Would it be safer for the government to declare everyone crazy at birth, until it is proven otherwise by professional psychologist civil servants, so you could own a gun? We would live in a perfect world with no need for gun control laws. Psychologists, psychiatrists and pharmaceutical experts would tell us how to live our lives around guns, or any objects that could become a potential weapon...


Isn't this the perfect definition of Heaven? Who has some SOMA left?

When the temperature of a political campaign turns up, one of the hardest traits for a candidate to preserve is patience.

At even the most marginal signs of turbulence, the pressure to react, recalibrate or reverse is enormous. It flows from a steady trickle of public polling, from a relentless swarm of media, from self-important donors and even from anxiety-ridden advisers within the operation. And it can lead to grave miscalculation.

Nothing has tested the fortitude of the cavalcade of 2016 presidential aspirants like the emergence of Donald Trump, who has defied political science by advancing a polling lead in the Republican primary for seven straight weeks now.

Rival campaigns cling firmly to the notion that the bile and bombast will lose its charm and that his candidacy will eventually dissolve into a messy cloud of dust. But even if that turns out to be true, the intervening impact of his candidacy on the rest of the contenders is already visible.

Trump has not only ridden over his competitors, he's more importantly rattled their psyches. After initially shrugging him off as a flash-in-the-pan celebrity candidate, a handful of rivals decided to counter the real estate mogul with their own show of strength. Yet attempting to out-Trump The Donald at his own game of impulsive verbal warfare has proved to be ineffective and even damaging. Trump laid the bait, and many fell into his trap.

"It's difficult to go head to head with Trump in an exchange of statements or tweets and come out the victor. In the best-case scenario, you come out a draw," says John Sides, author of "The Gamble: Choice and Chance in the 2012 Presidential Election."

After a month of trying to fight fire with fire, many Republican operatives tied to the campaigns are now urging calm and restraint. It's easy to read too much into the early score right now, but most of the game has yet to be played, they warn. Candidates who keep trained on their core message and resist becoming a supporting actor in the Trump show may be better off in the long run.

"At this point, ignore him and stay the course," says Mike Dennehy, a New Hampshire adviser to former Texas Gov. Rick Perry. "I am a firm believer that you try to run positive until it's absolutely necessary to contrast. And with such a large field, the contrast or attack will likely help another candidate rather than your own."

His guidance is particularly prescient given the experience of Perry, who dedicated an entire speech in Washington to lambasting Trump as a cancer on the party on July 22. Since then, Perry's fundraising has dried up, forcing his campaign team to work without pay, and his polling numbers have shriveled.

Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, who took a gamble going at Trump for failing to rule out a third-party run at the outset of the first debate, has also seen his position in the race depreciate to single digits. Asked about his sliding numbers on a conference call this week, Paul noted, "All these questions can go to the other candidates as well. The polls are a very temporary temperature."

South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, one of the most dogged Trump critics who told CNN Tuesday he'd "beat [Trump's] brains out" in the Palmetto State, registered 0 percent in the last two national polls of the primary and just 4 percent in his home state. Before Trump was in the race, Graham polled in the double digits there.

"One of the great honors is that everyone who attacks me seems to go down," Trump boasted gleefully last week.

But even those who have been more careful about poking Trump have fallen victim in other ways, like emulation.

As Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker made his way through the Iowa State Fair, he was pelted with questions about Trump's plan to scrap birthright citizenship. After first appearing to embrace the idea, he later said he wasn't taking a position either way. Then, he finally said he was against amending the Constitution to get rid of birthright citizenship.

It was a clumsy string of answers by a candidate who has already shown a proclivity for changing positions due to political pressure. While a Walker aide would not concede Trump was the reason for the scattered responses, some Republicans fear the governor's lurching will ultimately make him less palatable to mainstream GOPers down the road.

"The most important thing for Team Walker is to stay with our game plan," says David Polyansky, Walker's Iowa strategist.

But to much of the rest of the political world, it looked as if the heat of the Trump show had gotten to Walker.

One political hand unaligned with a candidate deemed Walker's flailing as "an overreaction to his little slump."

"There's an example of someone being pulled in different directions trying to play Trump's game," says a consultant working for Jeb Bush, who requested anonymity to avoid publicly criticizing another candidate.

