• Теги
    • избранные теги
    • Компании1066
      • Показать ещё
      Международные организации75
      • Показать ещё
      Издания101
      • Показать ещё
      Страны / Регионы483
      • Показать ещё
      Разное401
      • Показать ещё
      Люди196
      • Показать ещё
      Формат12
      Показатели57
      • Показать ещё
      Сферы2
Выбор редакции
23 мая, 10:00

A progressive alliance is an idea whose time has come | Neal Lawson

In an increasingly complex world, no one party has a monopoly on wisdom. People at the grassroots understand this – now the parties need to catch upAs the polls narrow, the Tories attack the idea of a progressive alliance and the possibility of coalition government because they know these could deny them their landslide. In the long term they fear a progressive realignment breaking their stranglehold on office and power. They are right to be scared because while on the surface all for them seems strong and stable, just below a new politics is bubbling up.If Antonio Gramsci’s haunting phrase “the old is dying and the new cannot be born” was ever applicable to a UK general election, then it is this one. The old election is taking place in party headquarters, at the daily press briefings and meet-the-people events with no real people. But what is most old-school about this election is the main parties’ tribalism: “Only Labour can defend the NHS”; “Only the Tories can provide strong and stable blah”. It’s all about them: they believe they have a monopoly on the wisdom, superiority and singular ability to manage a world that is becoming more complex by the day. They are out of their depth. We know it and inwardly they do too. Continue reading...

21 мая, 23:38

Вечерний политрук: Хоть кота пивом обольём

Активисты «Другой России» напали на главного редактора радиостанции «Эхо Москвы» Алексея Венедиктова во время дискуссии «Открытые диалоги», которая проходила в Петербурге в воскресенье, 21 мая.РЕН-ТВ пишет, что Венедиктов «пожаловался, что алкогольный напиток оказался дешевым». Пресс-секретарь «Другой России» Александр Аверин сообщил, что Венедиктова облили виски William Lawson.«Другая Россия» устроила акцию против Венедиктова из-за того, что он участвовал «в сливе протестов в 2011 году», объяснил представитель незарегистрированной партии. «Дело в том, что слив протеста в 2011 году произошел в разговоре за бутылкой виски в московской мэрии», — сказал Аверин.Среди других причин нападения — «предательская позиция "Эха Москвы" по Крыму и Донбассу» и участие Венедиктова в деле нацбола Олега Миронова, которого судили за нападение на Андрея Макаревича.---Что тут можно сказать?В первую очередь, "Вечерний Политрук" напоминает, что украинизация дискурса для Поколения и Империи неприемлема.В принципе.Этот вопрос закрыт.Никаких жидкостных демаршей.Венедиктова, при всей его неприглядности, нужно не поливать спиртными напитками с намёком на ситуацию в мэрии в 2011, а при каждом удобном случае публично спрашивать, как и по какому праву он заполучил в 1991 году частоту, студию и передатчик студенческого радио журфака МГУ, на которых поддержал ельцинский переворот, подавление Дома Советов 1993, на чем и построил всю свою извилистую судьбу и карьеру. Вот на такой вопрос ему отвечать будет неудобно.А алкоголем плескаться бесполезно и некрасиво.Алкоголик вискарика не боится.А человек, снисходительно провожающих своих оскорбителей шуткой, уже их победил.«Они потратились на вискарь, но вискарь плохой», — сказал Венедиктов.И любой, кто Веника хотя бы пару раз видел, заранее знал бы, что так будет.А Лимонов, к примеру, отлично главреда "Эха Москвы" знает. Он там вообще работал. На дни рождения ездит.---Так зачем (это любимый вопрос Плтрк! если кто-то что-то делает, зачем он это делает?) "Другая Россия" устроила эдакую выходку, и подарила Венедиктову публичную победу над собой?Неужели в рамках предвыборной решила опять отыграть старую добрую роль "страшных левых террористов, от которых спасет только крепкая рука"?Что ж, это можно. Но это будет последний уж раз: экс-НБП в кризисе.У вождя был инсульт, с той поры Дед Лимон плоховат; назначенный им триумвират наследников деградировал, партактив повыбит и разочарован Донбассом, нацболпис Прилепин, "молодое" лицо партии, так и вовсе ушел к Малофееву воспевать мироточение ряс и подавать чай капиталу.Поливанием журналистов виски ситуации не исправишь. Молодежи так тоже не привлечешь. Разве что НОД (чья базовая целевая аудитория, кстати, вовсе не школьники, а люди предпенсионного и пенсионного возраста).Получается, Дед просто решил расторговать свою партию в самый последний раз. Конец эпохи. Гаражная распродажа. Все с молотка.Грустно, Эдуард Вениаминович.(NB: Коллизия в целом лишь подтверждает тактику Плтрк, давным-давно предложенную Поколению в отношении НБП, Лимонова, и всего, что рядом: "не ходите за ними, они вас ради жеста посадят". Правда, Венедиктов в полицию побежит вряд ли (не его стиль) — но кто помешает сделать это организаторам? Нападавших и так уже задержали).

21 мая, 07:19

Andre Dirrell title fight ends with uncle punching opponent and fleeing ring

Leon Lawson Jr punches Jose Uzcategui after Venezuelan lands late blows‘My coach is my family, my uncle, and he was worried’The American boxer Andre Dirrel has apologised after his uncle Leon Lawson Jr, who is also a member of his coaching team, punched his opponent after their super-middleweight title fight at the MGM National Harbour near Washington. Dirrel was awarded the fight for the interim IBF super-middleweight title after his opponent, José Uzcátegui of Venezuela, was disqualified for punching after the bell in the eighth round. Continue reading...

Выбор редакции
12 мая, 03:02

President Announces Formation of Bipartisan Presidential Commission on Election Integrity

WASHINGTON, DC - Today, President Donald J. Trump announced the issuance of an executive order forming the bipartisan Presidential Commission on Election Integrity. The President also named Vice President Mike Pence as Chairman and Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach as Vice-Chair of the Commission. Five additional members were named to the bipartisan commission today: Connie Lawson, Secretary of State of Indiana  Bill Gardner, Secretary of State of New Hampshire  Matthew Dunlap, Secretary of State of Maine  Ken Blackwell, Former Secretary of State of Ohio Christy McCormick, Commissioner, Election Assistance Commission  "This action by President Trump fulfills another promise made to the American people,” said Vice President Pence. “We can't take for granted the integrity of the vote. This bipartisan commission will review ways to strengthen the integrity of elections in order to protect and preserve the principle of one person, one vote because the integrity of the vote is the foundation of our democracy." The Commission on Election Integrity will study vulnerabilities in voting systems used for federal elections that could lead to improper voter registrations, improper voting, fraudulent voter registrations, and fraudulent voting.  The Commission will also study concerns about voter suppression, as well as other voting irregularities.  The Commission will utilize all available data, including state and federal databases. Secretary Kobach, Vice-Chair of the Commission added: "As the chief election officer of a state, ensuring the integrity of elections is my number one responsibility.  The work of this commission will assist all state elections officials in the country in understanding, and addressing, the problem of voter fraud." Additional Commission members will be named at a later time. It is expected the Commission will spend the next year completing its work and issue a report in 2018.

12 мая, 00:41

Press Briefing by Principal Deputy Press Secretary Sarah Sanders and Homeland Security Advisor Tom Bossert

