Wednesday, September 28, 2016

Peres: 93 Years Young - The New York Times

Peres: 93 Years Young - The New York Times:

"When I heard the news that Shimon Peres, the last of Israel’s greatest generation of founding leaders, had died I found myself ruminating about what was so special about this man whom I had had the pleasure of knowing for almost 35 years. It took me a second to articulate it. Peres was almost unique among the Arab and Israeli leaders I’ve covered as a reporter in the Middle East in two crucial respects: He could stand in the other guy’s shoes, and he was determined to let the future bury the past and not let the past bury the future."

'via Blog this'

VAT of Deplorables by Paul Krugman

I’ve been writing about Donald Trump’s claim that Mexico’s value-added tax is an unfair trade policy, which is just really bad economics. Here’s Joel Slemrod explaining that a VAT has the same effects as a sales tax. Now, nobody thinks that sales taxes are an unfair trade practice. New York has fairly high sales taxes; Delaware has no such tax. Does anyone think that this gives New York an unfair advantage in interstate competition?
But it turns out that Trump wasn’t saying ignorant things off the top of his head: he was saying ignorant things fed to him by his incompetent economic advisers. Here’s the campaign white paper on economics. The VAT discussion is on pages 12-13 — and it’s utterly uninformed.
And it’s not the worst thing: there’s lots of terrible stuff in the white paper, at every level.
Should we be reassured that Trump wasn’t actually winging it here, just taking really bad advice? Not at all. This says that if he somehow becomes president, and decides to take the job seriously, it won’t help — because his judgment in advisers, his notion of who constitutes an expert, is as bad as his judgment on the fly.


An Atlas of a Billion Stars - The New York Times

By Nicholas St. Fleur

This map, the first of its kind, shows a billion stars shining in the Milky Way. It’s the work of the European Space Agency’s Gaia space telescope, which has been scanning the cosmos in order to create the largest and most accurate 3-D map of our galaxy.

Most of the Milky Way’s stars reside in the so-called Galactic Plane, shown here as a bright horizontal strip about 100,000 light-years across and about 1,000 light-years deep.

The data used to make this version of the atlas was collected between July 2014 and September 2015. In addition to providing the position and brightness of more than 1.1 billion stars, Gaia also charted the movements of more than two million of those stars.

As extensive as these measurements are, Gaia will catalog just 1 percent of the stars found in the Milky Way by the time its mission ends.

This map, the first of its kind, shows a billion stars shining in the Milky Way. It’s the work of the European Space Agency’s Gaia space telescope, which has been scanning the cosmos in order to create the largest and most accurate 3-D map of our galaxy.

Most of the Milky Way’s stars reside in the so-called Galactic Plane, shown here as a bright horizontal strip about 100,000 light-years across and about 1,000 light-years deep.

The data used to make this version of the atlas was collected between July 2014 and September 2015. In addition to providing the position and brightness of more than 1.1 billion stars, Gaia also charted the movements of more than two million of those stars.

As extensive as these measurements are, Gaia will catalog just 1 percent of the stars found in the Milky Way by the time its mission ends.



Addicted Parents Get Their Fix, Even With Children Watching - The New York Times

Addicted Parents Get Their Fix, Even With Children Watching - The New York Times:

 "It was a horrific video — a young mother who had overdosed was lying unconscious on the floor of a Family Dollar store in Lawrence, Mass."

'via Blog this'

Shimon Peres, the Realist Dreamer - The New York Times

Shimon Peres, the Realist Dreamer - The New York Times:

"Tel Aviv — There are very few people in the world whose lives align so effortlessly with the birth and being of their homeland. Shimon Peres, who has died at age 93, left an indelible mark on Israel — fighting for its independence, its security, and then, for its peace. It is difficult to imagine Israel’s past without him; it will be even harder to imagine its future."