Bush, who once promised not to attack his fellow Republican rivals, has decided to ramp up his responses to Trump, predominantly on policy issues. But the answers that have provided the most ammunition for Democrats have stemmed from issues first raised by Trump, including immigration.

Bush followed Trump in invoking "anchor babies" – a disparaging term that describes children born to immigrants in the country illegally. While the former Florida governor appeared uncomfortable using the phrase – "Do you have a better term?" he sniped at reporters in New Hampshire – he doubled down on it in defiance of political correctness. Days later, in a move that displayed his weariness with the entire episode, he clarified that his use of "anchor babies" referred mostly to "Asian people coming into our country."

That only caused the ire of more immigrant groups.

Hillary Clinton's campaign produced a video splicing Bush's and Trump's comments together with a final clip of Clinton declaring with delight that "most of the other candidates are just Trump without the pizazz or the hair."

Bush's team believes they are engaging Trump on their own terms, while remaining consistent on substance. But there's a thin line between responding and becoming a pawn for Trump.

"You contrast with Trump on issues and substance, of which he has little. And, you don't allow the media or Trump himself to make you a contestant in his game show," says Jamie Burnett, a political consultant and Bush backer in New Hampshire.

At the moment, Bush isn't competing for the same lot of anti-establishment voters gravitating toward Trump. As other candidates begin to fade and drop out this fall, the Bush team sees itself well-positioned to be still standing against him.

"Emotion is a losing battle and certainly at some point, policy and ability to deliver on your vision for the country is going to be an important consideration for voters in South Carolina," says Jim Dyke, a Bush adviser in South Carolina.

When the race settles down and begins to gel, the operating thinking is that Republican voters will also begin seriously weighing electability, which will begin to lead to Trump's demise.

But in the meantime, his power to weaken a foe can be advantageous.

Maybe that's why the top adviser to Bush's super PAC is attempting to goad Ohio Gov. John Kasich into responding to Trump.

Last weekend in The Columbus Dispatch, Bush ally Mike Murphy of Right to Rise said while Bush is demonstrating leadership by taking on Trump, Kasich "takes the 5th" and "seems to be afraid to draw any distinction."

Kasich has steered clear so far, only thanking Trump for drawing 24 million viewers to the first debate. It looks like it's been a smart move. He's now overtaken Bush in New Hampshire, vaulting into second place.

There are still five long months until voting – an eternity for narratives, events and polls to shift and shift again. If Trump is still soaring into October, a more aggressive approach may be warranted.

"If any candidate has a disagreement with him on policy, it seems like it might be smart to point that out. Whether it's a winning battle is yet to be seen, but historically differences in policy have been motivating to people one way or another," Dyke says.

Trump is an unprecedented candidate, but history is all anyone has to go on.

Remember Howard Dean? The hard-charging, gate-storming 2004 insurgent for the Democratic Party nomination didn't crash and burn until the closing week before the Iowa caucuses. All the prior emotional drama was overcome by a sense of political sobriety.

Many Republicans are slowly coming to the conclusion that a singular campaign can't take down Trump, but that a smart and steady one will outlast him.

"Trump will likely collapse on his own," Dennehy says. "I refuse to believe that even a plurality of Republicans will want him as their nominee come next February."


http://www.usnews.com/news/the-report/articles/2015/08/27/how-the-gop-candidates-can-survive-the-trump-show?int=a14709


---------------------------
 

Enjoy your dried, uncooked potato and rice stew then...


23-year prison sentence in slow cooker beating death




DETROIT -- A Detroit woman who was drunk when she killed a friend with a slow cooker during an argument over politics was sentenced Monday to at least 23 years in prison.

A judge followed the recommended sentence in the plea deal between Tewana Sullivan and prosecutors.

Sullivan, 51, beat Cheryl Livy, 66, with a slow cooker at the victim's Livonia apartment in October.

Sullivan was arrested after officers found Livy severely beaten and unconscious with the power cord of the slow cooker wrapped around her neck, reports CBS Detroit. A police officer reportedly found Sullivan sobbing near her injured friend, saying she was "sorry" she "did it."

