How the world sees Greece
Even on a cold day in Athens, the New Acropolis Museum at the base of the ancient citadel is abuzz. A guide is animatedly telling the stories behind the friezes of gods, giants and centaurs to groups of Greek and Italian schoolchildren; another explaining ...
 |
| READ THE ORIGINAL POST AT www.vocativ.com |
Petra GREEK, the well-known eatery on 16th Street in Sacramento, is expanding to Folsom. The restaurant will open a location in Folsom's Palladio at ...
|
| READ THE ORIGINAL POST AT www.bizjournals.com |
It must be every scientist ’s dream: to have the opportunity to dedicate one ’s life to research and related discussions in a specially designed space working along with other leading scientists. The Perimeter Institute, based in Waterloo, a town in Ontario, Canada, makes this a dream come true for few chosen scientists. Once it […]
|
| READ THE ORIGINAL POST AT www.thenationalherald.com |
[U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton listens to steelworkers during a campaign event in Ashland, Kentucky, United States, May 2, 2016. REUTERS/Jim Young]Thomson Reuters ASHLAND, Ky. (AP) — When President Bill Clinton rolled into the small Appalachian town of Ashland, Kentucky, in 1996, cheering crowds lined the streets. Local boy-turned-country music star Billy Ray Cyrus performed a special version of his hit, "Achy Breaky Heart" before nearly 20,000 supporters at a riverfront re-election rally. Back then, this was Clinton country. Today, it looks an awful lot more like Trump town. Hillary Clinton was met in Ashland on Monday by just a handful of supporters and a lone heckler, who shouted: "Go home, Hillary!" Later on, hundreds of protesters stood in pouring rain, waved Donald Trump signs and chanted "Kill-ary" as Clinton toured a health center in Williamson, West Virginia. The unwelcome reception marks a striking political shift for the Clintons, who've long staked their electoral fortunes on working class white voters. Bill Clinton won the White House in 1992 by wooing Southern swing voters in places such as Kentucky, West Virginia and Tennessee, and his wife swept all three states in her primary run in 2008 against then-Illinois Sen. Barack Obama. Eight years later, Trump's connection with those voters could pose a threat to Clinton in the coal mining communities of Appalachia she visited on Monday, but also in parts of the Rust Belt and upper Midwest hit hard by the decline of domestic manufacturing. "I know that my chances are pretty difficult to be honest," said Clinton, who vowed to return to the region before the November election. "I'm here because I want you to know whether people vote for me or not, whether they yell at me or not, it's not going to affect what I will do to help." As she increasingly focuses her efforts on the general election, Clinton is trying to replicate the electoral strategy that twice boosted Obama into the White House by concentrating on wooing young, minority and female voters. [donald trump]Thomson ReutersTrump may afford them new opportunities to expand what's known as the Obama coalition: Her aides calculate the billionaire's penchant for controversy could put traditionally Republican-leaning states such as Georgia, North Carolina and Arizona into play. "As an old duck hunter, I know the truth of the saying, 'You gotta hunt where the ducks are at,'" said Paul Begala, who helped engineer Clinton's victory in 1992. "President Obama understood this, as does Secretary Clinton." But at the same time, Clinton's long history with the region means she and her husband aren't willing to give up on places such as Ashland even though aides say she's unlikely to win either Kentucky or West Virginia in the primaries later this month or the general election next fall. Democrats have lost support in Appalachia as the region has shed jobs in industries such as coal mining and as union membership has declined, said Democratic strategist Dave "Mudcat" Saunders. The leftward shift of the Democratic Party during the Obama administration on social issues, including gay marriage and gun control, hasn't helped. "In those areas, it has become culturally unacceptable for a white male to admit he's a Democrat," Saunders said. [bill clinton]Thomson Reuters On Sunday, Bill Clinton was booed at an event in Logan, West Virginia. Before he arrived, the town's mayor sent an email to West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin's office, saying the couple wasn't welcome to use city fire department facilities for their political events. Clinton's waning popularity in the region was further hurt by a remark she made in a March interview with CNN, when she said she would "put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business." She was responding to a question about how her policies would benefit poor white people in Southern states. "I can't take it back and I certainly can't get people who for politically reasons or personal reasons, very painful reasons, are upset with me," said Clinton, who called the comment a "misstatement." ''I'm going to do whatever I can to try to help." Outside her event, protesters weren't buying. "Hillary Clinton should be in prison," said Dionne Collins, who backed Bill Clinton in 1992. "The only hope is Donald Trump." NOW WATCH: FORMER GREEK FINANCE MINISTER: Why Hillary Clinton is a 'dangerous person'
|
| READ THE ORIGINAL POST AT www.businessinsider.com |
