Turkey's President Recep Tayyip Erdogan says there's no agreement to return a U.S.
pastor held in Turkey since October 2016. Last week, the
Washington Post reported that an apparent deal between the U.S.
and Turkey had fallen apart after a Turkish court ordered
Pastor Andrew Brunson put under house arrest instead of returned
to the U.S. But Erdogan says no such deal was made. Instead, the
Turkish president told broadcaster TRT the two
countries had talked, but only suggested the U.S. could help by
getting Israel to release a Turkish prisoner. On Thursday,
after it was reported Turkey wouldn't be returning Brunson,
President Donald Trump suggested on Twitter that he was willing
to impose sanctions on Turkey. Erdogan says the U.S. risked
losing a "strong and sincere partner."
For more infomation >> Erdogan: deal for U.S. pastor never existed - Duration: 0:46.-------------------------------------------
BREAKING Trump Makes MAJOR Move To Protect US Citizens – Media Refusing To Report - Duration: 13:13.
BREAKING: Trump Makes MAJOR Move To Protect US Citizens – Media Refusing To Report
The mainstream media is a sick shell of what they once were.
It seems like they have little to no regard for anyone not agreeing with them.
Fox News is reporting that President Trump has cut the number of refugees coming into
our country in HALF.
Statistics show that when Obama was in office, we let 25,000 refugees right in our front
door, no questions asked.
Now, the vetting process IS working.
Up until this point, the countries where the most refugees have come from have been Syria,
Iraq, Somalia, Myanmar, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
Two of these countries also happen to be a part of Trump's (now infamous) travel ban.
The travel ban was signed into law via an executive order shortly after Trump's inauguration.
The order put a temporary ban on refugee admissions from specific countries like Iraq and Syria.
As you can imagine, the left went wild.
There were protests in the streets, people were obstructing airports — how pathetic.
Liberals are claiming that by enacting this travel ban, Trump is causing problems for
travelers around the world, and promoting "racist" behavior.
If the left were SO worried about how people were going to travel, they wouldn't be harassing
the airlines, and causing people to miss their flights!
Eventually, the travel ban was shot down by the 9th Circuit Court, but Trump persisted
with his America-first initiative.
He sent the legislation straight to the Supreme Court — maybe, finally, this issue will
find resolution.
It looks like the number of refugees entering our country each month is set to drop drastically
over the next several years.
It's crucial for us to keep refugee numbers under control.
In March, Trump asked the Secretary of State to deliver a full report on the long-term
operating costs of the United States Refugee Admissions Program at the federal, state,
and local levels.
The president, during his campaign, told us he was going to start focusing on AMERICA
again.
So far, we're beyond pleased.
We NEED this kind of motivation in our country.
We needed this to get some of the patriots up out of their ruts after a devastating eight
years under President Obama.
You have to admire Trump for his vision for the future, and the way it all seems to be
coming together — despite the left trying to throw a wrench in the gears every step
of the way.
Together, the patriots of this country can overcome ANYTHING they try to throw at us.
We'll see a sharp drop in our refugee numbers, and our country is going to come alive like
never before.
Facebook has greatly reduced the distribution of our stories in our readers' newsfeeds and
is instead promoting mainstream media sources.
When you share to your friends, however, you greatly help distribute our content.
Please take a moment and consider sharing this article with your friends and family.
Thank you.
-------------------------------------------
U.S. paid no money to North Korea for the repatriation of remains of American troops - Duration: 2:23.
Last Friday, Pyongyang returned home, the remains of American soldiers who died in the
North, during the Korean war.
There were reports Washington may have reimbursed the regime for the search and repatriation
cost.
But according to our Lee Jiwon, that doesn't seem to be the case.
The U.S. says it paid no money to North Korea for the return of the remains of American
troops last week.
According to CNN on Saturday, the U.S. State Department spokesperson Heather Nauert said
that the Secretary of Defense does have the authority to reimburse the North, or any other
country, for expenses associated with the recovery and storage of remains.
But in this instance, she said, North Korea did not ask for money and no money changed
hands.
She went on to say that the repatriation was a tangible step toward fulfilling the commitment
North Korean leader Kim Jong-un made to President Donald Trump in Singapore last month.
The remains handed over were in 55 boxes brought back on an American military plane that flew
to the North to pick them up.
Prior to the return, a Defense POW/MIA Accounting Agency official had said that, though the
U.S. government does not pay any government or individual for the remains of missing Americans,...
it is authorized to reimburse the North for the costs of the operation, from recovery
to return.
A Congressional Research Service report showed that Washington paid 28 million U.S. dollars
to North Korea as reimbursement for the recovery of remains returned between1996 and 2005.
North Korea experts say the fact that Pyongyang did not request monetary compensation this
time is unusual.
Some say Kim Jong-un wants to show his decisiveness and sincerity in implementing the agreements
made with the U.S., which would also encourage Washington to do its part.
There are also suggestions that it could be as the North knows the U.S. would not be able
to pay them right now anyway.
"Giving cash to North Korea could be a violation of the sanctions.
It's ambiguous,... but it would surely be hard for the U.S. to do that while it urges
other countries to comply with the sanctions."
The expert said Pyongyang might ask for compensation later if their ties get better, and he also
noted that, in the past, reimbursement was paid later, after the soldiers were identified
from their DNA.
Lee Ji-won, Arirang News.
-------------------------------------------
Hillary Caught Red-Handed Running The Biggest Scam In U.S. History - Duration: 11:32.
Hillary Caught Red-Handed Running The Biggest Scam In U.S. History
It's no secret that Hillary Clinton follows her own rules.
Because of her power, she has gotten away with countless crimes.
But all of that could come tumbling down after she was caught red-handed running the biggest
scam in U.S. history.
A former CIA officer and whistleblower contends that all of the crime at the FBI and DOJ boils
down to the Clinton Foundation.
Kevin Shipp, the whistleblower, believes that once this is fully exposed that it will be
the biggest scandal in U.S. history.
Shipp contends that "Hillary Clinton was running and is running a global financial
criminal syndicate.
She was using these secret servers to conduct Clinton financial money laundering business."
Shipp also contends that this has been going on for decades, with the support of billionaire
leftist financier George Soros.
He also contends that former President Obama was involved, stating:
"I AM ABSOLUTELY CONVINCED OF IT.
GEORGE SOROS GAVE $30 MILLION TO OBAMA'S CAMPAIGN.
THEN HE GAVE $27.1 MILLION TO HILLARY CLINTON'S CAMPAIGN.
BOTH OBAMA AND CLINTON ARE TIED DIRECTLY INTO GEORGE SOROS."
