Wouldn't the name be in Chinese, with a translation to English for us? Which would usually include translating it into standard English grammar instead of the grammar it was in?
You know, if I was translating no hablo espanol, I wouldn't be like "yeah, he said 'no speak I spanish'".
Why does a major international newspaper not use the proper adjective form of the word "China"?
This is more of a system issue than bad behavior of an individual charity.
Charities can underpay a little bit, because working for a charity has its own appeal. But if you want a talented, experienced person to run your org, you have to consider what they could make if they worked for someone else. San Diego is not a cheap city, and has its fair share of CEO positions.
If you really want to stretch your dollar though, local food banks are probably a better bet.
No, they've been getting progressively crazier since 2016.
2000 was fairly divisive, it went to the Supreme Court after all. But it wasn't even a fraction this dramatic, people mostly shrugged and figured GWB would be like his father, which was unfortunate, but sane at any rate. Nobody was really predicting 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq.
2004 was pretty dull. John Kerry challenged GWB but felt sort of like an empty suit.
2008 was nice, Obama was a strong and exciting candidate vs the very known quantity of McCain, who was a moderate repub known for bipartisanship. Sarah Palin provided for hours of entertaining impersonations by people like Tina Fey, but since she was the VP candidate nobody really cared.
2012 was dull. Romney was a strong candidate, another moderate repub. But Obama was fine, he hadn't broken the country or anything. Brought us out of a recession, even if people were upset about bank bailouts and stuff. Lot of people got health insurance.
Then it starts getting spicy.
I mean, tbf that was admittedly last millennium.
"If I have to create stories so that ~~the American media actually pays attention to the suffering of the American people~~ we win, then that's what I'm going to do."
Yea, we already knew that JD, thanks.
Eh, there's one additional way we can stop them. A landslide victory that puts her massively over the electoral college threshold would make a handful of compromised counties completely irrelevant.
lol This is almost as good as getting him to say out loud that he's never had sexual relations with any living room furniture.
Ah, LinkedIn, exactly where I want to get nuanced answers to weird questions from.
Israel's survival is not threatened by anything short of large-scale pre-emptive Iranian nuclear barrage, or civil war.
Claiming your actions are necessary for survival is a very old trick, commonly used by authoritarian regimes as a convenient excuse.
Have to admit, Extinction Rebellion is a pretty good name for an activist group.
So, a few years ago this stuff was fine. You can't spin up a brand new global supply chain overnight, and that was generally understood and accepted, just like how we couldn't find enough 155mm arty ammo for awhile. These things take time, and that's okay. And fine, we weren't predicting the Iran War, and that would definitely interfere with plans. Fine.
This is all getting less acceptable as time goes on, though. Now 2027 is a reasonable goal, that's five years from the start of the main invasion. Let's just hope we can stick to it.