James S. Brady Press Briefing Room 1:45 P.M. EDT MS. SANDERS:  Another light crowd today.  Good afternoon.  First off, before we get started, I’d like to bring up Homeland Security Advisor Tom Bossert to tell you about an executive order on cybersecurity that the President just signed.  He’ll take a few of your questions and, respectfully, I ask that you keep your questions for him on the topic of the executive order.  And don’t worry, I’ll come back and answer all of the rest of your pressing questions as soon as he wraps up. So with that, I’ll turn it over to Tom. MR. BOSSERT:  Thank you, Sarah.  Thank you very much for your time.  Couple of things positive to report today, and the first is that President Trump, about an hour ago, signed an executive order on cybersecurity.  And that executive order, among other things, is going to keep his promise that he has made to the American people to keep America safe, including in cyberspace. I’d like to do a few things.  I’ll promise you that we will distribute the executive order, but if I could, I’ll preview the executive order for you, walk you through its three primary sections, some of its wave tops, and then take your questions.   Among other things, at least as an observation for me, I think the trend is going in the wrong direction in cyberspace, and it’s time to stop that trend and reverse it on behalf of the American people.  We’ve seen increasing attacks from allies, adversaries, primarily nation states but also non-nation state actors, and sitting by and doing nothing is no longer an option.  So President Trump’s action today is a very heartening one. There are three sections.  They’re in priority order, in a sense.  The first priority for the President and for our federal government is protecting our federal networks.  I think it’s important to start by explaining that we operate those federal networks on behalf of the American people, and they often contain the American people’s information and data, so not defending them is no longer an option.  We’ve seen past hacks and past efforts that have succeeded, and we need to do everything we can to prevent that from happening in the future.   So a few things on federal networks.  We have practiced one thing and preached another.  It’s time for us now, and the President today has directed his departments and agencies, to implement the NIST framework.  It’s a risk-reduction framework.  It is something that we have asked the private sector to implement, and not forced upon ourselves.  From this point forward, departments and agencies shall practice what we preach and implement that same NIST framework for risk management and risk reduction. The second, I think, of note -- point in protecting our federal networks is that we spent a lot of time and inordinate money protecting antiquated and outdated systems.  We saw that with the OPM hack and other things.  From this point forward, the President has issued a preference from today forward in federal procurement of federal IT for shared services -- got to move to the cloud and try to protect ourselves instead of fracturing our security posture. Third point I would make is that the executive order directs all its department and agency heads to continue its key roles, but it also centralizes risk so that we view our federal IT as one enterprise network.  If we don’t do so, we will not be able to adequately understand what risk exists and how to mitigate it. Number of thoughts on that.  Among other things, that is going to be a very difficult task.  So modernizing is imperative for our security, but modernizing is going to require a lot of hard, good governance.  And responsible for that today is the President’s American innovation -- Technology Council, I’m sorry.  The President’s American Technology Council is going to run that effort on behalf of the President here out of the White House.  And we have great hope that there will be efficiencies there, but also security.   And I would probably note to you that other countries have taken two or three years to learn what we just came up with in two or three months, and that is that we can’t promote innovation without first thinking through risk reduction.  So doing that together is a message that we’ve learned, but doing it together is a message we’d like to encourage private sector folks to adopt. So point two in the executive order is our critical infrastructure cybersecurity effort.  The President has directed the President’s Cabinet to begin the hard work of protecting our nation’s most critical infrastructures -- utilities, financial and healthcare systems, telecommunications networks.  He’s directed them to identify additional measures to defend and secure our critical infrastructure.  And he’s continued to promote the message that doing nothing is no longer an option. So the executive order not only requires his departments and agencies to help those critical infrastructure owners and operators and the most important ones, but to do it in a proactive sense.  The message is a tilt towards action. We’ve seen bipartisan studies, as an observation from me, over the last eight years, both parties.  They’ve made powerful recommendations.  They have not been adopted for various reasons.  This executive order adopts the best and brightest of those recommendations, in my view.   I’m going to stop with those three and take questions.   Q    Two questions for you real quickly.  First --  MR. BOSSERT:  Actually, if I could -- Q    Yes, please.  Brian.   MR. BOSSERT:  Brian, go ahead. Q    First, was the Russian hack in any way responsible or an impetus for this?  Number two, I’ve talked to IT people who say putting stuff on the cloud actually can be problematic as far as security.  So what additional security measures would you apply to the cloud to make sure that it’s not as risky as some of the IT people tell us it would be? MR. BOSSERT:  Couple questions there.  So let me say three things first.  The third section of the executive order -- may be the one I skipped over here a moment ago -- speaks to two halves.  It speaks to not only the need to develop the norms and the interoperable, open communication system that is the Internet -- the United States invented the Internet and it’s time to maintain our values on it -- but it also speaks to a deterrence policy which has long been overdue. And so the Russians are not our only adversary on the Internet, and the Russians are not the only people that operate in a negative way on the Internet.  The Russians, the Chinese, the Iranians, other nation states are motivated to use cyber capacity and cyber tools to attack our people and our governments and their data.  And that’s something that we can no longer abide.  We need to establish the rules of the road for proper behavior on the Internet, but we also then need to deter those who don’t want to abide by those rules. So the answer to your first question is, no, it wasn’t a Russian-motivated issue, it was a United States of America-motivated issue. Q    And the second question about the cloud, that security on the cloud -- IT people say it’s -- MR. BOSSERT:  If we don’t move to shared services -- we have 190 agencies that are all trying to develop their own defenses against advanced protection and collection efforts.  I don’t think that that’s a wise approach. There’s always going to be risk.  And so your questions is, are we still at risk?  Yes.  I’m not here to promote for you that the President has signed an executive order and created a cyber-secure world in a fortress U.S.A.  That’s not the answer.  But if we don’t move to secure services and shared services, we’re going to be behind the eight ball for a very long time. Q    Thank you. MR. BOSSERT:  You’re welcome.  Sir. Q    You said “sitting around doing nothing.”  Is it your contention that the Obama administration, that was its approach to cybersecurity?  Sitting around and doing nothing?  Question one.  And number two, you talked about one enterprise network.  Does that mean every system throughout the federal government under this executive order, the ambition is to make them all the same?  Or protected in the same way? MR. BOSSERT:  No.  So I’ll answer them in reverse order, if I can.   What we need to do is view the federal government as an enterprise as opposed to just viewing each department and agency as its own enterprise.  So the Department of Homeland Security -- and Secretary Kelly will play a large and leading role in this effort in implementing the President’s executive order -- as an enterprise.  And their enterprise network covers 340,000 or so employees and their contractors and so forth.  They are responsible, and that Secretary of each department and agency will remain responsible, for securing those networks.   But we need to look at the federal government as an enterprise as well so that we no longer look at OPM and think, well, you can defend your OPM network with the money commensurate for the OPM responsibility.  OPM, as you know, had the crown jewel, so to speak, of our information and all of our background and security clearances. So what we’d like to do is look at that and say, that is a very high risk, high cost for us to bear, maybe we should look at this as an enterprise and put collectively more information in protecting them than we would otherwise put into OPM looking at their relevant importance to the entire -- Q    So their budget, in other words. MR. BOSSERT:  No, not just their budget but based on what they do.  So each department and agency has a responsibility to protect its own networks, but they now have a responsibility to identify their risk to the White House, to the President, so that we can look at what they’ve done and, just as importantly, what risk they know they’re accepting but not mitigating.  There’s a lot of identified risk, but there’s also a lot of identified and not remediated risk. So that mitigation strategy is going to have to come through a centralized place.  We’ve seen other countries, Israel and others, adopt a centralized view of risk management and risk-acceptance decisions.  So that’s the answer to your question. The second question, though, maybe, is that -- Q    “Sitting around doing nothing.”  Is that the administration -- the previous administration’s approach, from your vantage point? MR. BOSSERT:  I think that the observation is that we have not done the basic block-and-tackling of thinking of the Internet as something that the American people benefit from.  I think what we’ve done is focus on the federal IT portion of it.  I think that a lot of progress was made in the last administration but not nearly enough.  I think we’re going to change that.  And I think looking at this from the perspective of a deterrence strategy, to be honest, yes, I think the last administration should have done that, had an obligation to do it and didn’t. Q    I was wondering if the administration has a view on what might constitute an act of war with regard -- what kind of cyberattack might constitute an act of war. MR. BOSSERT:  There’s a whole lot that we’ll talk about in terms of what constitutes a cyberattack, what’s war and what’s not war.  The Tallinn Manual and other things are important.  But I think the most important answer to your question is that we’re not going to draw a red line on cyberwar at this point today.  It’s not within the direct scope of the executive order.  But it also would violate I think the President’s primary mission he made to not telegraph our punches. If somebody does something to the United States of America that we can’t tolerate, we will act. Q    You said that the goal of this is to secure the Internet.  You talked about the Internet as something that Americans use and enjoy.  Well, the technical standards for most things on the Internet are put together by many international standards organizations and engineers, and things like that that often aren’t in the United States.  Has there been any talk of outreach to these sorts of bodies to try and build in security into the next generation of protocols? MR. BOSSERT:  Yeah, absolutely.  So the message here is not just protecting the people of America.  We have an “America first” perspective, but the idea of having likeminded people with similar viewpoints, like our allies, developing with us the open, operable Internet is something key to figuring out how we will define what is and is not acceptable. We can’t cut off the Internet at our borders and then expect it to operate in a viable way.  And if there are good ideas coming out of Germany, then we’ll take them.  If there are good ideas coming out of Peoria, we’ll take them as well. Q    You mentioned the American Technology Council a short time ago.  We really don’t have much of an indication that there’s going to be, like, significant Silicon Valley or tech leaders who are going to be coming here.  We know that there have been reports the President has had a few phone calls with someone like Mark Zuckerberg.  Can you enlighten us a bit?  Who can we expect to see here coming to the White House next month?  Can we expect to see someone like Mark Zuckerberg working closely with the administration when it comes to that council? MR. BOSSERT:  So let me go backwards a little bit.  Instead of telling you who the President did and didn’t talk to -- I’ll probably get that wrong anyway -- I’ll tell you that there’s a lot to be learned from private industry.  And among other things, that stuff needs to come into the White House in the appropriate way. And so we talk on a regular basis to leaders, some that are technical leaders, some that are business leaders.  My point of calling out the American Technology Council was to point out that they’re going to have a leadership role in modernizing our federal IT.  And that has a lot of reasons, right?  There’s efficiencies and cost-savings that are beyond just security. So this executive order speaks to the security component of it.  And I would direct you then to the American Technology Council and their efforts as you look through and think about those other efficiencies. But as an example, we’ve heard numbers that suggest the federal government spends upwards of $40,000 per employee on their IT service costs.  And that is so out of line with private industry that Secretary Ross and others would probably have a very easy time buying and making a lot of money off of a company that’s so poorly invested their dollars, and so I think you’ll see that innovation come from that group of leaders and thoughtful people.   And then in terms of what you’ll see over the next month, I would say I don't know the answer to that specifically, but I'd like to take the opportunity and the opening before Sarah pulls me to thank two or three people, and one of them high on my list is Mayor Giuliani.  I'd like to thank him for the advice he’s given to me and to the President and to others as we formulate this thinking.  I'd like to thank Representative McCaul.  I'd like to thank a few other members of Congress -- Representatives Ratcliffe and Hurd; Representative Nunes, Senator Collins, Senator McCain, in particular; Senators Burr and Whitehouse.  There’s a number of people that provided thought leadership and taken action to pass legislation -- all those things that we've liked and that has improved our cybersecurity over the last eight years.  So I don't want to be critical of things that have happened over the last eight years, but I do want to look forward to improvement. Q    Can you -- a former Obama administration official who dealt with other countries and other entities in other countries -- he said that there were tens of thousands of attempts to hack into government systems daily.  Can you quantify, can you confirm or deny that? MR. BOSSERT:  No.  The answer for “no” is that we see that happen and we then start getting into a numbers game.  And what I think would be a better argument right now -- not to cut off that question, it’s a reasonable one, but the better answer here is for us to figure out how we can provide a better collective defense of our federal IT and those networks and data that we operate.  If we do it based on an individual attack basis, we're probably looking at it in the wrong way. Q    So was this person correct when they said entities from around the world -- MR. BOSSERT:  I would say it this way, without numbers -- the trend line is going in the wrong direction.  We see additional attacks, additional numbers, additional volume, and occasionally additional successes that trouble us.  And that's the best way I can quantify that for you today. Q    Thank you. MR. BOSSERT:  You're welcome.  Thank you. Q    Can you just say why the cybersecurity order was delayed?  This was going to come out one day early in the administration.  