As reported by Zero Hedge:
"FORMER CIA OFFICER AND WHISTLEBLOWER KEVIN SHIPP SAYS THE REASON FOR ALL THE CRIME AND
TREASON AT THE FBI AND DOJ ALL BOILS DOWN TO ONE THING – THE CLINTON'S SO-CALLED
"CHARITY."
SHIPP EXPLAINS, "HILLARY CLINTON WAS RUNNING AND IS RUNNING A GLOBAL FINANCIAL CRIMINAL
SYNDICATE.
SHE WAS USING THESE SECRET SERVERS TO CONDUCT CLINTON FINANCIAL MONEY LAUNDERING BUSINESS."
"THE SHOCKING THING ABOUT THAT IS ALL THE FORMER DIRECTORS OF THE CIA THAT HAVE COME
OUT TO SUPPORT HER, FROM CLAPPER TO BRENNAN TO MORELL TO ROBERT GATES SUPPORTING HER BEING
ELECTED, KNEW ABOUT THIS CRIMINAL SYNDICATE.
COMEY WAS PROTECTING IT.
LYNCH WAS PROTECTING IT.
WEISSMANN WAS PROTECTING IT. AND THAT IS THE BIG WHY.
WHAT'S SHE GOT ON THESE PEOPLE?
ARE THEY FINANCIAL TIES?
THEY HAD TO BE AWARE OF THIS, ESPECIALLY THE COUNTER-INTELLIGENCE UNITS.
WE KNOW IT WAS HACKED INTO BY FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SERVICES BECAUSE IT WAS JUST HANGING OUT THERE.
HILLARY CLINTON WAS RUNNING A SECRET SERVER OUTSIDE THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE FOR THE PURPOSES
OF LAUNDERING MONEY THROUGH THE CRIMINAL CLINTON FOUNDATION."
ARE THE CRIMES AND TREASON OF THE CLINTON FOUNDATION THE ANVIL THAT IS ABOUT TO DROP?
SHIPP SAYS,
"IT'S NOT JUST AN ANVIL, I THINK IT IS A MOUNTAIN AND THE NEXUS OF EVERYTHING.
THIS "CLINTON GLOBAL INITIATIVE" (CGI) IS WORLDWIDE, AND IT'S BEEN OUT THERE FOR
A COUPLE OF DECADES.
IT HAS NOW INTERTWINED FORMER DIRECTORS OF THE CIA AND FBI.
GEORGE SOROS IS A PART OF IT.
IT'S CONNECTED TO ALL KINDS OF GLOBAL FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS…
IT IS AT LEAST A $100 BILLION…"
Shipp believes that if his claims are taken seriously, we would see Congressman, Senators,
former Directors of the FBI and the CIA perp-walked after they receive charges.
"COULD YOU IMAGINE IF SENIOR DOJ OFFICIALS WERE ARRESTED, SOME CONGRESSMEN AND SENATORS
WERE ARRESTED AND OTHER GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS WERE ARRESTED ON CHARGES AND WALKED OUT OF
OFFICE?
THAT'S THE CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS I AM TALKING ABOUT.
THOSE KIND OF HIGH LEVEL ARRESTS WOULD SHAKE UP THIS NATION."
Do you think President Trump should have charges pressed against Hillary Clinton?
Let us know your thoughts in the comments section below.
Facebook has greatly reduced the distribution of our stories in our readers' newsfeeds and
is instead promoting mainstream media sources.
When you share to your friends, however, you greatly help distribute our content.
Please take a moment and consider sharing this article with your friends
and family.
Thank you.
-------------------------------------------
Crack cocaine had a devastating impact on the US - Duration: 3:34.
It was cheap, ready to use, and easy to make money off of.
But the impact crack had on the United States in the 70s and 80s was devastating.
"It's called both 'Rock' and 'Crack,' but no matter what you call it, it's merely pure cocaine and it can kill."
The DEA says it was impossible to turn on the evening news without seeing its effects.
But how did this start?
The epidemic of a drug that seemed to fall out of the sky.
Well, it didn't.
The United States drug enforcement agency starts the story during the 1980s when international
drug trafficking organizations grew more powerful.
The cocaine trade dominated the western hemisphere
And the drug hit the U.S. the strongest in 1985.
By 1989 the DEA called the epidemic the most important issue in the country.
Violence skyrocketed and cocaine-related ER visits increased by 28 times in just four years.
"I do 'coke' so I can work longer, so I can earn more, so I can do more 'coke.'"
It got to a point where there was too much product on the streets, driving prices way
down.
So drug dealers had to come up with something to keep money flowing.
They converted it to crack, or a smokeable cocaine.
And now it could be sold in smaller quantities to more people.
But the low price of crack made it easily accessible to lower income, typically black
neighborhoods.
The foundation for a drug free world gives us a timeline to show just how quickly things
escalated.
In 1985 the number of people who admitted to using the drug in some form regularly grew
by more than a million.
That same year the National Narcotics Intelligence Consumers Committee reported more than 9 thousand
people took ER visits for cocaine-related emergencies in the U.S.
In just one year that number jumped to almost 14 thousand.
The epidemic made way for a generation of crack babies, and millions of government
dollars going into policing the problem.
Strategies ranged from targeting its points of entry into the country, an increase in
local cocaine enforcement teams, and randomly testing people at their jobs for illegal drugs.
By 1989 the DEA had so many employees it had to relocate to Virginia for more space.
So, what came of the epidemic?
Encyclopedia Britannica says it increased court caseloads and prison populations.
The focus was on small-time drug dealers who were generally young black men from inner
cities.
A person could get a minimum penalty of 5 years behind bars for 5 grams of crack.
But somehow the same sentence qualified for 500 grams of cocaine.
The result?
Encyclopedia Britannica says the arrests of drug dealers and their customers contributed
to the prison population doubling.
One in every four black men ages 20 to 29 were either incarcerated, on probation or
on parole by 1989.
By 1995 it was one in three.
Let that sink in.
One third of all black men were in jail.
So it would make sense the United States had - and still has - the highest incarceration
rate in the world.
The country is still fighting side effects from the crack epidemic today.
The government said tough laws were supposed to crush the epidemic, but the crisis also
ended up crushing black communities and the families in them.
-------------------------------------------
Iran's currency plunges to record low as US sanctions loom | News - Duration: 3:22.
For more infomation >> Iran's currency plunges to record low as US sanctions loom | News - Duration: 3:22. -------------------------------------------
N. Korea, U.S. likely to look for common ground on denuclearization, security guarantee - Duration: 1:59.
Last week's repatriation of U.S. soldiers remains from the Korean War has helped rekindle
some momentum into North Korea-U.S. relations that seemed to have stalled in recent weeks.
