• Теги
    • избранные теги
    • Компании1414
      • Показать ещё
      Страны / Регионы614
      • Показать ещё
      Международные организации75
      • Показать ещё
      • Показать ещё
      • Показать ещё
      • Показать ещё
      • Показать ещё
Выбор редакции
27 апреля, 00:22

First Americans claim sparks controversy

A study that claims humans reached the Americas 130,000 years ago, much earlier than previously suggested, has run into controversy.

26 апреля, 20:14

First Trump lower-court nominee coasts through Senate hearing

Kentucky federal judge Amul Thapar is up for promotion to the 6th Circuit.

26 апреля, 11:00

What Trump Still Doesn't Understand About the Holocaust

The president’s address downplayed the Shoah’s universal lessons, turning the occasion into an exercise in ethnic politics.

21 апреля, 13:00

John Updike’s Rabbit, Run – another American story of men escaping women

US culture is riddled with stories of men who yearn to be free – by Updike’s time, all that was left was the mock heroism of suburban tragicomedyIn 1960, a 28-year-old writer named John Updike published his second novel, Rabbit, Run. The New York Times called it a “shabby domestic tragedy,” but also “a notable triumph of intelligence and compassion”. It singled out his stylistic achievement in particular, praising him for having created a “perfectly pitched voice for the subject”. This early review set the tone for what would follow, and for many years Updike, Philip Roth and Saul Bellow were hailed as a kind of unquestioned trinity of the best modern American novelists. When he died in 2009, 23 novels, countless stories, essays, and a few volumes of poetry later, the New Yorker pronounced him “one of the greatest of all modern writers, the first American writer since Henry James to get himself fully expressed, the man who broke the curse of incompleteness that had haunted American writing.” Even bearing in mind that the New Yorker had been, in essence, Updike’s house magazine for 50 years, this remains praise of an order few writers will ever achieve. Whether it’s true is, of course, another question. It was Rabbit, Run that started it all, and now Radio 4 has decided to run Rabbit as its Book at Bedtime, giving listeners a chance to judge for themselves.Eventually Updike would write four novels about Harry “Rabbit” Angstrom, his suburban everyman. Angstrom is too intellectually limited to be considered Updike’s alter ego; call him instead Updike’s altered ego, an artfully reconstituted, carefully delimited, sometimes monstrous, sometimes pathetic, persona by means of which Updike surveyed US postwar life. The New York Times described Angstrom, a former basketball star feeling trapped by his suburban life of marriage and fatherhood, as “an older and less articulate Holden Caulfield”; it’s not a bad comparison. Updike helped map what later became known as “Cheever country”: the white, affluent, suburban landscape of stunted hopes and spiritual anomie through which Harry Angstrom will take his picaresque journey. Updike’s bitter joke, however, is that Rabbit can’t run. Continue reading...