'via Blog this'

New Debate Strategy for Donald Trump: Practice, Practice, Practice

Donald J. Trump at a campaign event in Melbourne, Fla., on Tuesday. Credit Damon Winter/The New York Times

Campaign advisers to Donald J. Trump, concerned that his focus and objectives had dissolved during the first presidential debate on Monday, plan to more rigorously prepare him for his next face-off with Hillary Clinton by drilling the Republican nominee on crucial answers, facts and counterattacks, and by coaching him on ways to whack Mrs. Clinton on issues even if he is not asked about them.
Whether he is open to practicing meticulously is a major concern, however, according to some of these advisers and others close to Mr. Trump.
While analysts from both parties and several focus groups declared Mrs. Clinton the winner of the debate, Mr. Trump tried to claim that title for himself on Tuesday, citing unscientific online surveys, and told his advisers that he believed he had done well in the first half-hour of the 90-minute event.
A delicate approach to the candidate is now in the works. Before his advisers can shape Mr. Trump’s performance for the next debate, on Oct. 9 in St. Louis — which, contrary to speculation, he does plan to attend, a top aide said — they need to convince him that he can do better than he did in the first one and that only a disciplined, strategic attack can damage Mrs. Clinton with voters. Advisers said that Mr. Trump had been prepped to handle Mrs. Clinton’s attacks on Monday but did not effectively execute responses to them.
Republican allies of Mr. Trump said he needed to exploit what they see as her vulnerabilities.
“People know who Hillary is — they’ve seen her and heard about her for 30 years,” said Sean Spicer, chief strategist for the Republican National Committee, who works for the Trump campaign part time. “And what needs to be done next is that he is seen as the element of change.”
Even as Mr. Trump’s advisers publicly backed him on Tuesday and praised his debate performance, they were privately awash in second-guessing about why he stopped attacking Mrs. Clinton on trade and character issues and instead grew erratic, impatient and subdued as the night went on. In interviews, seven campaign aides and advisers, most of whom sought anonymity to speak candidly, expressed frustration and discouragement over their candidate’s performance Monday night.
They blamed his overstuffed schedule, including a last-minute rally in Virginia that was added days before the debate. They blamed the large number of voluble people on his prep team, including two retired military figures with no political background. And they blamed the lack of time spent on preparing a game plan in the first place.
Continue reading the main story
Mr. Trump, for his part, sought to blame everything but himself. During an appearance on Fox News on Tuesday, he charged that the moderator, Lester Holt of NBC News, had become overly aggressive with him — although he inaccurately said that Mr. Holt had questioned him over a 1973 federal discrimination lawsuit against Mr. Trump’s company. (Mrs. Clinton had raised the lawsuit question.) He also suggested that his performance was related to a faulty mike — even though he was perfectly audible during the telecast — and that he may have been the victim of sabotage.
And at a rally in Florida on Tuesday night, he ripped Mrs. Clinton in scathing terms that he declined to use when they were face to face.
But Mr. Trump’s lack of facility as a one-on-one debater was glaring at times on Monday, such as his inability to challenge Mrs. Clinton’s judgment over the attacks on the American diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya. He protested on Fox News that he could not find a way to bring up Benghazi, saying, “Don’t forget, you are asked a question as to progress or as to something, and it’s hard to get off to Benghazi sometimes the way the questions were framed.”
Mrs. Clinton, who prepared at length for the debate, was far more deft at unnerving her opponent, finding a way during an exchange about trade to bring up a loan that Mr. Trump had received from his father. Topics during general election debates are often inserted at prime openings by the candidates themselves, rather than by the moderators, whom Mr. Trump relied on during the primary debates to set the tone.
The shape and schedule for Mr. Trump’s next round of debate preparations are still under discussion, his advisers said.
Some of the advisers want to practice getting under his skin, as Mrs. Clinton did, to gauge his response, but they offered no details about doing so. Others wanted practice sessions built around the next debate’s format, a town-hall-style meeting, where Mr. Trump is likely to engage with undecided voters asking him questions and, at times, move from his chair to walk the stage. Mr. Trump has little experience with the format, which can be challenging for people who do not practice managing their body language and movements.