And there had been a lot of talk about concern from Silicon Valley and tech leaders with the direction that it was going in.  So are those -- do you have some sense of the kind of support that this order has, or not, from the tech world? MR. BOSSERT:  I want to answer you and even reject part of your question, if I can, and I think that will be clarifying.  So first, I'll reject one part of your question.  So we did see some concerns, but I don't think that they remain.  And I look forward to their response after they read the President’s executive order today. One of those concerns, for example, arose when they read the voluntary call of the President’s executive order, which I applaud today, that we reduce greatly the number of botnet attacks in the United States -- the distributed denial of service attacks.  That's going to require voluntary cooperation among all the different owners and operators of different privately held companies -- from service providers to manufacturers of goods.  And those things are going to have to happen voluntarily. What the President calls for is for the government to provide the basis for that coordination, without defining who’s in and who’s out -- it's a voluntary operation.  But we know that they have the technical capacity, if they have the will, to come together on behalf of the American people and reduce those botnets dramatically.  And the President is calling for them to do that.  He’s asking for the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of Commerce to facilitate that. And what we thought we saw was reflections of a concern that there would be a compulsion, and I think that's something that I can put to rest today -- and that's why I poked into your question a little bit.   But then, if I could, the broader question of delay, I don't really much take that either.  I think sometimes we've been criticized for doing things too quickly, and now maybe we're being criticized for doing things to slowly.  So maybe I'm right in the middle of the sweet spot, I would argue.  But I think the President has hit this timing perfectly.  And I'll tell you three reasons why.  One of the block-and-tackle things that he directed us to do before the executive order was to get the money right.  He’s picked a Cabinet full of people that know that business operations and business functions have to follow first so that you can then provide policy that he can implement -- right?  So policy sets direction and vision, but if you don't have the right money and back-office infrastructure and so forth to implement those things, then you have to either change your vision or change your amount of money. And so, just off the top of my head, I just thought you might ask that question.  The first I already preemptively answered, and that is that we tend to learn a lesson here that we don't want to innovate with policy on the innovation side, and secure with policy on the security side without doing that in tandem.  And you saw the President signed on Friday last the Technology Council and he signed today the cybersecurity order.  And that was done intentionally. And then, lastly, in between now and then, the President’s FY18 budget allocated $319 million to DHS’s cybersecurity budget alone.  We have dedicated an increase of $1.5 billion across all departments involved in protective cyberspace.   So, from my perspective, both his first budget request and his future ones have right-sized and aligned that amount of money, keeping America safe.  And that might answer all three components of your question.   And with that, I know Sarah wants to pull me away.  So thank you so much for your time.   Q    -- the President address concerns Americans might have about political motivations that these cybersecurity companies like -- for instance, you mentioned Facebook -- they’re very political --  MS. SANDERS:  Maybe Tom could come back to questions later.  Thank you so much, Tom.  And actually, he was wrong on one thing -- I would gladly have let him stay up here and talk cybersecurity with you all day.  (Laughter.)     I have a few announcements.  And then, as promised, I will get to, I'm sure, all of your many pressing questions.  I'd like to announce that the President also just signed another executive order establishing a bipartisan presidential advisory commission on election integrity.  This will be chaired by Vice President Mike Pence.  The President is committed to the thorough review of registration and voting issues in federal elections.  And that's exactly what this commission is tasked with doing. The bipartisan commission will be made up of around a dozen members, including current and former Secretaries of State, with Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach serving as vice chair.  It will also include individuals with knowledge and experience in elections, election management, election fraud detection, and voter integrity efforts.   Five additional members that have been announced as of today -- Connie Lawson, the Secretary of State of Indiana; Bill Gardner, Secretary of State of New Hampshire; Matthew Dunlap, the Secretary of State of Maine; Ken Blackwell, former Secretary of State of Ohio; and Christy McCormack, a commissioner on Election Assistance Commission. The commission will review policies and practices that enhance or undermine the American people’s confidence in the integrity of federal elections, and provide the President with a report that identifies system vulnerabilities that lead to improper registrations and voting.  We expect the report will be complete by 2018. The experts and officials on this commission will follow the facts where they lead.  Meetings and hearings will be open to the public for comments and input, and we will share those updates as we have them. In Cabinet news, Secretary Perdue is in Cincinnati, Ohio today to announce the Agriculture Department’s plan for reorganizing to provide better service to the American people, as the President directed in his March 13th executive order.  With the barges of the Ohio River behind him, many of which contain products that are beginning a journey that will ultimately take them to markets overseas, Secretary Perdue will announce a new mission area for trade and foreign agriculture affairs, recognizing the growing importance of international trade to the agriculture sector of the economy. United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement will hold a press conference at 2:15 p.m. today -- probably not too far away -- to announce the results of a highly successful recent gang surge operation.  The President has made enforcement of our nation’s immigration laws a top priority, and today’s announcement will underscore not only that commitment but his focus on targeting transnational gangs and prioritizing the removal of criminal aliens who pose a threat to public safety. Also today, Secretary Mattis met with the Turkish Prime Minister in London to discuss a range of bilateral security issues, and the Secretary reiterated the United States’ commitment to protecting our NATO ally.  And both leaders affirmed their support for peace and stability in Iraq and Syria.   One other thing I wanted to point out -- last night, Obamacare suffered another serious blow as Aetna announced its decision to pull out of the Nebraska and Delaware marketplaces, which ends their participation in exchanges completely.  They’ve sustained hundreds of millions of dollars over the last several years and is projected to lose more than $200 million in 2017.  The company attributes those losses to structural issues within the exchanges “that have led to coop failures and carrier exits and subsequent risk pool deterioration.” This latest news adds to the mountain of evidence that Obamacare has completely failed the American people, and reinforces why there is no time to waste in repealing and replacing this law before it takes our entire healthcare system down with it.   Finally, I know -- those hands -- I know we sent out a timeline regarding the former -- the firing of former Director Comey yesterday, because there seemed to be some misperceptions about the meeting between the President and the Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney General on Monday.  But I'm going to read it to you all again just to make sure we're all on the same page, because I want the sequence of events to be perfectly clear to everyone. The President, over the last several months, lost confidence in Director Comey.  After watching Director Comey’s testimony last Wednesday, the President was strongly inclined to remove him.   On Monday, the President met with the Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney General and they discussed reasons for removing the Director.   The next day, Tuesday, May 9th, the Deputy Attorney General sent his written recommendation to the Attorney General and the Attorney General sent his written recommendation to the President. Hopefully, that clears up some of those things.  And with that, I will take your questions. Steve Holland. Q    Sarah, in the Lester Hold interview the President just had he made a number of remarks.  Why did the President think that James Comey was a “showboat” and “grand-stander”? MS. SANDERS:  I think probably based on the numerous appearances that he made, and I think that it's probably pretty evident in his behavior over the last year or so with the back-and-forth.  And I think that it speaks pretty clearly -- those words don't leave a lot of room for interpretation, so I think it's pretty clear what he meant. Q    When were these three conversations that the President had with James Comey about whether he was under investigation?  He said one was at dinner, two phone calls.  Was that since January 20th, or when? MS. SANDERS:  That’s my understanding.  I don't have exact on when those phone calls took place.   Jonathan. Q    Sarah, two parts of the Comey question regarding the interview the President just gave.  First of all, isn't it inappropriate for the President of the United States to ask the FBI Director directly if he’s under investigation? MS. SANDERS:  No, I don't believe it is. Q    But one of these conversations the President said happened at a dinner where the FBI Director, according to the President, was asking to stay on as FBI Director.  Don't you see how that's a conflict of interest -- the FBI Director is saying he wants to keep his job, and the President is asking whether or not he’s under investigation?   MS. SANDERS:  I don't see that as a conflict of interest, and neither do the many legal scholars and others that have been commenting on it for the last hour.  So, no, I don't see it as an issue. Q    But, Sarah, the other question I want to ask you about is, I asked you directly yesterday -- MS. SANDERS:  That will be three, I think. Q    Different subject related to Comey.  I asked you directly yesterday if the President had already decided to fire James Comey when he met with the Deputy Attorney General and Attorney General, and you said, no.  Also the Vice President of the United States said directly that the President acted to take the recommendation of the Deputy Attorney General to remove the FBI Director.  Sean Spicer said directly, “It was all him,” meaning the Deputy Attorney General.  Now we learn from the President directly that he had already decided to fire James Comey.  So why were so many people giving answers that just weren’t correct?  Were you guys in the dark?  Was the Vice President misled again, as happened with Mike Flynn -- MS. SANDERS:  I know you’d love to report that we were misled and what it creates -- I let you finish and read off every single one of those statements, so unless you want to trade places, I think it's my turn now.   I think it's pretty simple.  I hadn’t had a chance to have the conversation directly with the President to say -- I'd had several conversations with him, but I didn’t ask that question directly, “had you already made that decision.”  I went off of the information that I had when I answered your question.  I've since had the conversation with him, right before I walked on today, and he laid it out very clearly.  He had already made that decision.  He had been thinking about it for months, which I did say yesterday and have said many times since.  And Wednesday I think was the final straw that pushed him.  And the recommendation that he got from the Deputy Attorney General just further solidified his decision and, again, I think reaffirmed that he made the right one. Q    Was the Vice President in the dark, too? MS. SANDERS:  Nobody was “in the dark,” Jonathan.  You want to create this false narrative.  If you want to talk about contradicting statements and people that were maybe in the dark, how about the Democrats.  Let’s read a few of them.  You want to talk about them?  Here’s what Democrats said not long ago about Comey.  Harry Reid said Comey should resign and be investigated by the Senate.  Senator Chuck Schumer said, “I don't have confidence in him any longer.”  Senator Bernie Sanders said it would not be a bad thing for the American people if Comey resigned.  Nancy Pelosi said Comey was not in the right job.  Former DNC chair, Debbie Wasserman Shultz said that she thought Comey was no longer able to serve in a neutral and credible way. President Obama’s advisor, Valerie Jarrett, reportedly urged him to fire Comey.  Just yesterday, Representative Maxine Waters said that Hillary Clinton would have fired Comey.   If you want to talk about people in the dark?  Our story is consistent.  The President is the only person that can fire the director of the FBI.  He serves at the pleasure of the President. The President made the decision.  It was the right decision.  The people that are in the dark today are the Democrats.  They want to come out, they want to talk about all of these -- they love Comey and how great he was.   Look at the facts.  The facts don't lie.  Their statements are all right there.  I think it's extremely clear that -- and, frankly, I think it's kind of sad -- in Washington, we finally have something that I think we should have all been able to agree on, and that was that Director Comey shouldn’t have been at the FBI, but the Democrats want to play partisan games.  And I think that's the most glaring thing that's being left out of all of your process stories. John Roberts. Q    Sarah, you said from the podium yesterday that Director Comey had lost the confidence of the rank and file of the FBI.  On Capitol Hill today, the Acting Director of the FBI Andrew McCabe directly contradicted that.  What led you and the White House to believe that he had lost the confidence of the rank and file of the FBI when the Acting Director says it's exactly the opposite? MS. SANDERS:  Well, I can speak to my own personal experience.  I've heard from countless members of the FBI that are grateful and thankful for the President’s decision.  And I think that we may have to agree to disagree.  I'm sure that there are some people that are disappointed, but I certainly heard from a large number of individuals -- and that's just myself -- and I don't even know that many people in the FBI.  Q    And a question to what you were saying about the Democrats.  Clearly, they didn’t like James Comey too much after the October 28th pronouncement that he was reopening the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s emails.  Their point now is the timing is different, that this was in the middle of an investigation.  Do they have a point? MS. SANDERS:  Not at all.  And I think Mr. McCabe made that point far better than I could today when he said that there’s been no impediment to the investigation.  And as I said before, any investigation that was taking place on Monday is still taking place today.  So I think that's, again, another sad story by the Democrats that they’re trying to peddle.   Mara. Q    Thank you.  Another comment from the hearing today -- the Acting Deputy Attorney General said -- I'm sorry, McCabe said that he considers the investigation into Russian meddling in the election to be highly significant.  In the past, the President has said that the investigation was a hoax, and he’s questioned even recently whether maybe it wasn’t Russia, it might have been China.  Does the President consider this investigation to be highly significant? MS. SANDERS:  Look, I think he would love nothing more for this investigation to continue to its completion.  I think one of the reasons that the “hoax” component is the collusion component that has been the false narrative that you guys have been pushing for the better part of a year.  I think that's the piece that he is repeatedly talking about being the hoax. Q    But in terms of the threat to national security, does he take that seriously?  Does he think that's significant?  