• Теги
    • избранные теги
    • Компании1297
      • Показать ещё
      Международные организации83
      • Показать ещё
      Страны / Регионы808
      • Показать ещё
      Люди360
      • Показать ещё
      Разное881
      • Показать ещё
      Формат36
      Показатели91
      • Показать ещё
      Издания98
      • Показать ещё
Выбор редакции
27 июня, 07:40

Пограничные силы Индии и Китая заняли оборону друг против друга

Напряженная обстановка возникла в районе индийского штата Сикким на границе Индии и Китая, где военные двух стран заняли оборону друг против друга, сообщают источники. Пограничники заняли позиции в связи с тем, что несколько дней назад китайские военные зашли на индийскую территорию и разрушили два блиндажа индийской армии, передает ТАСС со ссылкой на Business Standard. Китай также обвинил индийских военных в том, что они незаконно пересекли границу. Пекин требует от Индии вывести военных с китайской территории.  При этом на прошлой неделе Китай не пустил индийских паломников к священной для них горы Кайлас. Осенью китайские солдаты помешали Индии строить канал на спорной территории. Перед этим Китай выразил протест в связи с визитом посла США в Индии в спорный пограничный район. Также Пекин осудил решение Индии о размещении на границе с Китаем ракет BrahMos.

Выбор редакции
27 июня, 07:32

Shenyang notes

You don’t see many luxury goods shops, as the region has been deindustrializing since the 1990s.  There are modernist 1920s cement buildings scattered in some of the old central parts of the city, but nowhere is it attractive.  There is a nine-hour Chinese movie about the city falling on hard economic times, with its three […] The post Shenyang notes appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.

27 июня, 07:01

Безопасность в интернете: как защитить свои платежи?

Наверное, не существует ни одного активного пользователя интернета, который ни разу что-нибудь не купил или не оплатил онлайн. И каждый раз, вводя данные своей банковской карты, человек подвергается потенциальной опасности

27 июня, 03:30

5 questions on the future of Trump's travel ban

Supreme Court action leaves legality of president's executive order up in the air.

27 июня, 03:14

Is the U.S.-South Korea Alliance in Trouble?

Scott A. Snyder Security, Asia Given the constraints and risks South Korea faces, Moon is wisely tacking toward pragmatism and alignment with the United States. Following a decade of convergence between South Korean conservatives and the Obama administration, American analysts have been bracing for a new round of alliance-shuddering tensions under Donald Trump and Moon Jae-in similar to those that existed a little over a decade ago during the George W. Bush and Roh Moo-hyun administrations. But this analysis overlooks constraints Moon faces that are likely to keep him on track; instead, South Koreans are holding their breath over the possibility that the greatest risks to the U.S.-ROK alliance could come from uncertainties generated by President Trump himself. Moon served as Roh’s chief-of-staff and his campaign borrowed directly from the Roh administration’s playbook. Moon’s decision to temporarily halt implementation of the deployment of the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) U.S. missile defense system due to procedural concerns about transparency and domestic environmental standards have reminded Americans of the prickly challenges that beset alliance relations between Washington and Seoul a decade ago. But Moon Jae-in faces a dramatically different domestic and international situation as president compared to the one he experienced as chief-of-staff in the Roh Moo-hyun administration. Domestically, Moon leads a government that holds a minority of seats in South Korea’s National Assembly and South Korean public support for the U.S.-ROK alliance (as well as the deployment of the THAAD missile defense system) is high. Moon’s electoral mandate revolves primarily around the need to root out domestic corruption and address economic inequality; to do so, he must pursue a pragmatic and responsible foreign policy, the centerpiece of which will be the security alliance with the United States. Second, North Korea under Kim Jong-un is different from the North Korea that his father Kim Jong-il led a decade ago. Despite Moon’s stated desire during the campaign to cultivate dialogue and renew economic relations with Pyongyang, North Korean missile tests—conducted only four days after Moon’s election—served as a wake-up call. North Korea long ago abandoned denuclearization negotiations and has rebuffed early Moon administration efforts to reopen nongovernmental exchanges. North Korea under Kim Jong-un has appointed military leaders focused on subversion to handle relations with South Korea and has shown little interest in dialogue. Read full article

27 июня, 02:29

The Supreme Court’s Artful Dodge

A pragmatic ruling on Trump’s travel ban preserves the peace for now—though Gorsuch is willing to stir the pot.