Several advisers also want to impress upon him the need to stick to a strategy and a plan of battle against a female candidate — the kind of opponent he has less experience facing — rather than spend time polishing a string of disparate zingers that Mrs. Clinton, a skilled debater, was able to easily parry Monday night.
Mrs. Clinton succeeded several times in baiting Mr. Trump, making him become defensive, lose his cool or dig himself into a political hole, particularly late in the debate as he struggled to defend himself against charges that he had made sexist and racist remarks. He also repeatedly interrupted or talked over Mrs. Clinton, which some female voters found alienating. Some allies of Mr. Trump say he is not preparing enough to do battle with a woman in mind; he has only one senior adviser who is a woman, his campaign manager, Kellyanne Conway.
Almost all of his advisers rejected the idea that the debate was a failure for Mr. Trump, noting that he landed some punches and insisting that Mrs. Clinton looked more polished than she was because of her opposition.
But all of them described the debate as filled with missed opportunities. And they openly expressed frustration that Mr. Trump seemed unable to stop chasing chum that Mrs. Clinton tossed at him.
Mr. Trump’s debate preparation was unconventional. Aides have introduced a podium and encouraged him to participate in mock debates, but he has not embraced them, focusing mostly on conversations and discussions with advisers.
During the primaries, the group briefing him for debates was small and closely held. By the weekend before the debate on Monday at Hofstra University, there were nearly a dozen people preparing Mr. Trump, including the retired Army generals Michael Flynn and Keith Kellogg, neither of whom has experience in presidential debates.
There were early efforts to run a more standard form of general election debate-prep camp, led by Roger Ailes, the ousted Fox News chief, at Mr. Trump’s golf course in Bedminster, N.J. But Mr. Trump found it hard to focus during those meetings, according to multiple people briefed on the process who requested anonymity to discuss internal deliberations. That left Mr. Ailes, who at the time was deeply distracted by his removal from Fox and the news media reports surrounding it, discussing his own problems as well as recounting political war stories, according to two people present for the sessions.
Rudolph W. Giuliani, the former New York City mayor and a friend of Mr. Trump’s who has been traveling with him extensively, took over much of the preparation efforts by the end. But with Mr. Trump receiving so much conflicting advice in those sessions, he absorbed little of it.
The team had primed Mr. Trump to look for roughly a dozen key phrases and expressions Mrs. Clinton uses when she is uncertain or uncomfortable, but he did not seem to pay attention during the practice sessions, one aide said, and failed to home in on her vulnerabilities during the debate.
“It clearly looked like he ran out of gas after 30 minutes, and that came through loud and clear,” said Scott Reed, the senior political strategist for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, who has not supported Mr. Trump.
“Trump needs to show a higher level seriousness, so that he’s better positioned as an agent of change,” Mr. Reed added. “If he can accomplish that, he’ll win undecided voters and late-breaking voters who clearly don’t want to support Hillary Clinton.”
Mr. Trump’s best lines, several aides said, came when he talked about how Mrs. Clinton had been in politics for 30 years and had yet to offer any solutions, and when he parried a question from her about releasing his tax returns by saying he would release them when she released the 33,000 deleted emails from her time as secretary of state. But he quickly dropped the emails line.
The aides were particularly frustrated when Mr. Trump, unprompted, mentioned the comedian Rosie O’Donnell during an exchange about his treatment of women, saying she deserved his vitriol and criticism.
Mr. Trump’s campaign tried to soothe supporters on a conference call on Tuesday by pointing to instant polls that showed him winning the debate, even though a vast majority of surveys showed that Mrs. Clinton led. And his backers painted an optimistic picture of a campaign on course.
“I think he was extremely effective in speaking to the targeted audience of swing state voters and undecided voters,” said John Jay LaValle, the chairman of the Republican Party in Suffolk County, N.Y., and a supporter of Mr. Trump.