Putting aside the -- MS. SANDERS:  Of course, he takes national security seriously.  I mean, to even hint that he doesn’t I think is to misunderstand this President completely.  From the very moment that he stepped onto the campaign stage, to the day that he took the oath of office to become President, he has talked about national security.  He's made that one of the biggest priorities in the administration.  You just saw Tom Bossert here talking about cybersecurity.  On all fronts, whether it's securing the border, whether it's protecting people abroad here, the President has been focused on that. Q    Does the think what Russia did during the election was a threat to U.S. national security? MS. SANDERS:  You know, I haven’t had the chance to ask him about that.  I think we're still waiting on the final conclusion of that investigation. Q    Is he open-minded about that?  He doesn’t know -- MS. SANDERS:  Look, I think any time we have somebody interfering with our election, that would be considered a problem, and I think the President would certainly recognize that.   Matthew.   Q    Sarah, I appreciate it.  Two questions.  First, as has been mentioned, Vice President Pence yesterday said the firing was based on the recommendation of the Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General.  We know now that that's not true.  Was the Vice President misled again, or did he mislead the American people? MS. SANDERS:  I believe I answered that question. Q    But if you have, I don’t think I caught it, because the Vice President said yesterday that the President chose to accept and support the decision of the Deputy Attorney General and Attorney General. MS. SANDERS:  He certainly accepted the Deputy Attorney -- Q    (Inaudible) going to do it either way.  MS. SANDERS:  But that doesn’t mean that he wouldn’t still accept his recommendation.  I mean, they're on the same page.  Like, why are we arguing about the semantics of whether or not he accepted it?  They agreed.  I mean, I'm not sure how he didn’t accept the Deputy Attorney General's recommendation when they agreed with one another. Q    So if I may just switch topics slightly.  If the President knew he was going to do this, why ask for those memos to begin with?  Why not just fire Comey?  Why have these memos put out and then explain that he did it because of the memos, but then say that he was going to do it either way?  I'm confused as to why we even got those memos. MS. SANDERS:  Look, I think he wanted it to get the feedback from the Deputy Attorney General, who the Director of the FBI reports to.  Again, it further solidified the decision that he had made.  The only person that can fire Comey was the President.  He made that decision.  It was clearly the right one, as evidenced by all of the comments, both by House and Senate Democrats, Republicans, and many people within the FBI. I think instead of getting so lost in the process -- did this happen at 12:01 or 12:02, did he fire him because he wore a red tie or a blue tie -- he fired him because he was not fit to do the job.  It's that simple.  This shouldn’t be a complicated process.  The President knew that Director Comey was not up to the task.  He decided that he wasn’t the right person in the job.  He wanted somebody that could bring credibility back to the FBI.  That had been lost over these last several months.  The President made that decision.  He made it; he moved forward.  It was the right one.  I don’t think that the back-and-forth makes that much difference. Q    Did you call on me? MS. SANDERS:  Yes, I'm sorry. Q    Okay, thank you.  Sarah, going back to what you said about Democrats -- yeah, you have some Democrats that say that Comey should have been fired, but they're questioning the timing.  Why now?  Even though the Deputy Attorney General did do that, they're questioning why now.  He couldn’t wait anymore? MS. SANDERS:  I think that I've answered this.  I hate to again just keep repeating myself, but we're kind of getting lost on the same questions here.  He had decided that he wasn’t fit.  There's never going to be a good time to fire someone, whether it's on a Tuesday or a Friday. Q    Why not day one, when he comes in? MS. SANDERS:  He decided he wanted to give Director Comey a chance.  He did.  And he felt like he wasn’t up to the task. Q    And then last question:  Monday, Sean Spicer, when he was at the podium, he said after the testimony with Clapper and Yates, he said -- he talked about there was no collusion from what Clapper said.  But he also said that there needs to be a timeline when the Russia investigation ends.  And then yesterday you said it should continue.  Which one is it?  Should it continue or should it end?  Because Spicer said the President wanted it to end, Monday.  And now, yesterday, you said it should continue.  I mean, I'm just trying to find out which one it is.   MS. SANDERS:  I've said that we wanted to come to its completion.  We wanted to continue until it is finished, which we would like to happen soon, so that we can focus on the things that we think most Americans, frankly, care a whole lot more about.  I think the people in this room are obsessed with this story, a lot more than the people that we talk to and we hear from every day.  We'd like to be focused on the problems that they have.  That's the point -- is we’d love for this to be completed.  But we also want it to be completed with integrity.  And I think that was one of the other reasons, frankly, that I think that the decision the President made was the right one, because I think it adds credibility and integrity back to the FBI where a lot of people, frankly, were questioning.   Q    We now know the President fired the FBI Director with more than six years left on his 10-year term because he was a show-boater, a grandstander.  How important is it that the next FBI director not be a show-boater or a grandstander?  And how important is it that this person show loyalty to the President? MS. SANDERS:  I think that the main factor that they're looking for is that they're loyal to the justice system, they're loyal to the American people.  This President is looking for somebody who can come in, that is independent, and has the support, I think, across the board, whether it's Republicans, Democrats, members of the FBI, and certainly the American people.   Again, it wasn’t just one thing that caused the President to make this decision.  A large part of why he made this decision was because he didn’t feel like Director Comey was up to the job.  He had watched -- it was just an erosion of confidence that he had in his ability to carry out the task that needed to be done.  He's looking for somebody who can do that.   Jordan. Q    Thank you, Sarah.  Two questions.  First, I want to follow up on what John asked about, the rank and file of the FBI.  Don’t you think the acting director of the FBI has a better handle on the rank and file than you do? MS. SANDERS:  Look, I'm not going to get in a back and forth on who has a better handle.  Again, I've heard from multiple individuals that are very happy about the President's decision, and I know that it was the right one.  I believe that most of the people that we've talked to also believe it was the right decision to make. Q    And I want to also ask about the meeting yesterday between President Trump and the Russian Foreign Minister.  Can you walk us through how a photographer from either a Russian state news outlet or the Russian government got into that meeting and got those photographs out? MS. SANDERS:  Yeah.  The same way that they would -- whoever the President was meeting with when it comes to a foreign minister or a head of state.  Both individuals had official photographers in the room.  We had an official photographer in the room, as did they. Q    Usually, media -- independent media in the U.S. is typically invited into those meetings.  Why didn’t that happen in this case? MS. SANDERS:  It varies, actually.  Not always.  Particularly sometimes, the protocol, when it is not the head of state, and prior to the President meeting with the head of state, that wouldn’t always take place.  So, again, proper protocol was followed in this procedure. Q    Has the President been questioned by the FBI with regard to their investigation into Russian interference in the election? MS. SANDERS:  Not that I'm aware of. Q    Does he expect to be? MS. SANDERS:  I haven’t had a chance to ask him that question, so I don’t know.  I'm not going to guess on what he may expect. Major. Q    So, at the Justice Department, there's a general protocol that discourages conversations with the President of the United States by the FBI director about anything that might involve the President.  That's the general aspect of the protocol that's usually required to ensure that there is no confusion about political interference of any kind, of even the impression or the appearance of political influence on the FBI.  That's the standard procedure.  You just said here it was appropriate for the President of the United States to ask whether or not he was under investigation.  Why is it appropriate if that's not consistent with the guidelines at the Justice Department to avoid that very encounter? MS. SANDERS:  We've talked to several -- again, several legal scholars have weighed in on this and said that there was nothing wrong with the President asking that question. Q    So the Justice Department should change its protocol on this? MS. SANDERS:  I haven’t seen their protocol.  I'm only speaking to the information that I have at this -- Q    What you think and the President thinks. MS. SANDERS:  No, it's what I think.  I mean, look at the people that followed up the interview.  There were multiple attorneys that came on after and specifically stated that it was not inappropriate and it wasn’t wrong for the President to do so.  So, again, I can only base it off -- I'm not an attorney, I don’t even play one on TV -- but what I can tell you is what I've heard from legal minds and people that actually are attorneys, and that's their opinion.  So I have to trust the justice system on that fact, too. Q    Would you say, based on the experience that you and Sean and this communications office had Tuesday and Wednesday, that you were given all of the best information to relay to the American public, through us -- and your job is to relay that information to the American public; we're only intermediaries -- about what happened with this firing and the rationale for it? MS. SANDERS:  It's funny that you mention intermediaries.  You seem to take a much more proactive approach most of the time.  But I'll go with intermediaries for today. Look, I think we were absolutely given the information that we could have at that time.  It was a quick-moving process.  We took the information we had, as best we had it, and got it out to the American people as quickly as we could. Q    And would you say that that information was accurate then or is more accurate now? MS. SANDERS:  I would say that after having a conversation with the President, you don’t get much more accurate than that. Q    And so by that standard, should reporters and the country essentially wait for a pronouncement from the President before believing that which is stated on his behalf by the White House communications staff? MS. SANDERS:  Look, Major, I'm not going to get into back and forth, that we have to have like a direct quote every single time.  In this process, I gave you the best information I had at the moment.  I still don’t think that it contradicts the President's decision.  You guys want to get lost in the process.   Q    I don’t think asking you a question and getting an answer is lost in the process, Sarah, with all respect. MS. SANDERS:  And I'm answering those questions.  It's very simple:  The President decided to fire Director Comey.  Nobody else gets to make that decision.  And he made it, he stands by it, as do the rest of us.   Q    Two questions.  Following up on this, back in, I think, October of last year, the former President was highly criticized by members of the FBI and other ethical folks outside of the FBI for making some comments on television that sort of suggested that he had an opinion about how the Hillary Clinton email case should go.  And the charge was that he was interfering, that he was putting his thumb on the scale of an ongoing, active investigation.  There was a lot of criticism from Republicans of the President about that.   Talk to me about how that -- how what this President did in his series of conversations with the FBI director doesn’t go far beyond what former President Obama did?  And to Major's point, how can you argue -- regardless of maybe some pundits on TV who might be saying otherwise -- how can you argue that that doesn’t have an appearance of trying to influence an investigation that's actively going on? MS. SANDERS:  Look, I think the President has encouraged this investigation to take place and complete so that we can move forward.  We've been as compliant as possible throughout the entire process.  We will continue to do so.  Nobody wants this investigation to go forward complete and end with integrity more than the President. Q    But people clearly know which way he wants it to come out, right?   MS. SANDERS:  On the right side.  I think that he wants it to come out -- he's very well aware of the actions he has or hasn’t taken.  He knows he didn’t take any action.  And I think he's ready for the rest of you guys to understand that as well. Q    And one last question, just to follow up on the FBI thing.  And I'm not trying to be overly combative here, but you said now today, and I think you said again yesterday, that you personally have talked to countless FBI officials, employees, since this happened. MS. SANDERS:  Correct. Q    I mean, really?  So are we talking -- MS. SANDERS:  Between like email, text messages -- absolutely. Q    Like 50? MS. SANDERS:  Yes. Q    Sixty, seventy? MS. SANDERS:  Look, we’re not going to get into a numbers game.  I mean, I have heard from a large number of individuals that work at the FBI that said that they're very happy with the President's decision.  I mean, I don’t know what I else I can say. Q    Sarah, there's a report from The Wall Street Journal that the Deputy Attorney General asked the White House Counsel to correct the version of events that was coming out initially after the Comey firing.  Is that accurate?  And does that contribute to the different version of events that we've seen over the last 48 hours? MS. SANDERS:  I'm not aware of a specific ask for a correction.  I do know that we all want to make sure that we get this right.  And that's been our -- what we've attempted to do all along.  It's the reason we sent the update last night.  I know there were several questions after the briefing yesterday, and I addressed that again in the opening today.  Our goal is to get this as right and clear as we can. Q    And did the President know that Comey had sought more resources before his investigation, before he made the decision? MS. SANDERS:  No.  And I also think, based on what I've seen, the Department of Justice has also pushed back and said that that's not accurate.  But I would refer you to them. Sarah. Q    So, Sarah, was it a mistake for the White House to try to pin the decision to fire James Comey on Rod Rosenstein? MS. SANDERS:  I don’t think there was ever an attempt to pin the decision on the Deputy Attorney General. Q    -- it was on his recommendation.   MS. SANDERS:  Look, I think his recommendation, again, it was extremely clear.  The President, though, makes the decision.  The buck stops with him.  Nobody has ever tried to say that this wasn’t the President's decision, that he wasn’t the one that carried it out.  And to try to, I think, conflate those things is just not what took place.  We know that the President has been thinking about this for a long time.  Wednesday, it certainly, I think, expedited that -- the Director's testimony from last Wednesday.  And then getting the recommendation from the Deputy Attorney General I think just further solidified the President's decision. Q    And just to clarify one thing you said.  You said the President has encouraged this investigation into Russia.  He wants to see it reach its completion sooner rather than later.  How has he encouraged it if he just fired the man who was overseeing the Russia investigation? MS. SANDERS:  There are multiple people that are part of this, and it's not just the FBI.  You've got the House Committee, the Senate Committee.   Look, again, the point is, we want this to come to its conclusion.  We want it to come to its conclusion with integrity.  And we think that we've actually, by removing Director Comey, taken steps to make that happen. Thanks so much, guys. END  2:29 P.M. EDT    

