She admitted to having suicidal thoughts. "If you have suicidal thoughts, don't act them out," her doctor said. "Either call me or call someone in your family."

The myth still exists that happiness is a choice, which perpetuates the notion of depression as weakness.

the lives her friends were projecting on social media trumped the reality they were privately sharing.

Unilever CMO Keith Weed said greater gender representation in advertising is “an economic issue, not just a moral issue.”

men, like women, experience a broad range of feelings and emotions

media largely ignored the impact of Citizens United after the Supreme Court decision helped media companies generate record profits due to a new mass of political ads.

how can we have a real debate about media issues, when we depend on that very media to provide a platform for this debate

Supporting independent media is one important way to help bring light to issues the corporate media ignores.

satellite providers spent nearly $8.1 [million] on lobbying

has grown from 40 stations to 1,240 stations — 30 times more than congressional regulation previously allowed

This has led us to the aforementioned crisis where more than 90 percent of the media is owned by just six companies: Viacom, News Corporation, Comcast, CBS, Time Warner and Disney.

he powerful media and telecommunications giants and their army of overpaid lobbyists went straight to work obstructing and undermining the competition the new law was intended to create

provided through community mental health services can meet the needs of as many people with mental health problems as possible by including early intervention and prevention, enhanced treatment for those who need it, and longer-term follow-up and supervision for those with severe and persistent illness.

Canada dedicates only 7.2 per cent of its health-care budget to mental health

But the reality is, we don’t have a universal health-care system, but a universal medical system that doesn’t guarantee access to some of the most basic mental health services and supports

ifty-nine per cent of 18 to 34-year-olds consider anxiety and depression to be ‘epidemic’ in Canada,

Investments in social spending would address mental illness root causes of poverty, trauma and marginalization, boosting our most vulnerable citizens’ ability to contribute to their communities and lessening the burden of illness nationally.

A recent study on the treatment of depression estimated that every dollar spent on publicly funded psychological services would save two dollars for the health system

Up to 80 per cent of Canadians rely on their family physicians to meet their mental health care needs, but those services are limited

It will be done by rejecting the racism, materialism and violence that has characterized Western civilization and especially by working toward a world of brotherhood, cooperation and peace.

persons who have the courage to put an end to suffering by willingly suffering themselves rather than inflict suffering upon others

get the Negroes to forgive the people the people who have brutalized them for four hundred years,

Martin Luther King can continue to teach the Negroes to be defenseless

doctrine of nonviolence

Muhammad makes black people brave enough

black people–we should have the right to defend ourselves

movement preaches violence

tokenism

integration will not work

they want to have exactly what he has. And the white man is not going to give it to them

demanding a separate state

devil

when you realize

There has to be something wrong when a man or a woman leaves his own people and marries somebody of another kind

he courts ruled that physicians could prescribe contraceptives to women for medical reasons, a loophole that allowed Sanger to open a clinic in 1923

In 1914, Sanger launched her own feminist publication, The Woman Rebel, advocating for birth control

People’s sense of their own self-worth is also bound up in the quality of their relationships with others so that signs of rejection can threaten self-esteem

mplications for the Panel Study

reviewed research on the impact of anger on judgement and decision-making, concluding that anger has specific impacts leading to selective processing of information, increased risk-taking and optimism

would revert to the same political and social environment that had led to war in the first place.

ithout strict federal intervention, they reasoned, the South

Soon after taking office

it is necessary that peace and good order should be enforced in said States until loyal and republican State governments can be legally established.

The whole fabric of Southern society must be changed

Supporters of Radical Reconstruction argued for strong policies that would both punish the South for its role in the Civil War and ensure that it would not revert to its pre-war condition

equal

battlefield

Neither anticipated that the cause of the conflict might cease with or even before the conflict itself should cease.

. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest

seeking to dissolve the Union

but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive, and the other would accept war rather than let it perish, and the war came

Both parties deprecated war

All dreaded it, all sought to avert it.