Tuesday, September 27, 2016

What Can Mexico Do About Trump?

Mexican trucks entering the United States from Tijuana. The two countries signed an agreement in 2011 to allow Mexican trucks to operate in the United States, though the agreement came after a contentious dispute. Credit Eros Hoagland for The New York Times
When Ildefonso Guajardo Villarreal, the Mexican secretary of the economy, came to talk to me last week about trade and the American elections, I didn’t expect him to drag up the old spat between Mexico and the United States over trucks.
Back when it signed on to the North American Free Trade Agreement more than 20 years ago, the United States pledged that in the year 2000 it would lift restrictions that kept Mexican trucks from hauling cargo inside the United States, forcing them instead to dump their loads at the border. But when the time came, under pressure from the Teamsters and the union’s allies in Congress, Washington backed out.
Mexico kept its cool for a while, though an arbitration panel in 2001 found the United States was in breach of the agreement. In 2007, Mexico accepted the George W. Bush administration’s request to cooperate in a pilot program that allowed a few Mexican trucks over the border, to prove that the rigs and their drivers posed no undue safety threat to the United States.
But when Congress cut funding for the pilot program two years later, Mexico said enough.
Mexico slapped retaliatory tariffs, ranging from 5 percent to 25 percent, on a list of products that amounted to over $2 billion in American exports to Mexico. It included apples from Washington — to help sway the views of Senator Patty Murray — and Christmas trees from Oregon, the homeland of Senator Ron Wyden, another critic of the cross-border trucking deal.
Sure enough, common sense prevailed: On July 6, 2011, the two countries signed an agreement to allow Mexican trucks to operate in the United States. On Oct. 21, 2011, the first Mexican truck rumbled across, and the last retaliatory tariff was removed.
Few, if any, countries would be as vulnerable to a Trump presidency as Mexico. About $4 of every $5 worth of goods that Mexico exports come to the United States. Some 35 percent of Mexican jobs depend directly on foreign trade.
Mexico’s future relies on North American integration. “That’s Mexico’s vulnerability,” said Luis Rubio, who heads the Center of Research for Development in Mexico City. “There is nothing more important in Mexico than Nafta.”
Ildefonso Guajardo Villarreal, Mexico’s secretary of the economy, in Washington in 2014. “We must not overreact to campaign rhetoric,” he said last week. Credit Nicholas Kamm/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images
The Mexican president, Enrique Peña Nieto, has already tripped over himself trying to deal with Donald J. Trump. Many Mexicans felt betrayed when Mr. Peña Nieto invited Mr. Trump to a meeting in Mexico City, sending his low approval ratings plummeting further. And the meeting hardly improved relations. Hostilities broke out as soon as it was over.
Continue reading the main story
The minister of the economy, Mr. Guajardo Villarreal, argues there is little point for Mexico to respond now to Mr. Trump’s threats to wall off the Mexican people and slap a 35 percent tariff on Mexican imports. “We must not overreact to campaign rhetoric,” he told me. Still, the truck story suggests the Mexican government understands that it needs a contingency plan in case Mexico’s most important partner on the world stage were to suddenly turn hostile.
The outline of a strategy seems clear: Mexico must communicate to the United States just how valuable their relationship is, and how self-destructive it could be to undermine it. The question is how to make this case. How persuasive can Mexico be?
A slide from a presentation that Mr. Guajardo Villarreal and his aides carry with them as they speak to American business and political leaders shows what the 2017 Ford Fusion, made in Hermosillo, in northern Mexico, would cost if a 35 percent tariff were imposed on imports from Mexico: $30,253, which is almost $8,000 more than it costs now. Another slide shows that eight of 10 avocados consumed in the United States are grown in Mexico, as are nine of 10 limes and half of all tomatoes.
Six million American jobs also depend on exports to Mexico, one slide says. Mexico buys nearly $250 billion worth of stuff from the United States. And 37 cents out of each dollar’s worth of Mexican exports to the United States came from the United States in the form of parts and other components. “If you throw obstacles at the relationship with Mexico, you would be shooting yourself in the foot,” Mr. Guajardo Villarreal told me.
Allies in the United States would indeed help Mexico make its case, including states and municipalities that would be hurt by Nafta’s unraveling, and businesses that would be forced to relocate production and rethink their global supply chains.
But perhaps a more muscular approach is needed. Jorge Castañeda, a former Mexican foreign minister who is a harsh critic of Mr. Peña Nieto, suggests that Mexico’s best argument is that the country’s stability and prosperity are indispensable for the national security of the United States. Americans worried about illegal immigration across the southern border might stop to consider what it could look like if the Mexican economy went into a tailspin.
Bicyclists riding by a piñata depicting Donald J. Trump, leaning on a symbolic wall, in Mexico City. Many Mexicans felt betrayed when their president invited Mr. Trump to a meeting there. Credit Marco Ugarte/Associated Press
If this argument fails to persuade, Mr. Castañeda argues, there are other tools in the toolbox. Say Mexico demanded that the United States prove that a migrant was Mexican before it would accept her back into the country. It could deploy American courts and regulations against Mr. Trump’s wall, pushing for things like environmental impact assessments. “We should throw as many monkey wrenches into the works as possible,” Mr. Castañeda said.
And together with Canada, Mexico should sue in every court — under the provisions of Nafta, the World Trade Organization and the United States — to resist Mr. Trump’s protectionist agenda.
A big question remains, however: If a Trump administration were to follow through on its threats — breaking the rules of Nafta and the W.T.O. — how strongly should Mexico retaliate?
It has shown it knows how. In the truck spat, Mexico picked political targets skillfully. It avoided shooting itself in the foot when it retaliated against Christmas trees rather than car engines. “Mexico has been very good at trying to follow the rules of trade agreements when it has run into trade frictions with the United States,” said Chad Bown, an expert on trade at the Peterson Institute for International Economics.
Yet, as Mr. Bown observed, in the early days of a Trump administration — when he wouldn’t be worried about re-election — “what products would you pick?”
A trade war would certainly hurt the United States. Scholars at the Peterson Institute modeled what would happen if America were to slap sky-high tariffs on Mexico and China and they were to reply in kind: By 2019, the trade war would cost hundreds of billions of dollars in lost output and would result in the loss of nearly 4.8 million private sector jobs.
The problem for Mexico is that the damage to its own economy would be much larger. “If we are to go to war, of course we have rifles,” Mr. Rubio said. But the economic weapons his country has at its disposal, he added, are like “nuclear bombs that you can’t use.”
Lamenting their luck, Mexicans often say, “Poor Mexico, so far from God and so close to the United States.” Facing the prospect of a Trump presidency, many Mexicans would hope their northern neighbor were farther away. But Mexico’s prosperity depends on a closer relationship with the United States, not a weaker one. The best approach to a Trump administration may be to hunker down and wait for his successor.