[Donald Trump]AP Photo/Charles Rex Arbogast Donald Trump released a sharp retort Tuesday to Ted Cruz's lengthy teardown of the Manhattan billionaire earlier in the day. "Ted Cruz is a desperate candidate trying to save his failing campaign," Trump wrote in the statement sent out by his campaign. "It is no surprise he has resorted to his usual tactics of over-the-top rhetoric that nobody believes." He added that Cruz was "unhinged" and that the "stress of losing" was hurting him. He said the "outburst" proved that Cruz didn't the "temperament" to serve as president. "Over the last week, I have watched Lyin’ Ted become more and more unhinged as he is unable to react under the pressure and stress of losing, in all cases by landslides, the last six primary elections --- in fact, coming in last place in all but one of them," Trump wrote. "Today’s ridiculous outburst only proves what I have been saying for a long time, that Ted Cruz does not have the temperament to be President of the United States." The latest war of words between the two Republican candidates came the day of what could be a do-or-die primary for Cruz in Indiana. Earlier on Tuesday, Cruz railed against Trump in one of his harshest attacks to date on the GOP frontrunner, who held a big lead in Indiana polls ahead of the Tuesday vote. "This man is a pathological liar. He doesn't know the difference between truth and lies," Cruz said at a press conference. "He lies — practically every word that comes out of his mouth." [Ted Cruz]AP Photo/Charles Rex Arbogast In the broadside, Cruz called Trump a "narcissist" and "serial philanderer" and said "morality doesn't exist" for him. The comments came in apparent response to Trump's suggestion from early Tuesday morning that Cruz's father, Rafael Cruz, was somehow linked to Lee Harvey Oswald, the assassin of President John F. Kennedy. "This is nuts," Cruz said, sarcastically adding: "Yes, my dad killed JFK. He's secretly Elvis. And Jimmy Hoffa is buried in his backyard." Trump floated the suggestion during a Fox News interview where the real estate magnate cited a dubious National Enquirer article. The tabloid endorsed Trump earlier this election cycle and has published a series of suspect and unverified stories critical of the Texas senator and his family, including one that Cruz accused of being fomented by Trump's "henchmen." Cruz also brought up Trump's retweet earlier this year of an image comparing Heidi Cruz to Trump's wife, Melania Trump. "Apparently she's not pretty enough for Donald Trump," he said. "I may be biased, but I think if he's making that allegation, he's legally blind." But when pressed by reporters as to whether he'd support Trump if he were to be the GOP nominee, Cruz refused to respond. READ TRUMP'S FULL STATEMENT BELOW: Ted Cruz is a desperate candidate trying to save his failing campaign. It is no surprise he has resorted to his usual tactics of over-the-top rhetoric that nobody believes. Over the last week, I have watched Lyin’ Ted become more and more unhinged as he is unable to react under the pressure and stress of losing, in all cases by landslides, the last six primary elections --- in fact, coming in last place in all but one of them. Today’s ridiculous outburst only proves what I have been saying for a long time, that Ted Cruz does not have the temperament to be President of the United States. NOW WATCH: FORMER GREEK FINANCE MINISTER: Why Hillary Clinton is a 'dangerous person'
|
| READ THE ORIGINAL POST AT www.businessinsider.com |
[Donald Trump]Joe Raedle/Getty Images Donald Trump is going to be the Republican nominee for president, and this fact alarms ideological conservatives for several reasons: 1. They think he will lose badly to Hillary Clinton, perhaps so badly that Republicans lose control of both houses of Congress. 2. They are afraid that he will damage the brand of the Republican Party, making it harder to win future elections. 3. They believe that he lacks the temperament and character to serve as president. These are all good reasons to be alarmed, but there is also a fourth reason for alarm that is perhaps the most alarming of all for conservatives: His nomination could signal the death of orthodox conservatism as one of the two main forces in American public policy, since he is running away with the nomination despite being exposed as a nonconservative. Trump is the candidate who finally figured out how to exploit the fact that much of the Republican voter base does not share the policy preferences of the Republican donor class, and that it is therefore possible to win the nomination without being saddled with their unpopular policy preferences. He will not be the last candidate to understand this. Future candidates will seek to rebuild Trump's coalition, and they will follow in his footsteps by opposing free trade, promising to protect entitlements from cuts, questioning the value of America's commitment to military alliances, and shrugging at social changes like the growing acceptance of transgender people. All three of the supposed "legs" of the Republican coalition stool — libertarian economics, social conservatism, and militarism — are at risk from Trump and the populist-imitator candidates he will spawn. But wait, it gets worse. [Donald Trump]Joe Raedle/Getty Images It is easy to find examples of parties where ideologically orthodox members felt sold out by moderate leaders who softened party platforms. Think of Tony Blair in the UK, or Dwight Eisenhower in the US. But at least those moderate leaders tend to be broadly popular with the public, and to win elections, allowing those ideologically orthodox party members to get half a loaf in the form of implementation of a watered-down version of a party platform. Trump has somehow found a way to throw away the ideologically extreme ideas that orthodox conservatives cared about while actually making the party _less_ popular. His nomination is a recipe for conservatives to sell out and lose anyway. There is a missed opportunity for the Republican Party hiding somewhere within this train wreck. Nonwhite voters are much