Livy died three days later.


http://www.cbsnews.com/news/23-year-prison-sentence-in-slow-cooker-beating-death/

New poll shows first word people associate with Hillary Clinton is “Liar”








The latest Q-poll numbers have dropped and there aren’t really a lot of surprises in the top lines. (Well… there are a couple of exceptions but we’ll get to those in a minute.) What was really startling, though, was the results of the “open ended” questions about several of the candidates. Most specifically, the massively leading, top of the list responses for Hillary Clinton have to be giving her team nightmares. (Connecticut Post… emphasis added)

Clinton leads the Democratic field with 45 percent, down from 55 percent July 30, with U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont at 22 percent and Biden at 18 percent. No other candidate tops 1 percent with 11 percent undecided. This is Sanders’ highest tally and closest margin.

Clinton tops the Democrats’ “no way” list with 11 percent.

“Liar” is the first word that comes to mind more than others in an open-ended question when voters think of Clinton. “Arrogant” is the word for Trump and voters say “Bush” when they think of Bush.


http://hotair.com/archives/2015/08/27/uh-oh-new-poll-shows-first-word-people-associate-with-hillary-clinton-is-liar/

Maybe this media is not the best vector to explain Nietzsche in 140 characters or less...

Can't they use a tool to stretch the anus opening? Why the need to engage in sodomy with each other?

Same hairstyle... Almost


I have yet to see who kelly and ramos are...

 

Not even.


Jeb Bush: Trump Should Have Treated Jorge Ramos “With A Little More Respect”




Jeb Bush says that Univision anchor Jorge Ramos, who was escorted out of a press conference held by Donald Trump on Tuesday night, should have been “treated with a little more respect.”

“I think people with the press ought to be treated with a little more respect and dignity,” he told reporters.

Ramos was removed from the press conference after Trump accused him of interrupting another reporter to ask a question about immigration policy. Ramos was later allowed back into the room.

Bush’s comments came after a town hall event in Pensacola, Florida, where Bush continued to blast Trump’s immigration proposals as “not conservative” and said the real estate mogul should be held to the same standards as other Republican candidates.

“This guy is now the frontrunner,” he said. “He should be held to account, just like me.”

“Go through these questions and what you’ll find is this guy doesn’t have a plan,” he added. “He’s appealing to people’s angst and their anger. I want to solve problems so that we can fix this and turn immigration into what it’s always been: an economic driver for our country.”


http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/jeb-bush-trump-should-be-held-account-just-me-n416471

Total submission, then the death of the First Amendment, then tyranny... Or total tyranny, then the death of the First Amendment, then submission...

Torbjorn Tannsjo, Kristian Claëson Professor of Practical Philosophy at Stockholm University, asked me to share the following experience he recently had.

Dylan Matthews, a philosophically-minded editor at Vox.com, solicited Professor Tannsjo to write a piece for Vox  on the "repugnant conclusion." More precisely, Mr. Matthews wrote:

I'm an editor for the US news site Vox.com, and we're trying to start a new series where philosophers and other thinkers argue for provocative and/or counterintuitive propositions that our readers might find intriguing.

I'm a big fan of your work from my undergraduate years — there aren't a lot of fellow hedonic utilitarians in philosophy! — and in particular found your argument for accepting the repugnant conclusion very compelling. It's a fascinating problem, and one that's fairly easy for lay readers to get into — people care about population size, and "We have a duty to make the world's population as large as possible" is a proposition that demands peoples' attention.

I'm writing to ask if you'd like to write up a popular version of your argument on this for Vox.

Prof. Tannsjo obliged, and produced this piece:


You should have kids. Not because it’s fun, or rewarding, or in your evolutionary self-interest.

You should have kids because it’s your moral duty to do so.

My argument is simple. Most people live lives that are, on net, happy. For them to never
exist, then, would be to deny them that happiness. And because I think we have a moral duty
to maximize the amount of happiness in the world, that means that we all have an obligation
to make the world as populated as can be.

Of course, we should see to it that we do not overpopulate the planet in a manner that
threatens the future existence of mankind. But we’re nowhere near that point yet, at least not
if we also see to it that we solve pressing problems such as the one with global warming. In
the mean time, we’re ethically obligated to make as many people as possible.

This idea, that having children is a moral obligation, is controversial, so much so that it’s
known in philosophy as the “repugnant conclusion.” But I don’t think it’s repugnant at all.