Trump? How Could We?

Donald Trump campaigned in Miami on Tuesday, the day after he debated Hillary Clinton.CreditDamon Winter/The New York Times
My reaction to the Donald Trump-Hillary Clinton debate can be summarized with one word: “How?”
How in the world do we put a man in the Oval Office who thinks NATO is a shopping mall where the tenants aren’t paying enough rent to the U.S. landlord?
NATO is not a shopping mall; it is a strategic alliance that won the Cold War, keeps Europe a stable trading partner for U.S. companies and prevents every European country — particularly Germany — from getting their own nukes to counterbalance Russia, by sheltering them all under America’s nuclear umbrella.
How do we put in the Oval Office a man who does not know enough “beef” about key policies to finish a two-minute answer on any issue without the hamburger helper of bluster, insults and repetition?
How do we put in the Oval Office a man who suggests that the recent spate of cyberattacks — which any senior U.S. intelligence official will tell you came without question from Russia — might not have come from Russia but could have been done by “somebody sitting on their bed that weighs 400 pounds”?
How do we put in the Oval Office a man who boasts that he tries to pay zero federal taxes but then complains that our airports and roads are falling apart and there is not enough money for our veterans?
How do we put in the Oval Office a man who claims he was against the Iraq war, because he said he privately told that to his pal Sean Hannity of Fox News — even though he publicly supported the war when it began. Trump is so obsessed with proving his infallibility that he missed scoring an easy debate point for himself by saying, “Yes, I supported the Iraq war as a citizen, but Hillary voted for it as a senator when she had access to the intelligence and her job was to make the right judgment.”
How do we put in the Oval Office someone who says we should not have gone into Iraq, but since we did, “we should have taken the oil — ISIS would not have been able to form … because the oil was their primary source of income.”
ISIS formed before it managed to pump any oil, and it sustained itself with millions of dollars that it stole from Iraq’s central bank in Mosul. Meanwhile, Iraq has the world’s fifth-largest oil reserves — 140 billion barrels. Can you imagine how many years we’d have to stay there to pump it all and how much doing so would tarnish our moral standing around the world and energize every jihadist?
How do we put in the Oval Office someone whose campaign manager has to go on every morning show after the debate and lie to try to make up for the nonsense her boss spouted? Kellyanne Conway told CNN on Tuesday morning that when it comes to climate change, “We don’t know what Hillary Clinton believes, because nobody ever asks her.”
Say what? As secretary of state, Clinton backed every global climate negotiation and clean energy initiative. That’s like saying no one knows Hillary’s position on women’s rights.
Conway then went on CNBC’s “Squawk Box” and argued that Clinton, who was secretary of state from 2009 to 2013, had never created a job and was partly responsible for the lack of adequate “roads and bridges” in our country. When challenged on that by MGM Resorts’s C.E.O., James Murren — who argued that his business was up, that the economy was improving and that Clinton’s job as secretary of state was to create stability — Conway responded that Clinton had nothing to do with any improvements in the economy because “she’s never been president so she’s created no financial stability.”
I see: Everything wrong is Clinton’s fault and anything good is to the president’s credit alone. Silly.
The “Squawk Box” segment was devoted to the fact that while Trump claims that he will get the economy growing, very few C.E.O.s of major U.S. companies are supporting him. Also, interesting how positively the stock market reacted to Trump’s debate defeat. Maybe because C.E.O.s and investors know that Trump and Conway are con artists and that recent statistics show income gaps are actually narrowing, wages are rising and poverty is easing.
The Trump-Conway shtick is to trash the country so they can make us great again. Fact: We have problems and not everyone is enjoying the fruits of our economy, but if you want to be an optimist about America, stand on your head — the country looks so much better from the bottom up. What you see are towns and regions not waiting for Washington, D.C., but coming together themselves to fix infrastructure, education and governance. I see it everywhere I go.
I am not enamored of Clinton’s stale, liberal, centralized view of politics, but she is sane and responsible; she’ll do her homework, can grow in the job, and might even work well with Republicans, as she did as a senator.
Trump promises change, but change that comes from someone who thinks people who pay taxes are suckers and who thinks he can show up before an audience of 100 million without preparation or real plans and talk about serious issues with no more sophistication than your crazy uncle — and expect to get away with it — is change the country can’t afford.
Electing such a man would be insanity.

