Are you used to ordering two or three of something, in order to guarantee you receive the correct size/shape/color/construction? Well, there's an outfit companies are using called Retail Equation to score you for your returns. Seriously. You may not be able to read this (WSJ paywall), so here's International Business Times as well.
Return a couple of things, you may find yourself locked out of making returns at all. You should be able to find this status out before you purchase, but there's a secret database involved. I've talked before about buying lenses, and needing to make a return if you get a bad copy. The above service could make this an untenable strategy for lens purchasing. I'll be asking retailers if they use that, or any similar service, before ordering. You should, too.
All in all, I find this pretty outrageous. I'm ready to pack up and live in the wilderness somewhere.
I expect the next thing will be sensors in appliances. If it registers a clunk, you get scored for 'appliance abuse' ...
Um. The tax break was a pretty sweet deal. Why was it there in the first place, other than to give a corporation that has a Georgia base of operations a leg up?
The example of conservative litmus test is pretty grotesque, however. I'd like to see this behavior get tested in the courts.
As we have seen time and time and time again, U.S. arms shipments to Libya and Syria have “fallen into the hands” of jihadists groups. Even setting aside the billions of dollars in bombs and fighter jets the United States sells to human-rights abusing countries, the flooding of arms into warzones, regardless of how noble the intentions may be, frequently ends up fueling groups the U.S. State Department itself deems “terrorists.”
Covering old ground again! I'm getting terribly tired of pointing out that since Gulf War I, our military-industrial complex has been too gleeful with weapons sales, to a level not seen in previous decades. Look at anyone branded as 'terrorist' in the news, and they're more likely today to be carrying an American-made weapon than ever before. Used to be all you saw was old Mosin-Nagants and AK-47's. Now you see way too many AR-15 variants. Ever thought about it? You should.
Most donor consent forms, including those from MedCure, authorize brokers to dissect bodies and ship parts internationally. Even so, some relatives of the dead said they did not realize that the remains of a loved one might be dismembered and sent to the far reaches of the globe.
The caption on the opening image is what cooks my bird: "Leased heads." Leased?! I hope these things are preserved, but reading through, that may not be a safe presumption.
This will be touchy. I don't expect agreement with my views. I grew up in the '60's, and I used to actively avoid the evening news. Once we got a color television, that is. All the reports from Vietnam - Jesus, they were traumatic. My child's mind remembers two things very distinctly: the green of the jungle contrasted with the gallons of red clotting blood. Every. Night. Over the years, it had a significant deterrent effect. Even the most hardened conservative veterans questioned the goals of the war by 1969 (in my hearing, anyway).
But today, we live on the other side of the 'minicam' revolution of the '70's, when earnest video crews would go out with their 60 pound reel-to-reel rigs and film the latest murders and car accidents in full Technicolor. Even more, now, today, we're soaked in the blood and gore of video games, wholesome families watching crime procedurals while eating dinner (frequently featuring gooey corpse dissections) ...
Would viewing any of yesterday's carnage have an effect on public opinion? I have a very sad suspicion it would not. I fear most that some will find it entertaining and enjoyable. Likewise surveillance footage; some would enjoy critiquing his strategy, and want to improve upon it.
So while I appreciate the idea and the goal of showing the carnage, the world is a different place nowadays. I don't think this would be the most effective method of changing people's minds and getting Congress off their fat butts.
Which brings me around to a bit of tangential trivia, since I mentioned Vietnam. Have you ever seen the memorial to Thích Quảng Đức, the Buddhist priest who immolated himself in a Saigon intersection? He generated more opposition to the war - worldwide - than anyone else, even though his opposition was to religious persecution. It is a beautiful and fitting piece of sculpture. I honor his sacrifice, as I will honor those who will involuntarily be sacrificed before America wakes up and climbs to higher moral ground.
Because you know there will be more. There is no tipping point for Republicans today; if they can rationalize Trump, they can rationalize mass murder. We have to take this on at the local level, starting at the schools and school boards, and work up. We get the culture we allow.
This new environment opened the door for the Obama administration to launch an unprecedented legal effort targeting leakers that in several cases ensnared reporters, including Risen. All told, the Obama Justice Department prosecuted eight government employees or contractors accused of leaking to the media under the 1917 Espionage Act. “The war on leaks and other efforts to control information are the most aggressive I’ve seen since the Nixon administration" ...
Another little item to thank Mr Obama for. From day one in office, every President needs to be keenly aware of what precedents they will handing to their successors.
New stance: Nuke response for non-nuclear aggression. "The review also creates a new category of cases in which the United States would consider use of nuclear weapons — 'significant non-nuclear strategic attacks,' to include attacks on 'civilian population or infrastructure'".
This is way, way too open for interpretation.
But I’ve never seen anything like that and if you’d asked me… before the thing, “Would this have been possible,” my answer would have been, “I don’t believe it! No!” But he did it. I think, in that respect, there’s a mammoth lesson here, which is that we know for sure now that you can launch major campaigns, at least inside the Democratic party, on the basis of small money. You don’t have to go to big donors. You don’t need them at all. Now, if you’re willing to do a campaign like that, that opens up, you can talk about issues that you simply cannot if you take big money. From single-parent health insurance to getting money out of politics, to not have a foreign policy determined by Henry Kissinger and friends.
Read the entire interview.
Though the National Park Service prevented wholesale industrialization, they still packaged the wilderness for consumption, creating a scenic, pre-historical fantasy surrounded by roads and tourist accommodations, all designed to mask the violence inherent to these parks’ creation. More than a century later, the United States has done little to acknowledge the government-led genocide of native populations, as well as the continued hardships they face because of the many bad-faith treaties enacted by the U.S. government.