13 апреля, 18:11

Trump’s Syria Strike Puts America At The Precipice Of Another Middle East War

A week after the Trump administration made the decision to launch a cruise missile strike against Syria’s Shayrat air base, it is no surprise that the attack dangerously increased tensions in the Syrian civil war and emboldened forces that aim to maintain a state of chaos in the country. But what remains to be seen is what happens after the dust settles and the real impacts of the attack come to a head, especially in the country and surrounding region. So far, all signs point to more instability and less diplomacy in the months and years ahead, with the potential for an all-out Middle East war seeming increasingly likely. The strike came at a sensitive time, when U.S. regional allies were pressing for greater U.S. intervention to confront perceived Iranian influence, Iranians were gearing up for a fast-approaching presidential election where centrist President Hassan Rouhani may be challenged by conservatives as he seeks a second term and continuing investigations into Trump’s alleged illicit dealings with Russia were still hanging in the air ahead of U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson’s visit to Moscow. Meanwhile, the Syrian war had entered its seventh year, and Syrian government and opposition representatives had sat down for face-to-face talks for the first time, spurring hope that a political resolution to the crisis was within grasp. Trump’s strike changed the dynamic and put us on a path toward confrontation. His actions in Syria will herald the following 10 consequences and side effects, which, when taken together, could unleash an imbroglio the likes of which could be worse than what followed the Iraq War. 1. The strike destroys the hope of a U.S.-Russia reset, putting global security at risk. U.S. President Donald Trump’s election ushered in hope that the battered U.S.-Russia relationship could be improved and with it, the crises in Syria, Afghanistan and Yemen. The bitter tensions between these two global powers have only served to exacerbate regional conflicts in recent years, so collaboration on issues such as terrorism would in all likelihood increase the prospects of bringing about more lasting and positive change. However, the domestic controversy surrounding Trump’s alleged ties to Russia has proved a significant obstacle to U.S.-Russia détente. Viewed in this context, Trump’s Syria strike may in part have been an attempt to weaken these allegations. Trump’s son Eric has supported this theory, stating: “If there was anything that Syria did, it was to validate the fact that there is no Russia tie.” With Tillerson in Moscow now, the precise effect this one-off strike will have on U.S.-Russia relations will have to be seen, but the situation is much colder than both may have hoped. In fact, Russian President Vladimir Putin has already indicated that trust had “deteriorated” between the two powers ahead of his meeting with the secretary of state this week and Trump has added that the relationship “may be at an all-time low.” If strikes such as these continue, they will eliminate any chance for U.S.-Russia cooperation and greatly endanger regional and international stability. 2. By immediately blaming Assad, Trump sets a dangerous precedent for U.S. intervention. Like Trump, former U.S. President Barack Obama faced stringent domestic and foreign pressure to attack Syria and overthrow Syrian President Bashar Assad after the 2013 Ghouta chemical attack. However, Obama withstood the pressures, amidst doubt of the certainty of the Syrian government’s role in the attack from Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, later also expressed by independent investigators and the United Nations. Today, similar doubt is being cast on the Syrian government’s link to the Khan Sheikhoun chemical attack, not only from Russia and Iran but also figures such as former U.N. weapons inspector Scott Ritter, who led criticism that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction in the run-up to the Iraq War. However, unlike Obama, Trump immediately accused Assad without extensive deliberation within the U.S. government and much less an independent investigation. If it turns out Assad was not the assailant, the real perpetrators who seek Assad’s overthrow will feel emboldened to repeat the same atrocity in order to trigger U.S. intervention. Putin has already warned that new attempts to “frame” Assad are underway. If this ends up being the case and the U.S. buys into the ploy, it will find itself fighting a war on behalf of truly nefarious actors capable of committing heinous acts and covering them up at the expense of others. 3. Trump’s strikes will lack legitimacy as long as Washington avoids an independent investigation. In phone conversations with the foreign ministers of Russia, Algeria, European Union foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini and other world leaders, Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif called for an international committee to investigate the attack, certify who the culprits were and allow them to be held responsible and punished appropriately. Iran’s aim is to establish the details of the chemical attack and have America answer for its attack on another U.N. member state. Moscow has similarly described the missile strike as an “act of aggression” and is united with Iran in this goal. Russia has called for a thorough and unbiased investigation initiated by the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. If America stands against this, it will bolster Tehran and Moscow’s position that Washington has no hard evidence linking Assad to the chemical attack and that the missile strike had no legitimate basis. 4. Trump reverting to traditional U.S. unilateralist foreign policy will fail. Unilateral American actions in Afghanistan, Iraq and the American-spearheaded NATO attack on Libya have cost trillions in U.S. wealth, destabilized entire regions, led to deaths of thousands of U.S. troops, killed or displaced millions of civilians and strengthened terrorist groups across the world. Trump himself acknowledged this during his presidential campaign. Obama was also cognizant of these failures and favored multilateral over unilateral policies, the chief major achievement of which was the Iran nuclear deal. Trump’s strikes on Syria represent a return to a unilateral approach, which promises to have the same disastrous outcomes for the region, America and the world. 