• Теги
    • избранные теги
    • Люди1691
      • Показать ещё
      Издания365
      • Показать ещё
      Страны / Регионы562
      • Показать ещё
      Международные организации59
      • Показать ещё
      Компании860
      • Показать ещё
      Формат31
      Разное450
      • Показать ещё
      Показатели23
      • Показать ещё
      Сферы1
25 июня, 14:24

274 мэра городов США намерены выполнять требования Парижского соглашения, несмотря на решение Трампа – депутат

Противники "антизеленой" политики Трампа создали Американский климатический альянс (АКА) .

25 июня, 10:09

Schwarzenegger And Macron Troll Trump Over Climate Change

I was truly honored to meet with President @EmmanuelMacron about how we can work together for a clean energy future. He's a great leader. pic.twitter.com/MSoxjIruup— Arnold (@Schwarzenegger) June 23, 2017 New best bros Arnold Schwarzenegger and French President Emmanuel Macron teamed up in Paris to talk about the Paris climate agreement and global warming. They also pulled off a selfie video not-so-surreptitiously aimed at you-know-who: that other president. The video, posted to Schwarzenegger’s Twitter on Friday, is labeled: “With President Macron, a great leader.” The former California governor notes on the vid: “I’m here with President Macron. We’re talking about environmental issues and a green future.” Macron pipes in: “And now we will deliver together to make the planet great again.” Macron coined his “great planet” line — a pointed twist on Donald Trump’s “make America great again” catchphrase — after Trump announced early this month that he was backing out of the Paris climate accords. Macon presented an address in English on French TV criticizing Trump’s decision, and his government issued a “corrected” climate-change video produced by the Trump administration. We’ve seen the @WhiteHouse video about the #ParisAccord. We disagree – so we’ve changed it. #MakeThePlanetGreatAgain. pic.twitter.com/8A92MBwe6c— France Diplomacy (@francediplo_EN) June 2, 2017 Schwarzenegger’s trip to France to meet with Macron is one sign of a growing movement to keep America in the Paris accords despite Trump and the federal government. Governors, along with scores of mayors, university presidents and business representatives are preparing pledges to meet the goals of the Paris agreement. Billionaire businessman Michael Bloomberg has pledged up to $15 million to cover America’s initial commitment to the accords.  The trip also rubbed more salt in the wounds inflicted on each other by Schwarzenegger and Trump — two Republicans who have very different politics. Schwarzenegger blasted Trump for his decision to pull out of the Paris agreement. “One man cannot destroy our progress,” said Schwarzenegger. “One man can’t stop our clean energy revolution. And one man can’t go back in time. Only I can do that,” he added in a funny reference to his time-travel “Terminator” movies. BREAKING: Arnold Schwarzenegger has a blunt message for Donald Trump. #ParisAgreement pic.twitter.com/YI8fcxEeox— ATTN: (@attn) June 2, 2017 Trump had previously scorched Schwarzenegger for poor ratings when he took over “Celebrity Apprentice” from Trump (though Trump always exaggerated his own ratings). Schwarzenegger shot back that maybe Trump should head the reality program again, and let Schwarzenegger move into the White House. The National Prayer Breakfast? pic.twitter.com/KYUqEZbJIE— Arnold (@Schwarzenegger) February 2, 2017 type=type=RelatedArticlesblockTitle=Related Coverage + articlesList=593d5c29e4b0c5a35ca05890,5926f1b7e4b062f96a348499,591c78dfe4b041db89662d03,590b0910e4b0bb2d0875a850 -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

24 июня, 04:08

Friday Talking Points -- Trump Did Not Deny Tapes Exist!

