Datasets:
Recag
/
C4_4

Dataset card Data Studio Files
xet
Community
text
stringlengths
12
27.8k
KLEIN-Victoria. On April 25, 1998. Beloved sister and sister-in-law of Sue and Buddy Albert. Cherished grandmother and great-grandmother.
Dough & behold: Kulcha is derived from the concept of Peshawari khameeri roti.
When it was started as a small shop in the interiors of Amritsar 67 years ago, no one could imagine it would spawn a phenomenon a few decades down the line. Pehalwan Kulcha shop at Dhab Khatikan in the Walled City is counted among the pioneers of Amristari kulchas as we know it today.
In 1952, Pehalwan Atma Ram, a professional wrestler, around 60 at the time, took the concept of the Peshawari khameeri roti (sourdough naan), and turned it around to create Amritsari naan. Since sourdough wasn’t suitable for the warm climate of north India, he used maida dough and stuffed it with boiled potatoes to present it as a whole meal. The combination of chana and tamarind-onion chutney was added later.
Later, Atma Ram’s son Nathu Ram, who was also a professional wrestler, took over. Today, the latter’s son, Harish Kumar, in his 40s, runs the establishment. He says, “We have maintained consistency in the preparation; even the slightly oval shape of the kulcha and its size have remained the same.” In the potato filling, he says, green cardamom, mint, khada masala, ground garam masala, and sometimes, onion and cauliflower are added.
As Atma Ram’s business started doing well, similar shops mushroomed in the neighbourhood, selling the same combination. Not so surprisingly, all of them did roaring business in the ’50s and ’60s, Kumar recalls. None of them operates anymore. As Amritsari naan evolved to become Amritsari kulcha over the years, the concept caught on.
Today, inside the Walled City, which is close to the Golden Temple, and happens to be the most touristy part of the city, there are 250 kulcha shops within a mere 10-km radius. In the entire city, their total number is not less than 500. All of them are teeming with foodies throughout the week.
To beat the harsh summer, Atma Ram used to serve a chilled glass of creamy lassi. Today, however, people are health conscious and avoid having too much cream, says Kumar. “Instead, we serve aerated drinks, even diet cola,” he adds. For NRI customers, who are averse to lavish use of butter and ghee, the shop offers olive oil kulchas, even though Kumar admits they may not be as good as the original thing.
Every day, the shop opens at 8 am and pulls down its shutters by 2 pm. “Kulchas can be digested well only if had in the first half of the day though tourists like to have it at all hours,” he says. While Kumar doesn’t reveal the number of kulchas he sells every day in order not to “jinx” it, he says there has not been a day when they haven’t exhausted their stock. Each kulcha costs Rs 50 per piece; the unlimited supply of chana is complimentary.
Can Disney make a 'Star Wars' prequel fans will like?
The rebels of "Rogue One: A Star Wars Story" will be taking on an important and possibly difficult mission this weekend. No, no, not stealing the plans to the evil Death Star, but expanding the "Star Wars" franchise for Disney (DIS).
"Rogue One" is Disney's first "Star Wars" spinoff, meaning that it takes place in the "Star Wars" galaxy, but doesn't directly involve the saga of the Skywalker family. And it presents an important challenge for Disney.
The media company paid $4 billion for Lucasfilm, which included the franchise, in 2012 and to recoup the "Star Wars" portion of that investment it needs to be able to make new content built on the brand but without relying on the characters that have been known and loved for nearly 40 years. "Rogue One" is its first attempt at doing that.
"Success for 'Rogue One' is a great litmus test for storytelling outside of the saga," said Dave Hollis, Disney's executive vice president of theatrical distribution. "This will give a great sense of how big these standalone stories can be and how they will be able to satisfy expanding the universe."
The film, which stars Felicity Jones and opens in more than 4,100 theaters domestically starting Thursday night, is projected for a box office opening around $150 million in North America this weekend, according to industry analysts. That would make "Rogue One" the second biggest "Star Wars" opening ever and third largest opening of the year.
Disney, however, is being a lot more cautious putting the number anywhere from $120 million to $150 million and stressing that predicting an opening weekend total at this level is "extremely difficult to predict."
The studio has reason to be cautious: selling a movie with characters like Luke Skywalker, Han Solo and Princess Leia is easy. Selling one with Jyn Erso, Cassian Andor, and Orson Krennic? Not so much.
But "Rogue One" may in its own way be as important of an opening for the House of Mouse as last year's "Star Wars: The Force Awakens." It's not just about the box office this time, though. With massive merchandising at stake, "Star Wars" films in the works through 2020 (including two standalone spinoffs), and new attractions that are the company's biggest theme park expansion ever, Disney has to prove to fans that the brand is bigger than the Skywalkers, and worth obsessing over as much as ever even without them.
