

Trump Says He Thought Being President Would Be Easier Than His Old Life

He misses driving, feels as if he is in a cocoon, and is surprised how hard his new job is. President Donald Trump on Thursday reflected on his first 100 days in office with a wistful look at his life before the White House. “I loved my previous life. I had so many things going,” Trump told Reuters in an interview. “This is more work than in my previous life. I thought it would be easier.” A wealthy businessman from New York, Trump assumed public office for the first time when he entered the White House on Jan. 20 after he defeated former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in an upset. More than five months after his victory and two days shy of the 100-day mark of his presidency, the election is still on Trump’s mind. Midway through a discussion about Chinese President Xi Jinping, the president paused to hand out copies of what he said were the latest figures from the 2016 electoral map. “Here, you can take that, that’s the final map of the numbers,” the Republican president said from his desk in the Oval Office, handing out maps of the United States with areas he won marked in red. “It’s pretty good, right? The red is obviously us.” He had copies for each of the three Reuters reporters in the room. Trump, who said he was accustomed to not having privacy in his “old life,” expressed surprise at how little he had now. And he made clear he was still getting used to having 24-hour Secret Service protection and its accompanying constraints. “You’re really into your own little cocoon, because you have such massive protection that you really can’t go anywhere,” he said. When the president leaves the White House, it is usually in a limousine or an SUV. He said he missed being behind the wheel himself. “I like to drive,” he said. “I can’t drive any more.” Many things about Trump have not changed from the wheeler-dealer executive and former celebrity reality show host who ran his empire from the 26th floor of Trump Tower in New York and worked the phones incessantly. He frequently turns to outside friends and former business colleagues for advice and positive reinforcement. Senior aides say they are resigned to it. The president has been at loggerheads with many news organizations since his election campaign and decided not to attend the White House Correspondents’ Dinner in Washington on Saturday because he felt he had been treated unfairly by the media. “I would come next year, absolutely,” Trump said when asked whether he would attend in the future. The dinner is organized by the White House Correspondents’ Association. Reuters correspondent Jeff Mason is its president. -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

Выбор редакции
28 апреля, 04:06

On the heterogeneous impact of free trade agreements

There is a large empirical literature examining the effects of free trade agreements. However, most studies to date have focused on a common average effect across all agreements or have assumed that the effects are common across similar types of agreements. This column examines heterogeneity in the effects of free trade agreements. Along with across-agreement heterogeneity, substantial within-agreement heterogeneity is observed. The effects of a specific agreement can be starkly different for two trading partners.

27 апреля, 19:59

Are We Really That Divided?