11 мая, 21:36

Former U.S. Rep. Corrine Brown convicted of federal fraud charges

A jury on Thursday convicted former 12-term Rep. Corrine Brown (D-Fla.) on more than a dozen federal fraud charges.Brown and Ronnie Simmons, her chief of staff who previously pleaded guilty in the case, were named last year in a 24-count federal indictment relating to a scheme led by Brown in which she used her official post as a member of Congress to help solicit $800,000 in contributions for a sham education charity, One Door for Education.Brown had described her prosecution as a “half-truth witch-hunt."Brown ran for reelection while under indictment, but lost the Democratic primary to former state Senator Al Lawson, who went on to win the seat.

05 мая, 16:33

Giphy's Asian Pacific American Heritage Month GIFs Are Pretty And Personal

May is Asian Pacific American Heritage Month, and what better way to celebrate it than with the perfect GIF to punctuate your social media? In honor of the monthlong tribute, Giphy, the popular graphic-making site, released this week a series of original GIFs that explore and celebrate those in the Asian American Pacific Islander community. Similar to their Black History Month and Women’s History Month campaigns, Giphy’s latest project honors what AAPIs have contributed to the country. The website is also sharing individuals’ take on what it’s like to be an AAPI minority in this country through the “I Am” interview project.  “We’re mindful of ensuring Giphy portrays the diversity of America as much as possible,” content strategy director Yosub Kim told HuffPost. “I definitely felt we needed to drive conversation for other underrepresented communities, which led us to the AAPI community.” To truly represent the community, Giphy Studios commissioned Asian-American artists to create a series of GIFs that spotlight a variety of trailblazing AAPI individuals who have made a lasting impact in the United States. For example, David Ho, a Taiwanese doctor whose breakthrough research helped tens of thousands of AIDs patients live longer lives, is memorialized in a winking graphic, where he spins an atom on his fingertip. Kristi Yamaguchi, the former Olympic figure skater, has been turned into a Claymation figure twirling in her iconic blue dress and gold medal. Other notable people featured include Patsy Mink, the first Asian-American congresswoman; Ellison Onizuka, the country’s first Asian-American astronaut; and Kamala Harris, the first Indian-American senator. Jasmyn Lawson, Giphy’s culture editor, interviewed 25 New Yorkers who were Asian Americans or Pacific Islanders for the “I Am” project. She says it was an opportunity for her to learn about the diversity within America’s AAPI communities and listen to what types of problems they face. “Some people shared stories about having immigrant parents and what it was like trying to fit in when your parents can’t necessarily teach you that,” Lawson told HuffPost. “Other people shared stories about dating and how their race and ethnicity has complicated that for them, whether it be fighting against blatant racism or not being aware if someone likes you for you or if they are only dating you because you’re Asian,” she added. For Giphy’s Kim, a South Korean man who grew up in the U.S., this project felt personal and “incredibly important.” “I’ve dealt with a lot of the insecurities of being Asian American,” he told HuffPost. Kim recalled a time when he was an 18-year-old drama student and an Army recruiter asked him about joining the military. Kim said he told the recruiter that he’d rather be an actor, to which the recruiter replied, “Oh, you want to be the next Jackie Chan?” “It hit me that his only reference for Asians in American media was Jackie Chan,” Kim said. “I will never forget that.” Experiences like that fuel Kim’s passion for including a more diverse collection of identities on Giphy’s website. “This is why we wanted to make GIFs of all the Asian Americans we brought in so we can start showing representation through reaction GIFs,” he said. “We’re taking on the challenge of original content that paves the way for minorities.” If you want to honor Asian Pacific American Heritage Month with style, use any of Giphy’s graphics below to show your friends what diversity looks like. -- 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.

04 мая, 02:31

Which NBA Team Has Drafted the Best Players in the Game?

The best NBA draft picks make or break a franchise. What would the league look like if teams were only constructed of players who they originally drafted?

03 мая, 16:48

Twilio (TWLO) Posts Q1 Loss, Shares Plunge on Dismal Outlook

Twilio Inc. (TWLO) reported first-quarter 2017 results yesterday, wherein the top line came ahead of our expectations, while the bottom line matches the same.

03 мая, 00:36

Twilio (TWLO) Posts Q1 Earnings, Shares Plunge 26% on Weak Outlook

Twilio Inc. (TWLO) just released its first quarter fiscal 2017 financial results, posting non-GAAP earnings of a loss of 4cents per share and revenues of $87.4 million.

Выбор редакции
30 апреля, 21:24

Labour figures call for candidates to step aside for Greens in two seats

Former policy chief among signatories to letter asking candidates to stand down in Brighton Pavilion and Isle of WightLabour’s former policy chief has called on Jeremy Corbyn to stand down candidates in two key constituencies in order to help the Greens defeat the Conservatives and boost their hopes elsewhere.Jon Cruddas has teamed up with MPs, including the former shadow cabinet member Clive Lewis, peers and campaigners such as Neal Lawson and Billy Bragg to issue the demand through a letter in the Guardian that warns of a looming “Tory landslide”. Continue reading...

Выбор редакции
28 апреля, 14:45

Can the Rally in Lawson Products (LAWS) Shares Continue?