5. Advocating for regime change will only lead to more chaos as history has shown. America has a history of carrying out interventionist policies in many countries across the globe. A major reason for the hostile U.S.-Iran relationship today is America’s long-standing regime change policy towards Iran. Obama was the first American president to announce that he was abandoning the regime change approach on Iran and even expressed regret about the Libyan intervention. Meanwhile, Trump was fairly unique in disavowing regime change policies earlier. However, with his strike in Syria, he has ignited concerns that America is returning to regime change strategies. The track record of U.S. regime change policies ― in places like Afghanistan, Libya and Iraq ― shows they have increased instability. To continue this approach will only ensure more chaos for the region and beyond.  6. America is putting Russia in a tricky spot with no good solution for either side. While America has many allies and military bases in the Middle East, Syria, where Moscow has an established military presence, is Russia’s main ally in the region. Turning on the Syrian government at such a crucial time will thus damage the reputation Putin has created for Moscow in the Middle East and beyond. The Kremlin has focused on increasing its global influence, and the moves it makes now are critical to its global standing. Losing Assad as an ally will most certainly tarnish Russia’s alliance credibility, even in the face of such immense international pressure to turn on him. Further, comments by the White House that Russia is trying to “cover up” what happened at Khan Sheikhoun will only be perceived by Russia as insulting pressure from Trump to push Putin’s hand. If Trump decides to carry out additional strikes on Syria, Russia may decide its reputation is at stake and feel compelled to activate its Syrian missile defense systems, especially if its personnel and equipment are not given enough time to get out of harm’s way as they were with the Shayrat strike. Trump has in effect created a situation where both sides are left with no decision but to escalate, with potential nightmarish consequences. 7. The U.S. double standard on WMDs is only going to increase their presence globally. America’s political and selective approach towards weapons of mass destructions, or WMDs, continues to have negative consequences for global peace and security. During the Iran-Iraq War, the West supplied the late Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein with material, logistical and political support to launch chemical weapons attacks against Iran and his own people. All told, about 100,000 Iranians were killed or injured, including countless civilians and children. In Halabja alone, some 5,000 Iraqis were killed, including hundreds of children. America’s false WMD reasoning for the 2003 invasion of Iraq of course also hangs over any new U.S. allegations concerning WMDs. For America to now use the deaths of some 70 Syrian civilians to launch a missile strike on Syria reflects a double standard. America using the issue of chemical weapons to achieve its own ends and playing politics with civilian lives will only eliminate hopes to achieve a world free from WMDs and make their use more likely. 8. America’s selectivity toward the value of civilian lives will only cause more civilian deaths. In the weeks prior to the Khan Sheikhoun tragedy, about 200 Iraqi civilians were killed in a single U.S. airstrike in Mosul. The so-called Islamic State also recently beheaded 33 Syrians in one incident and 12 in another. According to the nonprofit Airwars, in March alone, U.S.-led coalition airstrikes have led to deaths of as many as 1,000 Iraqi and Syrian civilians. The Trump administration has taken no action to redress these humanitarian calamities, but at the same time has launched military strikes for the deaths of these 70 Syrians. This demonstrates that America selectively uses the deaths of civilians to advance its political aims. This approach can only lead to the loss of more civilian life. 9. Trump’s use of Arab allies and confrontation of Iran will only provoke Tehran. Today, it is commonly acknowledged in Washington that the Arab Persian Gulf states are putting immense pressure on Trump to confront alleged malign Iranian influence in the region. Voices from these states have been pushing the line that if the U.S. finds it “difficult to cut off the head of the snake, than the second best option is start cutting off the tail of snake.” Trump’s phone call with Saudi King Salman immediately after the strike strongly suggests the move was in part meant to satisfy regional U.S. allies. This idea of “U.S. wars with Arab money” promises not only to worsen regional conflicts, but to also put lives of American servicemen at unnecessary risk. Iran for its part will not sit silently in the face of aggression and will use its regional capabilities ― including its battle-hardened allies on the ground in Syria and Iraq ― to raise the cost of actions against it.    10. The strike’s violation of the UN charter makes it more likely others will cross international peace lines. Based on the United Nations charter, the U.N. Security Council is the only international organ that can identify threats to international peace and decide on punishments. Unilateral U.S. actions are a blatant violation of the U.N. charter and serve to discredit the U.N. as a meaningful body. Such actions are thus a major blow to international peace and encourage other powers to take unilateral action, one of the reasons that likely led to Russia vetoing the U.N. resolution on the Syria attack. Meanwhile, in America, many are also declaring that the U.S. president’s actions violated the U.S. Constitution.     Trump has taken the United States on an extremely risky path with the Shayrat strikes. America now stands at the precipice of another Middle Eastern war, one that promises to be even more of a quagmire than Iraq and will only serve to elongate the suffering of the Syrian people. The reality is that for Syria, there is no military solution ― only a political one. And Trump has sadly decided to pursue military action before giving diplomacy a chance. type=type=RelatedArticlesblockTitle=Related on WorldPost... + articlesList=58e7f9cce4b058f0a02f4951,58e79b3fe4b05413bfe2327f -- 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 апреля, 11:00