Authored by Charles Hugh-Smith via OfTwoMinds blog, If we don't challenge these poisonous polarizing binaries, they may well trigger the accidental suicide of our polity. If there is any statement about politics in America that qualifies as as a truism accepted by virtually everyone, left, right or independent, it's that America is a deeply divided nation. But is this really true? Like everyone else, I too accepted that the line between Hillary supporters and detractors, and Trump supporters and detractors, was about as "either/or" as real life gets. But are we really that divided? A fascinating 55-minute lecture by historian Michael Kulikowski entitled The Accidental Suicide of the Roman Empire has made me question this consensus certitude. Maybe the real driver of this division is devisive language--more specifically, language that is designed to drive a wedge between us. In other words, maybe the divisions are an intentional consequence of the language we're using. Kulikowski makes a number of nuanced arguments in his talk, but his primary point is that the late-stage Roman Empire collapsed partly as an unintended consequence of rhetorical binaries, polarizing rhetoric that lumped an extremely diverse Imperial populace into false binaries: Roman or Barbarian, Christian or heretic, and so on. The actual lived reality was completely different from these artificial either-or binary classifications. As Kulikowski explains (and anyone who has read a modern history of late-stage Rome will know this from other accounts), many "Roman generals" were "Barbarian" by birth, and the boundary between "Roman citizen" and "Barbarian" was porous on purpose. Rome had prospered by ensuring the boundary was porous (not counting slaves, of course). An impoverished young man from the hinterlands could join the Roman military and achieve a stable income and Roman citizenship. (Women could advance through marrying into a Roman-citizen family--even one that was "Barbarian" until recently.) By Imperial decree in the 3rd Century A.D., any free person inside the boundaries of Imperial Rome was declared a Roman citizen. So numerous people of a variety of ethnicities may have been born outside the boundaries (i.e. Barbarian) became as "Roman" as any native born Roman in terms of their obligations to pay taxes and rights to judicial review. This social/economic upward mobility was a key "secret sauce" of Rome's enduring success. So why the sudden fatal attraction to completely false polarizing binaries? Kulikowski makes the case that deploying these rhetorical devices--polarizing binaries-- served the political purposes of warring elites within the Imperial aristocracy. For example, one sure-fire way to undermine a political challenger was to label him as a "Barbarian." Even though he might have served in the Roman army from his youth, his political opponent could transform him into a "bad guy" by virtue of his being born a non-Roman. Sound familiar? (Hint: try "deplorable".) There is a self-destructive, self-reinforcing dynamic in this polarizing rhetoric: though it served the political interests of individual members of the elite, it did so at the cost of the entire polity, which was poisoned by these false binaries that then developed into dominant narratives. Hence Kulikowski's startling conclusion: Rome didn't "die of natural causes"--it accidentally committed suicide once its political elites embracing polarizing binaries as political weapons. These weapons seemed targeted to their users, but the rhetorical narratives spread like a deadly virus through the empire, helping to trigger collapse of the Imperial core. Bloomberg-BusinessWeek published a major multiple-part story in September of 2016 prior to the election entitled One Nation Divisible: The American Electorate. The story repeats the truism of America being a divided nation, but my take-away was not the either-or binaries accepted by the mainstream and alternative media alike-- my take-away was a newfound appreciation for the incredible diversity in America, not just ethnically, but geographically, demographically, and in every other measure of complex diversity. How could a nation of such astounding diversity be artificially cleaved into polarizing binaries? The short answer is that it cannot: the polarizing binaries are artificial rhetorical devices, completely out of touch with the nuanced, complex reality of a diverse populace with widely diverse opinions on a wide spectrum of political topics. My conclusion is that we should be alert to the great distance between these politically useful but systemically poisonous polarizing binaries and the complex and dynamic realities of the American populace. We would also benefit from recognizing the artificiality and self-serving nature of these polarizing binaries, and be alert to the false and destructive narratives and teleologies they generate. For more on narratives and teleologies, please read my recent essay The Deep State's Dominant Narratives and Authority Are Crumbling. We've already witnessed the toxic weeds of polarizing binaries spreading across the political landscape, choking out real-world narratives: diverse populations are being demonized as "deplorables," "racists," "evil," and so on. So many of our choices are false choices based on polarizing binaries. For example-- how many voters would have championed an alternative to Hillary or Trump? If given a choice, would 60% of the voters have chosen someone other than the two party candidates? (Hint: Bernie Sanders is the most popular politico in America, according to recent polls.) Identity politics is another rhetorical device designed to consolidate diverse populaces into politically useful (to the elites jockeying for power) binary blocks: you're either "for us" (and good) or "against everything good" (bad, evil, racist, etc.) If we don't challenge these poisonous polarizing binaries, they may well trigger the accidental suicide of our polity. THe saying is the demographics is destiny; the same can be said of the language we use to divide or unite people of good faith who are sick of the parasitic, predatory elites that are plundering the nation.

27 апреля, 18:25

Garrisoning The Globe, A Missing American Story

Cross-posted with TomDispatch.com If you’re a reader of TomDispatch, then you know something of real importance about this country that most Americans don’t.  As an imperial power, there’s never been anything like the United States when it comes to garrisoning this planet.  By comparison, the Romans and imperial Chinese were pikers; the Soviet Union in its prime was the poorest of runners-up; even the British, at the moment when the sun theoretically never set on their empire, didn’t compare.  The U.S. has hundreds of military bases ranging in size from small American towns to tiny outposts across the planet, and yet you could spend weeks, months, years paying careful attention to the media here and still have no idea that this was so.  Though we garrison the globe in a historically unprecedented way, that fact is not part of any discussion or debate in this country; Congress doesn’t hold hearings on global basing policy; reporters aren’t sent out to cover the subject; and presidents never mention it in speeches to the nation.  Clearly, nothing is to be made of it. It’s true that, if you’re watching the news carefully, you will find references to a small number of these bases.  In the present Korean crisis, for instance, there has been at least passing mention of Washington’s bases in South Korea (and the danger that the American troops on them might face), though often deep in articles on the subject.  If, to pick another example, you were to read about the political situation in Bahrain, you might similarly find mentions of the U.S. base in that small Gulf kingdom that houses the Navy’s Fifth Fleet.  Generally, though, despite the millions of Americans, military and civilian, who have cycled through American bases abroad in recent years, despite the vast network of them (the count is now approximately 800), and despite the fact that they undergird American military policy globally, they are, for all intents and purposes, a kind of black hole of non-news.  Don’t even think to ask just why the U.S. garrisons the planet in this fashion or what it might mean.  It would be un-American of you to do so. I must admit that, until I met Chalmers Johnson back at the turn of the century, I was a typical American on the subject.  I never gave much thought to what he called our “empire of bases.”  My own shock on grasping the nature of this country’s highly militarized presence across this planet led me to decide that, at least at TomDispatch, American basing policy would get some of the attention it obviously deserves.  This initially happened thanks to Johnson himself; later to David Vine, author of a rare book, Base Nation, on the subject; and finally to this site’s own Nick Turse, who in recent years has been following the U.S. military’s global basing policy as it moved onto the rare continent that had largely lacked them: Africa.  No longer.  Today, in “America’s War-Fighting Footprint in Africa,” he offers his latest update on the burgeoning set of bases and outposts that the U.S. military has been building or occupying and expanding there without notice, discussion, or debate, a network that will ensure we are plunged into the spreading terror wars on that continent for decades to come. -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