It's hoped that the two sides can now make more progress towards North Korea's denuclearization,
as well as talks over security guarantees that Pyongyang wants from Washington.
Our Oh Jung-hee has this report.
Now that North Korea has returned more of the remains of American soldiers who died
in the Korean War... attention falls on how Pyongyang and Washington will proceed with
denuclearization talks.
Though Friday's repatriation is not directly relevant to Pyongyang's denuclearization,...
it's widely seen that the move did help both sides build trust... and therefore, could
have a positive effect on their denuclearization dialogue.
Since the June 12th summit in Singapore, North Korea and the U.S. have had difficulty moving
forward on the denuclearization front.
U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo visited Pyongyang for the third time... but could
not meet Kim Jong-un... and after his visit, the North claimed Washington was making unilateral
demands about denuclearization and inspections.
Pyongyang began dismantling key facilities at its Sohae Satellite Launching Station -- believed
to have been the regime's key ICBM test site -- but at the same time, pressed Washington
and Seoul to declare a formal end to the Korean War.
From here on, it's expected that North Korea and the U.S. will focus on finding a middle
ground between the U.S. giving the regime a security guarantee through measures like
ending the Korean War... and Pyongyang taking steps to denuclearize.
This week, the foreign ministers of the two Koreas, the U.S., and China will all be attending
the ASEAN Regional Forum in Singapore.
Their meetings, bilateral or otherwise, could help add momentum to the Pyongyang-Washington
denuclearization talks.
Oh Jung-hee, Arirang News.
-------------------------------------------
U.S. paid no money to North Korea for the repatriation of remains of American troops - Duration: 2:21.
About the return of those remains -- reports and government officials say that in past
cases, the U.S. had reimbursed Pyongyang for the costs of the search for them and their
return, but, they say, that was not the case this time.
Lee Ji-won reports.
The U.S. says it paid no money to North Korea for the return of the remains of American
troops last week.
According to CNN on Saturday, the U.S. State Department spokesperson Heather Nauert said
that the Secretary of Defense does have the authority to reimburse the North, or any other
country, for expenses associated with the recovery and storage of remains.
But in this instance, she said, North Korea did not ask for money and no money changed
hands.
She went on to say that the repatriation was a tangible step toward fulfilling the commitment
North Korean leader Kim Jong-un made to President Donald Trump in Singapore last month.
The remains handed over were in 55 boxes brought back on an American military plane that flew
to the North to pick them up.
Prior to the return, a Defense POW/MIA Accounting Agency official had said that, though the
U.S. government does not pay any government or individual for the remains of missing Americans,...
it is authorized to reimburse the North for the costs of the operation, from recovery
to return.
A Congressional Research Service report showed that Washington paid 28 million U.S. dollars
to North Korea as reimbursement for the recovery of remains returned between1996 and 2005.
North Korea experts say the fact that Pyongyang did not request monetary compensation this
time is unusual.
Some say Kim Jong-un wants to show his decisiveness and sincerity in implementing the agreements
made with the U.S., which would also encourage Washington to do its part.
There are also suggestions that it could be as the North knows the U.S. would not be able
to pay them right now anyway.
"Paying them could be a violation of the sanctions.
It would be hard for the U.S. to do that while telling other countries to comply."
The expert said Pyongyang might ask for compensation later if their ties get better, and he also
noted that, in the past, reimbursement was paid later, after the soldiers were identified
from their DNA.
Lee Ji-won, Arirang News.
-------------------------------------------
U.S. vs Vietnam (Part 1) What You Don't Know | Điểm khác nhau giữ Mỹ và Việt Nam (phần 1) - Duration: 6:26.
For more infomation >> U.S. vs Vietnam (Part 1) What You Don't Know | Điểm khác nhau giữ Mỹ và Việt Nam (phần 1) - Duration: 6:26. -------------------------------------------
Russia Sells 80% Of Its US Treasuries - Duration: 6:01.
For more infomation >> Russia Sells 80% Of Its US Treasuries - Duration: 6:01. -------------------------------------------
U.S. paid no money to North Korea for the repatriation of remains of American troops - Duration: 2:24.
North Korea returned 55 sets of remains to the U.S last Friday.
And while reports and government officials said that the U.S. had previously reimbursed
the search and return cost for Pyongyang, that doesn't seem to be the case this time.
Lee Ji-won starts us off.
The U.S. says it paid no money to North Korea for the return of the remains of American
troops last week.
According to CNN on Saturday, the U.S. State Department spokesperson Heather Nauert said
that the Secretary of Defense does have the authority to reimburse the North, or any other
country, for expenses associated with the recovery and storage of remains.
But in this instance, she said, North Korea did not ask for money and no money changed
hands.
She went on to say that the repatriation was a tangible step toward fulfilling the commitment
North Korean leader Kim Jong-un made to President Donald Trump in Singapore last month.
The remains handed over were in 55 boxes brought back on an American military plane that flew
to the North to pick them up.
Prior to the return, a Defense POW/MIA Accounting Agency official had said that, though the
U.S. government does not pay any government or individual for the remains of missing Americans,...
it is authorized to reimburse the North for the costs of the operation, from recovery
to return.
A Congressional Research Service report showed that Washington paid 28 million U.S. dollars
to North Korea as reimbursement for the recovery of remains returned between1996 and 2005.
North Korea experts say the fact that Pyongyang did not request monetary compensation this
time is unusual.
Some say Kim Jong-un wants to show his decisiveness and sincerity in implementing the agreements
made with the U.S., which would also encourage Washington to do its part.
There are also suggestions that it could be as the North knows the U.S. would not be able
to pay them right now anyway.
"Giving cash to North Korea could be a violation of the sanctions.
It's ambiguous,... but it would surely be hard for the U.S. to do that while it urges
other countries to comply with the sanctions."
The expert said Pyongyang might ask for compensation later if their ties get better, and he also
noted that, in the past, reimbursement was paid later, after the soldiers were identified
from their DNA.
Lee Ji-won, Arirang News.
-------------------------------------------
Just The Two Of Us (jazz arranged) - Duration: 4:24.
For more infomation >> Just The Two Of Us (jazz arranged) - Duration: 4:24. -------------------------------------------
Federal air marshals tracking ordinary US citizens in new TSA program - 247 news - Duration: 8:07.