27 июня, 02:11

Conyers and Lujan face Ethics Committee scrutiny

John Lewis' top aide is also under review for an alleged campaign violation.

Выбор редакции
27 июня, 02:05

Consumer confidence collapsed after general election, YouGov finds

Hung parliament, pay squeeze and housing slowdown took consumers’ spirits to lowest level since Brexit vote, says pollConsumer confidence slumped in the 12 days after the general election to its lowest level since the aftermath of last year’s Brexit vote, as households were unnerved by the impact of a hung parliament.A poll by YouGov found that consumers feared the unstable political situation would hit house prices and dent their living standards, which have already come under pressure in recent months from high inflation and sluggish wages growth. Continue reading...

27 июня, 01:46

3 CNN staffers resign over retracted Scaramucci-Russia story

The story was posted last Thursday and removed last Friday.

27 июня, 01:30

The Danger of "Public" Education

Authored by Murray Rothbard via The Mises Institute, The key issue in the entire discussion is simply this: shall the parent or the State be the overseer of the child? An essential feature of human life is that, for many years, the child is relatively helpless, that his powers of providing for himself mature late. Until these powers are fully developed he cannot act completely for himself as a responsible individual. He must be under tutelage. This tutelage is a complex and difficult task. From an infancy of complete dependence and subjection to adults, the child must grow up gradually to the status of an independent adult. The question is under whose guidance, and virtual "ownership" the child should be: his parents' or the State's? There is no third, or middle, ground in this issue. Some party must control, and no one suggests that some individual third party have authority to seize the child and rear it. It is obvious that the natural state of affairs is for the parents to have charge of the child. The parents are the literal producers of the child, and the child is in the most intimate relationship to them that any people can be to one another. The parents have ties of family affection to the child. The parents are interested in the child as an individual, and are the most likely to be interested and familiar with his requirements and personality. Finally, if one believes at all in a free society, where each one owns himself and his own products, it is obvious that his own child, one of his most precious products, also comes under his charge. The only logical alternative to parental "ownership" of the child is for the State to seize the infant from the parents and to rear it completely itself. To any believer in freedom this must seem a monstrous step indeed. In the first place, the rights of the parents are completely violated, their own loving product seized from them to be subjected to the will of strangers. In the second place, the rights of the child are violated, for he grows up in subjection to the unloving hands of the State, with little regard for his individual personality. Furthermore — and this is a most important consideration — for each person to be "educated," to develop his faculties to the fullest, he needs freedom for this development. We have seen above that freedom from violence is essential to the development of a man's reason and personality. But the State! The State's very being rests on violence, on compulsion. As a matter of fact, the very feature that distinguishes the State from other individuals and groups is that the State has the only (legal) power to use violence. In contrast to all other individuals and organizations, the State issues decrees which must be obeyed at the risk of suffering prison or the electric chair. The child would have to grow up under the wings of an institution resting on violence and restriction. What sort of peaceful development could take place under such auspices? Furthermore, it is inevitable that the State would impose uniformity on the teaching of charges. Not only is uniformity more congenial to the bureaucratic temper and easier to enforce; this would be almost inevitable where collectivism has supplanted individualism. With collective State ownership of the children replacing individual ownership and rights, it is clear that the collective principle would be enforced in teaching as well. Above all, what would be taught is the doctrine of obedience to the State itself. For tyranny is not really congenial to the spirit of man, who requires freedom for his full development. Therefore, techniques of inculcating reverence for despotism and other types of "thought control" are bound to emerge. Instead of spontaneity, diversity, and independent men, there would emerge a race of passive, sheep-like followers of the State. Since they would be only incompletely developed, they would be only half-alive. It might be said that no one is contemplating such monstrous measures. Even Communist Russia did not go so far as to impose a "communism of children," even though it did almost everything else to eliminate