Every so often, we have a certain reaction to a bit of political news. We then fully expect at least a few other political commentators to have the same reaction, only to be surprised when it seems that nobody else read things the way we did. This is precisely where we find ourselves over President Donald Trump’s recent tweets, where he supposedly put the issue to rest of whether secret audio recordings were ever made in his White House. Everybody seems to be buying his spin, and nobody questioned the obvious loophole he left himself. Because if you read what he wrote and take it at face value (not reading more into it than he actually says), Trump still has not answered the question of whether such tapes exist or not. Not even close. Here are the two Trump tweets in question: With all of the recently reported electronic surveillance, intercepts, unmasking and illegal leaking of information, I have no idea... ...whether there are “tapes” or recordings of my conversations with James Comey, but I did not make, and do not have, any such recordings. Trump not only makes the loophole obvious, he actually rubs our faces in it ― “I have no idea whether there are ‘tapes’ or recordings.” Got that? There might be tapes, but Trump “has no idea” if they even exist or not. His final declaration carefully uses the word “I” to avoid any statement pertaining to anyone else at the White House: “I did not make, and do not have, any such recordings.” This, as any parent of a teenager knows, is technically called “getting cute” with the facts. Trump’s tweets were reportedly vetted by several lawyers before he was allowed to release them, which isn’t really surprising at this point. Even without lawyers, Trump is a master at “getting cute” with how he says things. The tweet which got him into all this trouble is a prime example: “James Comey better hope that there are no ‘tapes’ of our conversations” ― since all Trump is really saying is that Comey “better hope” that any such tapes don’t exist. In Trump’s recent tweets, all he is really saying is that he personally “did not make, and do not have, any such recordings.” Trump didn’t push the “Record” button himself. Trump has no such tapes concealed upon his person. That’s it. That’s all Trump is admitting to. He’s not saying that anyone else in the White House didn’t make such tapes, or now has such tapes. Indeed, Trump even goes out of his way to state this explicitly: “I have no idea” whether any such tapes exist, or ever existed. No idea! There is a world of difference between what Trump said and a real across-the-board denial, such as: “Such recordings do not and have never existed in my White House,” or: “No tapes were ever made, period.” But, it seems, nobody else parsed Trump’s statement in such a literal way. All the news stories so far blithely read into Trump’s statement a lot more than is actually there. The assumption of: “Well, Trump has now fully addressed the issue ― there are no tapes” is utterly false, and yet the entire punditocracy seems to be happily pulling the wool over their own eyes. Now, we haven’t read everything everyone’s written, so if there are others who have noticed this wide discrepancy between what Trump seems to be saying and what he actually said, we apologize for not noticing. But it still strikes us as odd that so many are going along with what seems to be a pretty obvious ruse. We sincerely hope that some congressional Democrats will bring this discrepancy up during some future hearing into the Trump White House, and also that Robert Mueller is paying attention to what Trump didn’t say more than the extremely narrow admission that he actually did make. Because we don’t think anyone really ever thought that Trump himself secretly pushed “Record” on his smartphone and then casually laid it on a table during Oval Office conversations. We don’t think anyone ever thought that such recordings, if they do exist, would only exist on Trump’s personal phone, either. Trump admitting that neither of these is the case certainly does not lay to rest the question of whether such tapes were ever made by anyone ― not by a long shot. But we’ve got plenty of other things to get to, so we’ll just leave it at that for the time being. Has it really gotten to the point where Trump uses blatant weasel words and nobody even notices? We sincerely hope not. The week’s political news was dominated by two events. The first was a special House election in Georgia, and the second was Mitch McConnell finally releasing the Senate’s healthcare reform bill. We’ll get to the Senate bill in the talking points, but we have to draw back a bit from the Democratic defeat in the Georgia election and take a bigger-picture look at what’s going on. Because by week’s end, there was almost an open revolt by some Democrats against Nancy Pelosi continuing to stay in her House leadership role. We wrote about the Pelosi controversy yesterday, without taking a pro or con position. Pelosi’s problem is her wide name recognition, and her negative numbers. A recent poll put her at 30 percent approval nationwide, and 50 percent disapproval. Independents disapprove of her to the tune of 58 percent. Even among Democrats, Pelosi has 19 percent disapproval. In order to win back the House, Democrats are going to have to compete in swing districts. In these districts, Pelosi’s numbers are probably worse. And Karen Handel just showed every Republican House candidate how to successfully demonize Pelosi in their ads. It’s not just Pelosi, however. The party faces a much bigger problem. Divisions within the ranks continue, and nobody at the top of the party even seems willing to address the growing schism. When Republicans lost in 2012, they put together a post-mortem document recommending changes in the party by March of the next year. Democrats have yet to do anything similar. We wrote about this back in April, in an article that ended: Convene a group to identify what Democrats have been doing wrong and what they’ve been doing right. Create a document which lays out strategies for future success, and then (unlike the Republicans) actually pay some attention to it. Create a list of priorities for the party and tactical advice for individual Democratic candidates. It is time to begin moving forward, and part of that should be examining what has been going so wrong over the past few years. People need to get beyond their 2016 primary election choice and start working together once again, or this sort of flareup is just going to happen over and over again. And nobody really wants to see that. And yet, here we are, in the midst of yet another flareup, still with no plans to even identify what has gone so wrong for the party in the past few elections. The progressives are still upset with the establishment Democrats, and vice-versa. A whole lot of energy is spent on bickering that should really be spent on opposing Republicans. The best argument for fixing what’s wrong that we saw this week came from Billy Michael Honor at HuffPost. He lives in the Georgia Sixth District where Democrat Jon Ossoff lost to Handel. Here’s what he had to say about the race, after personally experiencing it from within the district: This, however, was not the only reason Ossoff lost the 6th. More than brand saturation the primary problem was messaging. Whether they admit it or not, the Democratic Party thought Ossoff could ride the wave of Trump hate into Washington DC. This is why Ossoff’s campaign platform was pretty much a conglomeration of cherry picked issues that appealed to various 6th district interest groups topped with the ever motivating “help us stand up to Trump” message. The problem with this message is it lacked any compelling progressive vision for the future. It also lacked anyway to substantively convince the average politically uninterested citizen why they should give a damn about the Democratic Party. The message simply says, “vote for us, we won’t be as bad as the other group.” This is how Hilary Clinton lost the general presidential election, this is how Jon Ossoff lost last night and this is how Democrats will continue to lose if they don’t get the message right. Hello? Tom Perez? Are you paying attention? Democrats have got to figure this out, and soon. How many political corpses does it take before you order an autopsy? Of course, as always, there was plenty of other things going on in the political universe, so we’re going to have to just run quickly through some stories you may have missed. A contractor for the Republican National Committee left a massive database of almost every American voter (200 million of them) unsecured on the internet this week. It’s impossible to say whether anyone else downloaded this information or not. Sean Spicer is slowly fading into the background, but the Trump White House seems to be having problems replacing him. As CNN snarkily put it: “So far, all that search has revealed is that the people the White House wants aren’t interested in the job and the people who are interested in the job aren’t wanted by the White House.” Not surprising ― who in their right mind would want Spicer’s job, at this point? Jobs ― two factories (Carrier and Boeing) that Trump hailed as “saving American jobs” are now either outsourcing the jobs or just laying people off. Winning! Trump appointed William C. Bradford to a job dealing with Native Americans, even though he’s had some eye-raising comments in the past about other minorities, including actually defending the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II by saying “it was necessary.” Nothing like minority outreach from Republicans, folks! Donald Trump called the notion that Russians meddled in the 2016 election a “big Dem HOAX” and then went on to ― bizarrely ― state that Obama didn’t do enough to stop it. It either exists or it doesn’t, Donny... you can’t have it both ways. Trump now starts his day with a call with all his lawyers about the mounting Russia scandal. The idea is to allow him to “compartmentalize” this so it doesn’t get in the way of the rest of his day. How’s that going? By the time the president arrives for work in the Oval Office, the thinking goes, he will no longer be consumed by the Russia probe that he complains hangs over his presidency like a darkening cloud. It rarely works, however. Asked whether the tactic was effective, one top White House adviser paused for several seconds and then just laughed. And we’ll close today with a few blasts from the past, mostly because they didn’t fit into the Talking Points section at the end. Here is Mitch McConnell, from February of 2010, on the process Democrats were using to pass healthcare reform. Democrats on Capitol Hill are working behind the scenes on a plan aimed at jamming this massive health spending bill through Congress against the clear wishes of an unsuspecting public. What they have in mind is a last-ditch legislative sleight-of-hand called reconciliation that would enable them to impose government-run health care for all on the American people, whether Americans want it or not. Boy, those were the days, eh? Here’s one more to keep handy, since there will quite likely be a few last-minute deals struck by McConnell over the course of the next week. From December of 2009: Americans are right to be stunned ― because this bill is a mess. And so was the process that was used to get it over the finish line. Americans are outraged by the last-minute, closed-door, sweetheart deals that were made to gain the slimmest margin for passage of a bill that’s about their health care. We have two Honorable Mention awards this week, the first for Rhode Island’s teacher of the year, Nikos Giannopoulis, who photobombed Donald Trump more successfully than anyone else has yet managed to do. Check out the photo to see why HuffPost wrote the headline: “Bold, Gay Teacher Of The Year Photo Bombs Donald Trump With Fan.” Priceless! The second Honorable Mention goes to all the disabled protesters who locked down Mitch McConnell’s office yesterday, providing the evening news with film of cops trying to deal with protesters in wheelchairs. Visually, this was the perfect protest, really, and they are to be commended for their commitment and their impeccable timing. But the Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week award goes to Senator Elizabeth Warren, for the speech she gave against the Republican healthcare bill. She does not, to put it mildly, mince words. Read the whole speech, it’s a doozy (and it’s not that long). Here are just a few highlights from it: Today, we finally got a look at the monstrosity of a bill that Republicans have been hiding behind closed doors for weeks. Yes, it is finally clear how the Republicans were spending their time, locked in those back rooms. Now we know the truth ― Senate Republicans weren’t making the House bill better. Nope, not one bit. Instead, they were sitting around a conference room table, dreaming up even meaner ways to kick dirt in the face of the American people and take away their health insurance. . . . The Senate bill is crammed full with just as many tax cuts as the House bill. Tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires, tax cuts for wealthy investors, tax cuts for giant companies. But all those tax cuts don’t come cheap. They start to add up after a while. So Senate Republicans had to make a choice. How to pay for all these juicy tax cuts for their rich buddies? I’ll tell you how: blood money. Senate Republicans wrung some extra dollars out of kicking people off tax credits that help them afford health insurance. They raked in extra cash by letting states drop even more protections and benefits, like maternity care or prescription drug coverage or mental health treatment. And then they got to the real piggy bank: Medicaid. And here they just went wild. Senate Republicans went after Medicaid with even deeper cuts than the House version. The Medicaid expansion? Gone ― ripped up and flushed down the toilet. And the rest of the Medicaid program? For Senate Republicans, it wasn’t enough that the House bill was going to toss grandparents out of nursing homes or slash funding for people with disabilities or pull the plug on health care for babies born too soon. No. Senate Republicans wanted to go bigger. . . . Medicaid is the program in this country that provides health insurance to one in five Americans. To 30 million kids. To nearly two out of every three people in a nursing home. These cuts are blood money. People will die. Let’s be very clear: Senate Republicans are paying for tax cuts for the wealthy with American lives. . . . Senate Republicans know exactly what they are doing with this health care bill. Their values are on full display. If they want to trade the health insurance of millions of Americans for tax cuts for the rich, they’d better be ready for a fight. Because now that this shameful bill is out in the open, that’s exactly what they’re going to get. Well said! While Democrats everywhere are denouncing the meanness of the Republican bill, this is clearly the best framing of the issue to date. Because make no mistake about it, it is blood money ― and Democrats should forcefully point this out. Because Elizabeth Warren showed them the best way to do so, within hours of the bill’s release, she is easily our Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week this week. Tell it like it is, Liz! [Congratulate Senator Elizabeth Warren on her Senate contact page, to let her know you appreciate her efforts.] We have two Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week awards to hand out, one literal and one visceral. Jon Ossoff certainly disappointed more Democrats than anyone else this week, by running the most-expensive House race in American history and losing. He lost by almost four points, which was much worse than expected. Democrats would be riding a wave of enthusiasm right now if he had pulled out a victory, but since he didn’t they are pretty despondent instead. Ossoff reportedly started out his campaign strongly against Donald Trump, but later decided to dial all of that back and run as a guy who could reach across the aisle and get stuff done. This, to state the obvious, didn’t work with the voters. Whether his campaign was mostly at fault for his loss or not will be endlessly debated in the coming months by Democrats. But what cannot be debated is the sheer volume of disappointment Ossoff’s loss just caused. By literal interpretation, Jon Ossoff was indeed the Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week. But before we get to the second award, we have two minor awards to hand out as well. Both Michael Bloomberg and Johnny Depp deserve at least an (Dis-)Honorable Mention this week, for idiocy. In Bloomberg’s case, it was for telling Democrats to just get behind Trump for the better of the country. Um, OK, Mike... sure. Depp’s case was a little more serious, since he made a joke about assassinating presidents. This is always to be condemned as strongly as possible, but since he’s not a Democratic politician we didn’t feel it rose to the level of the MDDOTW award. Especially since there was an even-bigger example of inhumane political comments this week. Which is why the Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week goes to Phil Montag, who used to be “the volunteer co-chair of the technology committee” for Nebraska Democrats. Used to be, because he just got fired, for saying the following about Republican Steve Scalise, who was shot at a baseball field recently: “I’m glad he got shot. I’m not going to fucking say that in public.” When then asked why he was saying it anyway, Montag responded: “I wish he was fucking dead.” The response was swift, from Nebraska Democratic Party Chair Jane Kleeb: “As soon as I heard it, I sent it to the (party) officers and then sent an email to Phil Montag informing him I am removing him from his appointed position as Co-Chair of the Technology Committee,” Kleeb told the [Omaha] World-Herald. “Wishing a Member of Congress or any individual dead is disgusting and has no place in our party.” Kleeb reported the conversation to law enforcement out of concern it was a genuine threat, she told the paper. That is entirely the right response, we have to say. Nobody who would say something that odious belongs in the party leadership in any way, shape, or form. Period. On his way out the door, we have to throw into that box of personal possessions a brand-new Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week award. [Both Jon Ossoff and Phil Montag are now nothing more than private citizens, and it is our blanket policy not to provide contact information for such persons, sorry. Besides, Ossoff is probably already getting an earful from plenty of other Democrats right about now.] Volume 442 (6/23/17) Before we get to the awfulness of the Senate healthcare bill, we have to begin with two very funny tweets. Both transcend mere talking points and enter into the realm of downright laughable political humor. Apparently there was some strict interpretation of the dress code for women being enforced in Paul Ryan’s office. Erica Werner tweeted her response: Ladies of the House: there is a crackdown today on going sleeveless into the Speakers Lobby. Forewarned is forearmed as it were Heh. That’s pretty funny. But this effort was outdone by the response from Haley Byrd, which knocked it out of the park: I thought @SpeakerRyan supported the right to bare arms Well done! We doff our hats in salute to such excellent political humor. One more amusing tweet deserves mention as well, as Matthew Yglesias beautifully bridged the gap between two Trump subjects this week: Interestingly there ARE tapes of Donald Trump promising to cover everyone, cut deductibles, and lower premiums. OK, all kidding aside, we’re dedicating our whole Talking Points section to the Senate “take no prisoners” healthcare bill. We feel this is necessary, because if Mitch McConnell is to be believed, by this time next week the bill will already have been voted on. That’s not much time to mount a resistance, which is (of course) the whole point of such an absurdly short schedule. Some weeks we struggle to put together seven talking points. Not this week ― we had too many to choose from, in fact. AARP had a good talking point about how seniors’ health costs would skyrocket (calling it an “age tax”) but there were too many others to even include it this week. Democrats only have days to fight back against the GOP steamroller, so they’d better get busy, that’s all we can say. The difference between the two bills The Washington Post had a helpful column pointing out the differences between the House and Senate bills. But in reality, the Senate bill will be at least as bad as the House bill over time. What we’re really seeing here is an elaborate shell game: The Senate bill moves money around in a largely superficial way that enables Senate Republicans to vote for the same fundamental underlying policy priorities embedded in the House bill, while pretending not to. Here’s the gist: 1. The House GOP bill gives the wealthy an enormous tax cut, financed (relative to current law) largely by hundreds of billions in cuts to health-care spending on poor people. 2. The Senate bill gives the wealthy an enormous tax cut, financed (relative to current law) largely by hundreds of billions in cuts to health-care spending on poor people. Dancing merrily Alexandra Petri, also at the Post, was even snarkier. She wrote an entire article as a tongue-in-cheek plea to remember who the bill helps, and the dire circumstances for them if the bill were not to pass. We strongly recommend reading the entire article, because it is downright hilarious, in a gallows-humor sort of way. Frankly, I think we are being unfair to the Senate version of the health-care bill. Too much time has already been spent on all the problems it creates ― for the indigent, the pregnant, the elderly, those who depend on Medicaid. But what about the problems it solves? We are taking those too lightly, I feel. The Affordable Care Act placed a great burden on a great many people, and the Senate bill seeks to relieve their sacrifice. Think of the families teetering at the steep pinnacle of the income distribution, wondering whether their finances will stretch to cover a lifesaving surgery for their purebred dressage horse. Thanks to the tax breaks this bill offers, they can rest assured that Dick Whittington Lord Mare Of London will get a replacement knee and continue to dance merrily over the course. This is not just a tax break for the wealthy. It may well be the difference between life and death for countless sports cars and golf tourneys across America. Before, their money was wasted on dialysis for strangers who might possibly not even understand the finer points of badminton. Now that money is being restored, and it will go where it is most needed. $33 billion for 400 families The credit for this statistic goes to Brandon DeBot at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. “An analysis of the Republican healthcare plan exposed a jaw-dropping fact. The 400 richest families in the entire country will get a tax break to the tune of $33 billion. This is exactly the same amount that Republicans are cutting in Medicaid funds from four entire states. Anyone who doubts that this bill is nothing short of taking money from the sick and the poor in order to hand over to those who least need it, just think about that statistic. $33 billion could give big tax cuts to 400 families, or pay for medical care for four United States. Republicans certainly aren’t trying to hide their real priorities in life, are they? I guess those vaunted Republican ‘family values’ only applies to the top-earning families in America, eh?” More than just politics The American people have weighed in already. “Of course, we don’t have public polling on the Senate bill, and we likely won’t before the Senate votes on it. But the public’s view of the House bill is getting worse as time goes by. Only 16 percent of all Americans think the House bill is ‘a good deal.’ A full 48 percent think it is ‘a bad deal.’ Even among Republicans, only 34 percent think the House bill is a good deal. Now, if Democrats didn’t care about the disastrous effect this bill is going to have on millions upon millions of families, and if they only cared about how it would help them politically, they’d be cheering Republicans on. ‘Go ahead, pass your bill,’ they’d be telling Republicans, ‘it’s only going to make it that much easier to defeat you in the next election.’ Mitch McConnell is only scheduling 20 hours of debate for the bill in the Senate, while the final Senate debate over Obamacare took 25 days. So Democrats spent more days in open debate than Republicans are going to spend hours. That’s pretty stunning, but the American people have already weighed in. The Republican plan is massively unpopular, and it will only continue to get more unpopular as the public learns more and more about what is in it. No wonder they want to move so fast.” Obama trolls Trump’s meanness President Obama weighed in this week as well, and he didn’t mince words. He also showed how Democrats everywhere should use the word “mean” or “meanness” as much as possible in the coming debate, just to get under Donald Trump’s skin. Simply put, if there’s a chance you might get sick, get old, or start a family ― this bill will do you harm. And small tweaks over the course of the next couple weeks, under the guise of making these bills easier to stomach, cannot change the fundamental meanness at the core of this legislation. Five, and counting... Already, it looks like the bill may be in trouble within Republican ranks. “Within hours of the Senate bill being released, four Republican senators went on the record as being against the bill. Since Mitch McConnell can only afford to lose two votes, this could be a problem. Or maybe not ― other than Rand Paul, it’s hard to believe the other three will actually vote against the bill at the end of the day. The four state that the reason they can’t support it is because they want the bill to be even meaner than it already is. So it’s probably just posturing. But McConnell should be worried about the fifth Republican senator’s stated reason for opposing the bill. Dean Heller of Nevada ― who is up for re-election next year ― voiced his concerns in a way that doesn’t give him any wiggle room to change his mind later. On the drastic and deep cuts to Medicaid, Heller said: ‘I cannot support a piece of legislation that takes away insurance from tens of millions of Americans and hundreds of thousands of Nevadans.’ That’s pretty unequivocal, and it is impossible to fix by merely tweaking the bill next week. So if Heller and Paul are both solid ‘no’ votes, that means only one more Republican defection will kill the bill.” Boehner put it best We devoted a large portion of our FTP [429] column to what John Boehner (inaccurately) claimed Democrats were doing with the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, back in the day. His words bear repeating once again, because they are so accurate when describing what Republicans are now doing. Boehner was visibly angry during this speech, screaming some of it at the top of his voice on the House floor. No, today we’re standing here looking at a health care bill that no one in this body believes is satisfactory. Today we stand here amidst the wreckage of what was once the respect and honor that this House was held in by our fellow citizens. And we all know why it is so. We have failed to listen to America. And we have failed to reflect the will of our constituents. And when we fail to reflect that will, we fail ourselves, and we fail our country. . . . [L]ook at how this bill was written. Can you say it was done openly, with transparency and accountability? Without backroom deals and struck behind closed doors hidden from the people? Hell, no, you can’t! Have you read the bill? Have you read the reconciliation bill? Have you read the manager’s amendment? Hell, no, you haven’t! . . . But what [Americans] see today frightens them. They’re frightened because they don’t know what comes next. They’re disgusted because what they see is one political party closing out the other from what should be a national solution. And they’re angry. They’re angry that no matter how they engage in this debate, this body moves forward against their will. Shame on us. Shame on this body. Shame on each and every one of you who substitutes your will and your desires above those of your fellow countrymen. Chris Weigant blogs at: Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant Full archives of FTP columns: FridayTalkingPoints.com All-time award winners leaderboard, by rank -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