Did you change clothes while at the airport? Get to the boarding area late? Fall asleep during the flight? Use your phone? If you're on the Transportation Security Administration's new Quiet Skies list, then a federal air marshal knows the answer to all of those questions - and more
Quiet Skies is a TSA domestic surveillance program that specifically targets travelers who are not under any kind of investigation or on a terrorist watch list
The previously undisclosed program requires federal air marshals to follow ordinary US citizens through airports and on flights, documenting their every move
+3 <img id="i-4637d8cafbcd6947" src="https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/newpix/2018/07/29/17/4EAB99A500000578-6004583-image-a-62_1532883087647
jpg" height="464" width="634" alt="" class="blkBorder img-share"/> Copy link to paste in your message
AdChoicesADVERTISINGinRead invented by TeadsNow some marshals are speaking out, telling the Boston Globe that they believe the Quiet Skies program is a costly waste of time that may even be unethical
A TSA bulletin states that the purpose of Quiet Skies is to decrease threats by 'unknown or partially known terrorists and to identify and provide enhanced screening to higher risk travelers before they board aircraft'
All US citizens are automatically screened for inclusion in the Quiet Skies program
There are 15 rules to screening passengers for the program, with criteria including international travel patterns, behaviors that match those of known or suspected terrorists, or potential affiliations with someone on a watch list
Passengers on the list have included a businesswoman who traveled to Turkey, a Southwest Airlines flight attendant, and even a fellow federal law enforcement officer
+3 <img id="i-fb6a391188aafc25" src="https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/newpix/2018/07/29/17/4EAB99C100000578-6004583-image-a-63_1532883090575
jpg" height="403" width="634" alt="" class="blkBorder img-share"/> Copy link to paste in your message While specific countries are not on any TSA bulletins regarding the program, air marshals revealed they were advised in several instances to follow passengers solely because they had traveled to Turkey
When a passenger on the Quiet Skies list is selected for surveillance, a team of air marshals is placed on their next flight
The marshals are given a file that contains a photo of the target as well as their basic information, including when and where they were born
They then observe the target at length from the minute they get to the airport in one destination and leave it in another
Marshals must note whether they were 'abnormally aware' of their surroundings, which could include reversing or changing directions in the airport, 'attempting to change appearances' by changing clothes or shaving on the plane, and boarding late or 'observing the boarding gate from afar'
Behavior indicators that marshals must track are excessive fidgeting or perspiration, facial flushing, rapid eye blinking, strong body odor, sweaty palms, a 'cold penetrating stare', wide open staring eyes, face touching, and an 'Adam's apple jump'
They must also note if the target's appearance has changed, including whether they've gained or lost weight, whether their hair length or style has changed, and if they've changed their facial hair
General observations that are tracked include whether the target used a phone to talk or text, if they were in possession of a computer, did they check their baggage or take a carry-on, and if they used the bathroom
+3 <img id="i-a0c64c11da7a1ea7" src="https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/newpix/2018/07/29/17/4EAB99B500000578-6004583-image-a-64_1532883095116
jpg" height="412" width="634" alt="" class="blkBorder img-share"/> Copy link to paste in your message Marshals must also know if the subject used public or private transportation to leave the airport after their flight
Passengers can remain on the Quiet Skies list 'for up to 90 days or three encounters, whichever comes first', TSA documents state
Thousands of Americans have already been tracked under the program and there are about 40 to 50 Quiet Skies passengers on domestic flights every day
Around 35 of them are always being observed by air marshals. Dozens of air marshals have expressed their concern with Quiet Skies since it launched in March
Some marshals have gone as far as to seek legal counsel, fearing that the domestic surveillance program could be illegal
Others believe the program is a waste of taxpayer dollars and only diverts time and resources away from legitimate threats
The Air Marshal Association has also spoken out against the program. 'The Air Marshal Association believes that missions based on recognized intelligence, or in support of ongoing federal investigations, is the proper criteria for flight scheduling
Currently the Quiet Skies program does not meet the criteria we find acceptable,' it said in a statement
Share this article Share 'The American public would be better served if these [air marshals] were instead assigned to airport screening and check in areas so that active shooter events can be swiftly ended, and violations of federal crimes can be properly and consistently addressed
' While TSA would not confirm that the program exists because releasing information would 'make passengers less safe', it did defend its use of federal air marshals on flights
'FAMs may deploy on flights in furtherance of the TSA mission to ensure the safety and security of passengers, crewmembers, and aircraft throughout the aviation sector,' it said in a statement
'As its assessment capabilities continue to enhance, FAMS leverages multiple internal and external intelligence sources in its deployment strategy
'
-------------------------------------------
Exploring The Old Toys"R"Us Website on Wayback machine (R.I.P Toys"R"Us) - Duration: 5:51.
Toys r us is gone , my childhood is gone!
I'm going back to 1996 to see what toys r us looks like!
Oh Cool is on Dec 28 1996
wow look at the page!
Let's go to the info zone!
What is on parents "R" us?
Wut?
Lets go to company and careers!
Hmm okay!
OMG THERE IS THE OLD MASCOT ON THE LOGO!
Lets have a look at Promotions!
Okay!
Ok that's all thanks for watching Send me a Website request to me and I will paste it in wayback machine and go to the 19's to see what it looks like!
-------------------------------------------
U.S. prohibits use of term 'CVID' in negotiations with N. Korea: Asahi - Duration: 0:49.
The Trump administration reportedly ordered its officials to not use the expression "complete,
verifiable, irreversible denuclearization" in negotiations with North Korea.
Quoting U.S. government officials,....
Japanese newspaper Asahi Shimbun reported on Sunday that the order came early this month...
and said, it was meant not to pressure North Korea.
Before the June 12th summit in Singapore...., Washington had used the term "CVID" many times...
but the joint statement mentioned only "complete denuclearization."
Since then, key officials from Washington have used the term FFVD instead... which means
"final, fully verified denuclearization."
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has explained that the meaning of FFVD is not weaker than
CVID... and that the U.S. goal of North Korea's denuclearization has not changed.
-------------------------------------------
Why I Chose a Japanese (and not a U.S) University [MY RESEARCH] - Duration: 12:54.
Hey guys! I'm Loretta and welcome back to my channel!
The summer is definitely full on now! It's HOT!
Last week I finished another semester at school here in Japan
and it was a big one because
I am down to my last semester in school.
THE END IS IN SIGHT!
Which means unlike before, no more textbooks. It's all just practical research.
The thing is, since I started grad' school I posted a lot of videos
vlogs about school life and story times from my POV
but after reading all your comments I realized
I never actually talked about WHY I'm going to school in Japan
So I want to lay all the cards on the table and tell you
WHAT I'm doing at a Japanese school and WHY.
The 1st question I always get is: What school am I going to / What am I studying / Is it English or Japanese?
I go to a Japanese national university, the name of which I can't tell you quite yet.
But I promise I will tell you soon!