Saturday, March 4, 1865

Those who nominated and elected me

In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow-countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war.

Address

I now enter upon the same task for the brief constitutional term of four years under great and peculiar difficulty

Congress swear their support to the whole Constitution

"In 10 or 20 years it may be possible to pass an ERA that expresses the principle of equality between the sexes in language as simple and unadorned as that of the Bill of Rights. . . .

Mansbridge is more ambivalent. She points out how the struggle for the ERA helped promote change in America's work places, courts and legislatures, but she's doubtful about another try.

By the mid-1970s, many state legislators mistrusted the U.S. Supreme Court. They felt the court had used "superficially innocuous principles (such as equal protection) to achieve substantive results (such as busing white children to black neighborhoods) that many conservative and middle-of-the-road citizens opposed." Legislators feared that the ERA's "equality of rights under the law" would, in the Supreme Court's hands, go from a principle they could support in theory to applications they would disapprove of.

She ranges from a discussion of the opposition of full-time homemakers to the ERA to the misunderstandings between groups trying to work together for the amendment.

Consensus-building state by state first, Berry says, is necessary for ultimate ratification. And waging successful state ratification campaigns requires far more attention to state and regional diversity than ERA proponents usually paid. Those and other factors " . . . all proved crucial in one or another of the earlier campaigns, and they all proved to be crucial in the defeat of (the ERA). . . ."

ERA proponents made a critical mistake when they built consensus in Congress first and only then turned their attention to the states.

On June 30, 1982, the amendment died, three states short of those needed for ratification. Of the 15 states that did not ratify, most were in the South, with Illinois being the primary Northern exception. No state had ratified the ERA after 1978. The amendment was reintroduced in the House in 1983 but with 278 ayes and 147 nays, it needed six more votes in order to have had the required two-thirds majority of those present and voting.

Early in 1982, attention focused on North Carolina, Florida, and Illinois. The Illinois legislature had considered and rejected the amendment several times, but supporters continued to believe that the state would ratify it. Seven women went on a hunger strike, and 17 women chained themselves to the door of the Illinois Senate chamber, but none of the targeted states ratified the amendment.

Polls showed that 63 percent of Americans supported the amendment and 32 percent opposed it. Massive efforts to raise $15 million for advertising involved door-to-door solicitation and use of Hollywood celebrities and other notables to support the reinvigorated effort. Also, lobbying brigades of women from across the country joined local forces in targeted states to press for ratification.

Amendment opponents used President Jimmy Carter's proposal to draft women and men into the military to their advantage by arguing that it affirmed their claims about the ERA. The 1980 Republican National Convention further weakened the amendment's chances when it repudiated its 40-year-long tradition of supporting it.

To attract publicity to the campaign, NOW called for an economic boycott of states that had not ratified the ERA. More than 200 organizations, in addition to many individuals, supported it by holding their conventions and meetings in states that had ratified and by avoiding travel in the other states. The boycott was challenged in court, but the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld NOW's right to wage it.

ERA supporters counted votes and lobbied, but not with the effectiveness or the drama Schlafly and her followers demonstrated. In one state capitol, Schlafly draped a casket with a “Bury ERA” banner. In other state capitols, Schlafly and her supporters used skits, costumes, and refreshments in their attempts to gain the attention of legislators and news media. In another state, opponents gave each legislator a loaf of bread with a note begging for a no vote on ERA ratification. Schlafly traveled across the country explaining her objections to the amendment, giving uncommitted legislators and sometimes supporters of the ERA reasons to vote against it. She regularly debated ERA supporters and consistently triumphed.

ther groups also organized to oppose the amendment, including Women Who Want to Be Women; Happiness of Womanhood; American Women Against the ERA; Females Opposed to Equality; and Family, Liberty, and God. The membership of these groups tended to be housewives who feared the changes that could result from the amendment and who worried that the amendment would force them into male roles. Viewing the amendment as an assault on womanhood and the institution of marriage, opponents to the amendment feared losing spousal support or the decriminalization of rape and other sex crimes

Schlafly believed that her analysis of the amendment had been confirmed. Schlafly's well-developed public relations skills, organizational ability, compelling speaking style, and forecasts of what the ERA would do brought her national attention and legions of followers.

