• Теги
    • избранные теги
    • Компании1428
      • Показать ещё
      Страны / Регионы604
      • Показать ещё
      Международные организации73
      • Показать ещё
      Разное1066
      • Показать ещё
      Люди311
      • Показать ещё
      Издания119
      • Показать ещё
      Формат6
      Показатели40
      • Показать ещё
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.

12 марта, 21:04

Really High Noon in the Nevada Desert

Federal prosecutors threatened to bust a celebration in Nevada, where pot is now legal. The new battle over states’ rights is coming.

08 марта, 17:38

First American Financial's Unit Joins Forces with Qualia

RedVision - an affiliate of First American Financial Corporation (FAF) ??? and Qualia recently declared the integration of their respective services.

07 марта, 14:48

SL Green (SLG) Inks Lease with LINE FRIENDS at Broadway

SL Green Realty Corp. (SLG) inked a lease with LINE FRIENDS for a part of the retail space at 1515 Broadway.

05 марта, 21:05

Have Americans Given Up?

A new book by Tyler Cowen argues that when it comes to innovation and dynamism, the country is all talk.

02 марта, 05:40

President Donald J. Trump Proclaims March 2017 as Women's History Month

WOMEN'S HISTORY MONTH, 2017 - - - - - - - BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA A PROCLAMATION We are proud of our Nation's achievements in promoting women's full participation in all aspects of American life and are resolute in our commitment to supporting women's continued advancement in America and around the world. America honors the celebrated women pioneers and leaders in our history, as well as those unsung women heroes of our daily lives.  We honor those outstanding women, whose contributions to our Nation's life, culture, history, economy, and families have shaped us and helped us fulfill America's promise. We cherish the incredible accomplishments of early American women, who helped found our Nation and explore the great western frontier.  Women have been steadfast throughout our battles to end slavery, as well as our battles abroad.  And American women fought for the civil rights of women and others in the suffrage and civil rights movements.  Millions of bold, fearless women have succeeded as entrepreneurs and in the workplace, all the while remaining the backbone of our families, our communities, and our country. During Women's History Month, we pause to pay tribute to the remarkable women who prevailed over enormous barriers, paving the way for women of today to not only participate in but to lead and shape every facet of American life.  Since our beginning, we have been blessed with courageous women like Henrietta Johnson, the first woman known to work as an artist in the colonies; Margaret Corbin, who bravely fought in the American Revolution; and Abigail Adams, First Lady of the United States and trusted advisor to President John Adams. We also remember incredible women like Mary Walker, the first woman to receive the Congressional Medal of Honor; Harriet Tubman, who escaped slavery in 1849 and went on to free hundreds of others through the Underground Railroad; Susan B. Anthony, the publisher and editor of The Revolution and her friend, Dr. Charlotte Lozier, one of the first women medical doctors in the United States, both of whom advocated for the dignity and equality of women, pregnant mothers, and their children; Rosa Parks, whose refusal to give up her seat accelerated the modern civil rights movement; Shirley Temple Black, the famous actress turned diplomat and first chief of protocol for the President of the United States; Anna Bissell, the first woman CEO in American history; Amelia Earhart, the first woman to fly solo across the Atlantic Ocean; Ella Fitzgerald, the First Lady of Song and the Queen of Jazz; and Sally Ride, the first American woman astronaut. America will continue to fight for women's rights and equality across the country and around the world.  Though poverty holds back many women, America cannot and will not allow this to persist.  We will empower all women to pursue their American dreams, to live, work and thrive in safe communities that allow them to protect and provide for themselves and their families. America is also mindful of the fight that continues for so many women around the world, where women are often not protected and treated disgracefully as second-class citizens.  America will fight for these women too, and it will fight to protect young girls who are robbed of their rights, trafficked around the world, and exploited. NOW, THEREFORE, I, DONALD J. TRUMP, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim March 2017 as Women's History Month.  I call upon all Americans to observe this month with appropriate programs, ceremonies, and activities. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this first day of March, in the year of our Lord two thousand seventeen, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and forty-first. DONALD J. TRUMP

01 марта, 03:00

Trump deflects responsibility on Yemen raid: 'They lost Ryan'

