I guess there are a few notable examples of celebrities that are ardent atheists (or agnostics), such as Rchard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, or Carl Sagan. However, I don't think that I see that so much for pundits unless you are talking about people that are brought on specifically to speak about atheism or religion. And when it comes to politicians, atheism is usually anathema to them. I tend to see them all professing how important their faith is, even if it otherwise seems out of character for them. The only one that I can think of who is openly atheist is Kyrsten Sinema (at least in the United States), but I don't think she uses the term "atheist."
Oftentimes, amendments like those are proposed because they will kill the bill. If AOC wanted the bill to pass and knew that it could not pass with that amendment, then she would need to vote against the amendment even if she otherwise agrees with the content. That fact is another reason that amendments like this are suggested: they force a politician to vote against something that they otherwise support.
So when evaluating her vote in the amendment, you need to consider the broader context of the bill that was being voted on to understand what her vote means. Was the bill as a whole worthwhile, or should she have tanked it for ideological means?
The most recent thing that I learned about was that the CIA secretly worked with Boris Hagelin when he formed Crypto AG in the 1950s to ensure that encryption devices sold to foreign countries were easy to break by American intelligence agencies. Then in the 1970s, the CIA secretly purchased Crypto AG and owned it until 2018.
Crypto AG sold devices to countries across South America, Africa, the Middle East, and South East Asia. Basically, all of tge US's adversaries aside from the USSR and China.
FYI, there is a difference between nonviolence and pacifism. Pacifism opposes violence altogether and is predicated on the idea that there is a peaceful way to settle all disputes. That is to say, it's a philosophical or ethical position. Nonviolence is a strategy to achieve your goals without employing violence. Nonviolent protesters do not take violence off the table altogether. Rather, they believe that violent actions are not as likely to achieve their goals as nonviolent action would be.
In general, nonviolent action is taken by groups who are opposing an oppressor that has a significant power advantage over them. By resorting to violence immediately, they play into a game that they are destined to lose. Instead, they strive to use nonviolent means to make their struggle impossible to ignore. It relies on the oppressive system being vulnerable to a change in public opinion. In general, it also involves an implication that they may someday resort to violence if things do not change. That is, it differs from pacifism in that it does not deny that violence may be necessary.
I'm assuming that it's a bit different when dealing with toilets in the home, but my experience with cleaning public restrooms has shown that women are quite capable of making a mess around the toilet as well.
The initial story that was told just involved the run to Sparta in a single day prior to the battle to ask for assistance. After the Athenians won the battle, they marched the 40km to Athens in full armor in order to arrive before the retreating Persians could launch a naval attack on the city itself. Later, these two stories got combined into the popular legend that's described in this post.
So yeah, the rush was that they were trying to outpace an incoming invasion. They won the battle, but the war was still on. Their rush back to Athens allowed them to stop a direct assault on the city, which led the Persians to retreat entirely.
You are expecting too much from Trump. His pattern is to proclaim some new policy with shaky justification and no prior analysis. At best, his thought pattern is, "20% sounds like a good number." Then he lets the rest of his administration try to define something of substance around his public statements, hoping that he doesn't contradict their attempts in the coming days.
I used to not refrigerate my syrup. However, that changed when I found a scoby growing in it one day. And some people refrigerate natural peanut butter so that the oil doesn't separate.
Personally, I think education is more important and people should free to make their own decisions.
That's precisely what he, and the tobacco industry that was supprting him, was working against. He wasn't just taking a libertarian stance against regulation. He was arguing against the evidence that smoking tobacco, and second-hand exposure to tobacco smoke, were bad for your health. And the quoted portion of the article also indicates that he pushed to keep tobacco education out of the broader drug education in schools.
Don't forget that he's been in Congress for decades, and many of the things that he had been fighting against as a senator are responsible for the general awareness of the dangers of smoking and the record low number of smokers.
That is also something that would allow a competitor to come in to outseat their dominance. In fact, charging 5% instead of 30% would make it much more difficult for competition to develop because it would be next to impossible for somebody to penetrate into the market by offering a lower rate that's only viable with huge volumes of sales. Usually, offering unsustainable prices is a way that a dominant player achieves a monopoly. If they have big cash reserves, they can run at a loss until their competition dies out.
Yeah, I grew up in Wisconsin closer to the Minnesota border, so I used both as well. When I moved to Eastern Wisconsin, I solidified on "drinking fountain" because people here call it a "bubbler" and tease you more about "water fountain."
Oh yeah, and I remember getting blank stares in college when mentioning that we had a lot of hot dish growing up. I didn't realize how regional that phrase was.
Right. And then I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in a minute. One minute. And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning. Because you see it gets in the lungs and it does a tremendous number on the lungs. So it would be interesting to check that. So, that, you're going to have to use medical doctors with. But it sounds - it sounds interesting to me. So we'll see. But the whole concept of the light, the way it kills it in one minute, that's - that's pretty powerful.
Also, in a similar vein, there are reports about wealthy people going to Bosnia in the '90s during the war on safaris to kill people. So the concept of allowing random civilians to participate is not without precedent either.
Ukraine desperately wants the United States to continue supporting them, and currently, the US is run by a group that has been mixed in their support. Trump in particular has been rather unsupportive of Ukraine. Trump is also a figure that is very easily swayed by flattery, so if Zelensky can show himself as among the few that is saying good things about the US's actions in Iran, that may help them secure more solid continuing support in their struggles against Russia.
So it's not just that they have little cause for sympathy with Iran, but also that they have good reason to speak out in favor of the US.