The Senate responded with more hearings, this time before the full Judiciary Committee. The Senate began debate on the amendment in October 1970 and attached two amendments, one allowing women's exemption from the draft and another permitting non-denominational prayers in public schools. The amendments essentially killed the measure, and the Senate did not vote on the full amendment before the end of the session.

Initially ambivalent about the amendment, Schlafly had not participated in efforts to stop it when Congress had debated it. A friend, however, had urged her to consider the ERA's implications.

Opposition to the amendment, however, was developing. Several local and regional groups with aspirations for national influence formed, but it was Phyllis Schlafly who galvanized opposition to the ERA and ultimately defeated it. Schlafly had developed a network of conservative women in 1967 and was communicated with them through her monthly newsletter, the Phyllis Schlafly Report. She also held training sessions that covered everything from the clothing colors and styles that look best on television to evaluations of their speaking styles and content.

With virtually no organized opposition to the amendment, supporters did not develop long-term strategies for ratification, and they did not allocate significant resources for a lengthy campaign. In addition, the arguments they articulated in its favor addressed feminists’ interests and professional women's concerns, but most women did not identify themselves as feminists, and although increasing numbers of women were in the workforce, few of them were professionals. Amendment supporters neglected to consider the amendment's significance from the perspective of home-makers, working-class women, employed women who did not want to be in the labor market, and men. They repeatedly argued that the amendment would end women's second-class citizenship.

The seven-year limit for ratifying the amendment received little attention at the time, but it came to be a significant factor in the amendment's ultimate failure.

The amendment passed the Senate in 1950 and 1953 with the necessary two-thirds majority, but both times it included the statement that “the provisions of this article shall not be construed to impair any right, benefits or exemptions conferred by law upon persons of the female sex.” Equal Rights Amendment supporters objected to the exemptions and did not ask the House to debate the amendment.

Schlafly "led a movement that for decades successfully thwarted liberal and feminist causes ... and helped uber-conservative candidates win elections."

You're going to have a new amendment for women? And the first thing is they'll have to sign up for the draft like their brothers. Now, that was an unsalable proposition."

"What that amendment would do is to make all laws sex-neutral. Well, the typical, classic law that is not sex-neutral is the draft registration law. And we were still in the Vietnam War in 1972.

In the 1970s, future Supreme Court justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg led a campaign to alter the burden of proof in cases of sexual discrimination, by placing the responsibility on the state rather than women. At the time, Ginsburg was a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union. She patterned her attack on that of Thurgood Marshall, whose successful work with the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People during the civil rights movement had won major gains for African Americans, and later women. The overall strategy of Ginsburg was to push the Court case-by-case to jettison the reasonableness test.

Prior to the 1960s, sex discrimination cases in the courts were decided on the basis of a test of reasonableness, or whether a reasonable person would concur that a particular law had a rational and thus constitutional basis. Women were forced to prove that a certain law, which to them discriminated on the basis of gender, was unjustifiable. In practice, this test meant that women could find little legal redress because the state could always find or invent a compelling rationale for a law to exist.

What is certain is that a simple sentence declaring equality of the sexes is, for now, a dream deferred. Its supporters have waited nearly a century for the amendment to pass, and even longer for equal rights. If the long afterlife of the Equal Rights Amendment is any indication, they’re willing to wait even longer. 

