ATLAS is an incredible machine. There’s no way around that. First unveiled in 2013, the humanoid robot can now walk around autonomously, move boxes around, and.

NASA astronaut and biochemist Peggy Whitson will return to Earth as the planet’s new record holder for longest time cumulatively spent on space by an American or a.

Clinton Foundation Scores Higher as a Charity than the Red Cross? CLAIM. The Clinton Foundation rates higher than the Red Cross in charity rankings.See Example( s )EXAMPLESCollected via e- mail, August 2. Hi just read that the organization Charity Watch has rated the Clinton foundation higher than the Red Cross.

True? Couldn't find that they rated the foundation at all. ThanksMIXTURERATINGWHAT'S TRUEThe charity ranking site Charity. Watch grades the Clinton Foundation as an "A" and the Red Cross as an "A- ."WHAT'S FALSEThe larger and more highly regarded Charity Navigator stopped evaluating the Clinton Foundation after an early 2. September 2. 01. 6 reinstated the Foundation's rating. ORIGINOn 2. 8 August 2.

• ORIGINAL POST: September 7, 2016. I REALLY LIKED Tom Hanks in the Paul Greengrass movie, “Captain Phillips.” There, that’s my review of the new film “Sully.
• In California, the highways have special lanes for High Occupancy Vehicles (HOV). The definition of ‘high occupancy’ to ride in those lanes is two, the smallest.
• · The Red Cross was ranked as an "A-" to the Clinton Foundation's "A" by CharityWatch, but the larger Charity Navigator didn't rate the latter organization.
  • Fact checked by snopes.com: Mixture

'http:// h='ID=SERP,5171.1'>Rick Astley - Never Gonna Give You Up - YouTube

Music video by Rick Astley performing Never Gonna Give You Up.

Clinton Foundation scored higher in efficiency than the well- known aid- providing Red Cross organization: As seen in the example field above, the claim caused some skepticism among social media among users who were unable to independently corroborate the claim. That phenomenon likely stemmed from confusion “Charity. Watch No Right Turn Streaming on this page.

Watch” and “Charity Navigator,” two similarly- named charity evaluation services. The former ranked the Clinton Foundation (A) slightly higher than the Red Cross (A- ), while the latter doesn’t rank the Clinton Foundation at all. How much credence one should afford these rankings is debatable, however. Charity Navigator is the much larger and more highly regarded site, while the smaller Charity. Watch‘s Wikipedia entry shows that organization to employ a ranking methodology that has generated a large “Criticism” section. A 2. 01. 1 ranking of charity watchdogs contrasted the two sites: Charity Navigator (charitynavigator. Evaluates about 5,5.

Reports are based largely on self- reported data. In coming years, Charity Navigator aims to add information on charitable program results. People interested in specific categories can find several Top 1.

Some aspects of the site are free to all users, while others require registration. The site is supported through charitable donations from large donors and individual users. Charity. Watch (charity.

Watch. org): Formerly called the American Institute of Philanthropy, this 2. Questions addressed include possible fraudulent valuation of donations, inappropriate categorizations of program expenses and legitimate reasons for seeming financial inefficiency. Lists of top- rated charities can be viewed free, but the group’s full thrice- yearly reports — which feature updates and investigations into wrongdoing in the industry — require a $3 payment for the first sample and then a $4. Charity. Watch’s work is supported by individual donations. With respect to the original tweet, it was true that Charity. Watch gave the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation an “A” rating by Charity.

Watch in April 2. A- ” grade to the American Red Cross of August 2.

While the Red Cross achieved a higher “Program Percentage” (share of monies allocated to services) than the Clinton Foundation at 9. Red Cross was less efficient because they spent more money to raise money ($3. Clinton Foundation ($3 per $1. Charity. Watch. However, the comparison arguably constitutes cherry picking, in that Charity. Watch is a far smaller, atypical arbiter of charity ratings. Most news outlets turn to Charity Navigator when seeking out figures for any one charity organization’s effectiveness, but no such claim was proffered about the comparative rankings of the American Red Cross and the Clinton Foundation by Charity Navigator.