27 апреля, 15:50

15 Shocking Behind-the-Scenes Secrets From Your Favorite Movies

The production process can be messy, unpredictable, and at times, even dangerous, and that goes double for some of the biggest movies ever made.

Выбор редакции
27 апреля, 15:06

Peter Guber Has Quickly Assembled One Of The World's Most Diverse Sports Empires

From movies like Midnight Express (7 Acadamy Award niminations) to sports teams like the Golden State Warriors (2015 NBA champs), it's all about gettting people emotionally involved.

27 апреля, 14:56

At 100 Days, Why Do Most Of Trump's Voters Still Love Him?

One hundred days in, why do most of his voters still love Trump? It might not be what you think. A recent poll showed 96% of Trump supporters have no regrets about their votes. As always, it is still a minority of Americans. But after all of the miss-steps, and outright lies of the first 100 days, that leaves many other Americans mystified. Is there anything progressives can do to chip away at his seemingly solid base? Politics is more like a love affair with the voters than an exercise in convincing some economic theorist’s “rational decision maker” to make calculations about the benefits and negatives of a candidate or leader. People don’t tote up all of the ways a candidate will benefit them or hurt them on lists and weigh the calculation, any more than a lover makes a list of the pros and cons of the subject of his or her affection. There are some very biological reasons why people fall into “lust.” But falling in love is different. You don’t fall in love with someone because you have such a high opinion of all his or her personal qualities, or their skills or their brilliant mind or their body. When you fall in love, it is more than anything else because you feel good about yourself in the presence of the other person. It is because your lover makes you feel special, empowered – because he or she pays attention – to you. The same is true in politics. People become committed to leaders who make them feel good about themselves – who make them feel strong and respected – empowered and cared about. It’s not about their policy agenda, or their great abilities, or their political skill. All of these might contribute to the feeling we have about our relationship with them, but the feeling itself is the central matter at issue. People become committed to leaders who make them feel good about themselves – who make them feel strong and respected... Just like in a love affair, we want to feel that the leader is unconditionally on our side; that he or she really likes us for who we are; that the leader respects us – believes that we’re important, that we matter. We want to feel that the other person empowers us to be more than we would otherwise be. Competence matters, but it matters in exactly the same way it does in a personal relationship. We want to believe not only that the leader is unconditionally on our side, but that we can trust him or her to have the competency to take care of us – to keep us safe – to actually find a way to be there for us when we need her. Inspiration functions exactly the same way. When we say that a leader inspires us, we mean something very specific. The feeling of inspiration has two components. First, the leader makes us feel that we are part of a cause that is bigger than ourselves. But second, he or she also makes us believe that each of us, personally, can play a significant role in achieving that larger goal or mission. In other words, we are not inspired by someone because of his or her qualities. We are inspired because of how he or she makes us feel about ourselves. We are not inspired because we think that the leader is “important,” but because the leader gives us a sense that we are important. The inspirational leader gives us meaning. Donald Trump courted his base. Before Donald Trump, many of his base voters felt they had been left behind by the global economy – ignored and cast aside by political leaders. Some felt they had been ridiculed as bumpkins or rednecks. Donald Trump didn’t just make them feel that he cared. He made them feel that they mattered. He gave them a sense of empowerment. Some of it was good old fashion racism. But it was more than that. At his rallies he made his base voters feel good about themselves. He gave them a sense of agency. Of course, Donald Trump was a great con man. He didn’t really love ordinary working people. He was not unconditionally on their side. He could not be trusted to keep them safe. It’s not too big a stretch to say that he showered his attentions on them, he seduced them, he married them – for their money. He may come home at night with flowers. He may look them in their eyes and whisper sweet nothings into their ears. But every day he goes out and gallivants around with his true lovers: the billionaires who – like himself – want to con them out of their already shrinking assets. Donald Trump didn’t just make them feel that he cared. He made them feel that