Lawson Products, Inc. (LAWS) has been on the move lately as the stock has risen by 7.1% in the past four weeks, and it is currently trading well above its 20-Day SMA

26 апреля, 19:01

Convenience the byword for retail hotshots

IN retailing, it seems that small is indeed beautiful. Convenience stores have been a rare bright spot in a sector where foot-traffic is slowly being eroded by online shopping. Small, ubiquitous convenience

26 апреля, 12:46

Inside The Immigrant-Prosecuting Machine That Transformed America's Deportation Policy

TUCSON, Ariz. ― One morning last October, Irlando sat hunched over a table in the back of a federal courthouse, looking to a court-appointed lawyer for help. Border Patrol agents had found him the day before, wandering through the desert 150 miles away outside Lukeville, Arizona, and he still hadn’t showered. His hands were black with grime and he smelled of dried sweat after spending almost a week trekking in the hot sun. Irlando had worked as a commercial truck driver in a town north of Guatemala City and fled his homeland after a local gang started extorting his company. First, they killed drivers when the company didn’t pay up. Then gang members killed his boss, and Irlando decided he had to escape. A friend suggested he try to make it through Mexico and into the United States, where he could earn enough money to help support his wife and four children he was leaving behind. His youngest daughter was just two months old. When Border Patrol picked him up crossing into Arizona, he’d been thankful just to have a sip of water. But now the reality was sinking in: He was going to be deported back to Guatemala. Irlando’s lawyer, Eréndira Castillo, said she was sorry, but none of his backstory would matter to the judge. He wasn’t in immigration court. He was facing a criminal prosecution for crossing the border illegally, and this judge had no authority to decide whether he should stay in the country. All the judge would see is that he was arrested while trying to jump the border and that he had a prior conviction for attempting to do the same thing in Texas in 2013.  (Castillo talked to Irlando privately about his right to confidentiality and he decided to waive that right so his story could be told, on the condition that only his first name be used.) Irlando could accept the plea agreement in front of him, which came with a 75-day jail sentence, or he could take his case to trial, where virtually all defendants lose, and then face two years in prison. Either way, he’d almost certainly be deported after his release.  It was about 9:30 a.m., and Irlando needed to make up his mind before the proceedings started that afternoon. After a few minutes of discussion, he took the plea deal, which was typed in English. Castillo verbally translated the document for him before he signed it. “There’s no one to tell that I’m here trying to save my life?” Irlando asked his lawyer. “My baby girl needs three bottles of milk every week. Who’s going to give them to her?” “It’s very sad, but that’s the way it is,” Castillo replied, patting him on the knee. “The law doesn’t have a heart.” Improvising An Immigrant-Prosecuting Machine  When President Donald Trump took control of the immigration enforcement system, he inherited a well-oiled machine for prosecuting immigration violations that has continued to grow even as illegal border crossings decline. When Trump talks about imposing a “deportation force,” most observers interpret that as a reference to Immigration and Customs Enforcement or Border Patrol. But the most powerful tool he wields against unauthorized immigrants may well be the criminal courts. While residing in the U.S. without authorization is a civil offense, the act of crossing the border illegally is a misdemeanor, punishable by up to six months in jail. Those who get caught again face the felony charge of “illegal re-entry,” with a prison sentence of up to two years that can expand to two decades if the offender has a criminal record. Today, roughly one-quarter of immigrants expelled from the U.S. face criminal prosecution for crossing the border illegally and serve jail time before they are deported. Immigration prosecutions topped 91,000 in 2013 ― 28 times the number of prosecutions in 1993. This marks a fundamental transformation of both deportation policy and the federal courts. While less than 5 percent of federal prosecutions involved immigration in 1993, the first year of Bill Clinton’s presidency, illegal entry and re-entry prosecutions now account for roughly half the federal criminal docket, sapping limited resources to prosecute violent or white-collar crimes. Immigration authorities have had the power to refer migrants caught making illegal crossings to the criminal courts since the passage of the Immigration and Nationality Act in 1952. But the Justice Department’s priorities didn’t begin their steady shift until the Clinton era. Entering office during one of the largest mass migrations from Mexico in U.S. history and nearly a decade after President Ronald Reagan extended a pathway to U.S. citizenship for some 3 million people, Clinton faced major public backlash against illegal immigration and bipartisan hostility toward incoming migrants. Prior benevolence, Democrats and Republicans largely agreed, had only encouraged more illegal crossings. Clinton signed immigration reform laws that fast-tracked deportations and helped lay the foundation for the sprawling immigrant detention system that now reserves space to lock up 34,000 immigrants at a time. In a less-publicized development of his presidency, the number of immigration prosecutions ― particularly felony cases ― also steadily crept up, although the process was haphazard and no formal policies governed whether the migrants arrested should face criminal or civil penalties. That changed dramatically during George W. Bush’s presidency. Seeking a way to deter unauthorized immigrants more effectively, Customs and Border Protection began formalizing a whole host of previously informal policies. In one of the most sweeping changes, CBP teamed up with the Justice Department to funnel more people who jump the border into criminal court. The model program, called Operation Streamline, was implemented in southern Texas in 2005, when a sudden influx of Central American migrants left immigration authorities with a shortage of bed space in immigrant detention facilities. “We were taking a look at what consequences were available to us within existing law,” David Aguilar, a top Border Patrol official in the 1990s and CBP commissioner from 2011 to 2013, told HuffPost. “Prosecution was in fact one of those consequences.” Because the laws were already on the books, neither CBP nor the Justice Department needed to ask Congress for approval. The new system spread over the next decade, immigration violations swallowed up an ever-larger chunk of the federal criminal docket. The number of criminal immigration prosecutions doubled over Barack Obama’s two terms in office, despite the fact that illegal crossings plummeted by roughly half between 2009 and 2016. The continued criminal prosecution of illegal border crossings meant America’s first black president jailed more people of color on federal charges than any president in modern U.S. history. But because the Justice Department classifies almost all Hispanics as “white” in official statistics, that fact has largely been obscured. The immigrant-prosecuting machine improvised under Clinton, formalized under Bush and institutionalized by Obama barely merited a mention during last year’s immigration-obsessed presidential election. But Trump noticed. On the campaign trail, he pledged to raise the mandatory minimum sentence for illegal re-entry to five years. Within a week of taking office, he issued an executive order cracking down on sanctuary cities that contained a provision calling for more immigration prosecutions. On April 11, Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced plans to consider criminal charges for any person caught in the U.S. who has been deported before, regardless of where they’re arrested ― a massive expansion of a constitutionally questionable process that routinely sucks in asylum-seekers and people with long histories in the United States. “It’s going to break the bank in terms of paying for the jail and prison beds that these people are going to occupy if they are prosecuted,” said Judy Greene, the author of the book Indefensible: A Decade of Mass Incarceration of Migrants Prosecuted for Crossing the Border. “But that’s only one way to look at the cost,” she added. “The other way to look at it is to realize there is a huge cost in human misery for the people who are prosecuted ― their families, their neighbors ― if this happens the way Trump and Sessions have envisioned.” Two Decades Defending Immigrants  After meeting with Irlando that morning last fall, his lawyer, Castillo, walked to a nearby restaurant where she half-heartedly picked at a pair of tacos. A first-generation Mexican immigrant who speaks Spanish with native fluency, Castillo wears her black hair in a ponytail and an indigenous embroidered shirt called a huipil beneath her dark blue blazer. She loves practicing law, but hates cases like Irlando’s. “It’s so upsetting, because I feel complicit,” she told HuffPost. Castillo has worked these cases since 1998, when she joined the Federal Public Defender’s Office in Tucson to help expand its immigration unit. The job initially excited her: She’d already begun to specialize in immigration before going to law school, processing legalization applications for undocumented immigrants who became eligible to apply for U.S. citizenship under Reagan’s 1986 reform law. But Castillo’s enthusiasm faded as she faced uncomfortable situations that seemed to flout basic protections for criminal defendants, like the right to due process or the right to keep communications with your attorney confidential. The process from initial hearing to conviction and sentencing ― which routinely takes months, even years, in felony criminal cases ― was collapsed into a few hours for dozens of people at a time. She only got a few minutes to speak with each client, and they spoke in an open room where others could hear their conversations. “I was a brand-new lawyer,” Castillo said. “[Our bosses] never said, ‘This is the right way, this is the wrong way, this is what we expect from you.’ We just did what they said. I think, in retrospect, I would say, ‘No, the federal public defenders office shouldn’t be doing it this way. This is unconstitutional.’” Many legal experts agree. But their objections haven’t kept the system from growing. Within five years of joining the public defender’s office, the immigration unit Castillo helped pioneer had grown larger than the office’s entire criminal defense unit ― a reflection of the Justice Department’s shifting priorities. Castillo left the public defender’s office for private practice three years ago, but still defends immigrants accused of illegal crossings once a week. She takes pride in making small gestures to make the process less painful: offering her clients a glass of water, or calling their family members so she can tell them what’s happening. (The clients aren’t allowed to use the phone in court, so she calls on speakerphone while they listen in silence.) “I have to explain it’s not my fault,” Castillo said. “I’m a lawyer, I was appointed by the court.” ‘This Process Does Get Somewhat Repetitive’  Irlando’s hearing started at 1:30 p.m. A row of five microphones stood in front of Judge Bruce Macdonald. Each of the 41 defendants, lined up on benches before the judge, was a brown-skinned national of Mexico or Central America. They’d already signed plea agreements like Irlando’s, differing only in the length of their sentences. Macdonald took the bench and explained the process. Everyone would acknowledge their guilt in groups of five. He asked the 14 defense attorneys if their clients were competent to go forward with their hearings. They affirmed in unison. “You’ll quickly notice that I’m asking the same series of questions,” Macdonald told the defendants. “This process does get somewhat repetitive.” When Irlando’s turn came to plead guilty, Castillo mentioned his fear of returning to Guatemala. The judge said Irlando would be able to raise the issue once he was transferred to immigration court for deportation proceedings after his jail sentence. At least three other defendants said they feared for their safety if deported. Border Patrol policy dictates that they should have been channeled to an asylum officer or a civil immigration court to hear those claims, but the judge gave them the same reply he gave Irlando. Several people seemed only hazily aware they faced criminal prosecution at all. One woman, asked how she pleaded, said “yes.” Three defendants, all of them Guatemalan and all represented by the same attorney, said they didn’t speak Spanish as a first language. (A foreign government official, who declined to be identified because he was not authorized to speak with the media, later told HuffPost there were seven indigenous defendants that day who didn’t speak fluent Spanish.) Macdonald quickly moved on after the lawyer insisted the indigenous language speakers understood the agreement. The lawyer representing the three indigenous Guatemalans declined to comment about their cases, but acknowledged he wasn’t well qualified to handle their claims. “I don’t really know about immigration,” he said. “I usually call up a friend if there’s an asylum issue to get advice.” The Consequence Delivery System About the same time Castillo first went to work defending immigrants facing prosecution in Tucson, John Lawson arrived in the Arizona town of Douglas as a newly minted Border Patrol agent. The town is roughly 260 miles east of where Irlando was picked up crossing. In 1997, Lawson found only about 100 yards of fencing separating the United States from Mexico. That was a year authorities caught 1.4 million people crossing the border illegally ― almost four times the rate of apprehension in 2016. At that time, Border Patrol had half as many agents trying to stop those migrants, and the barrier between the U.S. and Mexico in that area was an opaque wall, so agents couldn’t see people throwing rocks and or lobbing cinder blocks at passing patrol cars. “It was kind of Wild West out here,” Lawson said as he led a tour of the border at Nogales in October. “It was insanity, everyone trying to catch who they could.” In the 1990s, Border Patrol agents usually escorted people they apprehended back to the other side ― a procedure known as “voluntary return.” Unlike a formal deportation, a voluntary return has no legal consequences and returnees can apply for a U.S. immigration visa a minute after returning to Mexico. It wasn’t uncommon for Lawson to catch the same person crossing illegally three times in a single day. Border Patrol agents struggled to deter people from simply crossing again. Mexico was limping through an economic crisis in the mid-1990s, just as the country’s 1970s baby boom generation reached working age. The 1994 North Atlantic Free Trade Agreement made matters worse, compelling some 2 million Mexicans to flee the country’s farms when they couldn’t compete with subsidized agricultural imports from the United States. Foreign-owned assembly plants sprouted in border towns to take advantage of the cheap labor and lower import taxes NAFTA offered, which pulled out-of-work Mexicans to cities within walking distance of the United States like magnets. Border Patrol couldn’t control the underlying reasons for the immigration explosion, so the agency worked to make deterrents more effective. Rather than returning the migrants they arrested to the same cities where they crossed, agents might bus them hours away, making the crossing more expensive and breaking the link between migrants and their smugglers. Instead of voluntary removals, Border Patrol increasingly sent unauthorized immigrants to get fingerprinted and face formal deportation proceedings. “Now everyone gets an alien registration number,” Lawson said. “That’s as permanent as it gets. It stays with you for the rest of your life.” By the mid-2000s, CBP had institutionalized these policies into a list of penalties the agency calls the “consequence delivery system.” The harshest of those consequences is criminal prosecution. Lawson is proud of CBP’s work. The sporadic links of opaque fencing have stretched into hundreds of miles of steel beams, which are reinforced with cameras and underground sensors. People scale the barrier so often that the rust has scraped off some of the beams, but Lawson is confident that agents catch most of the people who make it over. When they do, the migrants’ fingerprints tell them everything they need to know. If a person has tried to cross illegally within the last two decades, a record of the deportation appears. If he or she has ever committed a crime in the United States, that’s there too. Though there are some exceptions ― children, asylum-seekers or people who appear sick ― agents are supposed to deal out a consequence to every unauthorized migrant they apprehend. There’s only enough slots at the federal courthouse in Tucson to prosecute 70 border-crossers per day. If agents find more unauthorized migrants near that jurisdiction, they’ll face deportation instead. But these days, there are far fewer illegal crossings, so the courthouse rarely fills to capacity for its daily three hours of illegal entry and re-entry cases. “There’s a bunch of reasons why that could be happening,” Lawson said. “But we’re fairly certain that a lot of it has to do with these consequences.” Prosecuted Far From The Border These prosecutions aren’t just happening to migrants picked up along the border. Felony illegal re-entry charges were filed in all but four of the 94 U.S. district courts last year.   Around the time Irlando was convicted, a gray-haired woman stood before a judge in a federal courtroom in Phoenix in a red jumpsuit, shackled at the wrists and ankles. Two of her daughters, both born in the United States, watched from the benches. The woman, whom HuffPost is not identifying because her family fears she’ll be deported, was born in the Mexican state of Michoacán but came to the U.S. when she was 9 years old. In 2003, she spent two months in jail for heroin possession and distribution charges, and was then deported. She returned illegally soon after, as unauthorized immigrants with U.S.-born children often do. She found work cleaning houses and avoided trouble with the law, but ICE arrested her last year. Her daughters are unsure why their mother was targeted, but suspect someone may have reported her. Given her 13-year-old drug charges, the woman had little choice but to take a plea agreement. To secure a conviction, the only evidence prosecutors needed was a prior order of deportation. Each conviction on a person’s record can enhance their jail sentence. She faced the possibility of 10 years in prison, but was released on time served ― seven months ― in February after taking the deal. It’s very sad, but that’s the way it is. The law doesn’t have a heart. Attorney Eréndira Castillo It’s unclear whether she was deported. The woman’s attorney, Kaitlin Verdura, declined to discuss the specifics of her client’s case, but said her situation is not uncommon. “There are people in the United States that have been here for a very long time, who have assimilated into the country, and get prosecuted for the crime of illegal re-entry,” she said. When Sessions announced on April 11 the Justice Department’s plans to consider prosecution for anyone who enters the country illegally, he likely wasn’t directing his attention at border-crossers like Irlando. People like the woman in Phoenix will probably bear the brunt of the Trump administration’s changes. The Justice Department did not reply to HuffPost’s request for comment. It’s unclear how many of the 11 million undocumented immigrants who live in the United States have deportations on their records. But the number is likely high, given Border Patrol’s efforts to make sure most people the agency apprehends pass through formal deportation proceedings. Since prosecutors can easily secure convictions for illegal re-entry, Sessions’ order could fundamentally transform the federal justice system in a way CBP never imagined when it recommended systematically hauling border-crossers into criminal court with Operation Streamline in 2005. People nowhere near the border who would’ve previously been deported could further swell the court system and federal prisons. ‘Legalized Racism’ Castillo sees the direction the Justice Department is moving under Trump and it unsettles her. Even after two decades of serving agreements to people pleading guilty of immigration violations, she rarely thinks of her clients as criminals. She sees parents trying to return to their children, jobless people looking for work, and people like Irlando who are scared for their lives. She’s fought losing battles to convince judges that the weight of the law falls too heavily on her clients. She’s represented people who grew up in Phoenix and wound up with criminal records at a time when former Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio famously targeted Hispanics for traffic stops to identify undocumented immigrants. A federal court ruled in 2013 that those tactics amounted to racial profiling and ordered him to stop. But some of the people who got profiled and wound up with convictions and deportations showed up later in federal court for illegal re-entry charges. They face enhanced penalties that can boost their sentences up to 20 years. “It’s legalized racism,” Castillo said. “That’s the whole problem with the criminal justice system ― we’re not allowed to talk about racism as a factor of a person’s story. But their criminal records are overrepresented ... I’ve brought this up in court and the judges just sort of look at me with this blank stare.”   Like most of Castillo’s clients with immigration convictions, Irlando served his 75 days in the custody of the U.S. Marshals Service, then faced a swift deportation back to Guatemala. Despite Judge Macdonald’s assurances, the immigration court never heard his appeals about how he feared for his safety back home. “They didn’t listen to anything I had to say,” Irlando said on a phone call from Guatemala last month. Unable to return to his old job, he now works planting corn. He said he feels safe for the moment, but is unsure about his future in Guatemala. “Who knows,” he said. “I might try to cross again.”   -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