Trump's Unlawful Attack in Syria

Trump launched an attack on Bashar al-Assad’s government without the legal authority to do so.

Выбор редакции
07 апреля, 18:00

‘JFK was down-to-earth, human and kind’: Andreas Hadjivassiliou meets President Kennedy

How a PE teacher was welcomed into the White HouseIn May 1961 I received a letter from the first American ambassador to Cyprus, Fraser Wilkins, telling me I’d been selected for a US government award to take part in an international teaching exchange. At the time, I was a 30-year-old PE teacher at a secondary school in Nicosia.The aim of the programme was to introduce teachers from all over the world to different teaching methods and, in my case, sports. Back then, the US had some of the best coaches, and the most advanced techniques in the world, particularly in track and field, basketball and swimming. It seemed like a fantastic opportunity to learn more and to see the States. I would be gone for six months. Continue reading...

07 апреля, 17:28

Allies praise U.S. strike on Syria as Russia, Iran condemn it

Trump's actions in Syria drew strong support from some of America's closest friends.

06 апреля, 12:31

Trump Isn’t the First President to Have a Private Resort

But he is the first one to turn it into a playground for his wealthy friends.

05 апреля, 05:03

13 Most Expensive Cat Breeds in the World

Are you in the market for a new cat? While local humane societies often adopt them out for free, certain rare cats from breeders will cost you.

Выбор редакции
30 марта, 17:48

The silk-silver axis: Averting a Chinese-American trade war

Print section Print Rubric:  The world’s most important economic relationship is also its most fraught Print Headline:  The silk-silver axis Print Fly Title:  Chinese-American economic ties UK Only Article:  standard article Issue:  Britain’s brutal encounter with reality Fly Title:  The silk-silver axis Location:  SHANGHAI Main image:  20170401_bbp003.jpg IN 1784 the Empress of China set sail from New York, on the first American trade mission to China. Carrying ginseng, lead and woollen cloth, the merchants aboard dreamed of cracking open the vast Asian market. But the real profit, they found, came on their return, when they brought Chinese teas and porcelain to America. As other ships followed in its wake, the pattern became clear. Americans wanted more from China than Chinese wanted ...

25 марта, 22:00

Why these "streaks" are entertainment, not investment advice.

Investing is not a game. I like to show our clients a quote from Paul Samuelson, the first American to win a Nobel Prize in Economics. He said, “Investing should be more like watching paint dry or watching grass grow. If you want excitement, take $800 and go to Las Vegas.”

Выбор редакции
22 марта, 23:32

U.S. Airlifts Hundreds of Militia Fighters in Attack to Cut Off Raqqa, Syria

The bold operation marked the first American air assault against the Islamic State in Syria and displayed the new leeway President Trump has given commanders.