they mattered. His base voters should have remembered what all of their mothers had told them: don’t marry someone you want to reform. He cheated on them from the first day – the same way he cheated years earlier on the students he defrauded at Trump University. He proposes eliminating health insurance coverage from 24 million Americans – many of whom voted to support him – so he can give $600 billion in tax breaks to himself and the billionaire elite. He proposes cutting taxes for big corporations and the wealthy – because he says, it will create jobs for you, “my love.” Of course there is no empirical evidence whatsoever that cutting taxes for the rich creates new jobs, or new tax revenue. In fact, we tried trickle-down economics during the Bush years and it ended producing stagnation and ultimately the Great Recession that cost 8 million jobs. Tax cuts for big corporations and the wealthy have always had only one result: they make the rich, richer – every time. Trump rails about companies that outsource jobs abroad. But all the while his firm has outsourced the production of clothing and furniture and even steel. When Donald Trump wants to socialize, he doesn’t go to a VFW hall or the corner tavern – he goes to his exclusive private club at Mar-a-Lago. When Donald Trump selects decision-makers for his cabinet or to staff his White House, he doesn’t turn to those who work to advance the interests of workers or organizes unions that allow ordinary people to bargain together with the boss for better wages and working conditions. He turns to his true loves – millionaires and billionaires. So why are all of those ordinary voters who fell in love with Trump sticking with him? For the same reason lovers of all stripes ignore the fatal flaws in the subject of their affections for a long time before they decide to break it off. They are invested. He still comes home and tells them – with enormous sincerity – just how much he loves them – how much they matter. You can’t really tell someone that his or her spouse is a complete jerk. People have to find out for themselves. And before long, many Trump supporters – especially those who supported Barack Obama in 2008 or 2012 – will inevitably begin to have second thoughts. Their ardor will cool. And even if they don’t completely abandon him, they’ll become disillusioned. In fact, many won’t be chomping at the bit to go out to vote for GOP members of Congress who supported his program in 2018. And in 2018, Democrats and progressives will have something else going for them. All of the vast majority of Americans who never fell in love with Trump will be fired up like never before. But what about those working-class Trump supporters? What can we do to speed the process of disillusionment along? How can we help them see Trump’s true colors sooner rather than later? Three things are key: We can continuously point out the contradictions between his ardent testimony about how much he cares about ordinary people and his actual actions and policies. We can offer bold, compelling initiatives that actually do address the interests of ordinary people: more taxes on the rich, not less; a public option that guarantees an affordable health care alternative to all Americans who need it; stronger unions to negotiate higher wages and better working conditions for ordinary workers; breaking up the biggest banks – rather than eliminating the restrictions that are intended to prevent their excesses from once again sinking the economy; a real bold public infrastructure program to create jobs and create value for us all, rather than subsidies for companies who build private infrastructure for themselves. Most importantly, we must respect and pay attention to the needs and interests of all ordinary Americans – not just the big campaign donors and the coastal elites. Respect is the key. We have to show them everyday that we will do battle for miners’ pensions; that we insist that our society spends as much educating the kids of rural and urban parents as we do educating the kids of families in upscale suburbs; that we are completely devoted to the idea that everyone should have a job that allows them to really contribute to our society and to build an economically secure future for their family – everyone. If we do those things, we can be confident that by 2018 a portion of those Trump supporters will be “former” Trump supporters – and for many others, the heat of Trump passion will have faded into the cold morning light. And for some – hell hath no fury like a voter scorned. Robert Creamer is a long-time political organizer and strategist, and author of the book: Stand Up Straight: How Progressives Can Win, available on Amazon.com. He is a partner in Democracy Partners. Follow him on Twitter @rbcreamer. type=type=RelatedArticlesblockTitle=Related... + articlesList=5900b9fbe4b0768c2682e1d2,5900d071e4b081a5c0f9f901,58fe25ace4b00fa7de1659e5,586fdb8fe4b043ad97e33ae8 -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