"Rogue One: A Star Wars Story" looks to bring in a big box office while expanding the franchise for Disney.
Luckily for Disney, it's had practice building hugely successful cinematic universes with its interconnected multiple comic book film franchise, Marvel Studios.
"'Rogue One's' success is very important for Disney and in the same way that 'Guardians of The Galaxy' and 'Doctor Strange' keep the home fires burning for the Marvel brand between 'Iron Man" and 'Avengers' movies, 'Rogue One,' as part of the 'anthology' arm of the 'Star Wars' brand, has a similar M.O.," said Paul Dergarabedian, senior media analyst at comScore (SCOR).
Another box office battle that "Rogue One" may have to fight off this weekend is comparisons to last year's "The Force Awakens," the biggest opening in movie history and one of the biggest blockbusters of all time.
"Force Awakens" opened last December to $248 million domestically and $529 million worldwide, but that film was a generational event that was anticipated by fans since 1983's "Return of the Jedi." So even if "Rogue One" brings in $100 million less in its opening than "Force Awakens" did for its debut, that's still a big win for Disney -- as long as fans are convinced of the long-term potential of Skywalker-free "Star Wars" content, of course.
Prospects for success look good so far. Reviews have been solid -- the movie currently has an 85% score on review site Rotten Tomatoes -- and anticipation has been building for months, making "Rogue One" into ticket site Fandango's second biggest pre-seller of all time, behind only "Force Awakens."
Jennifer Lopez may have just ended her gig with American Idol, but she's just getting started in her TV career.
Today ABC Family has announced that they have greenlit J.Lo's executive produced drama, The Fosters (working title).
The project is a one-hour show following a multi-ethnic family composed of two moms raising both foster and biological children.
"ABC Family continues to find and develop original programming that adds new dimension and depth to the storytelling we offer," said Kate Juergens, executive vice president, Original Programming and Development, ABC Family.
The Senate on Monday rejected a Democratic proposal intended to ensure millionaires pay a minimum tax rate.
In a mostly party-line 51-45 vote, Democrats fell short of the 60 votes they needed to move forward with a debate on the so-called “Buffett Rule” legislation, with all but one Republican, Sen. Susan Collins Susan Margaret CollinsSenate Republicans tested on Trump support after Mueller Collins: Mueller report includes 'an unflattering portrayal' of Trump GOP senator: 'No problem' with Mueller testifying MORE (Maine), voting to oppose proceeding on the legislation.
Sen. Mark Pryor Mark Lunsford PryorMedicaid rollback looms for GOP senators in 2020 Cotton pitches anti-Democrat message to SC delegation Ex-Sen. Kay Hagan joins lobby firm MORE (Ark.) was the only Democrat to vote against the motion, though Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), who caucuses with Senate Democrats but missed Monday’s vote, released a statement announcing his opposition to the Buffett Rule.
Fifty Democrats supported the motion to proceed to the bill, including Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), who previously had opposed similar efforts. Nelson cited the deficit for changing his position, but his decision to retire and not seek reelection at the end of this Congress might also have played a role.
Both parties expected the result, and the issue of whether wealthier households should pay higher taxes on investment income appeared likely to remain at center stage through November’s presidential election.
The two sides believe they will benefit from an extended debate over taxes this election season.
Democrats believe they have a winner in the Buffett Rule’s proposition that those making north of $1 million a year should pay a higher effective tax rate than middle-class families.
The Obama White House and party lawmakers have been determined to amplify the issue, with the president using the bully pulpit last week to pressure Republicans on the message of tax fairness and economic equality.
But Republicans say Democrats are overplaying their hand by pushing for a tax increase, and believe a proposed small-business tax cut scheduled for a House vote this week sets up a nice contrast.
Top GOP lawmakers have repeatedly called the Buffett Rule a political gimmick, and derided the president for campaigning heavily on the issue.
Republicans have also said that the Senate proposal, which the Joint Committee on Taxation says would raise roughly $47 billion over a decade if current income tax rates expire, would put only a little dent in the federal debt.
“President Obama looked at the options in front of him, sat down with his political advisers, and he said, ‘you know what, let’s go with the poll-tested tax increase on investment and job creation that won’t fix anything and won’t pass anyway, instead of actually doing something about the debt and the deficit,’ ” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell Addison (Mitch) Mitchell McConnellThe Mueller report is a deterrent to government service Senate Republicans tested on Trump support after Mueller Anti-smoking advocates question industry motives for backing higher purchasing age MORE (R-Ky.) said Monday.