I study business, I'm getting a Master's degree in Business Administration
it is completely, 100% in Japanese.
The thesis I'm writing, the research I'm doing, everything is in Japanese.
It's a full on graduate school experience.
Which leads to the next question!
#2: WHY am I going to School in Japanese?
Why didn't I just go to school in Japan, in English?
There are American Universities in Japan and schools that teach courses in English.
That is true! So let me be real honest with you:
The first, practical reason is because I'm on a scholarship.
I'm on a MEXT scholarship from the Japanese government
which in most cases on sponsors you to go to Japanese national universities.
Some do have English-based programs, like Keio University, etc.
But you're not going to be able to go to a school like Temple U.
or even a school like Sophia University is very hard to get into on the MEXT scholarship.
MEXT wants true-blue, Japanese colleges
and they want foreign talent going into those schools
That's just the nature of the program in most cases.
I wanted to go to grad school back in the states, but the truth of the matter is
I just couldn't justify the price!
I'd applied to Colombia's Japanese pedagogy program
I looked into a Japanese Studies program at NYU
and after applying and looking at them closely
I felt these were just excuses for me to do something more Japanese
but the price tag just wasn't worth it!
So I just ever enrolled.
But when the MEXT scholarship became an option
I realized that this is something that allows me to go to school for free
but allows me to pick a degree that is more relevant to my actual career.
That leads me into my longer answer, which is basically
Universities have brand value.
There are Ivy League schools in America that are cool just because they're Ivy League's
when they're equally amazing programs at other non^Ivy League schools.
(Go William and Mary!!!)
There's a common narrative, especially for kids in the liberal arts
Where you want to pick a school or degree based on your passions.
From your view your thinking
I want to learn the thing that makes me passionate and makes my gears turn!
That's amazing! That's great!
However, the point of going to University is not to learn something.
The point of going to university is to get a certification that precedes you into your career.
I'm 100% behind people learning and studying their passions
but learning is a lifelong journey and Universities more often than not
are a disguised price tag that are built to give you access to a certain social circle,
to a certain job circle, to a certain career or degree path.
I'm going to go on a tangent here but
certain schools are brand names because
the people in that field understand what it is that you probably know
and what your personality is probably like before you even sit in an interview.
That's why a certain degree is very powerful.
This is something a struggled with when I picked my original undergraduate major
because I love languages, culture and people
so to me it made the most sense to study the thing that I care about
So I got a degree in linguistics and while you couldn't minor in it
I had enough credits to fulfill a minor in International Studies and music.
I graduated happy and smiley and about six months later
The price tag of that same degree was no longer in deferment.
My school loans turned on and it was now time
to pay back for all those years I spent in school.
At the same time I was trying to see that same degree to future employers.
So getting back to my original point, right about now when you are watching this video
It should be about August 4th.
Which is a very big day for me because
it is in fact, my 30th birthday!
Coming to Japan at this point in my life has been a big turning point in my career
I've worked a good handful of strenuous jobs and I realized
that this doesn't necessarily mean something to everyone!
You can learn anything in life and you don't need to pay
tens of thousands of dollars just to do it.
This is something I've been thinking about recently looking at
why I picked my major in Japan and why that's actually meaningful.
In Japan, a liberal arts degree from the College of William Mary is simply a bachelor's degree
a certification to work and get a work visa.
There are a lot of brand name schools around the world
Harvard, Oxford, in Japan there's Tokyo University
but in my field (business), getting in MBA
in English that's NOT form Harvard, means almost nothing.
So getting a MBA from a Japanese university in English
Not only is it the wrong country
but if I didn't even do it in Japanese then that looks more confusing.
However, getting an MBA in Japan in Japanese prepares me to do business in Japan.
So in a nutshell: the reason I'm getting my degree in Japan in Japanese
Japanese is because: (A) I received a scholarship making it free
(B) Doing it in Japanese prepares me to do business in Japan
I have a United States undergraduate and I'm working now on my Japanese masters
which combined, together gives me access to jobs both
In the United States, in Japan and somewhere in between.
The point is that in your individual case and career
no matter where you're going, or if you don't even know
Your diploma/resume is nothing more than a paid elevator pitch
and the first things that introduces you before you walk into an interview.
You make sure that resume says something about why you should be there
so you have a chance to really get in there.
That's it. I promise I'm doing preaching.
I just felt like I had to get that off my chest!
So the next questions is about the Japanese idea of レジャーランド( lit. "leisureland")
I'm not sure if this is a popular word anymore
But it's a word that describes a very true sense of Japanese education
in that, you work REALLY hard to get into schools
but once you're into University, you're good!
Supposedly you just have to graduate at that point.
I got a lot of questions asking if my schools the same.
Obviously my school is hard for me because it's in Japanese
but it's not.......*grunts* :P
I feel like it's a lot easier to get good grades
as long as you do certain things.
Your grades are probably going to be okay
as long as you don't skip class and you do the reading.
In the States I feel like you could get away with never doing the reading
but on your final papers and our tests
but on your tests if you don't have the exact correct information, you could still fail.
You could put in all of your effort and still fail.
In Japan, I was so worried because I knew that my best
is still going to be below a native Japanese speaker
so I worried I'd fail no matter how hard I tried.
Your effort seems to be a lot more weighted than your actual content regurgitation
at least in grad school for me.
I found that as long as you showed you did the work
that you at least tried to do it
did at least the minimum page requirement and showed up to every class
then you will definitely pass and probably do well.
So it's difficult because you have to do all the work
but you don't have to be perfect.
So, getting on to the last part
I want to tell you WHAT it is that I'm actually studying.
Shakai Kagaku-fu Keieigaku Senkou Hakase Katei Zenki (Graduate School of Social Sciences, Business Major, Pre-PhD)
In English the closest thing is probably a Masters in Business Administration, an MBA
but because its Hakase-Katei Zenki, the pre-course to the PhD track
it's a lot more thesis/writing heavy
and my thesis! I should explain that...
In the modern age because of the internet there's this common belief
that you can connect with any person, business, or country easily because of our digital connections.
In the business world there is a theory from Harvard Business School
specifically from Pankaj Ghemawat, around this idea of the flat world or globalization.
there's a theory that these concepts have created a bias
a lot of businesses, especially internet startups
set themselves up for failure because they assume they have access to an infinite market
to in customer, in any country, anywhere
simply because they put a website on the Internet in multiple languages.
The thing is that this is a bias!
For example the case when Google tried to expand into China
that did not go over so well because
there's a lot of regulation around what can be put on the internet and what can be shared between people.