Выбор редакции
27 апреля, 13:37

Powershell Empire и FuzzBunch: эксплуатация нашумевшей уязвимости ETERNALBLUE

  14 апреля 2017 года был опубликован новый дамп от группы хакеров, именующих себя The Shadow Brokers. Среди прочего в дампе находится фреймворк FuzzBunch, позволяющий эксплуатировать опасные RCE-уязвимости ОС Windows практически в автоматическом режиме. Данная уязвимость устранена с выходом пачта MS17-010: он устраняет шесть проблем Windows SMB Server, пять из которых позволяют выполнить произвольный код через создание специального пакета Server Message Block (SMB) 1.0. В данной статье мы рассмотрим как злоумышленники могут эксплуатировать уязвимость ETERNALBLUE. Читать дальше →

Выбор редакции
27 апреля, 04:50

Visualizing Exter's Liquidity Pyramid (In Physical $100 Bills)

All the money and all the assets in the world, shown in physical cash form, in one graphic. (click image for huge legible version) Source: Demonocracy The Liquidity Pyramid was created for visualizing the organization of asset classes in terms of risk and size. As Demonocracy explains, the Liquidity Pyramid was created during the time in United States, when each dollar was backed by Gold. Gold forms the small base of most reliable value, and asset classes on progressively higher levels are more risky. The larger size of asset classes at higher levels is representative of the higher total worldwide notional value of those assets. While Exter's original pyramid placed Third World debt at the top, today derivatives hold this dubious honor. As financial risk increases, money tends to move from the more risky assets (Derivatives), to the least risky assets (to physical cash and then gold). Nothing is without risk, but risk is relative.  The issue is that there is very little physical cash and even less Gold compared to the more risky assets, this makes for a crowded trade in times of high risk when everyone wants to jump into cash and gold, pushing up the price. The little yellow rectangle on the left front is all the gold in the world in physical form. Source: Demonocracy All the gold in the world is NOT all in "financial investment grade" form. World Trade Center, Empire State & bunch of too-big-to-fail Bank HQ buildings are in the background to help illustrate the size. You are eye-level to the WTC top floors. The $1 Quadrillion Derivatives cash wall fades into the distance, because $1 Quadrillion is an estimation by the best analysts and truth is no one really knows the true size of the Derivatives Market.

27 апреля, 04:00

Only Marine Le Pen Represents France

Only Marine Le Pen Represents France Paul Craig Roberts Marine Le Pen is the only candidate for the French presidency who represents France. All the rest represent Washington and the EU. Why are the French people so slow to see the obvious facts? France died with Charles de Gaulle. He was the last French president.… The post Only Marine Le Pen Represents France appeared first on PaulCraigRoberts.org.

Выбор редакции
27 апреля, 02:42

The market paradigm versus the production paradigm

from Robert Wade Why have the large majority of professional economists, especially in the academy and in western-dominated international organizations like the World Bank and IMF, been committed to free trade policy, downplaying theoretical and empirical weaknesses in order to remain so? The teaching of economics in just about all universities of the western world, […]

Выбор редакции
27 апреля, 01:42

How Trump’s tax proposal could impact his own business empire

The proposal would slash taxes on the kinds of businesses that are key to the Trump Organization.

21 ноября 2013, 08:27

Список литературы от Андрея Фурсова [3]