21 марта, 18:28

David Rockefeller: Making friends in Russia

David Rockefeller. / Photo: Getty Images David Rockefeller is well known for his contacts with politicians around the world. He is believed to have personally met over 200 leaders of at least 100 countries. Add this to Rockefeller's participation in the secretive Bilderberg Group, his founding of the Trilateral Commission, and chairmanship of the Council on Foreign Relations for 15 years, and there’s fertile ground for speculation that the billionaire was involved in some kind of shadowy world government. But his relations with the Soviet Union show what Rockefeller, a member of one of the richest American families, really sought. Rockefeller, one of the heirs to the wealth of the founder of the Standard Oil empire, was in contact with Soviet leaders during the 1960s and 70s. During this time he became the head of one of the biggest American banks - Chase Manhattan. In his memoirs, Rockefeller says that in order for the bank to grow internationally it was necessary to learn to interact with regimes which were "opposed to democratic principles and to the operation of the free market" but which dominated much of the world. The billionaire regarded the USSR as one such regime. He succeeded in establishing relations with Soviet leaders and Chase became the first American bank to open a representative office in the Soviet Union. Dartmouth Conferences The Chase representative office opened in 1973 in the very center of the Soviet capital. Before this, Rockefeller had been meeting with representatives of the Soviet public and USSR state officials regularly over 10 years, and their meetings took place in the format of so-called  Dartmouth Conferences that were first organized in the U.S. and USSR at the initiative of President Dwight D. Eisenhower. They were intended to encourage cooperation between the two superpowers during the Cold War. American banker and philanthropist David Rockefeller. / Photo: Getty Images Tough conversation with Khrushchev The idea of Rockefeller meeting Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev came from UN Secretary General U Thant, according to the billionaire's memoirs. The meeting took place in 1964 when Rockefeller came to Leningrad to take part in one of the first Dartmouth Conferences. Khrushchev invited the billionaire and his daughter to visit the Moscow Kremlin. According to Rockefeller, the meeting with Khrushchev was unusual - "tough, at times combative, even hostile". Rockefeller reproached Khrushchev for using local Communist parties to effect regime change in various countries of Latin America and Asia. The Soviet leader responded, not without irritation, that revolutions are born for objective reasons and not as a result of outside interference from anyone. Despite the harsh words spoken during their conversation, Rockefeller left the Kremlin "feeling a great respect for Khrushchev" and with the thought that the "Soviet leadership wanted to expand financial and commercial ties with the United States". Congress a hindrance to normalization Rockefeller was in favor of a normalization of relations between the U.S. and USSR, according to Academician Georgy Arbatov, the organizer of the Dartmouth Conferences on the Soviet side, writing in his book Hawks and Doves of the Cold War. The Soviet academic referred to his American opposite number as a modest, cultured man with swift reactions and a sharp mind. In the words of Rockefeller himself, the billionaire belonged to a small group of American bankers who wanted to expand trade with Moscow and its Eastern European satellites, believing that favorable "political consequences" would follow from the development of trading contacts. The billionaire himself complained that this was in large measure hampered by the adoption of the Jackson-Vanik Amendment by Congress in 1974, which imposed a ban on granting the USSR most-favoured nation status in trade. Chairman of the USSR Council of Ministers Alexei Kosygin (right) meeting in the Kremlin U.S. banker David Rockefeller (left). / Photo: Yuriy Ivanov/RIA Novosti During the 1970s, Rockefeller traveled to the USSR almost every year and met Prime Minister Alexei Kosygin several times. The banker noted his government's economic achievements. Rockefeller was struck most of all by the Moscow Metro at that time: "The Moscow subway system was a marvel - modern, clean, comfortable, and cheap." Kosygin wanted economic contacts between the two countries to be broadened, proposing steps that seem revolutionary even by today's standards. In his memoirs Rockefeller mentions the Soviet premier's idea that the American side could finance the construction of nuclear power stations in the USSR, which would be jointly owned by the U.S. and USSR. Gorbachev and ruble convertibility Rockefeller also met Mikhail Gorbachev and was acutely struck by his charm and easy manner. At the meeting, the banker asked the final leader of the Soviet Union how he planned to "open up" the Soviet economy and whether the ruble would become convertible. But the billionaire received no answer then from the new leader. General Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee Mikhail Gorbachev, left, and committee co-chairman David Rockefeller. Reception of the representatives of the Trilateral Commission during their USSR visit. / Photo: Vyacheslav Runov/RIA Novosti The banker met Gorbachev a number of times, including in 1992 after the collapse of the USSR. A few years earlier Rockefeller had met Boris Yeltsin. The future Russian president visited the U.S. for the first time in 1989 and addressed the Council on Foreign Relations. This was followed by a dinner presided over by the American banker. Lev Sukhanov, who was adviser to the first president of Russia, recalls that Rockefeller made his personal jet available to Yeltsin to fly across the U.S. Rockefeller visited post-Soviet Russia in 2003. The aim of the visit was reported to be the launch of a Russian-language edition of his memoirs. Read more: Depicting Americans through the lens of Russian cinema