Выбор редакции
25 апреля, 15:59

Why Lawson Products (LAWS) Might Be a Diamond in the Rough

Lawson Products, Inc. (LAWS) stock has seen estimates rise over the past month for the current fiscal year but that is not yet reflected in its price.

19 апреля, 20:19

Newspaper Which Reported On Gay Abuse In Chechnya Fears For Staff

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); Russia’s most famous campaigning newspaper said on Friday it had appealed to the Kremlin to protect its staff after Chechen clerics said the paper faced “retribution” for alleging that gay men in Chechnya were being tortured and killed. Novaya Gazeta published an article this month which said authorities in the majority Muslim southern Russian republic had rounded up over 100 gay men or men suspected of being gay and tortured them. It said at least three of them had been killed. Kremlin critics saw the report as further evidence that Moscow allows authorities in Chechnya to run the region - which has been consumed by two wars since the Soviet collapse - as a feudal fiefdom in exchange for separatist and radical Islamist sentiment being brutally suppressed. Chechnya’s Moscow-backed president Ramzan Kadyrov denies allegations human rights are routinely flouted. His spokesman Alvi Karimov called Novaya’s report “an absolute lie”, saying there were no gay men in Chechnya to be persecuted. “Nobody can detain or harass anyone who is simply not present in the republic,” Karimov told the Interfax news agency. Novaya’s report also caused outrage among Chechnya’s Muslim clerics, who adopted a resolution saying it had insulted the dignity and Islamic faith of Chechen men and society. “We promise that retribution will catch up with the hate-mongers wherever and whoever they are and with no statute of limitations,” the resolution read. Dmitry Muratov, Novaya’s editor, said on Friday that the resolution was an incitement to violence and that he was worried about his staff’s safety. “This resolution is encouraging religious fanatics to retaliate against our journalists,” he said in a statement, calling on the authorities to protect journalists and stop anyone whipping up hatred against them. Two of Novaya’s reporters specializing in Chechnya - Anna Politkovskaya and Natalya Estermirova - have been murdered in the last decade. Neither case has been fully solved. Set up with financial help from ex-Soviet president Mikhail Gorbachev in 1993, Novaya Gazeta is well-known in Russia for its investigations into official corruption, its reporting on Chechnya, criticism of the authorities and coverage of the opposition in a media landscape where most big-circulation newspapers are loyal to the Kremlin. The Kremlin said it was following the situation closely and that anyone who thought Novaya’s report was false should contest it through the courts. “We are against any actions that could pose a threat to the safety or lives of journalists,” Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters. Peskov said that reports about gay men being tortured in Chechnya could not be regarded as reliable at this stage however, and that the Kremlin was not aware of the police receiving any complaints on the subject. Novaya said Russian investigators had so far ignored a request it sent to the authorities to investigate the contents of its report.   (Additional reporting by Denis Pinchuk; Editing by Hugh Lawson) -- 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.