President Donald Trump avoided accepting responsibility Tuesday for the first American military death under his administration, unceremoniously suggesting “they lost” William “Ryan” Owens.Owens, a 36-year-old Navy SEAL, died last month during an intelligence-gathering raid in Yemen. Multiple American service members were wounded in the raid, and more than 20 civilians, including women and children, were also killed. The White House had framed the mission as a “very, very well thought-out and executed effort” that began in November under then-President Barack Obama’s administration. And press secretary Sean Spicer had said Trump didn’t sign off until Defense Secretary James Mattis conveyed his support for the Obama era memo.“This was a mission that was started before I got here,” Trump told Fox News in an interview from the White House broadcast Tuesday. “This was something that was, you know, just — they wanted to do. And they came to see me. They explained what they wanted to do, the generals, who are very respected.” Trump veered into effusive praise for his generals, calling them “the most respected that we’ve had in many decades” before pinning Owens’ death on the them.“They lost Ryan,” the president said.Trump was inside the White House when he learned of Owens’ death and had spoken to Owens’ wife, Karen, with whom he had three children. The president traveled to Dover Air Force Base to greet Owens’ remains earlier this month.“And it was a very sad — with the family,” Trump said. “And it’s a great family. Incredible wife and children. I met most of the family.”But he hadn’t met Owens’ father, Bill Owens, who wanted it that way and told the Miami Herald in an interview published over the weekend that the Trump administration is hiding behind his son’s death to elude an investigation. The government, he said, owes his slain son an investigation.Trump sympathized with the father’s not wanting to speak with him. “I can understand people saying that,” he said. “I’d feel — you know, I’d feel what’s worse? There’s nothing worse. There’s nothing worse.”Again, though, the commander in chief seemed to pass on the responsibility of Owens’ death to military officials and the Obama administration — although he added that the mission was successful.“This was something that they were looking at for a long time doing,” he said. “And according to General Mattis, it was a very successful mission. They got tremendous amounts of information.”

Выбор редакции
28 февраля, 19:40

Genetic signature of natural selection in first Americans [Anthropology]

When humans moved from Asia toward the Americas over 18,000 y ago and eventually peopled the New World they encountered a new environment with extreme climate conditions and distinct dietary resources. These environmental and dietary pressures may have led to instances of genetic adaptation with the potential to influence the...

17 февраля, 18:14

Ranked: Useful Fictions in International Politics

The normal ebb and flow of diplomacy relies on a few agreed-upon falsehoods.