In 2017, Nevada ratified the ERA. In May 2018, Illinois followed. Now, some advocates are pinning their hopes on Virginia to become the final state to ratify the amendment. But it’s unclear what might happen if a 38th state ratifies the ERA. Since it expired decades ago, someone in Congress could give it a fresh start as a new bill, but it would then have to pass the House and the Senate and be re-ratified by all 38 states. If the additional states that ratified since 1982 are to be recognized, Congress would have to pass legislation that re-extends the deadline.

Schlafly had an uncanny knack for bringing together women of diverse religious and social backgrounds—and making them seem more numerous than they really were. She insisted on equal airtime to rebut the amendment and taught her followers to remind everyone they spoke to that they represented a “silent majority.”

1943, she proposed a new amendment that used wording similar to the verbiage used in the Fourteenth Amendment. “Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex,” it read. Now known as the Alice Paul Amendment, it was introduced in every session of congress between 1943 and 1972.

Alice Paul proposed the first version of the amendment in 1923. She called it the Mott Amendment in honor of Lucretia Mott, one of the founding mothers of the American suffrage movement. Its wording was simple: “Men and women shall have equal rights throughout the United States and every place subject to its jurisdiction.”ADVERTISEMENTThanks for watching!Visit Website

Schlafly formed a group called STOP ERA, or “Stop Taking Our Privileges, Equal Rights Amendment.” She warned women that if equal rights were enshrined in the Constitution, the heterosexual world order would collapse. Morality would fall by the wayside and women would be at risk of losing their femininity and the opportunities presented by marriage, Schlafly said

By law and custom in America, in case of divorce, the mother always is given custody of her children unless there is overwhelming evidence of mistreatment, neglect or bad character. This is our special privilege because of the high rank that is placed on motherhood in our society.

he law now requires a husband to support his wife as best as his financial situation permits, but a wife is not required to support her husband (unless he is about to become a public charge). A husband cannot demand that his wife go to work to help pay for family expenses. He has the duty of financial support under our laws and customs. Why should we abandon these mandatory wife-support and child-support laws so that a wife would have an “equal” obligation to take a job?

Literature distributed by Equal Rights Amendment supporters confirms that “under the Amendment a draft law which applied to men would apply also to women.” The Equal Rights literature argues that this would be good for women so they can achieve their “equal rights” in securing veterans’ benefits

Congresswoman Margaret Heckler’s answer to this question was, Don’t worry, it will take two years for the Equal Rights Amendment to go into effect, and we can rely on President Nixon to end the Vietnam War before then

This Amendment will absolutely and positively make women subject to the draft. Why any woman would support such a ridiculous and un-American proposal as this is beyond comprehension. Why any Congressman who had any regard for his wife, sister or daughter would support such a proposition is just as hard to understand. Foxholes are bad enough for men, but they certainly are not the place for women—and we should reject any proposal which would put them there in the name of “equal rights.” It is amusing to watch the semantic chicanery of the advocates of the Equal Rights Amendment when confronted with this issue of the draft. They evade, they sidestep, they try to muddy up the issue, but they cannot deny that the Equal Rights Amendment will positively make women subject to the draft.

The claim that American women are downtrodden and unfairly treated is the fraud of the century. The truth is that American women never had it so good.

A man may search 30 to 40 years for accomplishment in his profession. A woman can enjoy real achievement when she is young—by having a baby. She can have the satisfaction of doing a job well—and being recognized for it.

Our Judeo-Christian civilization has developed the law and custom that, since women must bear the physical consequences of the sex act, men must be required to bear the other consequences and pay in other ways. These laws and customs decree that a man must carry his share by physical protection and financial support of his children and of the woman who bears his children, and also by a code of behavior which benefits and protects both the woman and the children.

Suddenly, it seemed, the ERA was having its moment. The National Organization of Women vigorously promoted the amendment. Women organized huge demonstrations in its favor. It worked: In 1972, both houses of Congress passed the amendment. It sailed through the House, picking up a 93.4 percent majority, and won a 91.3 percent majority in the Senate. Now it was up to the states to ratify it. It would need three fourths of the 50 states—38 in all—to become law. And it would need to be ratified within seven years thanks to an agreement by both parties.