18 марта, 14:47

Why Japan Feared the Battleship USS Washington

Robert Farley Security, Asia One the U.S. Navy's finest weapons of war during World War II. The London Naval Treaty of 1936 was intended to preserve the battleship size limitation at thirty-five thousand tons and to restrict the size of battleship guns to fourteen inches. With memory of the Anglo-German and the Anglo-American-Japanese naval races fresh in their minds, the architects of the treaty wanted to limit the most obvious source of escalation. The United States designed its first generation of London Treaty battleships to carry twelve fourteen-inch guns in three quadruple turrets, a formidable armament equal to that of the “Big Five,” the last five American battleships built before the treaty. However, the London Naval Treaty had an escape clause. If any one of the original three signatories failed to ratify, the gun limitation rose to sixteen inches. Japan did not sign the treaty (its representatives would have been assassinated if it had), so the fourteen-inch limitation did not apply. The Royal Navy, in a fit of irrational exuberance, had already begun construction of the fourteen-inch weapons for its King George V class, and could not alter their structure. The design of North Carolina and Washington, however, allowed for the substitution of triple sixteen-inch turrets for the quadruple fourteen-inch mounts. Accordingly, the Americans quickly adapted to the heavier guns. USS Washington and its sister, North Carolina, were the first American battleships built since 1921. They displaced thirty-five thousand tons, could make twenty-seven knots, and carried a powerful dual-purpose secondary armament of twenty five-inch guns. The first plans for the North Carolina class envisioned their speed at twenty-three knots. This was in keeping with the pre-treaty battleships, which the U.S. Navy expected North Carolina and Washington to operate with. However, an investigation of foreign battleship designs, as well as exercises that demonstrated the need for battleships to operate with aircraft carriers, pushed designers to a much higher speed. The North Carolinas sacrificed some armor protection, but their antiaircraft armaments were very strong, making them extremely effective as aircraft-carrier escorts. Read full article

15 марта, 18:16

First woman in space opens personal exhibition at London's Science Museum

On March 15, London's Science Museum opens the exhibition, Valentina Tereshkova: First Woman in Space. Tereshkova will personally open the exhibition that features her biography, starting from work in a factory and parachute jumping as a hobby, to her current political career. Tereshkova's flight to outer space on June 16, 1963, came two years after Gagarin's first flight. She spent almost three days orbiting Earth. Only 20 years later did the first American woman, Sally Ride, make her space flight. The opening will see a screening of the documentary film, Legend of Valentina, with archival material shown for the first time. The film will be accompanied by a performance of the Moscow City Symphony Russian Philharmonic and master violinist Dmitry Kogan. "Long live women workers of the world" poster, 1964, featuring Valentina Tereshkova (C) / E. Artsrynyan The exhibition is part of the UK-Russia Year of Science and Education, and continues the great tradition of learning about the Soviet space program. The first such exhibition, Cosmonauts: Birth of the Space Age, was held in 2015 at the Science Museum. The exhibition will be open to the public for free from March 16 to Sept. 17. It was organized in collaboration with Russian State Museum Exhibition Center (ROSIZO). For more information about the exhibition visit Science Museum website Read an interview with Valentina Tereshkova: ‘I very much wanted to go to Mars’