23 июня, 16:59

Штаты против Белого дома: почему не всесилен Трамп

Уже 274 американских мэра заявили, что будут выполнять Парижское соглашение на уровне своих городов, вопреки федеральной политике Вашингтона. 

23 июня, 14:50

Mayors Could Shift Nearly 42 Percent Of U.S. Electricity To Renewables By 2035

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); The country’s largest coalition of cities plans to vote this weekend on a pledge to make 100 percent renewable power a top policy priority over the next decade. The resolution by the U.S. Conference of Mayors ― who represent a 148 million people and 41.8 percent of the country’s electricity use ― would be the broadest rejection of President Donald Trump’s decision to withdraw the United States from the Paris climate agreement. If each of the federation’s 1,481 cities actually converted to zero-emissions electricity by 2035, U.S. emissions of planet-warming gases would fall by 619 million metric tons, according to a Sierra Club analysis shared exclusively with HuffPost.  That’s equal to the total combined carbon footprint of the five worst states emitting greenhouse gases: Texas, Pennsylvania, Indiana, Florida and Ohio. “The more cities that not only pledge to move to 100 percent renewable energy but pass that into a local law or ordinance and begin to work on that transition,” Jodie Van Horn, director of the Sierra Club’s “Ready for 100” campaign, told HuffPost by phone Wednesday from the mayors’ conference in Miami, “the closer we can get to meeting the Paris goals through city-level action.” The Paris Agreement, a pact signed by every nation except Syria and Nicaragua, set broad, non-binding targets for countries to reduce emissions of the greenhouse gases that cause the planet to warm and alter the climate. The U.S., historically the world’s biggest emitter, agreed to scale back pollution by 26 percent to 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025. Trump announced plans to pull out of the deal this month after shredding virtually every policy meant to meet those goals. An alliance of more than 1,200 cities, counties, businesses and state leaders, led by billionaire and former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, formed soon after, announcing plans to meet the Paris Agreement targets anyway. The group, called We Are Still In, includes some smaller municipalities than the U.S. Conference of Mayors, whose members have populations of at least 30,000. The Sierra Club analysis, based on data from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory and the U.S. Energy Information Administration, considered two additional scenarios. If the 34 cities who already have plans in place to transition to 100 percent clean energy achieve their goal, the U.S. emission from electricity would fall by 19.1 million metric tons. The number increases to 34.5 million metric tons, equal to 3.4 percent of U.S. electricity consumption, if an additional 84 cities whose mayors pledged to completely switch to renewables but have yet to pass a formal policy also meet their target. Of the 100 who committed to that promise, 16 already approved policies to convert their electricity supply to solar or wind. Getting the entire U.S. Conference of Mayors to adopt solar and wind power remains the ideal, if lofty, goal, Van Horn said. “This is the good, better, best scenario,” she said, referring to the three situations outlined in the report. The analysis comes just days after new research sparked fresh debate over the feasibility of converting to 100 percent renewable energy. The study, published Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, warned that the costs of shifting the U.S. electricity grid to renewables by 2050, as Democratic senators proposed in April, could prompt a political backlash. “If we push down the avenue of 100 percent renewables, it will become very obvious very quickly that it is neither cheap nor effective,” Christopher Clack, the study’s lead author, told InsideClimate News. “We worry that it could be used by our opponents to diminish the role of renewable energy on the grid.  We worry if we oversell them, it will lead to disappointment and backlash.” Rather, Clack proposed policymakers should aim for a number closer to 80 percent renewable energy. That public discussion of clean energy has progressed at all to the percentage of renewable energy, rather than its merits compared to fossil fuels, struck Van Horn has a victory in itself.  “We think the academic debate is healthy,” she said. “A few years ago, we wouldn’t have been having a debate.” CLARIFICATION: This post was updated to include the official resolution’s deadline of 2035.  type=type=RelatedArticlesblockTitle=Related... + articlesList=58efd3e1e4b0bb9638e2769a,59089118e4b05c397682ce92,5641fd3fe4b0b24aee4bbd49,5907ca45e4b05c397681b81b,58594291e4b0b3ddfd8ea4e8 -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