Книги на иностранных языках. В качестве источника использованы статьи и выступления Андрея Ильича Фурсова.  Герберт Уэллс одна из самых зловещих фигур 20-го века, который в конце 30х годов написал две книги, одна называется "Открытый заговор", а другая "О будущем", где откровенно говорилось о том, что будущее это жёсткий контроль верхушки над населением, у власти должны быть учёные и технократы, остальные выполняют их волю. В этом отношении Оруэлл и Хаксли только популяризировали идеи Бертрана Рассела и Герберта Уэллса. Удивительным образом не переведено на русский язык всё, что связано с глобальным управлением, более того эти книжки не переводились даже для служебного пользования. Название: Behold a Pale Horse Автор: William Milton Cooper Год: 1991 Язык: английский Уильям Купер – это человек, который специализировался на таких темах, как убийство Кеннеди, летающие тарелки. Он автор книги «Конь бледный». Так вот в июне Уильям Купер делает заявление, что в Соединенных Штатах, скорее всего в сентябре, самое позднее в октябре, произойдут серьезные теракты, и вину за них возложат на человека по имени Усама бин Ладен. Именно так, потому что у нас часто пишут Осама бен Ладен. Дело в том, что в арабском языке нет буквы «о» и нет буквы «е», так что Усама бин Ладен. В конце 2001-го года Купера застрелили полицейские, обвинив его в том, что он якобы оказал сопротивление полиции, а потом побежал и стал отстреливаться. Бедолаги полицейские и те, кто стоял за ними не знали, что Купер не мог бегать. Он вьетнамский ветеран и у него не было одной ноги, был протез. Однако этого человека застрелили – человека, который в 2001-м году сообщил о готовящемся теракте. Тем не менее, не смотря на все это, все повесили на Усаму бин Ладена Название: Our Times Автор: A. N. Wilson Год: 2008 Язык: английский В книге «Наше время», это по сути дела социальная история Англии, написанная популярно, автор пишет, что в 50-е годы англичане жили довольно бедно после войны, но они знали, что они англичане. А вот при Тэтчер произошло следующее, пишет он – «Англия превратилась в ничейный дом». Название: Rise of Professional Society, Revised Edition: England since 1880 Автор: Harold Perkin Год: 1989 Язык: английский Название: L'empire et les nouveaux barbares Автор: Jean-Christophe Rufin Год: 1991 Язык: французский В 1991 году во Франции вышла во многом пророческая книга очень интересного автора Жана Кристофа Рюфэна «Империя и новые варвары». Он пишет о том, что после 2020 года Европа и Соединенные Штаты, но в первую очередь Европа, столкнутся с очень серьезной проблемой — наплывом мигрантов, новых варваров. И в этой связи у Севера есть только три возможные стратегии в отношениях с новыми варварами. Первую он называет стратегией Клебера. Клебер — это французский генерал, соратник Наполеона, которого тот оставил в Египте, где Клебер насаждал европейские порядки и был убит. Вторая стратегия — стратегия экс-министра стратегического планирования Бразилии Роберто Мангабейра Унгеры: белый человек, европеец поднимает знамя борьбы Востока против Запада и возглавляет афро-азиатские орды. Наконец, третья стратегия — это стратегия Марка Аврелия. Европейцы проводят черту и не пускают варваров на свою территорию. Книга вышла почти 20 лет назад, и сегодня ясно, что стратегия Марка Аврелия, которой симпатизировал Рюфен, не срабатывает — африканцы и арабы уже в Европе. Название: The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life Автор: Charles Murray, Richard J. Herrnstein Год: 1994 Язык: английский Название: Coming Apart: The State of White America, 1960-2010 Автор: Charles Murray Год: 2012 Язык: английский На основе социологического исследования автор говорит о том, что 1% наверху, он вообще никак не соотносится с 99% Америки и другого человечества. Эти люди, которые живут сами по себе вообще, у них своя замкнутая среда обитания. А остальные 99%, в принципе, им помеха – это лишние едоки и т.д. Не надо мыслящую Землю создавать, есть альтернативная уже форма, для которой остальные 99% не нужны. Название: Доклад "Кризис демокартии" (The Crisis of Democracy) Автор: С.Хантингтон, М.Крозье, Дз.Ватануки (Michel Crozier, Samuel P. Huntington, Joji Watanuki) Год: 1975 Язык: английский Название: How the Scots Invented the Modern World Автор: Arthur Herman Год: 2001 Очень часто национальное государство противопоставляется империям. Началось это еще в XIX веке, когда французская и английская пропаганда твердила о том, какие плохие империи Австро-Венгрия, Германия и Россия, и какие хорошие – национальные государства Франция и Великобритания. Это было лукавством. Дело в том, что и Франция, и Великобритания были империями. Одна – сухопутная колониальная империя, с заморскими владениями, а другая – просто морская империя. Обратите внимание, наиболее успешными были те империи, у которых ядром было то самое национальное государство. Разумеется, эти национальные государства использовали и другие этнические группы. Например, вся история Ост-Индской кампании – это на 20% шотландцы. Есть даже очень забавная книжка «Мир, который создали шотландцы» – об экспансии Великобритании. Но, в любом случае, именно имперскость, империя – хорошее противоядие-антидот национализма. История показывает, что трагическая ирония истории заключается в том, что вне и без империи русские вообще лишаются исторических шансов.  