17 февраля, 13:03

Cold War archive: How the USSR and U.S. battled each other with radio waves

A group of State Department announcers huddle around the microphone after the initial shortwave broadcast in Russian to Russia from New York City on Feb. 17, 1947. The announcers, Russian-born American citizens, are (front row) Boris Brodenov; James Schigorin; Elena Bates (seated); Victor Franzusoff; (rear row) Katherine Elene; Vladimir Postman and Tatiana Hecker. Sign in Russian on the microphone means "The Voice of the United States of America." Source: AP "Hello! This is New York calling. You are listening to the first radio broadcast of Voice of the United States of America." These words were heard on the radio in the USSR for the first time on Feb. 17, 1947, one year after the start of the Cold War. Known simply as Voice of America, or VOA, this was the first American state-run radio station to start daily broadcasts in Russian. During the first transmission announcers stated the purpose of their radio station: "To give listeners in the USSR a picture of American life" and to develop friendship between the Soviet and American peoples. Be that as it may, the Communist Party (CPSU) didn't believe in Washington’s friendly intentions, and by 1948 it started jamming the radio station. Enemy voices The position of the Soviet authorities was unequivocal - Western radio stations brainwash Soviet people with propaganda, and Soviet people are not allowed to listen to them. Special jamming stations were built around the country to block the frequencies on which the "enemy voices" were broadcasting. By the early 1960s, the number of Soviet jamming stations had reached 1,400. Journalist Oleg Rogov, who grew up in the Soviet Union, recalls that "jammers" worked poorly at night, and so those who wanted to listen to alternative information would sit by their radio receivers in the evening, trying to find the frequencies on which they could hear something. Another way to listen to a Western radio station was to get away from the big cities; there were fewer "jammers" in rural areas. People could often listen to Voice of America, Radio Liberty or BBC in the countryside or even on a beach. Another way was to buy a shortwave radio, but they were much more expensive than conventional transistor radios, and anyway, they often aroused suspicion from law-enforcement. This cartoon titled “Radio-Activity” appeared in the newspaper Soviet Estonia on Jan. 24, 1970 as part of the Soviet press campaign against the daily broadcasts of the voice of America. Source: AP Ideological war "American radio broadcasting is not a gift to the world in any way, but rather it is a tool of international politics to spread democratic values," said media analyst Donald Jensen, assessing Voice of America, and admitting that VOA played the role of a propaganda weapon in the fight against communism. Many people in the Soviet Union regarded "enemy voices" as an alternative viewpoint, and so this viewpoint was interesting. "We did not trust the Soviet media - reading Soviet newspapers was boring," recalled Pavel Balditsyn, a professor at Moscow State University. "Of course, it was interesting to hear voices from the outside, albeit they too were perceived as propaganda." Balditsyn said that those in the USSR who secretly listened to and discussed what they heard on Western radio stations also doubted the content because they were accustomed to homegrown propaganda. "But Voice of America broadcasts were seen as more or less trustworthy," he said. The news website, Lenta.ru, reported that VOA was the most popular of all the "enemy voices," with an audience of 30 million people each week.  Solzhenitsyn and jazz VOA was interesting not only because of its different political viewpoint. Listeners remember how they turned the dials on their receivers to hear music or literary programs. Balditsyn recalls that once when on duty at night while serving in the army he listened to Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s The Gulag Archipelago, which was banned in the USSR and only officially published in 1990. Human rights activist Boris Pustyntsev said his love for jazz started with VOA broadcasts. "Swing, early bebop and so on," recalled Pustyntsev. "I could not even go to sleep without first listening to the latest music program." "Swing, early bebop and so on," recalled Pustyntsev. "I could not even go to sleep without first listening to the latest music program." Photo: Two men listen to radio in the Soviet Union on April 1, 1958. Source: TASS Mission accomplished VOA’s fate was closely linked to politics, and as soon as relations with the U.S. thawed the "jammers" worked less intensively or were switched off altogether. This was the case during the detente between the superpowers in the second half of the 1970s, and up to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan when relations worsened and transmissions were again subjected to jamming. The fight against "enemy voices" completely ceased under Mikhail Gorbachev in 1986 with a special resolution of the Communist Party. VOA transmissions were now allowed in the USSR, but five years later in 1991 the Soviet Union collapsed and that was the beginning of the end for the once-forbidden radio station. The end of the Cold War also meant the end of VOA’s glory days. The U.S. propaganda radio station had more or less accomplished its mission. By 1992 Russia had freedom of the press, alternative sources of information appeared, and overall interest in radio transmissions declined. In July 2007 VOA’s Russian Service stopped broadcasting and switched entirely to the Internet. Read more: The untold story: Why Stalin created a cult of Alexander Pushkin>>>

12 февраля, 21:24

What a Trade Surplus Doesn’t Mean

(Don Boudreaux) TweetHere’s a letter to a regular reader of Cafe Hayek: Mr. Tony Hart Mr. Hart: You ask “What about Germany’s massive trade surplus of $253 billion!!!  Are you as relaxed about that as the massive US deficit?  Doesn’t that $253 bn make Germany very much richer?  They can go out and buy assets all over […]

09 февраля, 18:52

Ibtihaj Muhammad Reveals She Was Detained By U.S. Customs Without Explanation

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); Ibtihaj Muhammad, an Olympic fencer for Team USA, has revealed that she was held at an airport by U.S. Customs and Border Protection a few weeks ago without explanation. Muhammad, a U.S. citizen and the first American to compete in an Olympics wearing a hijab, told the website PopSugar on Tuesday that authorities detained her for about two hours. It’s not clear whether she was held after President Trump’s travel ban targeting Muslim-majority nations went into effect.  “I don’t know why. I can’t tell you why it happened to me, but I know that I’m Muslim. I have an Arabic name,” she said. “And even though I represent Team USA and I have that Olympic hardware, it doesn’t change how you look and how people perceive you.” Muhammad, a native of Maplewood, New Jersey, won bronze in the women’s team sabre event at 2016 Olympic games. The victory made her the first female Muslim American to medal for Team USA. Muhammad attempted to describe her emotions following the incident. “It’s really hard. My human response is to cry because I was so sad and upset and disheartened — and just disappointed,” she said. “At the same time, I’m one of those people who feels like I have to be strong for those people who may not be able to find that strength. I feel like I have to speak up for those people whose voices go unheard.” The Trump administration’s travel ban has been put on hold by a federal judge after a chaotic rollout and protests at airports across the country. Muhammad’s comments were made following an appearance at the MAKERS conference. The fencer appeared with gymnast Gabby Douglas for a conversation about empowerment, representation and athleticism. -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

25 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.