We have obligations to people who don’t exist yet

You might be thinking at this point, “Sure, more happiness sounds good. But morality is
about helping people, and creating more people helps ‘people’ who don’t exist, not yet
anyway.” This view is known as actualism. Only actual individuals have rights. We have not
done anything wrong, unless there is an actual person who has a legitimate complaint to
make against our action.

This means that, if I do not create a happy individual, even if I can do so, I do nothing wrong.
A merely hypothetical individual has no legitimate complaint to make. This is the great appeal
of actualism: it means that people have total freedom in choosing whether to reproduce or
not. My view suggests that we have a moral obligation to keep having children; actualism lets
people do as they like.

I can’t help finding all this problematic. Imagine for a second that the Genesis story is actually
true. Under the actualist view, Adam and Eve could have morally refrained from having
children, even if, had they decided differently, billions of billions of happy persons would have
been around!

Here is another consequence of the theory. Suppose I have a choice as to whether to have a
baby at 15 or at 35. If I have the baby at 15, I’ll earn much less money in my career, the baby
will go to worse schools and live in a worse neighborhood, and generally her life will be much
tougher. If I have her at 35, I’ll be able to adequately provide for the baby, pay for college,
and so forth. If I have the baby at 15, then, did I do anything wrong? I did not, by actualist
reasoning. There is no one there to complain about what I did. The baby is, after all, happy to
be around. By creating her, I did not violate her rights. And the hypothetical baby I would’ve
had at 35 isn’t around to complain. But this cannot be right. If these are the options I have, I
ought to wait. The world where I have a baby at 35 is just happier than the one where I have
a baby at 15.

Why a world with many more people wouldn’t be so bad

The idea that people are morally obliged to have as many children as possible has some
radical implications. The biggest is that a world in which many people — 20, 50, even 100
billion — are alive, but each has a life that’s only barely worth living, is preferable to a world
where only, say, 10 billion people are extremely happy. Let’s call these Big Bad World and
Small Happy World, respectively.

This conclusion may seem ludicrous. Of course you’d rather live in a world where everyone’s
happy than one where people are just scraping by! But this intuition is wrong.

Imagine that the end of Small Happy World is the end of humankind. Everyone’s as happy as
can be, and then they all die. Meanwhile, in Big Bad World, the human race continues on for
billions of years, at a level where life is worth living, but not spectacular. Would we not then
feel that the Small Happy World people are doing selfish? Rather than going on with the
human race, and accept the sacrifice that this means, they’re living high and not letting
anyone succeed them. This is clearly wrong.

Furthermore, it’s difficult to get a grasp of what Big Bad World would be like. But the way
people live there may be similar to the way we live. There are ups and downs in our lives.
Perhaps a typical human life often ends up with only a little happiness as its net sum.
Perhaps many lives end up with a negative sum. But then, is the Big Bad World so bad as
one may at first have thought? It’s quite possible that people in Big Bad World aren’t living in
abject poverty and misery, but instead have lives similar those of many affluent people living
in rich, developed countries today.

Similarly, it’s difficult to imagine what it would be like to live an extremely happy life,
containing much more happiness than our lives do now. It could be that the gap between a
barely-worthwhile life and the happiest life possible is quite small.

Have more kids!

We have an obligation to go on with humanity, as long as we can, and as long as we create
future individuals who live lives worth living. Procreative decisions are moral decisions, and
we ought to see to it that, by our procreative decisions, we maximize the sum total of
happiness. The popular idea that we may do as we see fit when we conceive children, as
long as there is no one there who can make a legitimate complaint against us, is mistaken.
We ought to take all easy measures to procreate, such as signing up for sperm banks,
having another child when we can take care of it, and so forth. Of course, we should see to it
that we do not by our procreative choices make existing lives worth not living nor make lives
worth not living. In the individual case, it is hard to know where to draw the line. But in many
cases, having more kids is clearly better.

Torbjörn Tännsjö is Professor of Practical Philosophy at Stockholm University. He has
published extensively in moral philosophy, political philosophy and applied ethics. Among his
most recent books are Understanding Ethics, 3rd edition (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University
Press, 2013) and Taking Life: Three Theories on the Ethics of Killing (New York: Oxford
University Press, 2015), both available in the US from Oxford University Press. This article
draws on a chapter in Taking Life.


http://leiterreports.typepad.com/files/you-should-have-kids-00000003.pdf



After inquiring about its status after a period of silence, Prof. Tannsjo received the following from Mr. Matthews:

Afraid I have to be the bearer of bad news, Torbjörn. I ran the piece by some other editors and they weren't comfortable running it; I think the concern is that people will misinterpret it as implying opposition to abortion rights and birth control, which, while I know it's not your intent, is a real concern.