more likely than white voters to tell pollsters that they favor a larger government providing more services, so some version of the Trump economic agenda should actually help Republicans do better with more diverse voters, who have long been turned off by Republican antigovernment rhetoric. But because Trump has swapped out calls for Social Security privatization for overt appeals to racism, he won't be able to do that. But maybe — maybe — some future Trump imitator could find a way to keep the broadly popular parts of his platform while dropping the ones that have caused him to rack up the highest "very unfavorable" ratings of any party nominee since the start of the data in 1980. But do not hold your breath for any faction of the Republican Party to take that lesson from their impending, devastating loss. Instead, three different factions will each have their own story of why Republicans lost the 2016 election — and each of them will be wrong. [Ted Cruz pauses as he speaks to supporters during his five state primary night rally held at the Hoosier Gym in Knightstown, Indiana, April 26, 2016. REUTERS/Aaron P. Bernstein]Joe Raedle/Getty Images Ted Cruz and his allies will say that the loss was the predictable result of failure to nominate a true conservative. Faced with two essentially similar candidates like Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, conservatives chose to stay home. To win in 2020, they will say, Republicans must abandon moderation and the desire for "deals" and nominate a stalwart, no-compromise conservative like Cruz. Establishment Republicans will say the problem is that the party let the clowns take over, and must return power to the adults in the room like Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio, instead of toxic candidates like Trump and Cruz. They will not address the problem that orthodox Republican policy prescriptions are unconvincing even to voters in the Republican primary, let alone the general electorate. Trump and his fans will say that the Republican establishment sabotaged Trump by withholding their support, hoping they could quash his insurgency by manufacturing a wide loss to Hillary Clinton. They will not go away quietly. This campaign has been compared to a number of television shows, including "Veep." But maybe the best comparison is "Seinfeld." After the Republicans lose, there will be no hugging and no learning. And that means the 2020 nominating campaign could be another circular firing squad similar to the one we are witnessing now. You had better stock up on popcorn. NOW WATCH: FORMER GREEK FINANCE MINISTER: Why Hillary Clinton is a 'dangerous person'
|
| READ THE ORIGINAL POST AT www.businessinsider.com |
[Various Halliburton equipment being stored at the equipment yard in Alvarado, Texas June 2, 2015. REUTERS/Cooper Neill] Halliburton and Baker Hughes tried to get together, but couldn't. On Sunday, they announced that they were scrapping their $28 billion merger after it faced strong scrutiny from US and European regulators. The authorities were concerned that both companies — the world's second- and third-largest oilfield services companies respectively — would stifle competition in their industry. But in addition to regulatory concerns, there was another somewhat obvious reason why the deal was already doomed: the oil crash. With the oil crash, it would have been hard to justify the economics of the merger to shareholders. Baker Hughes was worth $34.6 billion when the deal was first announced in November 2014. By the time the deal was canceled, it was valued at $28 billion. During Halliburton's earnings call on Tuesday, CEO Dave Lesar explained more on why the economics simply couldn't work out (emphasis ours): IN ADDITION TO REGULATORY MANNERS, THE UNPRECEDENTED DETERIORATION OF THE OIL AND GAS INDUSTRY DECIMATED THE ECONOMICS OF THE DEAL. DURING THE PENDENCY OF THE DEAL, THE WTI PRICE OF OIL HAS GONE FROM OVER $76 IN NOVEMBER OF 2014, TO A LOW OF JUST OVER $26 IN FEBRUARY OF THIS YEAR, WHILE THE GLOBAL RIG COUNT RIG HAS GONE TO A 17 YEAR LOW AND YOU ALL KNOW WHAT HAS HAPPENED IN NORTH AMERICA, WHERE EACH WEEK WE'VE SEEM TO HIT NEW HISTORICAL LOWS. As a consequence, the aggregate quarterly revenues of Baker Hughes have decreased nearly 60% from $6.6 billion for fourth quarter 2014, to $2.7 billion for first quarter of this year. GIVEN THE ABRUPT AND DEEP DOWNTURN IN THE OIL SERVICES MARKET, WE WERE UNABLE TO OBTAIN ADEQUATE VALUE FOR THE BUSINESSES WE PROPOSED TO DIVEST. This, coupled with the decline in each company's business, eroded the expected synergies and accretive aspects of the transaction, including the timeline to integrate the businesses to levels which we believe severely undermine the originally anticipated synergy benefits of the deal. As a result, it became clear that continuing to pursue the transaction was no longer in the best interest of our stockholders, despite having to pay the [$3.5 billion] termination fee to Baker Hughes. Moving forward with the transaction did not make sense in light of the elongated regulatory scrutiny, the projected timelines for closing the transaction, the poor deal economics and the current market environment. It's quite self-explanatory. Bloomberg wrote that Lesar saw the deal as the best way to survive the oil downturn, which began mid-2014. Still, it's unclear whether Halliburton would have considered the anti-trust pushback worth fighting against to the end if there had been no oil crash. SEE ALSO: BANK OF AMERICA: WE'VE NEVER SEEN INVESTORS RUSH TO SELL STOCKS LIKE THIS BEFORE Join the conversation about this story » NOW WATCH: FORMER GREEK FINANCE MINISTER: The single largest threat to the global economy
|
| READ THE ORIGINAL POST AT www.businessinsider.com |