Trump? How Could We? - The New York Times

Trump? How Could We? - The New York Times:

"My reaction to the Donald Trump-Hillary Clinton debate can be summarized with one word: “How?”"

'via Blog this'

Shimon Peres Dies at 93; Built Up Israel’s Defense and Sought Peace - The New York Times

Shimon Peres Dies at 93; Built Up Israel’s Defense and Sought Peace - The New York Times:

 "Shimon Peres, one of the last surviving pillars of Israel’s founding generation, who did more than anyone to build up his country’s formidable military might, then worked as hard to establish a lasting peace with Israel’s Arab neighbors, died on Wednesday in a Tel Aviv area hospital. He was 93."

'via Blog this'

How Did The Race Get Close? by Paul Krugman

September 27, 2016 1:19 pm

Last night’s debate was an incredible blowout — yet both candidates were pretty much who we already knew they were. This was the Hillary Clinton of the Benghazi hearing confronting the Donald Trump we’ve seen at every stage of the campaign.
But this then raises a question: how did the race get so close? Why, on the eve of the debate, did polls show at best a narrow Clinton lead? What happened to the commanding lead Clinton held after the conventions?
You might say that Clinton ran a terrible campaign — but what, exactly, did she do? Trump may have learned to read from a TelePrompter, but was that such a big deal?
Well, my guess is that it was the Goring of Hillary: beginning in late August, with the AP report on the Clinton Foundation, the mainstream media went all in on “abnormalizing” Mrs. Clinton, a process that culminated with Matt Lauer, who fixated on emails while letting grotesque, known, Trump lies slide. Here’s a graphic, using the Upshot’s estimate of election probabilities (which is a useful summary of what the polls say):

The thing is, it was all scurrilous. The AP, if it had been honest, had found no evidence of wrongdoing or undue influence; if meeting a Nobel Peace Prize winner who happened to be a personal friend was their prime example … But dinging the Clintons was what the cool kids were supposed to do, with normal rules not applying.
And this media onslaught pushed the race quite close on the eve of the first debate. It was feeling like 2000 all over again; and I think Jamelle Bouie got this exactly right:

But it all went off script last night, partly because HRC did so well and DJT so badly — but also, I think, because pressure from progressives ensured that there was a lot of real-time fact-checking.
Whether it turns out to have been enough to turn the tide remains to be seen. But anyone in the media who participated in the razzing of Hillary Clinton should think about what we saw on that stage, and ask himself what the hell he thought he was doing.


Trump Sniffles at the Debate, and the Internet Plays Doctor - The New York Times

Trump Sniffles at the Debate, and the Internet Plays Doctor - The New York Times:

"When President Obama sparred with Mitt Romney during the 2012 presidential debates, hundreds of thousands of memes were spawned from the mentions of “binders full of women” and “horses and bayonets.”"

'via Blog this'

Scenes From New England’s Drought: Dry Wells, Dead Fish and Ailing Farms - The New York Times

Scenes From New England’s Drought: Dry Wells, Dead Fish and Ailing Farms - The New York Times:

"CENTER CONWAY, N.H. — The Saco River flows lazily here, from New Hampshire into Maine, ridged with sandy banks and lush forests, luring eager families in canoes and rowdy flotillas of young adults."

'via Blog this'

Twitter Updates


Search This Blog


Total Pageviews