I'm sorry to waste your time; I really am a big fan of your work and appreciate your willingness to work with me.

As Prof. Tannsjo remarked to me this sorry affair illustrates "how sensitive abstract philosophical reasoning sometimes is"--and also, I might add, how difficult it is to translate it for a mass audience which apparently is more concerned with taking the "correct" view than with the reasoning.



http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2015/08/so-much-for-trying-to-bring-philosophy-to-the-public.html

People love their freedom and hate to be sleeping for years behind bars, in the same bunk beds with somebody nicknamed "Pocket Rocket"...

You and a few millions more... It is already backfiring and The Donald loves this. Also ramos came back and asked away, something the media fails to report for some unknown reason...

You can always start here:

What Is the Difference Between Sunni and Shiite Muslims--and Why Does It Matter?

http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/934


You should trust the words of a real muslim:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=888757.msg10328292#msg10328292

Sunnis are the only real muslims (yes I'am a muslim) .  sunnis means following what the prophet says "El Hadith" and Quran obviously . So basically shiites are the fake ones . I hope you wasen't just trolling and you was really asking to understand also hope I was helpful for you.

~ Madness


I was not trolling.

 

Link?

 

People like me could have been offended by the title "why people hate islam". I am people. The OP put everyone not belonging to the islam faith in a giant bag. I did not believe that was fair and balanced.

 

The reason why this thread was created:

why people hate islam:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=776096.0


I am here to just say one thing? Why do YOU hate islam? and you should really give a valid reason not a shitty one that says 'Because media'
and Yes, I am a muslim for those who ask, just tell me, come out of your shell and say why you HATE it, and I could be here to clarify things to you.
Also here is something that most people mistake about islam is that "Islam hates other religions" for this I say, Islam does not hate ANY religion, but it suggests to 'invite' them to islam, as slowly, and peacefully, even if they refuse, you can try and try, until it's their choice, you stop. and for all the wars that happened, it's because the other religions decided to come into war on Islam.

If you need anything clarified, I am here to answer you, don't be scared, I won't be offended by anyone, also haters, you can reply, I won't care 


There is not hate in this thread...

 

You have a nice family album there. Thank you for sharing...

 

Venezuela’s Food Shortages Trigger Long Lines, Hunger and Looting





Violent clashes flare in pockets around the country as citizens wait for hours for basics like milk and rice


LA SIBUCARA, Venezuela—Hours after they looted and set fire to a National Guard command post in this sun-baked corner of Venezuela earlier this month, a mob infuriated by worsening food shortages rammed trucks into the smoldering edifice, reducing it mostly to rubble.

The incident was just one of numerous violent clashes that have flared in pockets around the country in recent weeks as Venezuelans wait for hours in long supermarket lines for basics like milk and rice. Shortages have made hunger a palpable concern for many Wayuu Indians who live here at the northern tip of Venezuela’s 1,300-mile border with Colombia.

The soldiers had been deployed to stem rampant food smuggling and price speculation, which President Nicolás Maduro blames for triple-digit inflation and scarcity. But after they seize contraband goods, the troops themselves often become targets of increasingly desperate people.

“What’s certain is that we are going very hungry here and the children are suffering a lot,” said María Palma, a 55-year-old grandmother who on a recent blistering hot day had been standing in line at the grocery store since 3 a.m. before walking away empty-handed at midday.

In a national survey, the pollster Consultores 21 found 30% of Venezuelans eating two or fewer meals a day during the second quarter of this year, up from 20% in the first quarter. Around 70% of people in the study also said they had stopped buying some basic food item because it had become unavailable or too expensive.

Food-supply problems in Venezuela underscore the increasingly precarious situation for Mr. Maduro’s socialist government, which according to the latest poll by Datanálisis is preferred by less than 20% of voters ahead of Dec. 6 parliamentary elections. The critical situation threatens to plunge South America’s largest oil exporter into a wave of civil unrest reminiscent of last year’s nationwide demonstrations seeking Mr. Maduro’s ouster.