freedom. The point is, however, that this is the logical goal of the Statists in education. The issue which has been joined in the past and in the present is: shall there be a free society with parental control, or a despotism with State control? We shall see the logical development of the idea of State encroachment and control. America, for example, began, for the most part, with a system of either completely private or with philanthropic schools. Then, in the nineteenth century, the concept of public education changed subtly, until everybody was urged to go to the public school, and private schools were accused of being divisive. Finally, the State imposed compulsory education on the people, either forcing children to go to public schools or else setting up arbitrary standards for private schools. Parental instruction was frowned on. Thus, the State has been warring with parents for control over their children. Not only has there been a trend toward increased State control, but the effects of this have been worsened by the very system of equality before the law that applies in political life. There has been the growth of a passion for equality in general. The result has been a tendency to regard every child as equal to every other child, as deserving equal treatment, and to impose complete uniformity in the classroom. Formerly, this had tended to be set at the average level of the class; but this being frustrating to the dullest (who, however, must be kept at the same level as the others, in the name of equality and democracy), the teaching tends more and more to be set at the lowest levels. We shall see that since the State began to control education, its evident tendency has been more and more to act in such a manner as to promote repression and hindrance of education, rather than the true development of the individual. Its tendency has been for compulsion, for enforced equality at the lowest level, for the watering down of the subject and even the abandonment of all formal teaching, for the inculcation of obedience to the State and to the "group," rather than the development of self-independence, for the deprecation of intellectual subjects. And finally, it is the drive of the State and its minions for power that explains the "modern education" creed of "education of the whole child" and making the school a "slice of life," where the individual plays, adjusts to the group, etc. The effect of this, as well as all the other measures, is to repress any tendency for the development of reasoning powers and individual independence; to try to usurp in various ways the "educational" function (apart from formal instruction) of the home and friends, and to try to mold the "whole child" in the desired paths. Thus, "modern education" has abandoned the school functions of formal instruction in favor of molding the total personality both to enforce equality of learning at the level of the least educable, and to usurp the general educational role of home and other influences as much as possible. Since no one will accept outright State "communization" of children, even in Communist Russia, it is obvious that State control has to be achieved more silently and subtly. For anyone who is interested in the dignity of human life, in the progress and development of the individual in a free society, the choice between parental and State control over the children is clear. Is there, then, to be no State interference whatever in the relations between parent and child? Suppose that the parents aggress upon and mutilate the child? Are we to permit this? If not, where are we to draw the line? The line can be simply drawn. The State can adhere strictly to the function of defending everyone from the aggressive violence of everyone else. This will include children as well as adults, since children are potential adults and future freemen. Simple failure to "educate," or rather, instruct, is no grounds whatever for interference. The difference between these cases was succinctly put by Herbert Spencer: No cause for such [state] interposition can be shown until the children's rights have been violated, and that their rights are not violated by a neglect of their education [actually, instruction]. For … what we call rights are merely arbitrary subdivisions of the general liberty to exercise the faculties; and that only can be called an infringement of rights which actually diminishes this liberty — cuts off a previously existing power to pursue the objects of desire. Now the parent who is careless of a child's education does not do this. The liberty to exercise faculties is left intact. Omitting instruction in no way takes from a child's freedom to do whatsoever it wills in the best way it can, and this freedom is all that equity demands. Every aggression, be it remembered — every infraction of rights — is necessarily active; whilst every neglect, carelessness, omission, is as necessarily passive. Consequently, however wrong the non-performance of a parental duty may be … it does not amount to a breach of the law of equal freedom and cannot therefore be taken cognizance of by the state.

