Anastazias Escorts

Niagara’s Finest


AGE: 32
WEIGHT: 125 lbs
STATS: 36C 25 36
HAIR: Blonde
EYES: Blue
NOTES: Mishel is a very attractive lady. She is a GFE. Men only.Be sure to check out Our Duos Page

AGE: 25
WEIGHT: 120 lbs
STATS: 36C 27 32
HAIR: Brown
EYES: Brown
NOTES: Savannah is very attractive lady, that likes to have fun. Tru GFE. Men/Women/CouplesBe sure to check out Our Duos Page

AGE: 23
WEIGHT: 130 lbs
STATS: 36C 27 36
HAIR: Auburn
EYES: Blue
NOTES: Serenity is an attractive young lady, not a GFE. She entertains Men and Couples.Be sure to check out Our Duos Page

AGE: 19
WEIGHT: 125 lbs
STATS: 36C 29 36
HAIR: Blonde
EYES: Blue
NOTES: Alyssa is an attractive young lady with dance experience. Very out going, and knows how to have fun. Men, Couples and Duos Be sure to check out Our Duos Page

TatyanaAGE: 27HEIGHT: 5’6WEIGHT: 130 lbsSTATS: 36C 27 36HAIR: Shoulder length Brown and RedEYES: BrownNOTES: Tatyana is an attractive lady with dance experience. New to the area, but experienced. She knows how to have fun, and aims to please! GFE, and DUOS with Alyssa. Be sure to check out Our Duos Page

AGE: 20
WEIGHT: 120 lbs
STATS: 36C 27 33HAIR: Blonde
EYES: Gree
nNOTES: Vixen is an attractive young lady who enjoys what she does. Vixen is a True GFE, she entertains Men/Couples/DuosBe sure to check out Our Duos Page

AGE: 28
WEIGHT: 120 lbs
STATS: 36B 24 34
HAIR: Light Brown
EYES: Blue
NOTES: Amber is an attractive, intelligent, and very out going lady who is open minded and enjoys spending quality time with Men, and Couples. Time spent with Amber will definately be enjoyable.
Be sure to check out Our Duos Page

AGE: 27
WEIGHT: 130 lbs
STATS: 36B 24 34
HAIR: 36D 29 36
EYES: Hazel
NOTES: Jersey is an attractive lady with an irish background giving her a cinnamon flair, having curves in all the right places she is definitely a jewel. Jersey is new to the business, GFE will vary.
Be sure to check out Our Duos Page

Asian Escorts NYC | Asian Escorts | Buffalo Escorts

San Francisco’s Tech Tax Breaks Are Broken

A mural on the Warfield building, Spotify’s new home, depicts the Mid-Market street life.

Spotify, the streaming music company, is moving its San Francisco offices to the city’s Mid-Market tax haven, where it can qualify for the city’s controversial “Twitter tax breaks.”

Any company with offices in the neighborhood that has over $1 million in annual payroll expenses is eligible for tax exemptions: 1.5% on payroll taxes on new hires for six years. Currently, Spotify’s 15 San Francisco employees are in a Financial District office — but their new three-floor digs in the Warfield building, home to San Francisco’s famous music venue, has space for around 90 employees.

Spotify’s tax break wouldn’t go into effect immediately: The application for eligibility is Nov. 1. But Spotify has already begun conversations with the city.

Spotify, like the other seven companies that get the breaks, would have to sign a Community Benefit Agreement (CBA), outlining how they will “give back” to the community. Other companies’ CBAs have included a combination of volunteering, charitable donations, and in Twitter’s case, $60,000 in promoted tweets. “The thing we’re most excited about is working within the community artist groups and helping with workforce development,” says Spotify. “We have had discussions primarily with the city looking at introductions to the specific groups.”

But making sure that companies keep their word to “give back” is a complicated process. The city designated the City Administrator Office to oversee the CBA process, but the oversight system has broken down.

A major part of the review process is an 11-member Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC), which has been providing input to the companies about specific things the community needs, ways the companies can help, and what is and is not working. For example, many companies prefer one-day large volunteer events, which are easier to organize and dispense with service pledges quickly, but only organizations like soup kitchens are equipped to handle that volume of volunteers. The committee holds public meetings, coordinated by the city, as well as one-on-one sessions with the companies.

The CAC has no formal decision-making powers — that is up to the City Administrator Office — but they play a key, and highly symbolic, role in making sure the companies live up to the promises they made to the city in exchange for major tax relief.

Last month, with only hours’ notice before the May meeting, the CAC was temporarily disabled. It was claimed that the four members were dismissed due to too many unexcused absences. Three other seats were already vacant — one due to maternity leave, another because of a conflict of interest (his organization received a grant from Twitter), and another that was never filled — leaving the committee without a quorum.

“There is now no public forum to discuss what is working what isn’t working,” says CAC member Mara Blitzer. “There is no way for the companies to be accountable to community. That is something we have asked for from the start. The challenge will be community transparency.”

This leaves SF’s tax haven beneficiaries without real public oversight, and at a crucial time: The six companies handed in their first progress reports last Friday, and the city won’t yet publicly release their contents. According to Bill Barnes in the City Administrator Office, the city is moving forward anyway, and even speeding up the review process.