“It’s a national crisis,” said Marco Ponce, head of the Venezuela Observatory of Social Conflict, noting that unlike the political protests of last year, residents are now taking to the streets demanding social rights.

The nonprofit group recorded 500 protests over food shortages during the first half of 2015, 56 looting incidents and dozens of attempted lootings at grocery stores, pharmacies and warehouses. Even delivery trucks are frequently targeted. “If people aren’t outside protesting, they’re outside standing in line for goods,” Mr. Ponce said.

The unrest is a response to dramatically worsening living conditions for Venezuelans as the economy reels from oil’s slump following more than a decade of populist spending that left the government broke.

In past years, when oil prices were high, Venezuela’s leftist government flooded markets with subsidized goods ranging from cooking oil to diapers. It gave citizens in border towns like La Sibucara not only access to cheap supplies, but also a source of income as many people trafficked products—including nearly free gasoline—to neighboring Colombia, drawing handsome profits.

With the government now struggling to pay for imports, there is less inventory to go around. In recent days, Mr. Maduro upped the ante by ordering troops along the border to seize contraband, deporting hundreds of Colombians whom the government blames for smuggling and shortages.

Armed soldiers monitor supermarkets as part of an effort the president calls “Operation People’s Liberation.” More than 6,000 alleged smugglers have been arrested this year, according to the attorney general’s office. Images of soldiers posing with handcuffed suspects and stacks of decommissioned goods are splashed on state media.

“We’re going to get to the root of the problem,” Mr. Maduro said in a national address last week after a shootout with smugglers in the frontier state of Táchira left three National Guard troops injured and pushed Venezuela to shut key border crossings.

The smugglers targeted by the government crackdown are called bachaqueros, named after a leaf-cutter ant that can carry many times its weight. The word, first used here in the northwestern state of Zulia, has become part of daily national parlance as a label for Venezuelans who buy price-controlled goods and resell them for profit on the black market.

While the government blames the shortages on bachaqueros, economists say they are the consequence of price controls and a broken economic model that has left average Venezuelans with diminishing employment options.

“The people that used to give us work—the private companies, the rich—have all gone,” said Ms. Palma in La Sibucara, adding that she also occasionally traffics goods to get by. “It’s not the greatest business but we don’t have work and we have to find a way to eat.”

Earlier this month, Venezuela’s military raided homes and warehouse around the town, seizing tons of allegedly hoarded goods that were destined to leave Venezuela or be resold on the black market for well above the state-set price.

Lisandro Uriana, who had a black eye and a bandaged leg, said he and two friends were badly beaten up when a neighbor’s house was raided. “They didn’t say or ask us anything,” recalled the 46-year-old Wayuu father of four, who lives in a tin-roofed house of two rooms. “They just beat us and we couldn’t defend ourselves because they were armed and were many. I don’t even smuggle…and now I can’t even get up to work.”

The day of the raids, neighbors said residents pleaded with troops at the National Guard command post to distribute seized food to non-smugglers but were turned away. An angry mob soon formed, sending soldiers fleeing before they attacked the office and even stripped it of scrap metal.

“These are just some isolated cases,” Manuel Graterol, a National Guard general overseeing operations in La Sibucara on a recent day, said, blaming the unrest and the bachaquero phenomenon on opponents of Mr. Maduro’s government.

“Many of them are being shameless,” said Gen. Graterol. “They’re committing treason against our country, taking food and crossing the border.”

But such food fights have broken out in numerous small municipalities around the state of Zulia. In the nearby town of Sinamaica, the ground floor of the mayor’s office was set on fire in early August following a wave of unrest that included gangs looting delivery trucks. The unrest, locals said, began after police detained a truck loaded with rice.

Street vendor Robert Guzmán, wearing a red pro-government T-shirt, said the sacking was justified. “We are very peaceful people,” Mr. Guzmán said of his Wayuu community, “but what happened was an act of desperation. I think this is going to get worse.”

Resident Yusleidy Márquez said she too fears the worst. The basket of subsidized food the government gives her mother every 15 days only feeds her family for two days. Lately, she only eats a cornmeal patty for lunch because she can’t afford more.

“I think we’re going to die of hunger,” she said.


http://www.wsj.com/articles/venezuelas-food-shortages-trigger-long-lines-hunger-and-looting-1440581400