Democratic lawmakers said before the vote that they were willing to force repeated votes on the Buffett Rule to press their case.
“Republicans in Congress would rather end Medicare as we know it and slash education funding than ask the richest of the rich to contribute even a penny more,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid Harry Mason ReidSanders courts GOP voters with 'Medicare for All' plan Glamorization of the filibuster must end Schumer won't rule out killing filibuster MORE (D-Nev.) said on the chamber floor on Monday.
Democrats believe that, in presidential hopeful Mitt Romney, they have an ideal foil as they make their push for the Buffett Rule, which is named after billionaire investor Warren Buffett, who has said he pays a lower tax rate than his secretary.
Romney, the likely GOP presidential nominee, has released tax records showing that he paid a 13.9 percent tax rate on $21.6 million in 2010 income.
But Republicans think the Democratic effort could backfire with an electorate focused on unemployment and high gas prices. They latched on to comments from Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse Sheldon WhitehouseHillicon Valley: Washington preps for Mueller report | Barr to hold Thursday presser | Lawmakers dive into AI ethics | FCC chair moves to block China Mobile | Dem bill targets 'digital divide' | Microsoft denies request for facial recognition tech Dems introduce bill to tackle 'digital divide' Senators press drug industry 'middlemen' over high prices MORE (D-R.I.), the sponsor of the legislation, who said the bill’s goal was not to lower gas prices or the jobless rate.
Whitehouse’s legislation would mandate that taxpayers making more than $2 million a year, counting proceeds from capital gains and dividends, pay at least a 30 percent federal tax rate. The rule would be phased in for those making between $1 million and $2 million.
House Republicans have scheduled their own tax vote for this week, a proposal to allow businesses with less than 500 employees a 20 percent tax deduction.
Signs also emerged over the weekend that Romney was interested in showing he’s willing to raise some taxes on the wealthy.
Romney, whom Democrats have repeatedly tried to cast as out of touch, floated the idea of limiting the deduction for mortgage interest of wealthy taxpayers’ second homes, according to reporters who heard his pitch at a private Florida fundraiser.
Still, Democrats, citing poll data showing that Americans support the Buffett Rule, appear confident that that they have a tax message that is better tailored to the middle class.
Whitehouse implied on the Senate floor on Monday that the Buffett Rule legislation could keep the United States from becoming a country that is too tilted toward the rich, and suggested to reporters he believed the proposal would eventually have enough votes to proceed in the Senate.
— Pete Kasperowicz and Vicki Needham contributed to this report.
— Last updated at 8:32 p.m.
USEPA on occasion has failed to act on the Precautionary Principle. How else might one explain USEPA recommendations that MTBE be used as a gasoline additive for anti-knock and oxygenation properties? During EPA's decision making process in the late 1970's, people must have realized that MTBE could create a bad taste in water, that it had high water solubility and could move more quickly in groundwater than other common fuel components, and that the nation's underground fuel lines and storage tanks were leaking...badly. EPA's decision to reformulate gasoline with still higher MTBE concentrations, a decision which ultimately cost taxpayers millions, if not billions, in solving drinking water contamination issues, seems anything but cautious.
Two decisions don't add up to a trend, but it certainly seems that the Precautionary Principle is still not being followed with BisPhenol-A based plastics being sold into the infant care market. The good news is that when better designed consumer choices appear in the marketplace, EPA's risk management muddling matters less.
As a far-reaching article from the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel documents, when it comes to BPA-based plastics, the infant care market is showing signs of having lost patience with industry toxicologists quibbling over "weight of evidence." The public opinion jury is in on BPA, and parents are buying glass baby bottles. Gerber is offering them. Glass bottle makers are pleased. This consumer movement reminds us of recent reports of large numbers of consumers seeking US made wooden toys for their children's Christmas presents. Chinese manufacturers and US designers could not be trusted to manage risk, so parents walked out on their offerings.When buying preferences change direction like these two (infant care or toys) have shown signs of doing, no amount of scientific endeavor and consensus reporting on risk will change their direction back. Further studies to defend old designs might even bring a secondary risk. Defensiveness at this juncture can call into question the credibility of even highly laudable climate mitigation programs, for example.
So, as we come to the end of the second major environmental de-regulatory era in the US (the first one having been during the Administration of President Reagan), buying a less hazardous product is understood by consumers to be a more pragmatic recourse than pushing for a ban - which is an effective strategy, of course, only when a superior alternative design is available. That Milwaukee's residents, living far from the "coastal" scenes, are acting with precautionary conviction indicates that European-style thinking has permeated into the US heartland. At last, an invasive species we can admire! When it should infest EPA is the next question.