That’s likely because while the American Red Cross has achieved an overall Charity Navigator rating of 8. Charity Navigator maintains no rating for the Clinton Foundation at all. The page for the Clinton Foundation on the Charity Navigator site includes a brief explanation stating that the Clinton Foundation was at one time evaluated and included in Charity Navigator rankings, but that Charity Navigator subsequently determined the Clinton Foundation didn’t meet their rating criteria: Why isn’t this organization rated? We had previously evaluated this organization, but have since determined that this charity’s atypical business model can not be accurately captured in our current rating methodology. Our removal of The Clinton Foundation from our site is neither a condemnation nor an endorsement of this charity.

We reserve the right to reinstate a rating for The Clinton Foundation as soon as we identify a rating methodology that appropriately captures its business model. What does it mean that this organization isn’t rated? It simply means that the organization doesn’t meet our criteria. A lack of a rating does not indicate a positive or negative assessment by Charity Navigator. Charity Navigator includes extensive clips and links to news coverage of the Clinton Foundation on their page, adding that: In accordance with our policy for removing charities from the CN Watchlist, Charity Navigator removed the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation from the Watchlist in December 2.

Forms for 2. 01. 0, 2. This information, along with the public memorandum submitted addressing the other issues raised in the Watchlist entry, meets our requirements for removal.

On 1. 0 May 2. 01. Daily Intelligencer published an in- depth article about the Clinton Foundation’s dispute with Charity Navigator and the Foundation’s attempts to reinstate their standing in early 2.

The Clinton Foundation scandal cycle is already spinning off new complications. A case in point: After being the subject of a spate of negative newspaper accounts about potential conflicts of interest and management dysfunction this winter — long before Clinton Cash — the Clinton Foundation wound up on a “watch list” maintained by the Charity Navigator, the New Jersey–based nonprofit watchdog. The Navigator, dubbed the “most prominent” nonprofit watchdog by the Chronicle of Philanthropy, is a powerful and feared player in the nonprofit world. Founded in 2. 00.

For a while, the Clinton Foundation was happy to promote Charity Navigator’s work (back when they were awarded its highest ranking). In September 2. 01. Navigator’s then- CEO, Ken Berger, was invited to speak at the Clinton Global Initiative. Of course that was before the Foundation was placed on a list with scandal- plagued charities like Al Sharpton’s National Action Network and the Red Cross.

Since March, the Foundation has embarked on an aggressive behind- the- scenes campaign to get removed from the list. Clinton Foundation officials accuse the Navigator of unfairly targeting them, lacking credible evidence of wrongdoing, and blowing off numerous requests for a meeting to present their case. They’re not only punishing us for being transparent but are not being transparent themselves,” Maura Pally, the Foundation’s acting CEO, told me by phone from Morocco.

Charity Navigator doesn’t disclose its donors, but we do and yet that means we’re suffering the consequences.”Navigator executives counter that the Foundation has demanded they extend the Clintons special treatment. They also allege the Foundation attempted to strong- arm them by calling a Navigator board member. They felt they were of such importance that we should deviate from our normal process. They were irritated by that,” says Berger.

The feud is a microcosm of all that is exhausting about the Clintons’ endless public battles. Generally, it goes like this: bad press about their lack of transparency sparks some real- world consequence or censure, the Clintons complain that they’re being held to an unfair standard while their critics contend that they expect to be able to write their own rules, and the resulting flare- up leads to more bad press. The trouble with Navigator started on Wednesday morning, March 1. Foundation officials became alarmed when they received an anonymous email from the watchdog’s Donor Advisory committee informing them they would be added to the list on Friday, March 1. Among the press controversies the Navigator cited: A Wall Street Journal report that noted “at least 6.

Largest Cruises Site, Deals, Reviews. Is a month on Adonia too long? P& O on 1. 8th Mar 2.

By Greaves,Grimsby. We have just returned from a 2. Adonia. It was sold as one cruise but in fact it was two back to back cruises. The first fortnight we visited smaller islands, Mayreau, Bequaia, Guadaloupe as well as St Maarten, Antigua, Martinique, Tortola, and Tobago. The islands were everything you expect of the Caribbean, white sand, palm trees, clear blue seas, colour, steel bands and happy people.

The second fortnight we visited Central America, Cost Rica, Honduras, Colombia, Panama, then Aruba and Grenada. The two cruise itineraries were very different, both interesting and well worth visiting. Watching a ship go through Gatun Lock into the Panama Canal. Watch Alvin And The Chipmunks: The Squeakquel Online Free HD there.

Read More. 2. 09. Views. 9. 3 Likes.