It is about power for the female left. And they have this, I think, ridiculous idea that American women are oppressed by the patriarchy and we need laws and government to solve our problems for us

"Since the women are the ones who bear the babies and there's nothing we can do about that, our laws and customs then make it the financial obligation of the husband to provide the support," she said in 1973. "It is his obligation and his sole obligation. And this is exactly and precisely what we will lose if the Equal Rights Amendment is passed."

Others thought that it would affect family law and possibly invalidate statutory rape laws. Still others charged that it might mandate unisex bathroom facilities or same-sex marriages. Although the recognition of a right to privacy made these latter possibilities fairly remote, opponents did not have to prove their position but only raise sufficient doubts to block the amendment in 13 or more states.

In 1972, the House again adopted the amendment, this time by a 354–24 vote, and the Senate followed suit by a vote of 84–8. With a two-thirds majority in both houses of Congress, the ERA was finally sent to the states for consideration. Once proposed, the ERA was initially received quite positively: 21 of 32 legislatures in session ratified with hardly any delays. In time, 35 of the needed 38 states would ratify, but by then, the anti-ERA forces had effectively mobilized, and some states that had given their approval attempted to rescind their ratifications

Although it was appealed to the Supreme Court, this case became irrelevant when the ERA failed to be ratified within the extension that Congress had granted. In 1995, perhaps heartened by the belated ratification of the Twenty-seventh Amendment, a number of representatives introduced a resolution requiring that the House of Representatives verify ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment if and when it received an additional three ratifications from the states.

As the seven-year state ratification deadline approached, proponents asked for more time, and in 1978, Congress extended the deadline for another three years.

When it was initially proposed, the National Woman's Party, a militant wing of the forces that had pushed for the Nineteenth Amendment, was one of the few organizations that actively supported the amendment. More moderate organizations such as the League of Women Voters opposed it. They had been working for such protective legislation as minimum wage and maximum hour legislation for women and feared that an equal rights amendment might be used to undermine such gains. Over time, many more groups joined the cause, but differences in emphasis remained, as did ambiguity about precisely what results the amendment would have.

stemmed from fears that it might require states to fund abortions.

she claimed, force men and women to share public restrooms, protect the rights of gays and lesbians to marry partners of the same sex, damage Social Security rights for widows, and force women to serve in the military.

Civil rights protect the individual from arbitrary abuses by the state or other people

Bradwell v. Illinois

censorship

pernicious

depict any subject they choose

“Burn This Shit, Bitch.” “White person showing empathy toward blacks is now racist?” “Where are the images of Till’s murderers?” “why would you burn art what’s next? Books, people?”

a British-born artist and writer named Hannah Black posted a letter to the curators Lew and Lock

Emmett Till died because a white woman lied about their brief interaction

Trayvon Martin and other African-American boys. Two men, Alton Sterling and Philando Castile, had been killed in separate police shootings two weeks earlier. In the current climate of political and racial unrest

It’s a real event, and it’s violence.

The history of painting is full of graphic violence and narratives that don’t necessarily belong to the artists own life

Is it better to try to make something that’s impossible, because it’s important to you

What I didn’t realize was how bad it would look when seen out of context

we didn’t think the response would be so absolutist

controversy it had caused,

One was a deep frustration among black artists that a theme so central to their history should be explored, in a major museum, by a white female artist. The other was that artists, very often, do not consciously choose their subjects

“Seeing a painting and talking about a painting are two different things. One should not confuse sharp eyes with a sharp tongue.”