14 марта, 15:32

HUFFPOLLSTER: Most Americans Aren't Happy With The Current Unemployment Rate

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); Americans aren’t sure they trust the latest jobs numbers. Reactions to Republicans’ health care proposal split largely along political lines. And we commemorate Pi Day with...pie charts.This is HuffPollster for Tuesday, March 14, 2017. THE PUBLIC TAKES A DIM VIEW OF JOBS NUMBERS, BUT FEW BLAME ― OR CREDIT ― TRUMP - HuffPollster and Arthur Delaney, on a new HuffPost/YouGov poll: “The majority of Americans, 54 percent, describe the current unemployment rate as ‘not so good’ or ‘poor,’ with just 32 percent calling it ‘excellent’ or ‘“good.’ But either way, few see the number as much of a reflection on Trump’s brief time in office. Sixty-five percent of those who say the unemployment rate is ‘not so good’ or ‘poor’ say that Trump deserves little or none of the blame, while 61 percent who say the rate is ‘good’ or ‘excellent’ say Trump deserves little or none of the credit….Democrats polled still have a rosier view of the current numbers ― 40 percent say the unemployment rate is good or excellent, compared to 33 percent of Republicans who say the same. Opinions are far more sharply split along the lines of the 2016 election, with 52 percent of voters who supported Hillary Clinton, but just 27 percent of those who backed Trump, saying the current numbers are good.” [HuffPost] Few are confident in the official unemployment rate - More from the survey: “Just 29 percent of Americans polled say they’re confident that the currently reported 4.7 percent unemployment rate is correct. Forty percent say they’re not confident, and another 31 percent say they’re unsure ― a finding that tracks with the public’s widespread distrust of most major institutions. Among those who lack confidence, 82 percent believe that the real unemployment rate is actually higher. Democrats are somewhat less likely than Republicans to say they trust the latest numbers, although the difference pales in comparison to the partisan splits seen on other issues….That’s a shift from a previous survey taken during the Obama administration. While few Americans then were inclined to believe the official numbers either, a Politico-Harvard poll taken in September showed that Democrats were the most likely to express faith in the government’s data.” INITIAL REACTIONS ARE DIVIDED ON REPUBLICANS’ NEW HEALTH CARE BILL - HuffPollster: “Initial public reactions to the Republican plan to repeal the Affordable Care Act are divided, a new HuffPost/YouGov survey finds, with a narrow plurality of Americans saying the proposal would mark a step down. While 27 percent of Americans expect the new health care bill, if it passes, would be better than the current law, 32 percent think it would be worse, and 13 percent that it would be about the same. Another 28 percent aren’t sure….While a majority of Americans believe Trump backs the bill, just 11 percent say that Republicans in Congress are united in support of it. Fifty-eight percent are aware that some Republicans are opposed. Nevertheless, with much about the Republican proposal still up in the air, public opinion divides largely, if not universally, along partisan lines. Democrats are 43 percentage points likelier than Republicans, at 68 percent to 25 percent, to favor the current health care law.” [HuffPost] One reason for the partisan split - With relatively little information about the bill’s effects at hand ― CBO estimates weren’t available at the time the survey was fielded ― many respondents may have looked to partisan cues to guide their opinions. Such cues were present in the survey, which identified the current law as “President Obama’s health care law,” and the proposal under consideration as being recently released by “Republican leaders in the House of Representatives.” How the divides break down along other demographic lines - Older Americans, many of whom would see their insurance rates rise under the new plan, are among the most supportive, largely because they’re also the most likely to be Republican ― 38 percent of those over age 65, and 30 percent of those aged 45-64 think the new bill would be an improvement, compared to about a fifth of those under 45. There’s less variation across income levels, although Americans in households making under $50,000 annually are less likely expect the bill to be an improvement than in wealthier households. TRUMP’S NEW EXECUTIVE ORDER ON IMMIGRATION? MOSTLY THE SAME AS THE OLD ONE, AMERICANS SAY - HuffPollster: “President Donald Trump’s revised executive order on immigration strikes a plurality of the public as being largely the same as his initial order, a new HuffPost/YouGov survey finds….Forty-three percent of Americans say the order is not very different from the old executive order, while 24 percent say it’s better and 7 percent that it’s worse. Trump voters, who overwhelmingly backed the plan to begin with, are the most likely to consider it an improvement, with 46 percent saying the new order is better and 36 percent that it’s not much different. In contrast, two-thirds of Hillary Clinton voters see the new order as largely unchanged from the previous version, with just 18 percent considering it an improvement.” [HuffPost] Americans’ attitudes toward refugees are complicated. So is measuring them - Ipsos’ Chris Jackson: “A few weeks ago, the Reuters/Ipsos poll caught a news cycle with the first poll after the first refugee ban...The most widely circulated finding was that a plurality of Americans (48%) supported the ban while an almost equivalent number (41%) opposed it...When asked if the U.S. should take in refugees who have passed a series of background checks, interviews, and biometric screenings, a very large majority of 82% agreed that we should...How can a majority of Americans support admitting refugees who pass checks and a plurality of Americans support a ban that ends the admittance of refugees at the same time? First, Americans’ priorities shift when the framing and context of issues shift….Second, Americans’ knowledge of detailed policy tends to be shallow. Most people have minimal familiarity with the preexisting refugee screening criteria.” [HuffPost] MOST AMERICANS SAY RACE RELATIONS HAVE GOTTEN WORSE IN THE PAST YEAR - Marist: “A majority of Americans remain downbeat about the overall status of race relations in the United States, although that number has improved. 51% of Americans say race relations in this country have gotten worse in the past year, but that is down from 58% in September 2015. However, there has been an increase in the proportion of Americans who say race relations are status quo and characterize that as a bad thing….Examining perceptions of U.S. race relations under President Donald Trump, 52% of Americans think race relations will get worse.  26% say they will improve, and 18% believe they will remain about the same.  Four percent are unsure.” [Marist] IN HONOR OF PI DAY… HuffPost Pollster made some pie charts. About pie. (Data courtesy of the Roper Center.) HUFFPOLLSTER VIA EMAIL! - You can receive this daily update every weekday morning via email! Just click here, enter your email address, and click “sign up.” That’s all there is to it (and you can unsubscribe anytime). TUESDAY’S ‘OUTLIERS’ - Links to the best of news at the intersection of polling, politics and political data: -Nate Cohn finds that supporters of President Donald Trump could stand to lose the most under Republicans’ new health care bill. [NYT] -Ben Casselman argues that the White House’s attacks on jobs data are a dangerous move. [538] -Phillip Connor and Jens Manuel Krogstad break down the ramifications of Trump’s new order on immigration. [Pew] -Erin M. Kearns, Allison Betus and Anthony Lemieux write that the media focuses disproportionately on terror attacks carried out by Muslim perpetrators. [WashPost] -- 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.