23 июня, 14:50

Mayors Could Shift Nearly 42 Percent Of U.S. Electricity To Renewables By 2035

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); The country’s largest coalition of cities plans to vote this weekend on a pledge to make 100 percent renewable power a top policy priority over the next decade. The resolution by the U.S. Conference of Mayors ― who represent a 148 million people and 41.8 percent of the country’s electricity use ― would be the broadest rejection of President Donald Trump’s decision to withdraw the United States from the Paris climate agreement. If each of the federation’s 1,481 cities actually converted to zero-emissions electricity by 2035, U.S. emissions of planet-warming gases would fall by 619 million metric tons, according to a Sierra Club analysis shared exclusively with HuffPost.  That’s equal to the total combined carbon footprint of the five worst states emitting greenhouse gases: Texas, Pennsylvania, Indiana, Florida and Ohio. “The more cities that not only pledge to move to 100 percent renewable energy but pass that into a local law or ordinance and begin to work on that transition,” Jodie Van Horn, director of the Sierra Club’s “Ready for 100” campaign, told HuffPost by phone Wednesday from the mayors’ conference in Miami, “the closer we can get to meeting the Paris goals through city-level action.” The Paris Agreement, a pact signed by every nation except Syria and Nicaragua, set broad, non-binding targets for countries to reduce emissions of the greenhouse gases that cause the planet to warm and alter the climate. The U.S., historically the world’s biggest emitter, agreed to scale back pollution by 26 percent to 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025. Trump announced plans to pull out of the deal this month after shredding virtually every policy meant to meet those goals. An alliance of more than 1,200 cities, counties, businesses and state leaders, led by billionaire and former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, formed soon after, announcing plans to meet the Paris Agreement targets anyway. The group, called We Are Still In, includes some smaller municipalities than the U.S. Conference of Mayors, whose members have populations of at least 30,000. The Sierra Club analysis, based on data from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory and the U.S. Energy Information Administration, considered two additional scenarios. If the 34 cities who already have plans in place to transition to 100 percent clean energy achieve their goal, the U.S. emission from electricity would fall by 19.1 million metric tons. The number increases to 34.5 million metric tons, equal to 3.4 percent of U.S. electricity consumption, if an additional 84 cities whose mayors pledged to completely switch to renewables but have yet to pass a formal policy also meet their target. Of the 100 who committed to that promise, 16 already approved policies to convert their electricity supply to solar or wind. Getting the entire U.S. Conference of Mayors to adopt solar and wind power remains the ideal, if lofty, goal, Van Horn said. “This is the good, better, best scenario,” she said, referring to the three situations outlined in the report. The analysis comes just days after new research sparked fresh debate over the feasibility of converting to 100 percent renewable energy. The study, published Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, warned that the costs of shifting the U.S. electricity grid to renewables by 2050, as Democratic senators proposed in April, could prompt a political backlash. “If we push down the avenue of 100 percent renewables, it will become very obvious very quickly that it is neither cheap nor effective,” Christopher Clack, the study’s lead author, told InsideClimate News. “We worry that it could be used by our opponents to diminish the role of renewable energy on the grid.  We worry if we oversell them, it will lead to disappointment and backlash.” Rather, Clack proposed policymakers should aim for a number closer to 80 percent renewable energy. That public discussion of clean energy has progressed at all to the percentage of renewable energy, rather than its merits compared to fossil fuels, struck Van Horn has a victory in itself.  “We think the academic debate is healthy,” she said. “A few years ago, we wouldn’t have been having a debate.” CLARIFICATION: This post was updated to include the official resolution’s deadline of 2035.  type=type=RelatedArticlesblockTitle=Related... + articlesList=58efd3e1e4b0bb9638e2769a,59089118e4b05c397682ce92,5641fd3fe4b0b24aee4bbd49,5907ca45e4b05c397681b81b,58594291e4b0b3ddfd8ea4e8 -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

23 июня, 12:32

A Declaration of Urban Independence

Cities are under assault in the age of Donald Trump. It would be better for the country if they ran themselves instead.

22 июня, 14:23

Thursday's Morning Email: Democratic Chatter Grows About Ousting Nancy Pelosi

TOP STORIES (And want to get The Morning Email each weekday? Sign up here. NANCY PELOSI UNDER FIRE Some Congressional Democrats are calling for new leadership in light of the latest special election losses. [HuffPost] HOW PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP COULD DRAMATICALLY REMAKE THE COURTS He inherited double the number of court vacancies that former President Barack Obama did when he took office. [HuffPost] TOP INTEL OFFICIALS TOLD INVESTIGATORS TRUMP ENCOURAGED THEM TO SAY THERE WAS NO COLLUSION WITH RUSSIA Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats and National Security Agency Director Adm. Mike Rogers reportedly told investigators that their conversations with the president were “odd and uncomfortable” but that they did not believe Trump “gave them orders to interfere.” [CNN] STEVE SCALISE NOW IN ‘FAIR CONDITION’ The House Majority Whip, who was shot last week during a practice for the congressional baseball game, is now beginning rehabilitation. The FBI said the shooter had a list of six members of Congress on him at the time of the shooting, but did not label the incident an act of terrorism. [HuffPost] ‘THE SUPER PREDATORS’ “When the man who abuses you is also a cop.” [HuffPost] A RECORD NUMBER OF VENEZUELANS ARE FLEEING TO THE U.S. Amid the escalating political chaos. [HuffPost] MEET THE 395 KIDS PHILANDO CASTILE LEFT BEHIND “It was a few weeks after his death in July 2016 when Sakki Selznick learned that her daughter had been giving imaginary high-fives to Philando Castile.” And new heartbreaking video shows Diamond Reynolds’ 4-year-old saying: “I don’t want you to get shooted.” [HuffPost] IN DEFENDING THE WEALTH OF HIS CABINET, TRUMP GOES OFF THE CUFF “These are people that are great, brilliant business minds, and that’s what we need, that’s what we have to have so the world doesn’t take advantages of us,” Trump told the crowd in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. “We can’t have the world taking advantage of us anymore. And I love all people, rich or poor, but in those particular positions I just don’t want a poor person. Does that make sense? Does that make sense?” [HuffPost] WHAT’S BREWING INTRODUCING SEASON TWO OF ‘CANDIDATE CONFESSIONAL’ “A podcast dedicated to those who came up short in the world of governance.” [HuffPost] HOW CLEAN DOES YOUR PARK NEED TO BE When it’s a former radioactive Superfund site? [HuffPost] BATTEN DOWN THE ESTATE It’s official: A “Downton Abbey” movie is happening. [HuffPost] KIM KARDASHIAN HAS REPORTEDLY HIRED A SURROGATE For baby number 3 with Kanye West. [HuffPost] THE LATEST ‘GAME OF THRONES’ TRAILER PROMISES QUITE A LOT OF WAR (AND WINTER, OBVIOUSLY) 24 days, people. 24 days. [HuffPost] FORGET ACTING George Clooney just sold his tequila brand for $1 billion. Yes that’s a billion with a B. [HuffPost] BEFORE YOU GO Investigating the Yemen prison interrogation programs. A record-breaking heatwave in the Southwest kills four. Understanding why the selection of a new Saudi Arabian crown prince matters. “Trained to kill: How four boy soldiers survived Boko Haram.” Michael Bloomberg wants folks to focus on 2020, while Michael Moore is calling for more Democratic leadership. The Wall Street Journal has fired a foreign affairs reporter over alleged spy plane deal. Was Queen Elizabeth II sending Brexit messages with her hat choice when she officially opened parliament? Waiting for years for that Joe Scarborough EP? Don’t worry: He plans to drop one a month for the next four years. This Georgia sheriff has cut the sentences of the inmates who saved a guard’s life. Back-to-back deadly Alaska black bear maulings have experts concerned. This thief got caught on camera with his pants down. A bunch of news outlets bought into the idea that these people had been living off air, not food. Of course Emma Watson is hiding copies of “The Handmaid’s Tale” around Paris. We love that the Girl Scouts will soon be able to earn badges in cybersecurity. This eye infection blinds someone every 15 minutes. Analyzing the seven types of Twitter joke structures. We have a real-life pulling the sword from the stone situation in Poland. Who cares about wedding shade when you’re Drake Bell and have abs like this? CORRECTION: An earlier version of this story identified Diamond Reynolds as Debbie Reynolds. -- 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.

22 июня, 13:40

10 самых богатых американцев

Forbes в очередной раз опубликовал список самых богатых людей мира. Публикуем топ-10 самых богатых людей Америки.

22 июня, 12:07

Журнал Forbes назвал самого богатого жителя США

Состояние возглавившего рейтинг Билла Гейтса оценивается в 88,9 миллиарда долларов

22 июня, 10:55

Forbes опять признал Билла Гейтса самым богатым американцем

Согласно опубликованному журналом Forbes рейтингу самых богатых граждан каждого из 50 штатов США, основатель компании Microsoft Билл Гейтс опять является главным богачом Америки с состоянием в в 88,9 миллиардов долларов.

22 июня, 03:58

Bloomberg Urges Americans To Stop Resisting Trump And Focus On 2020 Election Instead

Michael Bloomberg may have said some disparaging things about Donald Trump before he was elected president, but the former New York City mayor appears to have softened his approach now that Trump is in the White House. During an appearance on Wednesday’s “The View,” Bloomberg, who once called Trump a “con” and “dangerous demagogue,” urged Americans to get behind Trump and suggested that the president’s opponents should focus less on resistance and more on the next presidential election. “Let’s just all hope that Donald Trump is a good president of the United States,” the billionaire businessman and philanthropist said. “He’s our president, and we need this country to be run well.” Bloomberg also explained that, although he did not vote for Trump, he wanted to avoid repeating the “mistake” that he says Sen. Mitch McConnell made as minority leader in President Barack Obama’s administration. In 2010, McConnell told The National Journal that the “single most important thing” for Republicans to achieve would be to make Obama a “one-term president.” “I thought, that’s our country. That’s my kids and my grandkids,” Bloomberg said of McConnell on Wednesday. “We have to make it work. You have an election, whoever wins, then we have to get behind and work.” Bloomberg, who publicly endorsed Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election, said that those who don’t agree with the Trump administration should direct their energy toward electing new officials in 2020. He illustrated his point by comparing America with other countries where, according to Bloomberg, people will try to “tear down the government” and “have a revolution” if they lose an election. “We should sit back and say, ‘OK, four years from now, how do I get my person, my man or my woman, elected?’” he suggested, which elicited cheers from the audience. But when asked by host Joy Behar about the “strong resistance” from people pushing back against Trump’s policies, Bloomberg defended their right to protest and encouraged people to speak out against the administration. “If you disagree, you should go out there. You can protest. You can elect other officials, write letters, make phone calls,” he said. “But in the end, the public has spoken, whether you like the results or not.” But then Bloomberg jabbed at Trump, joking that he may have won the election with “a little help from the Russians.” The former mayor’s message to support the president stands out amid Bloomberg’s ongoing criticisms of the president while promoting his book, co-written with environmentalist Carl Pope, Climate of Hope: How Cities, Businesses, and Citizens Can Save the Planet. In a CNN interview Tuesday, Bloomberg advised Trump ― whom he called “a very nice guy” who is unfit for the presidency ― to “stop tweeting and focus on running the government.” He also called the president’s denial of climate change “embarrassing.” Watch Bloomberg’s full interview on “The View” in the clip above. -- 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.