26 июня, 23:39

Mayors group opposes GOP ‘concealed carry’ gun bills

The U.S. Conference of Mayors has come out in opposition to House and Senate GOP proposals to allow "concealed carry" gun license holders to carry weapons into other states that allow it.The resolution was offered by New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio and Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, among others, and came as the Supreme Court refused to hear a challenge to a California law setting strict limits on who can carry concealed weapons.The GOP bills — introduced by Rep. Richard Hudson (R-N.C.) in the House and Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) in the Senate — are backed by the National Rifle Association, which has made passage of "concealed carry reciprocity" legislation its top congressional priority. They also have attracted widespread support from Republican lawmakers, as well as some Democrats. Neither bill has received a hearing or date for consideration yet.Hudson, however, said that after the recent shooting of Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.), a "number of members have approached me and asked me if we could move up the timetable" for marking up his bill.Gun-control groups are strongly opposed to the measure. John Feinblatt, president of Everytown for Gun Safety, derided the Hudson and Cornyn bills as "the gun lobby's dream.""Under ‘Concealed Carry Reciprocity,’ Congress would gut local public safety laws and turn the weakest state’s laws effectively into nationwide laws, forcing states to allow domestic abusers, people with violent histories, and people who lack even the most basic gun safety training to carry concealed guns in public," Feinblatt said in a statement praising the mayors' resolution.At its annual meeting, the U.S. Conference of Mayors adopted a broad resolution stating that the "goals of this legislation are completely antithetical to all of the efforts to reduce and prevent gun violence...."The resolution also stresses that the proposed legislation "would essentially force the localities to give full faith and credit to permits that are issued on less rigorous grounds, remove local governments’ ability to maintain sensible gun standards, and keep a proper vetting process in place...."Hudson said the mayors' resolution "shows a misunderstanding of the legislation." Hudson noted that his proposal did not alter the requirements for background checks on handgun purchases or override any state, county or municipal ban on carry concealed weapons."You keep hearing about carrying a gun in Times Square," Hudson said. "If the city of New York prohibits carrying a gun in Times Square, then any visitor with a concealed-carry privilege would have to follow that law and wouldn't be able to carry their weapon."Hudson added: "It's just like a driver's license. If you go into a town where it's 35 miles per hour everywhere, I have to drive 35."

26 июня, 22:44

15 Adorable Celebrity Babies Born in 2017

It's been a big year for celebrity babies, with a handful of famous Hollywood power couples welcoming new children into the world.

Выбор редакции
26 июня, 22:37

After Grenfell: two councils, two very different responses | Dawn Foster

Unlike the Kensington and Chelsea leader, Georgia Gould showed Camden residents that councils can have an accountable and human faceOn Friday evening, outside Camden town hall, council leader Georgia Gould defended the decision to evacuate the nearby Chalcots estate due to safety concerns. Gould seemed genuinely worried, and told the BBC that Camden had been first in the queue to test its cladding, finding on Thursday that the panels fitted were “not to the standard that we had commissioned” and announcing they would be removed. At a public meeting the same night, Gould says residents raised other safety concerns she’d been unaware of: Camden council and the London fire brigade assessed the block, and the council was advised to evacuate. Related: Grenfell is political. The right can’t make that fact go away | Suzanne Moore Continue reading...

26 июня, 22:09

HHS Secretary Price: The Senate plan takes a key step in turning health care reform from vision to reality