18 апреля, 20:30

В супермаркетах Японии продавцов хотят заменить роботами

Правительство Японии договорилось о сотрудничестве с пятью крупнейшими операторами сетей супермаркетов (Seven & I Holdings, Lawson, Ministop, FamilyMart Uny Holdings и East Japan Railway) о совместной разработке системы автоматических магазинов без продавцов к 2025 году. […]

18 апреля, 11:44

Обзор финансово-экономической прессы: США реформируют соглашение о свободной торговле с Южной Кореей

Nikkei Asian Review В Японии появятся магазины без продавцов к 2025 году Правительство Японии договорилось о сотрудничестве с пятью крупнейшими операторами сетей супермаркетов (Seven & I Holdings, Lawson, Ministop, FamilyMart Uny Holdings и East Japan Railway), чтобы совместно разработать систему автоматических магазинов без продавцов к 2025 году. Об этом сообщает издание Nikkei Asian Review. Новая система позволит не пробивать штрих-код каждого товара по-отдельности, а считывать информацию продуктов в корзинке покупателя одновременно с помощью специальных чипов. Внедрение такой системы в 50 тыс. магазинов страны может обойтись в $46 млн. Reuters Boeing уволит более 100 инженеров в 2017 году Американская корпорация по производству авиационной техники Boeing намерена уволить более сотни инженеров в текущем году. Об этом сообщает Reuters. «Мы продолжаем идти дальше и приближаемся ко второй фазе, связанной с вынужденным сокращением некоторых специалистов в штате Вашингтон и в других регионах. Ожидается, что сокращения затронут около сотни инженеров», - заявили в компании. США реформируют соглашение о свободной торговле с Южной Кореей Вице-президент США Майк Пенс на встрече с представителями бизнеса Южной Кореи заявил, что администрация президента Соединенных Штатов проведет реформу соглашения о свободной торговле между Сеулом и Вашингтоном, заключенного пять лет назад, передает Reuters. По словам Пенса, торговый дефицит в США за этот период увеличился более чем в два раза. ВВС Google пошел на мировую с ФАС и выплатит штраф в $6,75 млн Во многих современных смартфонах установлена операционная система Android, разрабатываемая специалистами Google Федеральная антимонопольная служба и интернет-гигант Google заключили мировое соглашение, поставив тем самым точку в судебных разбирательствах о злоупотреблении доминирующем положении Google на разрабатываемой им мобильной платформе Android. В рамках мирового соглашения Google также выплатить штраф в 438 млн рублей (6,75 млн долларов), назначенный ранее. Кроме того, согласно условиям мирового соглашения, Google откажется от эксклюзивной предустановки своих приложений на мобильных устройствах Android и не будет ограничивать предустановку приложений третьих сторон. Информационно-аналитический отдел TeleTradeИсточник: FxTeam

Выбор редакции
13 апреля, 23:37

Trump's Mar-a-Lago Restaurant Busted For 10 Health Code Violations

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); As president, Donald Trump has already hosted two world leaders for dinner at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida instead of at the White House. But he might want to re-think what he serves with that chocolate cake.  The Mar-a-Lago Club was cited for its highest-ever number of health code violations in January, the Miami Herald reported.  Records from a routine inspection January 26 note 10 violations in all, including three deemed “high priority,” the most severe category. In coolers, foods like shrimp and burgers were found at temperatures up to 50 degrees Fahrenheit, much warmer than the required 41 degrees. A ham was stored at 57 degrees. And fish that was intended to be served raw had not undergone proper parasite destruction and needed to be cooked or thrown away immediately, inspectors said.  The number of violations was bigly for the property, but it’s not an uncommon number for a restaurant undergoing routine inspection, according to Stephen Lawson, a spokesman for the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation. A statement from Mar-a-Lago pointed out that all of the urgent violations were corrected on the same day they were found. As far as restaurants go, Mar-a-Lago’s inspection was relatively average. But then again, when the Japanese prime minister is one of your upcoming dinner guests, one bad fish could really screw things up.  News of Mar-a-Lago’s inspection started trending after the Miami Herald dug up the report, which was made available on January 26. Less serious violations included a lack of hand-washing signage in a restroom and rust on freezer shelves. Lawson said diners have no cause to avoid the restaurant, which requires a $200,000 membership to enter.  We’ll stay away anyway, thanks. -- 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
13 апреля, 23:37

Trump's Mar-a-Lago Restaurant Busted For 10 Health Code Violations

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); As president, Donald Trump has already hosted two world leaders for dinner at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida instead of at the White House. But he might want to re-think what he serves with that chocolate cake.  The Mar-a-Lago Club was cited for its highest-ever number of health code violations in January, the Miami Herald reported.  Records from a routine inspection January 26 note 10 violations in all, including three deemed “high priority,” the most severe category. In coolers, foods like shrimp and burgers were found at temperatures up to 50 degrees Fahrenheit, much warmer than the required 41 degrees. A ham was stored at 57 degrees. And fish that was intended to be served raw had not undergone proper parasite destruction and needed to be cooked or thrown away immediately, inspectors said.  The number of violations was bigly for the property, but it’s not an uncommon number for a restaurant undergoing routine inspection, according to Stephen Lawson, a spokesman for the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation. A statement from Mar-a-Lago pointed out that all of the urgent violations were corrected on the same day they were found. As far as restaurants go, Mar-a-Lago’s inspection was relatively average. But then again, when the Japanese prime minister is one of your upcoming dinner guests, one bad fish could really screw things up.  News of Mar-a-Lago’s inspection started trending after the Miami Herald dug up the report, which was made available on January 26. Less serious violations included a lack of hand-washing signage in a restroom and rust on freezer shelves. Lawson said diners have no cause to avoid the restaurant, which requires a $200,000 membership to enter.  We’ll stay away anyway, thanks. -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

23 июля 2016, 19:05

Самая большая частная яхта в мире

Немецкая компания под названием Lürssen, которая специализируется на выпуске элитных и роскошных яхт выпустила в 2013 году самую огромную в мире мега яхту, назвав ее Azzam.Данная яхта является самым большим чартерным моторным судном. Фото 2. Помимо того, что модель класса Аззам является самым большим судном на всем свете, даже больше чем яхта самого Романа Абрамовича, она также является одной из самых скоростных в своем классе. Её размеры поражают. Только представьте: 180 метров – это два футбольных поля или 12 железнодорожных вагонов. При этом Azzam может легко разгоняться до максимальной скорости 30 узлов (55 км/ч). В этом ей помогают две газовые турбины общей мощностью 94 000 л.с., четыре водомётные установки и турбокомпрессорный дизельный двигатель Wärtsilä-Sulzer RTA96-C мощностью 108 920 л.с. (80 088 кВт).Это самый большой двигатель в мире: его длина – 27,1 м, высота – 13,4 м, вес – более 2 300 т. Изначально разработанный для контейнеровозов, он идеально подошёл для 180-метровой мега-яхты. Можно не сомневаться, что при таких габаритах на борту мега-яхты осталось достаточно места, чтобы реализовать любые фантазии заказчика. Даже главный салон у неё не имеет аналогов в мире: длина – 29 м, ширина 18 м.Фото 3. Для обслуживания судна таких внушительных размеров необходимо пятьсот человек экипажа. В бак яхты этого класса можно залить около одного миллиона топлива, что дает возможность своему владельцу и гостям путешествовать по миру круглый год, при этом не заходить в порт для заправки судна. Одним из достоинств яхты класса аззам является, то, что она с легкостью может ходить по мелководью на очень большой скорости.Фото 4. Дизайном внутренней отделки занимался популярный и талантливый французский дизайнер, имя которого Кристоф Леони. Знаменитый дизайнер в своей работе придерживался стиля ампир.Фото 5. Подробной информации об интерьере судна на данный момент нет, однако известно из достоверных источников, что площадь самого большого салона azzam составляет тридцать на двадцать метров, данный салон не содержит столбов, которые разделяют внутреннее пространство. Также известно, что длина открытой террасы составляет свыше восемнадцати метров.Фото 6. Интерьер яхты, Кристоф Леони оформил в великолепном императорском, дорогом и роскошном стиле. Большинство мебели, которые гармонично размещены на судне, являются антикварными, изготовленными из ценных и дорогих пород деревьев.Частично антикварная мебель расписана золотом и украшена ювелирными камнями. Говорят, что яхта этого класса на своем борту имеет подводную лодку, а также вертолет.Фото 7. Конструкторы сообщили, что данное судно является наиболее сложным и длительным проектом фирмы. Mubarak Saad al Ahbabi является ведущим инженером, который занимался строительством суперяхты.Фото 8. Заказчик и текущий владелец яхты Azzam – Халифа ибн Зайд Аль Нахайян, президент ОАЭ и эмир Абу-Даби, чьё состояние оценивается Forbes в 15 миллиардов долларов США. Постройке судна предшествовал конкурс проектов, в котором победили экстерьер от миланской студии Nauta Yacht Design и интерьер от французского дизайнера Christophe Leoni. Техническое управление постройкой осуществляла компания Burgess Yachts. Главным инженером выступил Мубарак Саад аль Ахбаби. Была версия, что вот этот Принц на белой яхте владелец яхты.Фото 9. Nauta Yachts является итальянской компанией, которая занималась проектированием судна класса Azzam, а непосредственно строительством этой великолепной и величественной мега яхты занималась немецкая фирма Lurssen, которая расположена в городе Бремен.Фото 10. Известно, что стиль, в котором оформлены внутренние помещения Azzam, близок к неоклассицизму начала XIX века – времени правления Наполеона Бонапарта. В отсутствие фотографий с борта мега-яхты – их ещё никому не удавалось получить, даже авторитетным международным яхтенным изданиям – можно представить нечто напоминающее императорские спальни в Версале.Фото 11. Azzam зарегистрирована как чартерная яхта, однако открытой информации о возможности и стоимости её чартера нигде не представлено. Крайне редко яхту можно встретить в Аравийском море, ещё реже в Средиземноморье. В мае 2015 года очевидцам удалось увидеть её проходящей Гибралтар. В настоящее время – и большую часть времени года – Azzam пришвартована в порту Халифа в Абу-Даби.Фото 12. Фото 13. Фото 14. Фото 15. Фото 16. Фото 17. Фото 18. Фото 19. Фото 20. Фото 21. Фото 22. Фото 23. Фото 24. Фото 25. Фото 26. источникиhttp://yachtrus.ru/yacht-azzam/http://www.themilliardaire.co/yacht/azzam-the-worlds-largest-yacht-5927/http://ruyachts.com/journal/azzam-lurssen-0960/http://www.pravda.ru/photo/album/21532/http://www.infoniac.ru/news/Azzam-samaya-bol-shaya-yahta-v-mire-sdelano-v-Germanii.htmlВот еще несколько интересных кораблей: вот например действительно ли Экраноплан необходим нам … как покойнику калоши, а вот Самый длинный в мире контейнеровоз. Помните про Невезучего великана «Thomas W.Lawson» и Самая большая подводная лодка в мире. Вот еще Мобильная платформа десанта или пирс в океане и знаменитая Неуязвимая Вайолетт