22 июня, 03:58

Bloomberg Urges Americans To Stop Resisting Trump And Focus On 2020 Election Instead

Michael Bloomberg may have said some disparaging things about Donald Trump before he was elected president, but the former New York City mayor appears to have softened his approach now that Trump is in the White House. During an appearance on Wednesday’s “The View,” Bloomberg, who once called Trump a “con” and “dangerous demagogue,” urged Americans to get behind Trump and suggested that the president’s opponents should focus less on resistance and more on the next presidential election. “Let’s just all hope that Donald Trump is a good president of the United States,” the billionaire businessman and philanthropist said. “He’s our president, and we need this country to be run well.” Bloomberg also explained that, although he did not vote for Trump, he wanted to avoid repeating the “mistake” that he says Sen. Mitch McConnell made as minority leader in President Barack Obama’s administration. In 2010, McConnell told The National Journal that the “single most important thing” for Republicans to achieve would be to make Obama a “one-term president.” “I thought, that’s our country. That’s my kids and my grandkids,” Bloomberg said of McConnell on Wednesday. “We have to make it work. You have an election, whoever wins, then we have to get behind and work.” Bloomberg, who publicly endorsed Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election, said that those who don’t agree with the Trump administration should direct their energy toward electing new officials in 2020. He illustrated his point by comparing America with other countries where, according to Bloomberg, people will try to “tear down the government” and “have a revolution” if they lose an election. “We should sit back and say, ‘OK, four years from now, how do I get my person, my man or my woman, elected?’” he suggested, which elicited cheers from the audience. But when asked by host Joy Behar about the “strong resistance” from people pushing back against Trump’s policies, Bloomberg defended their right to protest and encouraged people to speak out against the administration. “If you disagree, you should go out there. You can protest. You can elect other officials, write letters, make phone calls,” he said. “But in the end, the public has spoken, whether you like the results or not.” But then Bloomberg jabbed at Trump, joking that he may have won the election with “a little help from the Russians.” The former mayor’s message to support the president stands out amid Bloomberg’s ongoing criticisms of the president while promoting his book, co-written with environmentalist Carl Pope, Climate of Hope: How Cities, Businesses, and Citizens Can Save the Planet. In a CNN interview Tuesday, Bloomberg advised Trump ― whom he called “a very nice guy” who is unfit for the presidency ― to “stop tweeting and focus on running the government.” He also called the president’s denial of climate change “embarrassing.” Watch Bloomberg’s full interview on “The View” in the clip above. -- 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
21 июня, 22:52

Michael Bloomberg says that Jon Ossoff's loss shows that 'all the money in the world' can't buy an election

Billionaire and former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg weighed in on Democrat Jon Ossoff's...

21 июня, 19:26

Mayor Bloomberg: Democrats Will Lose In 2020 Because "Party Is Going To Be Torn Apart"

Last night, in CNN and Anderson Cooper's effort to desperately avoid discussing the Democratic debacle unfolding in Georgia, Cooper decided to pivot his discussion with former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg to focus on the 2020 election cycle.  We can only imagine the thought process: 'ignore Georgia, surely there must be some silver lining for Democrats if we just look far enough out on the horizon, right Mike?' Unfortunately, Bloomberg didn't offer up the reassurances that Cooper, and his employer, were so desperately seeking.  Instead, he pegged Trump's re-election odds at 55% and predicted the entire Democratic party would be in complete disarray by the time the next election cycle rolls around. Cooper:  "I think recently you gave the chance that Trump would be re-elected of 55%."   Bloomberg:  "Yeah, sure.  The incumbent always has an advantage."   “And the Democratic Party is going to be torn apart by the left and the centralists." Of course, after Wikileaks' DNC leaks exposed the complete corruption of the DNC, which went to great lengths to undermine the candidacy of Bernie Sanders, the real question isn't whether the Democratic party will suffer the consequences of a deeply divided electorate, but rather why that division hasn't already manifested itself in the form of a deep party restructuring. But the trainwreck, at least for CNN, didn't end there.  Asked why Hillary lost, Bloomberg seemingly had two explanations: 1) Republicans are dumb and got duped by a catchy slogan and 2) the media, "given that it is mostly Democratic" should have done even more to help Hillary. "Hillary never got a real message out."   "Whereas Donald had a great saying: 'Make America Great Again.' I don't know what 'Again' means, but 'America', that's patriotic and great...that's a good word."   "Slogans matter.  You don't think that's what your decision's based on but it predisposes you to really want to do something."   "And I never understood, given that most of the media is Democratic, why Hillary couldn't find someone to give her a good tag line." Guess Mayor Bloomberg is done pretending that the mainstream media bias is a 'right-wing myth.'

Выбор редакции
21 июня, 12:11

14 руководителей Uber — кто возглавит компанию вместо Трэвиса Каланика

Бывший пресс-секретарь Майкла Блумберга, первый руководитель Uber, экс-директор по продукту Twitter и другие топ-менеджеры.

20 июня, 22:45

Ten Years Ago in Grasping Reality: June 20, 2017

* Three Links for 2007-06-21 : "Spencer Ackerman: There are about 200 Foreign Service Officers in the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad. Ten are fluent in Arabic..." * Your #1 Source for DC News Ought to Be: McClatchy Washington Bureau * Joshua Micah Marshall thinks Rudy Giuliani Is Toast * Dogs Are Allowed * International Income Comparisons Once Again 2007-06-20 * Guest Lecture on John Maynard Keynes * Greg Ip Writes About Ben Bernanke, Mortgages, the Financial Accelerator, and the Macroeconomic Consequences of "Financial Fragility" * Mark Thoma Is Irate This Morning: Modelling the Social Value of Microsoft * Weblog Organization * Sheryl Sandberg Interviews Michael Bloomberg * Ten Links for 2007-06-20

20 июня, 13:00

How the Democrats Lost Their Way on Immigration

In the past decade, liberals have avoided inconvenient truths about the issue.

15 июня, 21:45

Висенте Гуаярт, архитектор Барселоны: «Мы должны думать о смене парадигмы развития городских пространств»

Сооснователь Института передовой архитектуры Каталонии — о том, как дроны изменят городскую среду, о главных рисках развития «умных городов» и об автобусном движении в Барселоне

12 июня, 12:15

If You Think Fighting Climate Change Will Be Expensive, Calculate the Cost of Letting It Happen

With the Trump Administration’s surprising U-turn on the COP21 Paris Agreement, the U.S. finds itself with some strange bedfellows, joining Nicaragua and Syria in abstaining from this important treaty. The White House’s argument for leaving the treaty is based on economic nationalism: President Trump, in his speech announcing the decision, cited primarily the “lost jobs, lower wages, shuttered factories, and vastly diminished economic production” that he thought meeting the agreement’s voluntary targets would cause. This echoes a common political talking point: that fighting climate change is bad for the economy. I’d like to point out the flip side: that climate change itself is bad for the economy and investing in climate resilience is not only a national security priority, but an enormous economic opportunity. The share of national GDP at risk from climate change exceeds $1.5 trillion in the 301 major cities around the world. Including the impact of human pandemics – which are likely to become more severe as the planet warms — the figure increases to nearly $2.2 trillion in economic output at risk through 2025. For recent examples of what climate disruptions will look like in practice, consider Superstorm Sandy, which devastated the Eastern Seaboard in 2012, causing $68 billion in damages, making it the second most costly weather event in the U.S. after Hurricane Katrina.  Record snowfall in Boston of more than 100 inches in the winter of 2015 shut down transit systems for weeks and made it difficult, if not impossible, for some employees to get to work. The “rain bomb” that imperiled the Oroville Dam in California earlier this year threatened the displacement of more than 250,000 downstream residents.  A similar rain bomb effectively destroyed historic downtown Ellicott City in 2016, just outside of Washington D.C.  Air quality and smog red alerts and the complete bans on vehicle traffic in major cities around the world highlight how traditional commerce and supply chains can and do grind to a halt because of climate risks. Record flooding in Thailand in 2011 severely impacted air travel, tourism, and one of the major regional airports in Asia. Related Video Whiteboard Session: The Business Case for Sustainability Account for the intangibles. Save Share See More Videos > See More Videos > Climate change is also a critical geostrategic issue over which the prospect of war and social upheaval cannot be ruled out. How will the country of Panama be affected by the likelihood of Northern open ocean sea routes? How will the undersea land-grab play out under the dwindling polar ice caps, as Arctic nations race to lay claim to untapped natural resources?  Indeed, the prospects of the Larsen B ice shelf breaking off – a mass of ice roughly the size of Delaware – will profoundly affect global shipping routes, as well as herald a major tipping point in global sea levels, which already plague many low-lying areas of the world, from Louisiana and the Florida panhandle to the Maldives. Military leaders in both the U.S. and the UK have argued that climate change is already accelerating instability in some parts of the world, drawing direct links between climate change and the Arab Spring, Syrian civil war, and Boko Haram insurgency. The destabilizing migrations caused by the climate and related events will only become more pronounced as the effects of global warming become more severe; climate change refugees already exist in the United States, China, and Africa, among other places. When people can’t get to work, or goods can’t be shipped to where they need to be, or customers can’t get to stores, the economy suffers. Insidiously, already-strained public budgets tend to be the “suppliers of first resort” when absorbing both the acute and attritional economic costs of climate change. Unfunded losses, such as post-Katrina repairs in the Gulf region, that ultimately get picked up by tax payers have the consequence of raising the specter of sovereign risk. Funding “slow burn” climate impacts, such as the urban heat island effect that is projected to make many urban centers unbearably hot, including the already sweltering Las Vegas, Santa Fe, and Dallas areas, risk the dislocation of millions of people, imperiling countless industries over the long range.  With rising temperatures comes an increase in vector-borne diseases, which have been traditionally relegated as sub-tropical threats. Today, mosquito-borne West Nile virus is already endemic in much of the U.S., which does not bode well for containing the risk of Zika. While the Zika epidemic is over in Puerto Rico, reports that it would affect one in five people on the island hurt the island’s tourism industry – at a time when the local economy is struggling to emerge from a municipal debt crisis.  The correlation between climate change, human pandemics, and economic and other risks, cannot be isolated; they’re all connected. That makes the shift away from a carbon-based economy as inexorable as the rising tide and temperature.  Indeed, the renewable energy sector is one of the fastest growing employers in the U.S., with solar alone accounting for nearly 400,000 jobs, proving that investing in climate resilience not only makes for good policy, it makes for good business. The business opportunities of investing in climate change, renewable energy, and human adaptation are big enough to create a new generation of billionaires – I call them Climate Robber Barons – regardless of what politicians in Washington or other capitals choose to do. Climate change and climate resilience are not zero-sum propositions, as evidenced by the near unanimous support for COP21 from more than 190 countries. While the U.S. turning its back on climate change is clearly a global policy and diplomatic setback, this is also an opportunity for leaders to prove that values matter most when it is least convenient. Indeed, the response from U.S. state and city leaders underscores how many leaders are remaining steadfast to the Paris Agreement notwithstanding the short-term setback. Business leaders have also been swift in their rebuke, including Elon Musk, Tesla’s CEO and very likely the first climate robber baron, and Bob Iger, Disney’s CEO, both of whom immediately stepped down from the President’s economic advisory council. New York’s former mayor and the renowned business leader, Michael Bloomberg, looks decidedly like a head of state rather than a captain of industry, as he steps into the UN funding breach left behind by the U.S. with a $15 million pledge. While the official U.S. seat at the climate change table may have been shorted, parallel leadership can show the world that the U.S. is going long on climate change.