Название: Les Royaumes combattants Автор: Jean-François Susbielle Язык: французский В 2008 году в Париже вышла в свет книга Жан-Франсуа Сюсбьеля «Борющиеся царства. К новой мировой войне». По мнению автора, после 2020-го мир вступит в период, похожий на эпоху Чжаньго («Борющиеся царства») в китайской истории, когда семь примерно равных по силе царств – Ци, Чу, Янь, Хань, Чжао, Вэй и Цинь – в течение почти двух столетий (403–221 до н. э.) вели борьбу за объединение китайского мира. Похоже, глобальный мир тоже вступает в подобную эпоху, и предлагаемая система «автономного управления» – один из индикаторов ее приближения. Название: The Sorrows of Empire: Militarism, Secrecy, and the End of the Republic Автор: Chalmers Ashby Johnson Год: 2004 Язык: английский Как показывает история, контроль над миром или крупным регионом, как правило, оборачивается сворачиванием демократии внутри страны-контролера. Классический пример - Рим. Как только он захватил полный контроль над Средиземноморьем, республика была обречена. Кстати, Чалмерс Джонсон в книге "Печали империи" (2004 г.) прямо пишет о том, что республика в Америке закончилась в 1990-е годы, к власти фактически пришли военные. Они строят мировую империю, которая дорого обойдется американскому народу. У книги показательный подзаголовок: "Милитаризм, секретность и конец республики". "Имперская республика" США ХХ в. превращается в квазиимперию. Впрочем, мощь этой империи - как военную, так и финансовую - переоценивать не стоит. Название: Coningsby, or The New Generation Автор: Benjamin Disraeli Год: 1844 Язык: английский В РФ действительно налицо противостояние между богатыми и бедными, растущий разрыв, поляризация между ними — децильный коэффициент и индекс Джини зашкаливают. Ситуация весьма похожа на накал классового антагонизма в Великобритании 1830-1840-х годов, который Дизраэли, тогда ещё не премьер-министр, а романист, охарактеризовал как наличие "двух наций". Т.е. социальный разрыв был таков, что верхи и низы оказались чуждыми друг другу как две различные нации (то же было в пореформенной России). Какой же выход видел Дизраэли? Простой: сокращение опасного разрыва социальными и экономическими мерами. Название: The Anglo-American Establishment: From Rhodes to Cliveden Автор: Carroll Quigley Год: 1949 Язык: английский Можно сказать, что заговор был конкретной формой подготовки войн - системой выявления, артикуляции и представления тайным образом определенных интересов преимущественно наднационального уровня. А лучшим средством реализации этого процесса являлись различные закрытые или просто тайные структуры и их агенты. Причем многие структуры подобного рода создавались на самом высоком уровне. Один из лучших примеров - группа Сесила Родса, историю которой великолепно описал американский историк Кэрролл Куигли (1910-1977) в работе «Англо-американский истеблишмент», изданной в 1981 году. Название: Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy: Lord and Peasant in the Making of the Modern World Автор: Barrington Moore Jr. Год: 1966 Язык: английский Достаточно взглянуть на 3 разные модернизации в Западной Европе 17 -19 веков, чтобы понять, что они зависели от исхода социальных битв, социальных боев 16 -17 веков, о чем Баррингтон Мур написал еще в 1966 году в своей замечательной работе «Социальные происхождения диктатуры и демократии», в которой анализировал 3 варианта европейской модернизации и все зависит от того, кто кому сломал хребет в социальных сражениях. Франция - корона и крестьяне, грубо говоря, сделали феодалов, феодал превращается в аристократа, переезжает ближе ко двору. Это один вариант модернизации через абсолютистское государство. Второй вариант с точностью до наоборот, где бывшие сеньоры выигрывают сражение у короны и крестьянства, второе издание крепостничества. Почему то есть такое мнение, что модернизация – это такой вариант развития обязательно с демократией, с парламентом и т. д. Модернизация может быть и в другой форме, форме рабства, вторичного издания крепостничества, она вообще может быть в архаичной форме. Это тоже модернизация. Третий вариант – это социальная ничья между крестьянами и землевладельцами, возникновения компромиссного уникального слоя в Англии, собственно из которого и выросла индустриализация. Один автор работ по социальной истории Англии написал однажды, что английская индустриализация могла вырасти только из землевладельческого строя Англии 17 – 18 века. Я думаю, что он прав. Название: The Cold War: A History Автор: Martin Walker Год: 1995 Язык: английский Глобальный, всеохватывающий характер ХВ хорошо подметил Мартин Уокер в замечательной книге «Холодная война». «Южную Америку и Африку к югу от Сахары, - писал он, - континенты, которые раньше оказывались вне борьбы, теперь засосало в ее воронку. Турки сражались в Корее, алжирцы - во Вьетнаме, кубинцы - в Анголе, а американские и русские школьники, чьи уроки в школе прерывались тренировочными сигналами угрозы атомной бомбардировки, росли, чтобы погибнуть в Сайгоне и Кабуле».  