So coming from America you think everybody uses Google
but in China they have their own in-house services like Baidu, etc.
like that the idea that Google and web searching would be easy in Russia
by the context of its language the language the Russian language is so complex
that the way that search terms and SEO works in English
it doesn't work the same way it does in Russian and it doesn't lend itself to that type of search.
So it was very difficult for these big, giant companies
It was harder and it took a lot more money to actually try to get to these markets
so my thesis is looking at that theory of bias and what does it actually mean
to be a business in the global age specifically in the context of Japan.
Japan right now has its own set of biases specifically around the Olympics
and specifically around the ideas of globalization
this idea that there's an infinite market of foreign people that they can market to if they just speak English
With Rakuten and the Englishnization movement
there's this idea that if we can just be more English-ready
we can have our hands in markets all across the world!
My thesis is that no, that is not necessarily the case!
So my research is based on case studies and interviews
with Japanese corporate managers asking does their strategy actually make sense
Is their strategy biased?
In addition to that narrative
I'm matching this with a market survey
asking people around the world what they think of Japanese companies
How do they interact with companies in Japan that are trying to connect with them?
What are the pain points?
What is the disconnect between Japanese companies and the people who love Japanese stuff.
So I'm really excited! Like this tiny IC recorder
is every precious interview that I've been doing with Japanese companies
I feel like this is the golden treasure of everything I've built; my life's work!
So that's kind of what I've launched in these past few weeks
and what I'll be doing all year before I (hopefully) graduate!
The reason I bring this up also is
because I want to invite anyone who's interested!
You can actually help me out an participate!
The survey is going for a few more weeks
It's open answer and requires you to write as little or as much as you want
The survey is available in 8 different languages
so please pick the language that you are most comfortable with
if you've never been in Japan that's fine
If you've ever like anything Japanaese, anything whatsoever and you want to help me out with my research
I'll leave a link below!
We're kind of all over the board today
But I'm at a huge turning point right now and I kind of wanted to share that with you.
If you have any questions, comments, ideas etc leave them in a comment below
and I will see you there!
Thank you so much for watching today!
-------------------------------------------
Pokémon the Movie: The Power of Us (Everyone's Story) English Trailer (HD) - Duration: 1:10.
This is a town where people live in harmony with the wind...
Once a year, we make a promise with Lugia to keep the wind blowing
It's no use...
Why don't you go and find somebody else to bother?
Hmm?
Did I dream that?
Come on!
You want me to catch a Pokémon?!
You'll be the best big sister ever!
but I don't know anything about Pokémon...
Everybody!
Hang on!
Maybe I can...
What are you trying so hard for?
We've all got Pokémon on our side...
At the time...
We still didn't know...
That our meeting...
Wasn't just a coincidence!
Pokémon The Movie: The Power of Us!
-------------------------------------------
Naked Attraction: the TV show that makes prudes of us all - Duration: 3:55.
For more infomation >> Naked Attraction: the TV show that makes prudes of us all - Duration: 3:55. -------------------------------------------
Why U.S. lawmakers failed to act on climate change decades ago - Duration: 5:42.
>> Sreenivasan: THIS COMING
WEEK, THE "NEW YORK TIMES," IN
PARTNERSHIP WITH THE PULITZER
CENTER, WILL PUBLISH "LOSING
EARTH"; A SINGLE THEMED ISSUE OF
ITS SUNDAY MAGAZINE.
THE TOPIC IS CLIMATE CHANGE AND
THE SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERIES AND
DECISIONS MADE IN THE DECADE
BETWEEN 1979 AND 1989.
WRITER-AT-LARGE NATHANIEL RICH
CENTERS HIS STORY ON TWO MEN:
RAFE POMERANCE, AN ENVIRONMENTAL
ACTIVIST; AND FORMER NASA
SCIENTIST JAMES HANSEN, ONE OF
THE FIRST TO WARN THE WORLD
ABOUT GREENHOUSE GASES AND
GLOBAL WARMING.
>> IT DIDN'T HAVE TO BE THIS
WAY.
IN THE DECADE 1979 TO '89, WE
KNEW ALREADY THE EARTH REALLY
WAS GETTING WARMER.
>> IT IS A NONSTATISTICAL.
WE SHOULD HAVE BEGUN TO TAKE
THE ACTIONS THAT WOULD HAVE
AVOIDED A TRAGEDY.
>> Sreenivasan: AUTHOR
NATHANIEL RICH RICH JOINS US NOW
FROM NEW ORLEANS.
FIRST TELL US, HOW CLOSE DID WE
COME?
HOW DIFFERENT WAS THE CLIMATE
FOR CLIMATE CONVERSATIONS?
>> IT WAS REMARKABLY DIFFERENT
AND IN MANY WAYS AND REMARKABLY
THE SAME, BY 1979, THERE WAS A
STRONG CONSENSUS WITHIN THE
SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY ABOUT THE
NATURE OF THE PROBLEM, THE
FUNDAMENTAL SCIENCE HASN'T
REALLY EVOLVED SINCE THEN, IT
HAS ONLY BEEN REFINED, REALLY.
THERE WAS NO POLITICIZATION OF
THE ISSUE THROUGHOUT THE DECADE
A NUMBER OF PROMINENT
REPUBLICANS WHO WERE LEADING THE
CHARGE TO INSIST ON A MAJOR
CLIMATE POLICY, AND INDUSTRY,
WHICH WE NOW BLAME FOR MUCH OF
OUR PARALYSIS HAD NOT TURNED
AGAINST SCIENCE OR TRUTH AND IF
ANYTHING, ESPECIALLY IN THE
EARLY PART OF THE DECADE WAS
ENGAGED IN TRYING TO UNDERSTAND
THE PROBLEM AND DETERMINE
SOLUTIONS, AND SO OVER THE
COURSE OF THE DECADE THE ISSUE
ROSE TO MAJOR NATIONAL ATTENTION
AND A PROCESS FOR GLOBAL TREATY
WAS IN HAND AND WE FAILED AT THE
END OF THAT TO SIGN AN
ABIDING AGREEMENT.
>> Sreenivasan: SO WHY DID WE
FAIL?
WHAT WAS IT THAT CREATED THAT
PARALYSIS THAT WE ARE SO
FAMILIAR WITH TODAY?