13 марта, 14:48

Brief Study of Principal MidCap Growth Fund III Institutional Class (PPIMX)

Principal MidCap Growth Fund III Institutional Class (PPIMX) seeks capital appreciation for the long run

13 марта, 14:09

Venice isn't known for its great football team. Will Pippo Inzaghi change that?

Venezia play in the third tier of Italian football in a ground that was built in 1913 but their ambitious owners, manager and captain are set on reaching Serie ABy KICK for the Guardian Sport NetworkWhen you think about Italian football’s storied past, the great clubs from Milan, Turin, Naples and Rome come to mind. Conspicuously absent from this list of cities is Venice. The sport has rarely thrived in one of the world’s most beautiful places. After years of financial difficulties, Venezia FC are currently in the regionalised Lega Pro, the third tier of Italian football. But progress is on the horizon. The club has been taken over by an ambitious group of American investors who are determined to take Venezia back to Serie A for the first time in a generation.The man leading the charge is Joe Tacopina, a celebrity attorney who says he wants to build a sustainable future for the club. Tacopina has history in the Italian game, having brought the first American ownership group to Roma before moving on to Bologna, but Venezia is his biggest challenge yet. Continue reading...

13 марта, 02:32

Social Security and 12 Other Retirement Fears Americans Worry About

The United States is experiencing unprecedented political polarization, but retirement fears worry both major political parties.

25 сентября 2012, 15:11

The Zero Deficit Line in 2012

Now that the U.S. Census has released its newest estimate of median household income in the United States, it's time to consider where the U.S. federal government spending per U.S. household stands with respect to the Zero Deficit Line, which is the amount of spending that the typical American household can actually afford. The chart below shows those two measures for each year since 1967, when the Census first began reporting its median household income figure: Looking at the chart, we see that for the third year in a row, the amount of U.S. federal government spending per household is hovering just below $30,000 per U.S. household. Our tool below will reveal how much spending can actually be supported by the typical American household given its annual income of $50,054 (or whatever median household income level you might choose to enter!) Median Household Income Data Input Data Values Median Household Income How Much Federal Spending Per Household Can the U.S. Really Afford? Estimated Results Values Federal Spending per U.S. Household Using our tool, we find that in reality, the typical American household can only afford to have the federal government spend no more than $21,059. On a side note, do you remember the old Warner Brothers' Road Runner cartoons? The ones where Wile E. Coyote would be chasing after the bird, then suddenly find himself suspended in mid-air beyond the edge of a cliff, until he looked down and finally crashed back to earth? The level of federal spending per household since 2008 and the lack of meaningful growth in the incomes of U.S. households under President Obama, combined with all the talk these days of the approaching "fiscal cliff" suggests that there is one giant "splat" sound in the near future for the U.S.