I guess there are a few notable examples of celebrities that are ardent atheists (or agnostics), such as Rchard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, or Carl Sagan. However, I don't think that I see that so much for pundits unless you are talking about people that are brought on specifically to speak about atheism or religion. And when it comes to politicians, atheism is usually anathema to them. I tend to see them all professing how important their faith is, even if it otherwise seems out of character for them. The only one that I can think of who is openly atheist is Kyrsten Sinema (at least in the United States), but I don't think she uses the term "atheist."
Maybe things are different in Europe, though.
Oftentimes, amendments like those are proposed because they will kill the bill. If AOC wanted the bill to pass and knew that it could not pass with that amendment, then she would need to vote against the amendment even if she otherwise agrees with the content. That fact is another reason that amendments like this are suggested: they force a politician to vote against something that they otherwise support.
So when evaluating her vote in the amendment, you need to consider the broader context of the bill that was being voted on to understand what her vote means. Was the bill as a whole worthwhile, or should she have tanked it for ideological means?
The most recent thing that I learned about was that the CIA secretly worked with Boris Hagelin when he formed Crypto AG in the 1950s to ensure that encryption devices sold to foreign countries were easy to break by American intelligence agencies. Then in the 1970s, the CIA secretly purchased Crypto AG and owned it until 2018.
Crypto AG sold devices to countries across South America, Africa, the Middle East, and South East Asia. Basically, all of tge US's adversaries aside from the USSR and China.
FYI, there is a difference between nonviolence and pacifism. Pacifism opposes violence altogether and is predicated on the idea that there is a peaceful way to settle all disputes. That is to say, it's a philosophical or ethical position. Nonviolence is a strategy to achieve your goals without employing violence. Nonviolent protesters do not take violence off the table altogether. Rather, they believe that violent actions are not as likely to achieve their goals as nonviolent action would be.
In general, nonviolent action is taken by groups who are opposing an oppressor that has a significant power advantage over them. By resorting to violence immediately, they play into a game that they are destined to lose. Instead, they strive to use nonviolent means to make their struggle impossible to ignore. It relies on the oppressive system being vulnerable to a change in public opinion. In general, it also involves an implication that they may someday resort to violence if things do not change. That is, it differs from pacifism in that it does not deny that violence may be necessary.
I'm assuming that it's a bit different when dealing with toilets in the home, but my experience with cleaning public restrooms has shown that women are quite capable of making a mess around the toilet as well.
The initial story that was told just involved the run to Sparta in a single day prior to the battle to ask for assistance. After the Athenians won the battle, they marched the 40km to Athens in full armor in order to arrive before the retreating Persians could launch a naval attack on the city itself. Later, these two stories got combined into the popular legend that's described in this post.
So yeah, the rush was that they were trying to outpace an incoming invasion. They won the battle, but the war was still on. Their rush back to Athens allowed them to stop a direct assault on the city, which led the Persians to retreat entirely.
You are expecting too much from Trump. His pattern is to proclaim some new policy with shaky justification and no prior analysis. At best, his thought pattern is, "20% sounds like a good number." Then he lets the rest of his administration try to define something of substance around his public statements, hoping that he doesn't contradict their attempts in the coming days.
Technically, they are if sending emails to Americans, but I'm not sure how much enforcement this law gets.
I used to not refrigerate my syrup. However, that changed when I found a scoby growing in it one day. And some people refrigerate natural peanut butter so that the oil doesn't separate.
Hence the scare quotes in their comment.
That's precisely what he, and the tobacco industry that was supprting him, was working against. He wasn't just taking a libertarian stance against regulation. He was arguing against the evidence that smoking tobacco, and second-hand exposure to tobacco smoke, were bad for your health. And the quoted portion of the article also indicates that he pushed to keep tobacco education out of the broader drug education in schools.
Don't forget that he's been in Congress for decades, and many of the things that he had been fighting against as a senator are responsible for the general awareness of the dangers of smoking and the record low number of smokers.
The central figure in Islam is Muhammad. Hence, not Christian. The central figure in Mormonism is Jesus Christ. Hence, Christian.
That is also something that would allow a competitor to come in to outseat their dominance. In fact, charging 5% instead of 30% would make it much more difficult for competition to develop because it would be next to impossible for somebody to penetrate into the market by offering a lower rate that's only viable with huge volumes of sales. Usually, offering unsustainable prices is a way that a dominant player achieves a monopoly. If they have big cash reserves, they can run at a loss until their competition dies out.
Yeah, I grew up in Wisconsin closer to the Minnesota border, so I used both as well. When I moved to Eastern Wisconsin, I solidified on "drinking fountain" because people here call it a "bubbler" and tease you more about "water fountain."
Oh yeah, and I remember getting blank stares in college when mentioning that we had a lot of hot dish growing up. I didn't realize how regional that phrase was.
Yeah, this is a clip of what he said.
https://www.c-span.org/clip/white-house-event/user-clip-trump-suggests-injecting-bleach-to-kill-covid-virus/5162133
Yeah, we dissected frogs, worms, and fish in eighth grade. In high school, if you took anatomy and physiology, I know they also dissected fetal pigs.
Also, in a similar vein, there are reports about wealthy people going to Bosnia in the '90s during the war on safaris to kill people. So the concept of allowing random civilians to participate is not without precedent either.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c3epygq5272o
The lack of justice seems to be a given, so I'll be fine with a rotting corpse that got away with it sooner rather than later.
My city has been making fertilizer from the sewage sludge for a century now.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milorganite
Ukraine desperately wants the United States to continue supporting them, and currently, the US is run by a group that has been mixed in their support. Trump in particular has been rather unsupportive of Ukraine. Trump is also a figure that is very easily swayed by flattery, so if Zelensky can show himself as among the few that is saying good things about the US's actions in Iran, that may help them secure more solid continuing support in their struggles against Russia.
So it's not just that they have little cause for sympathy with Iran, but also that they have good reason to speak out in favor of the US.