I grant, it technically does end the trade deficit when our currency collapses and we can't buy anything
Or do they have a central elephant stable that they send all packages to for the elephants to walk on? Clearly there is a stage in the package delivery process that includes "make sure an elephant walks on it", but I can't figure out the logistics here.
I was a sailor for a while. I just can't quite give up yet.
The vessel is presumed sunk. There may still be survivors.
God be with the mariners and their families.
I... I am completely at a loss for words. We saw it last night at the Volksoper and I'm still reeling. My wife loves Italian opera but had never seen Flute before; I did my main undergrad conducting project on it. Somehow, she had never heard the Queen's aria... her jaw nearly hit the floor.
The Queen was amazing. Papageno was absolutely brilliant. The Volksoper is a brilliant space; both intimate and deep, which gave the art director plenty of room.
If you go to Vienna and have one night for Opera, skip the Staatsoper and do the Volksoper.
In the 19th century, extreme poverty defined here as living on less than $1.25 a day* was the norm. In 1820, 94.4 percent of humans were below that line. Only a tiny fraction of the world enjoyed standards of living that were remotely bearable. Progress was initially slow. By 1910, the share had only gotten down to 82.4 percent a 12-point drop over 90 years. But things picked up after World War II, and 89 years after 1910, only 28.9 percent of people were in extreme poverty. To repeat: From 1820 to 1910, there was a 12-point drop. From 1910 to 1999, there was more than a 53-point drop. Progress in the 20th century was just dramatically faster, especially once China and India began growing quickly.
In 2011, the most recent year represented in the chart, the extreme poverty rate had been cut to half its 1999 level: 14.4 percent. There's still much work to be done: 14.4 percent of the world amounts to 1 billion people who still need to be lifted out of extreme poverty. And making sure everyone's making at least $1.25 a day isn't the end of the fight either. The world's median income is still only $3 to $4 a day. By comparison, the poverty line in the US for a family of four is $16.61 per person per day. Once under-$1.25-a-day poverty is eradicated, the world needs to set about eradicating under-$15-a-day poverty, which will be a substantially harder task.
* Adjusted for different purchasing power in different countries. So yes, it is taking into account the fact that things are often cheaper in poorer countries.
Source: Roll Call
House Minority Whip Steny H. Hoyer, D-Md., announced Thursday his office has launched an app that details floor updates and provides insider information on the latest developments.
Today, Im proud to announce a new app called Whip Watch that will be a great resource for our Members and staff, while also making the House of Representatives more open and accessible to the public, Hoyer said in a statement.
By downloading this app, any American interested in the day-to-day workings of the House Floor can receive the latest updates and news in real time, Hoyer added It is an important step in my efforts to make this institution more open and transparent, and I encourage Members, staff, the press, and public to download the new app today.
The app is available for free on iTunes. According to its description, it pulls data from the internal website DemCom.house.gov, which is only visible to House Democratic staff, as well as the public site, DemocraticWhip.gov.
Read more: http://blogs.rollcall.com/218/floor-updates-theres-app/?dcz=
Looks like iOS only right now, unfortunately
That's one disconnect I notice here; it's coming up about the TPP now but it applies more generally.
A President almost never makes a policy decision. 99% of a President's work is either administrative or ceremonial. The depressing fact is that, honestly, the only thing that matters is the letter after his or her name.
The President doesn't decide what does or doesn't go into a trade agreement, a third-level political appointee (the USTR) does (and for that matter, that's mostly his staff, who are probably careerists anyways). The President doesn't iron out deals among legislators, a third-level political appointee (a Legislative Aide) does. The President doesn't stand up to insurance companies requesting ACA premium increases, a third-level political appointee (some HHS undersecretary) does. The most practically important thing about a Presidency is which party's bag o' political hacks those third-level appointees come from, and Sanders doesn't have a different bag o' political hacks than Clinton, O'Malley, Webb, or Schweitzer (is he finally officially out of the race? That's a shame). You aren't just electing a President, you're electing a party apparatus that brings its entire inertia and baggage with it. It would be as true for Sanders as it was for Obama or W or Bill Clinton.
"Fight", "backbone", whatever: it's an Aaron Sorkin-fueled myth. Presidents allocate resources to executive agencies, and attend dinners. They find staff from the existing party infrastructure and turn them loose.
Profile InformationGender: Male
Home country: USA
Current location: Neuilly-sur-Seine
Member since: Fri Apr 28, 2006, 10:13 PM
Number of posts: 56,582