Schutz, announcing that she would withdraw the painting from the exhibition, but that turned out to be a hoax

or a white woman to paint Emmett Till’s mutilated face communicates not only a tone-deafness toward the history of his murder, but an ignorance of the history of white women’s speech in that murder—the way it cancelled out Till’s own expression, with lethal effect

Reactions on Twitter and other social media ranged from fierce approval to incredulous opposition.

demanding not only that “Open Casket” be removed from the show but that it be destroyed. “It is not acceptable for a white person to transmute Black suffering into profit and fun

But I really feel any subject is O.K., it’s just how it’s done

Although there are no recognizable features, a deep trough carved into the heavy impasto conveys a sense of savage disfigurement

I was happy, I think

“Open Casket.”

It’s evidence of something that really happened. I wasn’t alive then, and it wasn’t taught in our history classes.” She was still uncertain about the painting. “I don’t know if it has the right emotionality,” sh

appropriation of Black culture by non-Black artists have highlighted the relation of these appropriations to the systematic oppression of Black communities in the US and worldwide,

similarly high-stakes conversation has been going on about the willingness of a largely non-Black media to share images and footage of Black people in torment and distress or even at the moment of death, evoking deeply shameful white American traditions such as the public lynching

Black communities go on living in desperate poverty not far from the museum where this valuable painting hangs, that Black children are still denied childhood

the painting should not be acceptable to anyone who cares or pretends to care about Black people because it is not acceptable for a white person to transmute Black suffering into profit and fun, though the practice has been normalized for a long time.

I am writing to ask you to remove Dana Schutz’s painting “Open Casket” and with the urgent recommendation that the painting be destroyed and not entered into any market or museum.

Non-Black people must accept that they will never embody and cannot understand this gesture

Black people go on dying at the hands of white supremacists

I have not thought of Azraq camp as welcoming until now

But when we crossed, the Jordanian army helped us, and welcomed us with a smile.

We woke up every morning glad we were alive, and went to sleep every night knowing we might not wake in the morning.

without bribing a checkpoint officer, and how Abu Hani was taken into the office by the official and punched, kicked and jumped on in front of his wife and children for an hour and a half. All their money was taken from them. They left that checkpoint with him covered in blood, concussed, barely able to move and penniless.

Yalda's brothers and cousin were on their way to deliver blood for a transfusion to their infant nephew who was having an open-heart operation when they were stopped at a roadblock, and interrogated about the blood. The three men did not arrive at the hospital and were never seen again. I did not want to ask what happened to the nephew. Her mother, Yalda tells us, has lost her mind: she goes from police station to hospital to police station, asking about her sons – the police got so tired of this they wrote "deceased" next to their names, to make her stop coming and asking.

The couple are telling us why they left Syria. Abu Hani once owned a small supermarket, but the "officials" who ran his town trashed it, mixed detergent into the grains and pulses, and took his stock. He spent his savings restocking the shop, but when he opened again they closed him down permanently. People were killed. On the local news they would show bodies that had been found, so people could identify their relatives: one time he saw a cousin's severed head on there.

Many Christians take offense at that claim, but in fact it need not be that way, as many less literally minded believers have long known and said.

leaving aside the much-debated question of the virgin birth itself.

And no historian from the time thought it was worth mentioning? This is not a story based on historical fact. It is a narrative designed to show how Jesus could have been born in Bethlehem—whence the Messiah was to come—when everyone knew in fact that he came from Nazareth.

. For some Christian believers that is a problem; for others, it is a liberation, as it frees the believer from having to base faith on the uncertainties provided by the imperfect historical record and the fallible historians who study it.

The book will not be as well cherished, however, among those who are less interested in affirming the narratives of Scripture than in knowing what actually happened in the past. And there is indeed a very wide swath of scholars—Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, agnostic, and others—who have a very different view of the accounts of Jesus’ birth in the New Testament and who realize that there are problems with the traditional stories as they are recounted for us in Matthew and Luke, the only two Gospels that contain infancy narratives

, Jesus is miraculously born. But there are numerous apocryphal details in all these accounts.