HHS SECRETARY TOM PRICE: THE SENATE PLAN TAKES A KEY STEP IN TURNING HEALTH CARE REFORM FROM VISION TO REALITY “By its very own standards, the so-called Affordable Care Act has failed. The real work — and the real test of leadership — begins the moment when the question is no longer what you’re against, but what you’re for.” U.S. Health And Human Services Secretary: New health care reforms are part of careful deliberation By Tom Price Deseret News June 25, 2017 For much of the past seven years, patient-centered healthcare advocates have been united in opposition to Obamacare. Not just the law itself, but the damage it has inflicted on our health care system, the chaos it has sown in our insurance markets and the suffering it has caused in the lives of millions of Americans. But we have not put as much time into articulating to the American people what we are for. Opposing Obamacare is easy. The facts and broken promises speak for themselves. … By its very own standards, the so-called Affordable Care Act has failed. The real work — and the real test of leadership — begins the moment when the question is no longer what you’re against, but what you’re for. … President Trump wasted no time explaining to the American people what kind of health care system we are for. Within weeks of taking the oath of office, the president stood before the Congress and the country to lay out a positive vision for affordable, accessible and high-quality healthcare for all Americans. At the center of this vision are individual patients and families in control of their healthcare dollars and decisions. They are empowered to purchase the plan that meets their needs — with the resources and freedom to shop for value in a truly competitive national marketplace — and to see the doctors of their choosing. They are secure in the knowledge that they will never again run the risk of being denied coverage because of a pre-existing condition. And the health care safety net, should they need it, is designed by those closest to them, at the state and local level, who know the unique health needs of their communities. The health care reform proposal recently introduced in the Senate is a key step in turning this vision into a reality. Built on patient-centered reforms, the Senate plan would provide immediate relief to Utahns from the burdens of Obamacare by repealing the law’s most onerous taxes, rolling back its most costly regulations and revitalizing our hollowed out insurance markets. … From your pioneering days, Utah has defined itself by what it's for, not what it's against. We need this same clarity of purpose in Washington today. The patient-centered proposals in Congress right now represent a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to undo the damage caused by an ill-conceived experiment in government-run health care. We’ve waited long enough. Now is the time to act. Read the full op-ed here.

Выбор редакции
26 июня, 21:56

NAVY SM-3 LAUNCH: It’s not a recent photo but it’s spectacular. The SM-3 (Standard Missile 3) is a w…

NAVY SM-3 LAUNCH: It’s not a recent photo but it’s spectacular. The SM-3 (Standard Missile 3) is a weapon in the Navy’s to Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System. It can intercept short- and intermediate-range ballistic missiles. It can also hit satellites in orbit. That’s been proven. In 2008 an SM-3 destroyed a malfunctioning U.S. satellite. […]