16 января, 19:00

Капиталы восьми богатейших людей мира и 50% человечества сравнялись

Совокупный капитал восьми богатейших людей мира составляет сейчас $426 млрд. Точно такой же суммой располагает бедная половина человечества, то есть примерно 3,6 млрд человек. Это говорится в отчете международного объединения OXFAM.Вот эти восемь богатейших людей мира — Билл Гейтс ($75 млрд), Амансио Ортега ($67 млрд), Уоррен Баффет (60,8 млрд), Карлос Слима ($50 млрд), Джефф Безоса ($45,2 млрд), Марк Цукерберг ($44,6 млрд), Лари Эллисон ($43,6 млрд) и Майкл Блумберг ($40 млрд).По подсчетам авторов отчета, в 2009–2016 годах совокупный капитал 793 богатейших людей мира рос на 11% ежегодно, увеличившись с $2,4 трлн до 5 трлн. Если темпы роста останутся прежними, то уже в ближайшие 25 лет на Земле может появиться первый триллионер, прогнозируют эксперты OXFAM.По словам исполнительного директора OXFAM Винни Бьянима, ситуация, когда огромное богатство сосредоточено в руках нескольких человек, в то время как каждый десятый человек в мире живет меньше чем на $2 в день, просто непристойна. Кстати, Россия по этой непристойности является мировым лидером. Так 10% домохозяйств по данным банка Credit Suisse в России принадлежит 89% всего богатства страны, а 1% - 75%:А по индексу неравенства Джинни Россия входит в десятку антилидеров мира, соседствуя с Ботсваной, Украиной, Намибией и Замбией.

08 сентября 2014, 17:03

20 миллиардеров, которые управляют политикой США

Они добились успеха в бизнесе и инвестициях, и теперь пытаются протолкнуть свои и чужие политические идеи в политической системе США. В нашем списке самые влиятельные миллиардеры-политики Америки.  20.Элис Уолтон Элис Уолтон - наследница богатства крупнейшей в мире розничной сети Wal-Mart, пусть и не единственная. Уолтон вполне открыто поддерживает Хиллари Клинтон и вложилась в так называемый "PAC" (Комитет политических действий) под названием "Ready for Hillary".  19.Дональд Трамп Владелец конгломерата The Trump Organization и король американского сектора недвижимости Дональд Трамп, как и многие представители большого бизнеса, придерживается республиканских взглядов. Напомним, что Республиканская партия поддерживает наиболее мягкую налоговую политику в отношении богачей.  18.Марк Андрессен Инвестор-миллиардер Марк Андрессен уверен, что будущее за Республиканской партией США. Он поддерживал кандидата от республиканцев Митта Ромни на президентских выборах 2012г. В данный момент Андрессен инвестриует в широкий спектр активов, многие из которых будут влиять и на политический фон. Стоит вспомнить хотя бы о криптовалюте bitcoin.  17.Питер Дж. Питерсон Питерсон был министром торговли при Ричарде Никсоне, а теперь управляет мощным фондом. Миллиардер ратует за уменьшение государственного долга, и с помощью Peter G. Peterson Foundation основал такие организации, направленные на борьбу с долгами США как Fix the Debt и Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.  16.Поль Зингер Поль Зингер - бизнесмен с партийным билетом. Он консервативный республиканец, но выступает за однополые браки. Именно эта идея стала для него центральной в политической деятельности. С помощью организации American Unity он вложил $2 млн в поддержку республиканцев, которые также выступают за однополые браки. Главный актив Зингера - Elliott Management Corporation.  15.Арт Поуп Бывший председатель бюджетного комитета Северной Каролины и преуспевающий бизнесмен Арт Поуп вложил миллионы долларов в продвижение своих политических идей. В первую очередь, речь идет о свободном рынке, который Поуп считает основной составляющей успешной экономики. Арт Поуп также республиканец.  14.Пьер и Памела Омидьяр Семья иранского происхождения, которая добилась успеха в США, вкладывает существенные средства в продвижение идеи прозрачности и открытости. Пьер и Памела интересуются также вопросами прав на собственность и экономического развития.  13.Джефф и Макинзи Безос Кто бы мог подумать, что руководство Amazon.com может интересоваться политикой. Однако Джефф Безос недавно приобрел издание Washington Post и вложил $2,5 млн в поддержку однополых браков. Напомним, что этот вопрос в США остается одним из наиболее острых в области внутренней политики.  12.Марк Цукерберг И снова миллиардер из высокотехнологического сектора, который интересуется политикой. Марк Цукерберг совместно с организацией FWD.us работает над иммиграционной реформой, а в Нью-Джерси проталкивает реформу начального образования. Напомним, что самому владельцу Facebook в настоящий момент всего 30 лет.  11.Питер Тиль Питерь Тиль, известный инвестор, владелец хэдж-фондов и сооснователь PayPal, вложил $2,6 млн в предвыборную кампанию в 2012г., деньги получил Рон Пол, который вылетел из гонки во время праймериз. В последнее время Тиль активно выступает в пользу увеличения минимального размера оплаты труда.  10.Уоррен Баффет Миллиардер Баффет, владелец знаменитого Berkshire Hathaway, сыграл важную роль в политике США после избрания Барака Обамы на пост президента. Уоррен Баффет выступает за ограничение власти богачей, увеличение налогов для них, и собирается расстаться с большей частью своего богатства в рамках The Giving Pledge ("Клятва дарения").  9.Пенни Прицкер Пенни Прицкер была министром торговли и одним из главных лоббистов идей Барака Обамы. Кроме того, Прицкер является сооснователем PSP Capital Partners, Pritzker Realty Group и еще ряда крупных фирм, что придает ее голосу значимость, когда речь заходит о внутренней политике.  8.Джон и Лора Арнольд Джон Арнольд управлял крупным хэдж-фондом, и фокусировался на инвестициях в газовые активы а потом стал филантропом. Правда, не каждый найдет желание помочь людям в его стремлении добиться сокращения пенсий и добиться роста финансовой нагрузки для работников предприятий.  7.Билл и Мелинда Гейтс The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation - один из самых авторитетных благотворительных фондов, инвестирующих в борьбу с болезнями и бедностью в развивающихся странах, в частности, в Африканских. Также основатель Microsoft и его супруга сражаются за реформирование американской системы образования и легализацию однополых браков.  6.Руперт Мердок Руперт Мердок контролирует Wall Street Journal и Fox News - это важнейшие поставщики политических и экономических новостей. Таким образом, Мердок сосредоточил в своих руках активы, способные задавать новостной тон и влиять на настроения в обществе. Кроме того, Руперт Мердок сотрудничает с Bloomberg по вопросу иммиграционной реформы.  5.Джордж Сорос Джордж Сорос открыто лоббирует идеи демократов. Он потратил $1 млн в 2012г. на поддержку Барака Обамы на выборах. Кроме того, Сорос в данный момент является сопредседателем комитета политических действий "Ready for Hillary".  4.Шелдон Эделсон Наша жизнь - игра, и один из королей игорного бизнеса Шелдон Эделсон активно вкладывает средства в политику. Он потратил $93 млн, чтобы "победить Барака Обаму". Речь, конечно, не о том, что бизнесмен надеялся участвовать в выборах, а о поддержке республиканцев, которые "выполняют свои обещания". На следующих выборах Эделсон инвестирует в кампанию вдвое больше.  3.Том Стейер Стейер - сооснователь и один из руководителей фонда Farallon Capital Management. Он также основал несколько банков. Помимо бизнеса Тома Стейера интересуют вопросы охраны окружающей среды, и он активно лоббирует соответствующие идеи в политической среде.  2.Майкл Блумберг Бывший мэр Нью-Йорка и основатель агентства Bloomberg Майкл Блумберг активно борется с бесконтрольным распространением оружия. Он инвестировал $50 млн в противодействие организации NRA, которая как раз пытается добиться свободной торговли оружием на всей территории США, делая отсылку ко Второй поправке к Конституции.  1.Чарльз и Дэвид Кох Братья Кох инвестировали $30 млн в программу, которая выявляет слабые стороны демократов. Это специальная рекламная кампания, навредившая тем политикам, которым есть что скрывать. К следующим выборам общий объем инвестиций в эту программу семья Кох собирается довести до $290 млн. Еще одной жертвой стала программа здравоохранения "Obamacare".

25 февраля 2014, 11:52

Если не Хиллари, то кто? Часть 1

От редакции: Портал Terra America совсем недавно довольно подробно изучил политический стиль и личные качества действующего вице-президента США Джо Байдена. Многие наши авторы и американские эксперты тогда не исключили, что Байден вполне может вступить в президентскую гонку 2016 года. При этом, правда, неизменно следовала оговорка, что нынешний вице обязательно уступит место номинанта Хиллари Клинтон, если она решит баллотироваться. Но решит ли она? Сможет ли мобилизовать себя на второе беспрецедентное усилие в борьбе за Белый Дом? Как со здоровьем у бывшего госсекретаря? Есть ли у этого, несомненно, яркого политического деятеля команда и программа? Иными словами, вопросы, вопросы, вопросы… И все же в прошлом году на фоне конфликта ветвей власти в США, приведшего к «выключению правительства», после долгого перерыва Хиллари снова появилась на публике, и внимание общества немедленно сфокусировалось на ней. Сначала опросы показали, что две трети демократов готовы выдвинуть ее кандидатуру в президенты. Затем в ее поддержку публично выступил ряд видных политиков и магнат Джордж Сорос. Выпорхнув из тени, госпожа Клинтон появляется то на одном публичном политическом мероприятии, то на другом. Количество статей, посвященных перспективе Хиллари-2016, зашкаливает. И вот мадам Клинтон уже колесит по стране с выступлениями, а администрация Обамы просит ее сделать «пару телефонных звонков», чтобы повлиять на решение того или иного сенатора. Тем, кто готов поддержать Хиллари в 2016 году, и тому, какой будет политическая линия предполагаемой первой женщины-президента США, посвящено исследование Натальи Войковой. Сегодня мы предлагаем вниманию читателя его первую часть. * * * Она до сих пор избегает прямых ответов на вопрос о своих планах на 2016 год. Она прекрасно помнит, что однажды уже считалась самым вероятным кандидатом в президенты от демократов, но в итоге проиграла борьбу за выдвижение ныне действующему президенту. Не забыла она и о том, как ее предали некоторые сторонники[1]. Ее зовут Хиллари Родэм Клинтон (HRC – так ее сегодня часто зовут в прессе). К ноябрю 2016 года ей исполнится 69. Едва ли возраст станет для нее главным препятствием – столько же было Рональду Рейгану, когда он стал президентом. Но вот что нового она сможет предложить запутавшейся Америке? И кем станет в глазах уставших от потрясений враждующих партий: Рейганом, способным объединить элиты, или одиноким Никсоном, опирающимся только на электоральные рейтинги? Тринадцать ключей к Белому Дому Еще в 1980 году американский профессор Алан Лихтман и советский геофизик Владимир Кейлис-Борок вывели универсальную формулу, позволяющую почти со 100-процентной точностью прогнозировать итог выборов президента США. Ученые интерпретировали политику в геофизических терминах, рассмотрев не ситуацию «Рейган против Картера» или «либералы против консерваторов», а используя логику «стабильности против потрясений».[2] Для этого ученые изучили результаты 31 президентской избирательной кампании – именно столько их состоялось с 1860 по 1980 год, – чтобы проанализировать и математически описать историко-политическое пространство. Затем Лихтман сформировал 13 бинарных[3] шкал (ключей), «свернув» в них все обстоятельства, сопровождающие борьбу за Белый Дом. Вот эти ключи: № Название ключа Суждение, описывающее ключ 1 Партийный мандат После промежуточных выборов партия власти имеет больше мест в Палате представителей, чем после предыдущих промежуточных выборов 2 Соревновательность в правящей партии Нет серьезной борьбы за номинацию в правящей партии 3 Участие действующего президента Кандидат правящей партии – действующий президент 4 Третья партия Нет сильного кандидата от третьей партии или сильного независимого кандидата 5 Текущая экономика Экономика не находится в состоянии рецессии во время избирательной кампании 6 Долгосрочная экономика Рост реальных доходов на душу населения в годы правления действующего президента равен или выше по сравнению с ростом, который был во время двух предыдущих президентских сроков 7 Изменения в политике Действующая администрации проводит значительные изменения во внутренней политике 8 Социальные волнения Отсутствуют масштабные социальные волнения 9 Скандал Действующая администрация не запятнана крупным скандалом 10 Ошибки в международной политике Действующая администрация не допустила серьезных ошибок во внешней или военной политике 11 Успехи в международной политике Действующая администрация добилась серьезных успехов в области внешней или военной политики 12 Харизматичность кандидата от правящей партии Кандидат от правящей партии обладает харизмой или является национальным героем 13 Харизматичность кандидата от оппозиционной партии Кандидат от оппозиционной партии не обладает харизмой и не является национальным героем Если количество ложных суждений (его называют «числом Лихтмана») равно или меньше 5, то партия власти по итогам выборов сохраняет за собой Белый дом. Если их 6 или более, прогноз для партии власти становился неутешительным. Так был выведен метод, впоследствии прозванный журналистами «13 ключей к Белому дому». За 32 года (начиная с 1984 года в восьми президентских избирательных кампаниях) он ни разу не дал сбоя[4]. К примеру, прогнозируя результаты выборов 1984 года, когда на второй срок переизбирался Рейган, Лихтман оценил 11 из 13 прогностических суждений как «истинные». Согласно этой оценке, можно было ожидать, что за Рейгана проголосует 57% электората. Так и случилось. А вот в 1992 году помимо республиканцев и демократов за Белый дом успешно сражался независимый кандидат (Росс Перо), поэтому имя демократа Клинтона как будущего президента было названо Лихтманом лишь за два месяца до выборов. Переизбрание же Клинтона в 1996 году на второй срок было предсказано более чем за два года до дня голосования. В апреле 2003 года «машина Лихтмана» уверенно прогнозировала переизбрание Буша-младшего, в июне 2005 года «ключи» свидетельствовали о перспективах завоевания Белого дома демократами, а в марте 2010 года был предсказан второй срок Обамы. У этого метода есть одно ограничение. «13 ключей» позволяют предсказывать итог волеизъявления американского электората, но не принимают во внимание мажоритарный характер избирательной системы США. Именно поэтому сложными для прогнозирования оказались президентские выборы 2000 года. Согласно прогнозу Лихтмана, избиратели должны были выбрать Гора. Он и победил с отрывом в полмиллиона голосов. Но затем случилось то, что в истории американских президентских избирательных кампаний наблюдалось до этого лишь однажды, в 1888 году: итоги голосования выборщиков и голосования избирателей оказались разными. Президентом стал Буш-младший, сумевший победить в штатах, от которых делегируется по закону наибольшее число выборщиков. По прогнозу на 2016 год «матрица Лихтмана» насчитала девять «истинных» ключей, что дает основания предполагать победу кандидата от Демократической партии. Оценка «ложно» была поставлена по двум шкалам. Барак Обама не имеет права третий раз выдвигать свою кандидатуру (ключ 3) и в ближайшие годы реальные доходы на душу населения не вырастут (ключ 6). С ключом «партийного мандата» ситуация пока неясна. Этой осенью состоятся промежуточные выборы, в ходе которых будут избираться все члены Палаты Представителей (435 конгрессменов) и 33 из 100 сенаторов. Если демократам удастся сохранить свое преимущество в 10 мест в Сенате и завоевать 17 дополнительных мест в Палате представителей, еще один «истинный» ключ будет у них в кармане. Хотя, как показывает практика, проигрыш «партии власти» на промежуточных выборах – давняя американская традиция. В середине 90-х с реваншем республиканцев столкнулся демократ Клинтон. В конце 2000-х республиканец Джордж Буш-младший беспомощно наблюдал, как Конгресс переходят под контроль представителей демократической партии. А при Бараке Обаме в 2010 году демократы потеряли Палату Представителей. Двенадцатый ключ касается харизмы кандидата от правящей партии. В пострузвельтовские времена таких политиков было лишь двое: герой войны Дуайт Эйзенхауэр (1956 год) и актер Рональд Рейган (1980 год). Учитывая, что Хиллари Клинтон 17 раз признавалась американцами самой влиятельной женщиной в мире[5], она вполне может стать третьей. Математически это означает, что демократический кандидат опередит своего республиканского оппонента минимум на 6-7%, а вероятность его победы по итогам голосования не ниже 79%. Разумеется, если до выборов не произойдет ничего экстраординарного. К слову, прогноз Литхмана был сделан в прошлом году, то есть до «шатдауна» и введения в действие реформы здравоохранения. С тех пор дела у демократов не очень… В поисках нового Рейгана Демократы разочарованы в Обаме. Да, у них получилось взять Белый дом в 2008 и удержать его в 2012, но Конгресс, особенно когда республиканцы получили контроль над Палатой Представителей, стал резко враждебен Белому Дому, и президент не смог наладить с ним диалог. Последовали взаимные обиды и взаимные обвинения. Демократам больше не нужны такие экзотические фигуры. Сейчас их симпатии склоняются к «классике». Судя по опросам[6], Хиллари сегодня является самым классическим демократом. Да и трудно найти кандидата с похожим политическим опытом, известностью и отлаженным механизмом сбора денег для предвыборной кампании. К тому же, историческая «галочка» в графе «первая женщина-президент США» еще не поставлена. На Хилари работает и тот факт, что она не занимает государственных постов и не становится объектом для критики, как ее конкурент вице-президент Байден. Губернатор Эндрю Куомо, которого сегодня активно обсуждают в прессе, ей тоже не конкурент. Он был женат на дочери Роберта Кеннеди и поэтому вхож в тот же клан, что и Джо Байден и Джон Керри. Но ни яркой харизмы, ни свежих идей у него нет. Более 10 лет Куомо был посредственным советником в команде своего отца (Марио Куомо, губернатора Нью-Йорка с 83 по 94 годы), пока в 1993 году президент Клинтон не взял его в правительство. Причем сначала только заместителем министра. В 2002 году он неудачно поборолся за пост губернатора Нью-Йорка. Решил зайти с другой стороны и только в 2006 стал прокурором этого штата... Конечно, у демократов есть шанс найти перспективного молодого политика после промежуточных выборов в Конгресс. Но пока такого явного лидера на горизонте нет. А упускать Белый дом не хочется. Фактор интриги справа нельзя сбрасывать со счетов, особенно учитывая радикализацию настроений в Республиканской партии и провал нескольких подряд левых инициатив Обамы. И все же, если «шатдауны» не дискредитируют обе партии окончательно, и сильный третий кандидат не смешает все карты, а американский избиратель к 2016 году сильно не поправеет, у демократов появится хороший шанс передать Белый дом из рук в руки. При этом Клинтон явно не намерена сильно раздражать республиканцев. Она предсказуемая и системная фигура. Вполне возможно, что ее кандидатура станет компромиссом для тех кругов, что формируют республиканский и демократический истеблишмент. Последним таким персонажем был Рональд Рейган, который смог и обаять избирателей, и сгладить острые углы в отношениях между партиями. Hillaryland А что же сама Хиллари? Своих президентских амбиций она не оставила. Кто-то мог бы. Но не она. 2008-й год Хиллари встретила в собственноручно выстроенной за 15 лет империи. С 1992 года (еще со времен арканзасского Литл-Рока) Hillaryland формировался, как самостоятельная группа ее надежных и проверенных консультантов. Ее команда была непохожа на остальные. Во-первых, все члены этой команды были женщинами (кроме единственного мужчины – гея Нила Латтимора). Во-вторых, все сотрудники ее штаба были личными друзьями Хиллари. Это было особенно важно, учитывая, что не все соратники мужа питали к Первой Леди нежные чувства. Основной костяк этой группы, надолго занявшей Западное крыло Белого дома, составляли: личный помощник госпожи Клинтон Хума Абедин (впоследствии ставшая заместителем руководителя аппарата в Госдепартаменте); главный менеджер всех ее избирательных кампаний Патти Солис Дойл (якобы, она и придумала термин «Hillaryland»); Мэнди Грюнвальд (занимавшаяся производством рекламных роликов для предвыборных кампаний четы Клинтонов); Шерил Миллс, известная как адвокат, защитивший президента Клинтона от импичмента в 1999 году; советники по политическим вопросам Энн Льюис и Миньон Мур; пресс-секретарь президента Клинтона и ассистент Первой леди Эвелин Либерман; помощницы Хиллари в политических инициативах Тамера Луццатто, Каприция Маршалл и Неера Танден (последняя занималась вопросами энергетики и здравоохранения при Билле Клинтоне, была мозгом президентской кампании Хиллари, а затем руководителем отдела внутренней политики во время второй президентской кампании Барака Обамы); бессменный спичрайтер Лисса Мускатин; глава ее предвыборного штаба 2008 года и бывший начальник канцелярии Билла Клинтона Мэгги Уильямс, а также руководитель аппарата Первой леди и Посол США по Глобальным женским вопросам при Госдепе Мелани Вервир. Весь этот Hillaryland изначально планировался миссис Клинтон как герметичная замкнутая на себя структура со своей субкультурой, характеризующаяся отсутствием утечек информации в прессу и бесконечной преданностью своему боссу, чему мог бы позавидовать любой американский политик. Например, когда у Тамеры Луццатто, бессменного руководителя аппарата миссис Клинтон, обнаружили опухоль мозга, и потребовалась срочная операция, Луццатто настояла на том, чтобы операцию назначили на следующий день после решающих праймериз – только в это время ее отсутствие никак не могло повредить работе штаба Хиллари. Долгое время модель этого мирка исправно служила миссис Клинтон. Женщины «хиллариленда» уверенно продвигались по политической карьерной лестнице, параллельно руководили благотворительными фондами семьи, поддерживали на должном уровне ее многочисленные социальные инициативы и работали как единый отлаженный механизм. Однако герметичность и изоляционизм не всегда идет на пользу эффективной кампании (как в свое время это продемонстрировала администрация Буша-Чейни). Гарольд Икес, глава Комиссии по уставу и процедуре Национального комитета Демократической партии (DNC – своего рода ЦК партии), советник четы Клинтонов и один из немногих, кто мог легко перемещаться между двумя лагерями, Билла и Хиллари, как-то заметил: «Когда все знают “как лучше” и мыслят только в одном направлении, перекрывается доступ к другим идеям. Вы их просто не видите или не доверяете им». Выиграть президентскую номинацию в 2008 году, опираясь только на собственный мир и его идеи, у Хиллари не получилось. Теперь придется опираться на другие идеи и, возможно, других людей. Конечно, многие из ветеранов будут рядом – ее давние соратницы во главе с Миллс, Абедин и Маршалл никуда не денутся. Но слишком многие не готовы вернуться к предыдущей главе. Советник по вопросам политики Джейк Салливан сейчас работает на Байдена. Скорее всего, он будет играть заметную роль в его будущей кампании, если таковая состоится. Социолог и главный стратег ее прошлой кампании Марк Пенн теоретически может снова примкнуть к Клинтон, но пока он сосредоточен на корпоративной работе в Microsoft, где в качестве вице-президента занят глобальными стратегиями рекламного развития. Говард Вольфсон, ее давний пресс-секретарь, последнее время работал на бывшего мэра Нью-Йорка Майкла Блумберга, а Фил Сингер, прекрасно зарекомендовавший себя шесть лет назад, в настоящее время является советником Эндрю Куомо. «Бессменный клипмейкер» четы Клинтонов Мэнди Грюнвальд ушла к сенатору Элизабет Уоррен[7]. Своего соратника и блестящего менеджера всех кампаний Патти Солис Дойл Хиллари уволила и едва ли попросит вернуться. Все это время Солис Дойл работала на Обаму, параллельно занимаясь делами собственной финансовой компании. И Хиллари, и все ее консультанты прекрасно понимают, что для новой кампании необходима свежая кровь. Как предполагают аналитики, в команду могут влиться Джен О'Мэлли Диллон (заместитель руководителя кампании Обамы) и молодой Робби Мук (который успешно провел кампании Терри Маколиффа и Гай Сесиль[8]). Вероятнее всего, госпожа Клинтон «пересядет на гибрид» из опытных ветеранов и новичков. Люди, подобные Бейкер, Танден и Мур продолжат консультировать ее, но официальной кампанией займется «молодая группа». Во второй половине прошлого года, покинув Госдепартамент, Клинтон уже расширила свою команду платных политических советников. Судя по всему, сейчас она рассчитывает на семейные связи, людей Обамы и более серьезную, чем в прошлый раз, финансовую поддержку. Независимый и комфортный феминистский Hillaryland придется сменить на более просторный, величественный, но изрезанный лабиринтами Clintonland. Clintonland Если учесть, что в США избирательная кампания идет всегда, там не бывает «межвыборных каникул», и любые телодвижения политиков следует рассматривать как предвыборные. «Готовить сани» американская элита начинает за несколько лет до ожидаемого события. У Хиллари эта подготовка началась с семьи… Продолжение следует. [1]> Речь идет прежде всего о Криссе Додде и Чаке Шумере, имеющих обширные связи в банковских кругах. В 2008 году они работали на Клинтон, а помогали Обаме. История этих предательств в деталях рассказана в книге Марка Гальперина и Джона Хейлемана «Смена игры»: Mark Halperin, John Heilemann/Game Change: Obama and the Clintons, McCain and Palin, and the Race of a Lifetime/Harper, 2010 [2] «Стабильность» в данном случае ― победа на выборах партии, чей президент занимает Белый дом, а «потрясение» ― проигрыш. В геофизике потрясение (stress) имеет другой смысл, впрочем, вполне соотносимый с электоральным ― геологическое напряжение. В 1981 году учёные изложили первые результаты совместной работы в статье, где рассматривались общие подходы к математическому анализу статистики президентских выборов в США, состоявшихся с 1860 по 1980 год. [3] Имеется в виду не 0 и 1, а «истинно» и «ложно». [4] A.Lichtman/The Keys To The White House/Lanham: Madison Books, 1996. [5] Статистика ведется с 1948 года; второе и третье места занимают Элеонора Рузвельт и Маргарет Тэтчер – 13 и 6 раз, соответственно. [6] Согласно серии недавних опросов Public Policy Polling, 59% потенциального демократического электората США готово в 2016 году отдать свои голоса Хиллари Клинтон (26% ― Джо Байдену). Есть и другие возможные кандидаты на пост президента от Демократической партии, но они пока не очень популярны. [7] Сенатор Уоррен также рассматривалась истеблишментом Демократической партии как возможный кандидат-2016, но по харизме и опыту она явно уступает и Хиллари, и Байдену. [8] На сенатора Сессиль негласно возложена миссия сохранения за демократами большинства в Сенате на предстоящих промежуточных выборах.  Наталья Войкова

18 июня 2013, 21:55

40% продуктов питания в США оказываются на помойке

В США более 40% всех продуктов питания остаются несъеденными, свидетельствуют данные Министерства сельского хозяйства и Управления по охране окружающей среды.В среднем американцы выбрасывает на помойку еды на сумму $165 млрд каждый год По подсчетам экспертов, в среднем американцы выбрасывает на помойку еды на сумму $165 млрд каждый год. Подобная ситуация показалась мэру Нью-Йорка Майклу Блумбергу неприемлемой, в результате он предложил план по оптимизации использования органических отходов.Согласно плану Блумберга город перейдет к обязательному компостированию пищевых отходов, хоть это и может усложнить жизнь домохозяйствам.В соответствии с его предложением к 2016 г. жители Нью-Йорка должны будут отделять свои пищевые отходы. Органические отходы в Нью-Йорке в настоящий момент составляют 1,2 млн тонн, или 35% от закапываемого мусора. Данный вид отходов будет перерабатываться в удобрения или же в природный газ.Эксперты считают, что данная мера окажет положительный эффект на экологическую обстановку в городе, она также позитивно скажется и на кошельках жителей города. Выбрасывание остатков пищи в отдельном мусорном мешке будет наглядно показывать потребителю, насколько он расточителен."Осознание того, сколько пищи расходуется впустую, помогает людям оптимизировать свои расходы. Также рост цен серьезно стимулирует желание потребителей более тщательно подходить к вопросу покупки пищи", - отмечает Фил Лемперт, глава сайта SupermarketGuru.com. История вопросаSupermarketGuru.com является ведущим ресурсом в сети, знакомящим потребителей с самой свежей информацией о направлениях развития пищевой промышленности, биотехнологиях, питании, безопасности продуктов питания, новых продуктах и предлагающим полезные советы. Средняя цена закупки продовольствия, как ожидается, возрастет на 2,5% до 3,5% в 2013 г. согласно данным Министерства сельского хозяйства США.