Caveat: Plain glass bottles pose a physical hazard that plastic bottles do not (breakage). The glass baby bottles pictured in this post are covered with silicone sleeves that extend the product design life and presumably also reduce the potential hazard of baby of being exposed to broken glass. Plus they look good.
This sleeved glass bottle design is an ideal illustration that not all synthetic chemicals are bad and also that not all chemical hazards create unacceptable exposures: e.g. risk depends on the market application, not just on design. BPA based plastics are not intrinsically bad, in other words.
Further example:- Tobacco powder makes a fine organic insecticide, which, when used with adequate respiratory protection, is perfectly safe to use. But, cigarettes are intrinsically hazardous product for all who use them. Both these products are made with the same ingredient substance.
Hawkish critics see a president who is unwilling to intervene abroad except when Israel stands to lose. These critics are blind to reality.
Among some right-leaning hawks, there is a persistent delusion that President Obama is a non-interventionist dove who rejects American exceptionalism and hegemony, all the while harboring a unique, possibly anti-Semitic distaste for Israel. The populist manifestation of this delusion has asked us to believe that Obama "pals around with terrorists;" that he is, at bottom, a Kenyan anti-colonialist; and that he hates Israel and only likes Jews who give money to Democrats. The more intellectual but no less inaccurate strain is on display in a new Washington Free Beacon column by Matthew Continetti, also published in National Review.
"Since he became president, Israel is the one country in the world in whose affairs President Obama has seemed at all interested in intervening," he writes. "It is the one country whose politics and actions Obama has had no trouble judging harshly."
This passes for sound foreign-policy analysis in some neocon circles.
Afghanistan, where Obama deployed 65,200 additional troops after taking office, presiding over a three-year surge, or deliberate escalation, that would come to account for almost three-fourths of U.S. combat deaths there.
Libya, where Obama circumvented Congress and violated the War Powers Resolution in order to carry out his hawkish policy preference: U.S. participation in the rebellion that led to regime change in the country. Obama would subsequently preside over a significant CIA presence in Benghazi.
Pakistan, where Obama ordered both a "boots on the ground" raid to kill Osama bin Laden and presided over more than 300 missile strikes facilitated by unmanned drones.
Yemen, where Obama presided over 109 missile strikes, killing as many as 1,024 people.
Somalia, where Obama has ordered both special-forces operations and numerous missile strikes.
Haiti, Honduras, the Dominican Republic, Guatemala, and Belize, where the Obama administration has deployed commando squads from the Drug Enforcement Agency.
Notice that in each of these cases, Obama didn't merely "seem interested" in intervening. He did intervene, with lethal force, at times on a massive scale for years. Those examples are more than sufficient to illustrate the irrefutable wrongheadedness of the claim that "Israel is the one country in the world in whose affairs President Obama has seemed at all interested in intervening." As for the notion that Israel is "the one country whose politics and actions Obama has had no trouble judging harshly," let's see if we can find any clear counterexamples.
As it turns out, Obama has harshly judged the Assad regime in Syria; Russia's actions in Crimea; the ongoing pursuit of nuclear weapons in Iran (where Obama partnered with Israel to intervene with an apparently successful cyber attack); North Korea on various occasions; politically motivated violence in Venezuela; human-rights abuses in Cuba; China for cyberattacks, currency policy, and human-rights abuses; Rwanda for its policy toward the Democratic Republic of the Congo; among many others. Love or hate Obama's words on Israel, the notion that it is "the one country" the actions of which he harshly judges is fantasy.
Continetti concludes his column by condemning White House efforts to secure a ceasefire in Gaza. "This is not the time for President Obama and John Kerry to play to type, to promote bad agreements for self-satisfaction, for political gain," he writes. "If they won’t stand behind Israel, they should at least get out of the way. And let the IDF finish the job." When Continetti expresses his desire for the Obama administration to "get out of the way," he really means that Obama should continue his perennial support for giving Israel $3.1 billion in annual aid, as well as selling it many of the weapons it is using in Gaza, sometimes in secret—but after lending all of that significant support, which won't count as "standing behind Israel," then the Obama administration should mind its own business.
But when they advance their narrative of Israeli persecution by eliding the significant financial and military support the Obama administration has favored giving Israel; when they claim Obama is interested in intervening only in Israeli affairs; and when they say that Israel is the only country Obama criticizes, they spread obvious falsehoods, and illustrate why their foreign-policy judgment cannot be trusted. It is informed by delusions.