Названия: The Mind of the Strategist, The End of the Nation State and, The Borderless World Автор: Kenichi Ohmae Язык: английский Глобальному рынку капиталов адекватны, с одной стороны, наднациональные (структуры типа Евросоюза или НАФТА), которые намного крупнее государства, и они выигрывают за счёт масштаба и размера, с другой — региональные блоки, которые меньше государства, и они выигрывают за счёт динамики. Известный японский бизнесмен и исследователь К. Омаэ назвал такие блоки регион-экономиками — по аналогии с броделевско-валлерстайновской мир-экономикой, которой они, по его мнению, идут на смену. ). Классические регион-экономики — это Северная Италия, район Баден-Вюртемберг на верхнем Рейне, Силиконовая долина, «треугольник роста» Сингапур — Джохор — о-ва Риау, Токийский район, район Кансай (Осака — Кобе — Киото), Сан-Паулу в Бразилии и др. Главная причина эффективности регион-экономик — умение решать региональные проблемы с привлечением ресурсов глобальной экономики и, разумеется, то, что их социальные и политические характеристики жёстко подогнаны под экономические требования финансовой системы глобализации — никакой социальной или политической «лирики», homo economicus на марше. Название: Islamisme et États-Unis, une alliance contre l'Europe Автор: Alexandre del Valle Язык: французский Год: 1997 Горючая смесь исламизма, терроризма и наркоторговли, внедряемая, как показывает в работе «Исламизм и США: союз против Европы» А. дель Валь, в Европу спецслужбами США и связанными с ними частными фирмами, представляет серьезную угрозу для европейской государственности, культуры и идентичности. Борьба с европейским упадком, американизацией и исламизмом, пишет дель Валь, суть три аспекта одной и той же проблемы, поскольку, развивает эту мысль директор французского радио Р. Лабевьер, исламисты объективно выступают как «сторожевые псы глобализации» по-американски. В любом случае, в XXI в. США вступают серьезно уменьшив те выгоды, которые Япония и Западная Европа получили в результате победы «глобального Франкенштейна» в «холодной войне». Америка осуществила передел и это, по-видимому, лишь начало; похоже, нас ждут сюрпризы. Название: Tragedy & Hope: A History of the World in Our Time Автор: Carroll Quigley Год: 1966 Язык: английский Название: The Moral Basis of a Backward Society Автор: Edward C. Banfield Год: 1967 Язык: английский Традиционные ценности, формы социальной организации и идентичности в таких районах, как правило, в той или иной степени ослабляются и их место занимает то, что Э.Бэнфилд назвал "аморальным фамильизмом". Однако если такие сельские сообщества смогут организоваться в качестве коллективного грабителя или эксплуататора по отношению к более или менее развитым соседям, то они не только получают экономически-внеэкономическую основу существования, но эта основа становится дополнительным фактором как сохранения или даже усиления коллективного (этнического, социального или территориального) единства, так и ослабления "аморального фамильизма". Хотя последний благодаря "социальному хищничеству", присущему всем формам бандитизма ("вызывающего индивидуализма"), все равно развивается и так или иначе подтачивает кланово-племенную структуру. Еще один фактор ослабления последней и ее иерархии (в банды чаще всего сбиваются бедные и незнатные) - само наличие банд и функционирование бандитского промысла. Иными словами, взаимодействие коллективно-асоциальной и клановоплеменной структур носит противоречивый характер, в него встроен потенциальный конфликт, который и надо в определенных ситуациях (стратегия "святого Амвросия") использовать. Название: Great Degeneration Автор: Niall Ferguson Год: 2012 Язык: английский Америка не может больше доминировать в мире таким образом и в тех формах, в которых это имело место в последнее двадцатилетие – слишком широко шагала, вот и «порвала штаны». Поэтому сегодня американские аналитики в раздумьях: одни, как Чарльз Капчан и Адам Маунт предлагают некое «автономное управление» – передачу Америкой части полицейско-карательных функций, обеспечивающих глобальное накопление капитала, «государствам-преторианцам». Другие, такие как Найл Фергюсон, вообще предупреждают о том, что крушение американской империи может произойти очень быстро – обвально.