>> WELL, THERE IS A SORT OF A
SIMPLE POLITICAL ANSWER, VERY
NARROW ANSWER, I SUPPOSE, YOU
COULD MAKE WHICH IS THAT IN THE
BUSH ADMINISTRATION, THE FIRST
GEORGE BUSH ADMINISTRATION, HIS
CHIEF OF STAFF FORMER GOVERNOR
OF NEW HAMPSHIRE JOHN SUNUNU WHO
WAS AN ENGINEER, PH.D., WAS VERY
SKEPTICAL ABOUT THE SCIENCE OF
GLOBAL WARMING, AND HE SUSPECTED
THAT IT WAS BEING USED BY KIND
OF A CABAL OF FOLKS WHO WANTED
TO SUPPRESS GROWTH AND ECONOMIC
ADVANCEMENT AND ALL OF THAT, AND
HE MANAGED TO WIN AN INTERNAL
FIGHT WITHIN THAT WHITE HOUSE
AGAINST ACTION.
THAT IS KIND OF THE MOST LIMITED
POSSIBLE ANSWER, AND THE PIECE
TELLS THE STORY OF THAT
POLITICAL CONVERSATION.
I THINK THE LARGER -- THE LARGER
ANSWER HAS TO DO WITH HOW WE AS
A SPECIES TRY TO RECKON WITH
VAST TECHNOLOGICAL PROBLEMS THAT
WILL ONLY AFFECT FOLKS DECADES
OR GENERATIONS FROM NOW, OF
COURSE THAT IS NOT THE CASE
ANYMORE, BUT IN THE EARLY
'80s THAT WAS HOW THE
CONVERSATION WAS BEING
CONSTRUCTED.
AND SO I THINK THERE IS A KIND
OF LARGER CONVERSATION TO BE
HAD ABOUT WHY WE WERE SO UNABLE
TO TACKLE THIS WHEN WE HAD A
GREAT OPPORTUNITY TO DO SO AND
THEN THERE IS THE MORE NARROW
CONVERSATION ABOUT THE INSIDE
POLITICS OF THE MATTER.
>> Sreenivasan: YOU WRITE AT ONE
POINT THAT THE AMERICAN
PETROLEUM INSTITUTE, IN THE LATE
'50s AND '60s, THEY WERE
CONDUCTING THEIR OWN RESEARCH
AND COMING TO THE SAME
CONCLUSIONS THAT THE SCIENTISTS
WERE AND YOU ALSO POINT OUT THAT
EVEN THE C.I.A. IN 1974 HAD
WRITTEN A REPORT LOOKING AT
CLIMATE CHANGE BASICALLY AS A
NATIONAL SECURITY THREAT OR A
GLOBAL SECURITY THREAT.
>> BY THE MID-'50s, YOU HAD TOP
GOVERNMENT SCIENTISTS SPEAKING
ABOUT THE ISSUE, YOU HAD
MAJOR ARTICLES IN "LIFE"
MAGAZINE AND "TIME," SO IT
WASN'T JUST INDUSTRY THAT WAS
FOLLOWING IT, IT WAS AT THE
HIGHEST LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT,
LYNDON JOHNSON SENT A SPECIAL
MESSAGE TO CONGRESS IN 1965 THAT
DISCUSSED THE PROBLEM.
SO THE IDEA THAT WE HAVE ONLY
UNDERSTOOD IT IN RECENT YEARS IS
ONE OF THE WORST EXAMPLES WE
HAVE OF THE CULTURAL AMNESIA OF
THIS COUNTRY AND ESPECIALLY
AROUND THIS ISSUE.
>> Sreenivasan: ONE OF THE
MEETINGS YOU DESCRIBE IN GREAT
DETAIL STARTS TO GET TO THE SAME
CHALLENGES THAT WE HAVE, YOU
SEE PEOPLE TRYING TO WATER
DOWN LANGUAGE, NOT WANTING TO
MAKE A DECISION TODAY, LEAVE THE
DECISION FOR OTHERS.
>> THERE IS STILL A BASIC
DISCOMFORT WITH TRYING TO
PROPOSE A DRASTIC TRANSFORMATION
OR IMMEDIATE TRANSFORMATION OF
THE -- OF OUR WHOLE ENERGY
ECONOMY WHICH IS TO SAY OUR
ECONOMY, SO EVEN FOLKS WHO AGREE
ON EVERY ASPECT OF THE ISSUE,
THE SCIENCE AND THE POLITICS
STILL WE ARE NOT ABLE TO
NEGOTIATE EVEN THE MOST BASIC
STATEMENT OF PURPOSE AND I THINK
THAT WE STILL SEE THAT PROBLEM
TODAY, FRANKLY.
>> Sreenivasan: AUTHOR
NATHANIEL RICH WRITING FOR "THE
NEW YORK TIMES" MAGAZINE, THANKS
FOR JOINING US.
>> THANKS FOR HAVING ME.
>> Sreenivasan: THE REPORT IS
CALLED "LOSING EARTH", IT WILL
BE PUBLISHED ONLINE LATER THIS
WEEK AND IN THE MAGAZINE NEXT
WEEKEND.
-------------------------------------------
Is socialism having its moment in U.S. elections? - Duration: 5:09.
>> Sreenivasan: 28-YEAR-OLD
ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ, A
SELF-DESCRIBED DEMOCRATIC
SOCIALIST, BEAT LONG TIME
DEMOCRATIC CONGRESSMAN JOE
CROWLEY IN A RECENT NEW YORK
PRIMARY.
IT WAS A SIGNAL THAT ATTITUDES
ARE CHANGING TOWARDS SOCIALISM.
POLLS SHOW THAT A HIGH
PERCENTAGE OF AMERICANS,
ESPECIALLY YOUNGER ONES, LOOK
APPROVINGLY ON SOCIALISM.
WHICH RAISES A RECURRING
QUESTION ABOUT OUR POLITICS:
EVERY OTHER INDUSTRIALIZED
NATION HAS A STRONG SOCIALIST
MOVEMENT, WHY NOT IN AMERICA?
HERE'S NEWSHOUR WEEKEND SPECIAL
CORRESPONDENT JEFF GREENFIELD.
>> IT WAS MORE THAN A CENTURY
AGO IN 1912 WHEN EUGENE V. DEBS
WON MORE THAN 900,000 VOTES AS
THE SOCIALIST CANDIDATE FOR
PRESIDENT, SIX PERCENT OF THE
TOTAL, ABOUT WHAT LONGTIME
CONGRESSMAN JOHN ANDERSON WON IN
1980 AS AN INDEPENDENT
CANDIDATE.
IN THE EARLY 1910S, SOCIALISTS
WERE WINNING ELECTIONS IN CITIES
AND TOWNS ACROSS THE COUNTRY.
DOZENS OF MAYORS FROM
SCHENECTADY, NEW YORK TO
MILWAUKEE TO BERKELEY.