MILWAUKEE, July 31—Seemingly baffled for six innings, during which they were shut out with only two hits, the New York Yankee struck wth fury in the seventh tonight to score all their runs in a 7‐3 victory over the Milwaukee Brewers.
In the second game, the Bombers spread 10 hits more evenly to beat their hosts, 5‐3, for a sweep of the marathon twin bill that lasted a little more than six hours. The triumphs extended the Yankees' winning streak to five games.
It was big Bob Bolin, the 6foot‐4‐inch right‐hander, who kept the Yanks subdued during the first two thirds of the opener. At that juncture, the Brewers enjoyed a 3‐0 lead. But Bolin was wild at the start of the seventh and yielded successive walks to Roy White and Danny Cater.
The Milwaukee pitcher got Curt Blefary on a fly to right, but then Jerry Kenney lined double to right‐center and the traffic jam was on. Before it could be signaled to a stop, five more Yankees had hit safely and one other home team pitcher—Ken Sanders—had been sent to the showers.
Joining Kenney in the Yanks’ big hit parade were Gene Michael, Pete Ward, Thurman Munson, Bobby Murcer and Cater. In all, a dozen Yankees batted during the rally, which took place shortly after a heavy downpour had interrupted play for 35 minutes.
Stan Bahnsen, victor in three of his four previous starts, emerged as the winning pitcher, although the Yanks trailed, 3‐2, at the time he was removed for a pinch‐hitter, Ward, in the busy seventh. The triumph gave Bahnsen a 10‐7 won‐lost record for the season.
Fritz Peterson received credit for the night's second victory, his first over the Brewers this season. Like Bahnsen, ‘however, the Yankee southpaw, who allowed seven hits, did not go the distance. He made way for Jack Aker with one out in the eighth and Ken Savage, who had singled, on first.
The Yanks hopped on Gene Brabender early to take the lead. Singles in the first inning by Jake Gibbs, Roy White and Pete Ward, followed by Curt Blefary's bloop double to left, gave the Yankees a 2‐0 advantage. They led the rest of the way.
4.29 acres Great Location off I-24 W Exit 31 High Visibility from interstate. Intersection of New Hope Rd and Ridge Circle. Electric, Sewer, Water Available.
Beautiful farm only 20 minutes to downtown Nashv. Water and sewer on property. Fronts State Highway 41A. PARCEL ID/TAX ID 024 031.01 5 minutes from exit 31 off 24E.
There's a sleepover, one of them doesn't leave and it just happens - is a sleepover the best we can do?
"The price of permanent love is unconditional commitment."
You cannot 'buy' permanent love at any price. People change, and the world changes around them. To assume that two people who made each other happy at age 25 are going to make each other happy at age 65 is such a wild and unjustified claim that only a theist could make it. Let those who are happy remain together: let those who are not separate. Putting a false and delusive value on permanence and official recognition of a relationship merely distorts reality -- and that is when people get hurt.
Given that attitudes towards shacking-up have changed, we need to consider whether government policy needs to catch up. At the moment, if a centrelink recipient is living with their partner, it is assumed that the partner is prepared to financially support them and benefits are reduced. ISTM that living together isn't necessarily equivalent to a marriage type agreement and we shouldn't pretend otherwise.
It's likely that the majority of couples who enter into marriage do so hoping for and believing in "permanent love" and "unconditional commitment."
Very many don't realise either of those dreams, and either settle for what they can have, or go their separate ways.
Setting such ridiculously unrealisable goals for marriage as "permanent love and unconditional commitment" makes marriage a very scary thing to contemplate. Seeing how many marriages fail doesn't help.
Maybe if we took some of the pressure off marriage and added a bit of realism that acknowledges the difference between hope and intention, and what actually happens in life, people might be more inclined to make marriage vows.
Children do need parents who have a commitment to maintaining their families. But "successful" families take many forms, and marriage is not necessarily always one of them.
These demands for permanence and unconditional commitment are in the end just childish. It's what we wanted as children - that something we loved would never, ever change. Adults know change is inevitable and necessary. All we can do is the best we can.
The HILDA survey did not cover much ground regards de facto relationships.
Evidence from other countries indicate de-facto relationships are not only short-lived, but contain higher rates of DV, drug and alcohol use, STD's, infidelity, and because so many are short-lived, higher rates of single parents, government dependency and poverty.
If anything, they should be declared a health hazard for any children involved.
How do you know what promises the cohabitants make to each other. A promise not publicly declared is still a promise.
I think that's a pretty offensive view of women.
Have you spoken to many young people? If they want marriage there is nothing stopping them, so what makes you think they want it when they choose not to?