She is then taken by her parents to the Temple of God in Jerusalem, where she is raised by the priests and fed daily by an angel sent from above

Why was she, in particular, chosen to bear the Son of God?

it does not say that it was 3 (as opposed to 7 or 12) wise men who visited him.

, the text is a fake, it does once again alert us to the fact that there are Gospels about Jesus that have come down to us from the ancient world,

King and her colleagues have taken the middle ground and argued that since the fragment is to be dated to the fourth Christian century, some 300 years after Jesus and any of his relatives passed from the scene, it can tell us what later Christians believed about Jesus, but not what actually happened during his life.

The disparity was staggering. Children whose families were on welfare heard about 600 words per hour. Working-class children heard 1,200 words per hour, and children from professional families heard 2,100 words. By age 3, a poor child would have heard 30 million fewer words in his home environment than a child from a professional family. And the disparity mattered: the greater the number of words children heard from their parents or caregivers before they were 3, the higher their IQ and the better they did in school. TV talk not only didn’t help, it was detrimental.

While we do know that richer, more educated parents talk much more to their children than poorer and less educated ones

And they argued that the disparities in word usage correlated so closely with academic success that kids born to families on welfare do worse than professional-class children entirely because their parents talk to them less

Hart and Risley later wrote that children’s level of language development starts to level off when it matches that of their parents — so a language deficit is passed down through generations

The disparity was staggering. Children whose families were on welfare heard about 600 words per hour. Working-class children heard 1,200 words per hour, and children from professional families heard 2,100 words.

caretakers

A poor child is likely to hear millions fewer words at home than a child from a professional family. And the disparity matters.

The gap between poor children and wealthier ones widens each year, and by high school it has become a chasm

The gap between poor children and wealthier ones widens each year, and by high school it has become a chasm.

“Imagine English without French or Latin loanwords. No Shakespeare, for a start.”

It’s not hard to see why governments would seek to defend their languages.

Norway, for example, has created official “Norwegian” spellings for English loanwords since 1996—although some, like “pøbb” (pub), were apparently rejected by the Norwegian people. Finland, fairly open to loans,

linguistic nationalism

Romany has many loans because of a history of extreme marginalization

When languages are full of borrowed words, it’s often not by choic

calques

partition

linguistic purism

Linguistic loans can appear in a number of forms: Some float on the surface of a language, while others are more integrated

loanwords

But that imbalance can build resentment

umlauts

agglutinative

Gun Policy

e

.

Clinton, on the other hand, sets out very deliberately to raise taxes on the very wealthy. That would generate a lot of extra money for the government, which she wants to use to pay for programs like subsidized college tuition.

"I am proposing an across-the-board income tax reduction especially for middle-income Americans," Trump said. "This will lead to millions of new and really good-paying jobs. The rich will pay their fair share, but no one will pay so much that it destroys jobs or undermines our ability as a nation to compete."

“I will get rid of gun-free zones on schools, and — you have to — and on military bases,” Mr. Trump said on the campaign trail in January. “My first day, it gets signed, O.K.? My first day. There’s no more gun-free zones.”

clash with Mr. Trump on the issue.

And Mr. Trump himself has a permit to carry a concealed handgun, which he is not shy about mentioning. “Somebody attacks me, oh, they’re gonna be shocked,” he warned last year.

Hillary Clinton invoked her roles as mother and grandmother on Saturday to deliver an impassioned rebuttal to Donald J. Trump’s contention that her push for stricter gun control would make families less safe, saying the presumptive Republican nominee would put more children “at risk of violence and bigotry.”

"Here is the land of opportunity -- money and success," Mr. Guarnizo said. "But social life is also important to Dominicans. They talk a lot, sharing, hanging out with friends. Here they work so hard they have to give a lot of that up. They have to strengthen their culture here to keep going in a society that appears hostile. They love their country. They recreate Dominicanness here."

This life leaves him no time for playing in his old band