TWO WERE ELECTED TO THE U.S.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
BUT IN THE 100 YEARS SINCE DEBS'
RUN FOR PRESIDENT, THE SOCIALIST
MOVEMENT HAD WITHERED AS A
SIGNIFICANT AMERICAN POLITICAL
FORCE UNTIL BERNIE SANDERS RAN
FOR THE DEMOCRATIC NOMINATION IN
2016.
>> WE NEED TO DEVELOP A
POLITICAL MOVEMENT WHICH, ONCE
AGAIN, IS PREPARED TO TAKE ON
AND DEFEAT A RULING CLASS WHOSE
GREED IS DESTROYING OUR NATION.
>> IN EVERY OTHER INDUSTRIALIZED
COUNTRY, THE MOVEMENT TOWARDS A
DEMOCRATIC FORM OF SOCIALISM HAS
BEEN STRONG ENOUGH TO WIN
NATIONAL ELECTIONS.
BRITAIN'S LABOR PARTY TOOK POWER
IN 1945 AND NATIONALIZED SEVERAL
KEY INDUSTRIES.
A SOCIALIST WAS ELECTED
PRESIDENT OF FRANCE IN 1981.
SOCIAL DEMOCRATS WHO SUPPORT
STRONGER ROLES FOR WORKERS AND A
MAJOR ROLE FOR GOVERNMENT
WITHOUT STATE CONTROL OF
INDUSTRIES GOVERNED SCANDINAVIAN
COUNTRIES FOR MUCH OF THE LAST
HALF OF THE 20th CENTURY AND
WERE OFTEN PART OF COALITION
GOVERNMENTS IN GERMANY.
SO WHY HASN'T A DEMOCRATIC
SOCIALIST MOVEMENT EVER BECOME A
POWERFUL FORCE IN AMERICAN
POLITICS?
THERE ARE LOTS OF REASONS.
>> THE ARMY JOINS THE PEOPLE.
WITH INCREDIBLE SWIFTNESS, THE
CZAR'S REGIME FALLS.
>> THE COMMUNIST REVOLUTION IN
RUSSIA IN 1917 SPLIT THE
SOCIALIST MOVEMENT IN AMERICA
BETWEEN THOSE WHO FAVORED A
DEMOCRATIC PATH AND THOSE WHO
SUPPORTED VIOLENT REVOLUTION.
AND WHEN AMERICAN SOCIALISTS
OPPOSED U.S. ENTRY INTO WORLD
WAR I, THE BACKLASH WAS INTENSE.
SOCIALIST NEWSPAPERS AND
MAGAZINES WERE SHUT DOWN;
ELECTED OFFICIALS WERE EXPELLED
FROM LEGISLATURES.
AND IN 1919 AND 1920, ATTORNEY
GENERAL A. MITCHELL PALMER
ORDERED A SERIES OF RAIDS IN
WHICH THOUSANDS WERE ARRESTED,
DETAINED, OR DEPORTED.
UNLIKE EUROPEAN MOVEMENTS, WHERE
ORGANIZED LABOR WAS A KEY
COMPONENT OF SOCIALIST PARTIES,
AMERICAN LABOR UNIONS WERE MUCH
MORE NARROWLY FOCUSED ON WAGES
AND WORKING CONDITIONS.
THAT MEANT AMERICAN SOCIALISM
LACKED THE MONEY AND MANPOWER TO
BE A POWERFUL POLITICAL FORCE.
AND WHEN THE GREAT DEPRESSION OF
THE '30'S MADE RADICAL POLITICS
ATTRACTIVE, AT LEAST SOME
SOCIALIST IDEAS WERE ADOPTED BY
THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY.
LABOR UNION RIGHTS AND SOCIAL
SECURITY UNDER F.D.R.'S "NEW
DEAL" HELPED PAVE THE WAY FOR
FEDERAL ASSISTANCE TO OTHER
PROGRAMS A GENERATION LATER.
>> THE NEW BILL EXPANDS THE 30
YEAR OLD SOCIAL SECURITY PROGRAM
TO PROVIDE HOSPITAL CARE,
NURSING HOME CARE FOR THOSE OVER
65.
>> THESE PROGRAMS AREN'T CALLED
SOCIALISM, EXCEPT BY OPPONENTS.
BUT IN FACT, MEDICARE SIGNED
INTO LAW UNDER LYNDON JOHNSON IS
ESSENTIALLY SOCIALIZED MEDICINE
FOR THE ELDERLY.
AND ANOTHER REASON WHY SOCIALISM
NEVER GAINED TRACTION, THIS
COUNTRY WAS BORN IN REVOLT
AGAINST GOVERNMENT; STATE POWER
HAS ALWAYS BEEN LOOKED ON WITH
SKEPTICISM.
AND UNLIKE EUROPE, THIS IS A
CONTINENTAL NATION.
ITS SHEER SIZE OFFERED THOSE
DISCONTENTED OR DISPOSSESSED A
WAY TO MAKE A FRESH START; TO
"LIGHT OUT FOR THE TERRITORIES"
AS HUCK FINN PUT IT.
IT'S A NATION WHERE THE
INDIVIDUAL, NOT THE COLLECTIVE,
IS CELEBRATED.
>> AND SO THEY JOINED THE STREAM
OF FAMILY LIFE IN THE SUBURBS.
>> AND IN THE YEARS AFTER WORLD
WAR II, ECONOMIC GROWTH AND
WIDESPREAD PROSPERITY MEANT A
LEVEL OF COMFORT FOR WORKING AND
MIDDLE CLASS AMERICANS THAT
DIMMED THE LURE OF SOCIALISM.
BUT THE GREAT RECESSION LEFT
MILLIONS OF AMERICANS WITH
DIMINISHED NET WORTH.
AVERAGE WAGES HAVE REMAINED
STAGNANT.
INEQUALITY HAS SOARED TO LEVELS
NOT SEEN SINCE THE 1920S.
ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ, A
FORMER CAMPAIGNER FOR BERNIE
SANDERS, SURPRISED MANY WITH HER
CONGRESSIONAL PRIMARY RUN LAST
MONTH.
NOT ONLY DID SHE UNSEAT A TOP
DEMOCRAT, BUT SHE RAN AS A
DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST.
>> NOT ALL DEMOCRATS ARE THE
SAME.
>> AND WHILE FEW CANDIDATES THIS
FALL ARE LIKELY TO EMBRACE THE
SOCIALIST LABEL, THE ENTHUSIASM
AMONG MANY DEMOCRATS FOR
UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE, FREE
COLLEGE TUITION, AND GOVERNMENT-
GUARANTEED JOBS SUGGESTS THAT
IDEAS ONCE CONSIDERED TOO
RADICAL, TOO SOCIALISTIC, MAY BE
MAKING THEIR WAY TO THE
MAINSTREAM.
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét