I can get behind the logic of more screen time probably meaning less physical activity. But someone needs to explain to me how eating less would ever lead to weight gain. Especially when your typical breakfast junk is just as unhealthy as snacking could ever be.
I know that if I skip a meal, I can get really hungry later. That or I start snacking on crap. So skipping a meal could potentially lead to weight gain because you end up eating more than if you didn't skip the meal.
For more than 20 years, Clooney has been involved in a number of diverse causes. She works at a prestigious London law firm specializing in human rights called Doughty Street Chambers and is also an adjunct professor at Columbia Law School in New York. She has been collaborating with Prosecutor Khan for three years, when he asked her to act as special advisor to observe the humanitarian crisis in the Darfur region. In addition to creating the foundation that bears their names in 2016, the couple have made numerous donations through it, such as the $1 million they gave in 2017 to fight against racism and hate crimes in the United States, the aid project to provide schooling to 3,000 Syrian refugee children in Lebanon, arms control or hosting an Iraqi refugee fleeing the Islamic State in their own home. The lawyer has also worked on international cases, such as the long border dispute between Vietnam and Cambodia, on the return of Greek sculptures from the British Museum to Greece; and on the recognition of the Armenian genocide.
I don’t know, maybe because she’s fucking busy doing other important shit?
The ICC has 124 member states. If the charges lead to convictions, Netanyahu and the Hamas leaders would never be able to visit those nations under threat of arrest. At the very least it would curtail their ability to advertise their violence.
I think you mean if the warrants are issued. There is a warrant for Putin, and that made him cancel a trip to South Africa. I agree with the rest of what you said. I hate how often people let, "Perfect be the enemy of Good." It would definitely be better if the ICC had more members, but even in states that aren't signatories, the court can have an influence on their leaders.
I forget what award show it was but I'm pretty sure Tina Fey and Amy Pohler brought her up and listed a lengthy resumé of all her accomplishments. Then transitioned to "And tonight we're here to give her husband a lifetime achievement award."
There are three famous Clooneys. Two of them are married, one of them is the nephew of the third. When you think of them, you should think of Amal first, then George, then Rosemary. Sorry, Rosemary. Them's the breaks.
I think you're leaving out a few dozen or so extremely highly-rated and award winning George Clooney films. You could have mentioned films like Good Night, and Good Luck or O Brother, Where Art Thou?
Meanwhile, I would say most people associate White Christmas with Bing Crosby.
But more importantly, neither of them are human rights lawyers who argue in front of the ICC.
Imagine being so morally dishonest and inconsistent that you are willing to criticize Milei for things that Peronists have been doing for decades (on a larger scale and for absolutely shameful reasons). Also, the malice of selling an estimate as if it were a fact.
It seems wrong to me to look at a specific expense and imply that public funds are being wasted. Public spending cannot be zero, no matter who governs. What must be ensured is that the money that is actually spent is spent with care not to waste and that it serves a purpose that benefits the country.
In this case, it would be interesting if instead of saying "it cost the state more than half a million dollars" they said if it could have been done for less money (considering that he is a president and the mobility limitations that entails) and if the the objective of the trip can be considered in pursuit of the general interest of moving the country forward.
The way it is written lacks logical support and shows a simple attempt at a cheap, ineffective blow.
As a note of interest, the used presidential plane that the previous leftist government bought does not spend the same as a commercial one, because it is outdated, it is hyper inefficient in autonomy and performance, requires constant maintenance, is not efficient with fuel among other things (it needs to be "taken for a walk" empty constantly because if it stops it breaks more and those repairs are much more expensive than flying it "pointlessly" to prevent it from breaking).
.
That's why it is more expensive (much more expensive) than a regular flight. Oh but complaining about current administration spending while turning a blind eye to the spending of the previous administration is free!
english.elpais.com
Hot