26 июня, 21:23

American Medical Association Slams Senate GOP Health Care Bill

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 American Medical Association, the nation’s largest doctors’ group, opposes the Senate health care bill, the organization announced in a letter to Senate leaders Monday. “Medicine has long operated under the precept of Primum non nocere, or ‘first, do no harm.’ The draft legislation violates that standard on many levels,” American Medical Association CEO James Madara wrote to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.).  The American Medical Association is the latest health care sector group to express opposition to, or at least serious concerns with, the Senate bill, known as the Better Care Reconciliation Act. McConnell unveiled the bill Thursday and aims to bring it to the Senate floor for a final vote as soon as this week. With 52 Republicans in the Senate, McConnell can only lose two GOP votes if he wants to get the 50 needed to advance the bill. Five Republican senators, however, are already on record against it. The physicians’ lobbying organization cites numerous problems with the Senate GOP bill, starting with its likely effect of causing many millions of currently insured Americans to lose their health coverage and be unable to afford medical treatments. “It seems highly likely that a combination of smaller subsidies resulting from lower benchmarks and the increased likelihood of waivers of important protections such as required benefits, actuarial value standards, and out of pocket spending limits will expose low and middle income patients to higher costs and greater difficulty in affording care,” the AMA’s letter says. The group also takes issue with the legislation’s deep cuts to federal Medicaid spending. “The Senate proposal to artificially limit the growth of Medicaid expenditures below even the rate of medical inflation threatens to limit states’ ability to address the health care needs of their most vulnerable citizens,” the letter says. The legislation would make tax credits for private health insurance created by the Affordable Care Act available to fewer people, reduce their value and tie them to plans that have larger deductibles and higher out-of-pocket costs than the policies sold under Affordable Care Act rules. The bill also would permit states to make sweeping changes to insurance market rules, which would allow insurers to offer very skimpy plans that don’t come with a basic set of guaranteed benefits and that could exclude treatments and medicines for people with high-cost ailments. Although insurers would still be forbidden to reject customers with pre-existing conditions or charge them higher rates ― as is the case under the Affordable Care Act ― relaxing the benefit rules and introducing plans that require patients to pay more out-of-pocket would make the coverage less valuable, especially to people with pre-existing conditions. The Senate bill would undo the Affordable Care Act’s expansion of Medicaid and end the current open-ended federal commitment to pay more than half the expense of covering any eligible Medicaid enrollee. Instead, federal Medicaid funding would be capped at a flat amount per person or a flat amount per state, based on a state’s preference, that would grow more slowly than current Medicaid spending and more slowly than rising health care costs overall. The Congressional Budget Office analysis of the Senate bill is scheduled to be released Monday. The CBO earlier concluded that the House-passed American Health Care Act, which is similar to the Senate measure, would lead to 23 million fewer people having health coverage over the next 10 years. “We sincerely hope that the Senate will take this opportunity to change the course of the current debate and work to fix problems with the current system. We believe that Congress should be working to increase the number of Americans with access to quality, affordable health insurance instead of pursuing policies that have the opposite effect, and we renew our commitment to work with you in that endeavor,” the AMA’s letter concludes. Also on Monday, the National Association of Medicaid Directors, which represents the state officials who oversee the program, rejected the Medicaid components of the Senate bill. The legislation would give states greater leeway to decide who is eligible for Medicaid and what benefits the program must cover, but these regulators argue that flexibility doesn’t make up for the much lower funding amounts. Several governors have expressed similar concerns. “No amount of administrative or regulatory flexibility can compensate for the federal spending reductions that would occur as a result of this bill,” the Medicaid officials said in a statement. “Changes in the federal responsibility for financing the program must be accompanied by clearly articulated statutory changes to Medicaid to enable states to operate effectively under a cap,” they went on. “The Senate bill does not accomplish that. It would be a transfer of risk, responsibility, and cost to the states of historic proportions.” Numerous other health care groups also have misgivings or are outright opposed to passage of the Senate health care bill. They include:  The American Academy of Family Physicians The American Academy of Pediatrics The American Hospital Association The Federation of American Hospitals The Children’s Hospital Association America’s Essential Hospitals The Catholic Health Association of the United States The American Cancer Society Action Network The American Lung Association AARP Politics hurt too much? Sign up for HuffPost Hill, a humorous evening roundup featuring scoops from HuffPost’s reporting team and juicy miscellanea from around the web. -- 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
26 июня, 21:16

U.S. Company Discontinues the Siding Used on the Grenfell Tower

The cladding has a plastic interior that may have acted as an accelerant.

26 июня, 20:23

Here's Why Avis Budget Group (CAR) Stock Soared Today

Shares of Avis Budget Group (CAR) gained nearly 10% in morning trading Monday after the company reached a deal to manage the self-driving car fleet of Waymo, the autonomous vehicle division of Alphabet Inc. (GOOGL).

Выбор редакции
26 июня, 20:16

Двух лондонцев судят за кражу бесплатных газет

В Лондоне перед судом предстанут двое мужчин по обвинению в краже бесплатных газет. Об этом пишет портал The Register. По данным портала, 35-летний Марсель Хавьер Ларезеррано и его 30-летний подельник Джон Мейа украли связку экземпляров газеты London Evening Standard на железнодорожной станции Дондон-Бридж. За совершенное деяние обвиняемых могут приговорить к шестимесячному тюремному сроку и оштрафовать на сумму до пяти тысяч

Выбор редакции
26 июня, 20:14

The Forward Guidance Paradox

Alex Haberis, Richard Harrison and Matt Waldron at Bank Underground: The Forward Guidance Paradox: In textbook models of monetary policy, a promise to hold interest rates lower in the future has very powerful effects on economic activity and inflation today....

23 июня 2014, 14:12

Standard & Poor.s: каковы основные риски для российской экономики

Невыплата долгов "Нафтогазом" не будет считаться дефолтом всей Украины. Тем не менее, страна может официально стать банкротом в ближайшие год - два. Такой прогноз озвучил Моритц Краемер - он возглавляет группу суверенных рейтингов Standard & Poor.s. Поможет ли Украине МВФ, что ждет российские госкомпании и как ответить на обвинения в политической ангажированности?