“The public wants to provide input in design of the reporting document, but ultimately [reviews of the CBAs] are the city administration’s decision,” says Barnes. For now, citizens can mail in written suggestions.

The effective dismantling of the CAC is illustrative of the disorganization and miscommunication that has rifled San Francisco’s most recent tech courtship since the start. “The city administration was open to community input but was not organized in how to received it,” says Dina Hilliard, former CAC committee chair, now on maternity leave. “It isn’t their fault,” she adds, however. “They don’t have the resources.”

Often meetings were scheduled and canceled extremely last-minute, say members of the CAC. They reported having difficulty obtaining meeting minutes and didn’t know how to get an absence excused, which ultimately resulted in removals.

The legislation that created the CBA process is also questionable. It was created by a former city administration staffer and doesn’t reflect the current process. For example, originally the CAC would meet quarterly, so missing four meetings meant missing all of them. Over the past 12 months, the CAC has met 15 times, making the absentee process much stricter, in effect. “When [my office] was alerted of the rule, we weren’t taking attendance on a regular basis,” says Barnes, who adds he was “frustrated” by the process.

“I don’t think it was nefarious,” says Blitzer. “But [the city] got caught not upholding the rules and instead of having moment of working through it, they took the most extreme response they could.”

Since the CAC’s dissolution, the city has appointed a new staffer to work part-time with the Mid-Market group.

The CAC has already provided four months of feedback to the city and companies about the CBA progress. “It is not like the community has had no input,” says Hilliard. “It is really disappointing that we will miss out on community input on the specifics of the CBAs.”

Before the CAC was disabled, its members were urging the city to ask the companies for specific quantitative details in the progress report instead of using a more basic reporting form. The city has since rejected the idea.

The city is accepting new CAC applicants. The timing of the appointing process is not finalized, but the citizen committee should be up and running in time for the mid-year CBA approval.

Ironically, complaints about the unexcused absences came from members of the community who want more committed representatives. Now they have none.

H/T: Central City Extra community newspaper.

Read more:

If You’re Over 30 And Single, You Should Be Using Tinder

So much of the discussion around Tinder centers on people in their twenties. But it’s actually the best way for people in their thirties and older who are looking for relationships to meet.

Alice Mongkongllite / BuzzFeed

Tinder is “stupid and harmful because it only makes romantic human connection harder.” It is also “a factory and you shouldn’t pretend it’s even vaguely romantic.” And let’s not forget that “the adult consequence of living with one’s decisions doesn’t really exist when the next best thing is only a swipe away.”

Most of the discussion around Tinder has focused on its core demographic: twentysomethings, gay and straight, in urban areas (New York and Los Angeles, where I live, are its two biggest markets), who seem to use Tinder to hook up, boost or masochistically deflate their ego, and/or issue sweeping, usually disparaging pronouncements about everyone they’ve ever encountered on it.

But I’ve now come to realize that even though all of the press around Tinder focuses on its popularity with twentysomethings, it’s actually the perfect app for someone in their thirties, or older, to find love. As people age, they naturally grow less inclined to seek out relationships that are more casual. (For one thing, it’s exhausting. After you turn 33 or so, staying out past 10 on a school night becomes much more rare.) Also, as we age, the pool of eligible people shrinks, and with it so do the number of opportunities to meet people in the ways people met people in their twenties (well, before Tinder existed): through friends, at parties, at bars, at work, in grad school, wherever. There’s something really comforting to know that, in fact, there are actually tons of people out there who are age-appropriate and are looking for the same thing you are.

Because much of the criticism of Tinder seems to actually be, implicitly, a criticism of the machinations of dating, and the ways in which dating causes people to, sometimes, show their worst, judgmental, passive aggressive selves instead of their best selves. My co-worker Tamerra recently asked me, “Do people think that the app will relieve people of the responsibility of being sincere, projecting themselves honestly, and communicating what they’re looking for in a relationship the same way they would IRL?” Certainly, Tinder seems to make it easier to not be vulnerable, to put out a bulletproof version of yourself. But Tinder doesn’t make it easier to fall in love just because it makes it easier to be exposed to hundreds, or thousands, of potential dates. To fall in love means you need to really know yourself, and be secure and happy enough that you want to share yourself with someone else, and to be vulnerable. Tinder doesn’t get rid of those steps, and it’s unrealistic to think that it would.

I agree with the psychology professor Eli J. Finkel, who recently defended Tinder as “the best option available now” for “open-minded singles … who would like to marry someday and want to enjoy dating in the meantime.” And I think that’s especially true if you are in your thirties and you are looking for a relationship, and you see dating as a means to that end. There are, of course, exceptions to every single rule, but I found that the people on Tinder in their thirties were, generally, more receptive to the idea of being in a relationship than you would expect. Including me.

I spent most of my twenties in a series of relatively short-lived monogamous relationships. I didn’t “date,” per se; I ended up with boyfriends who clearly weren’t right for me, but I was so comfortable with companionship that I didn’t mind. And this was the early aughts, in the early days of online dating: I was briefly on Nerve, and went on a few dates, but it felt unnatural and weird, and I didn’t know anyone else doing it. Or if they did, they were keeping it a secret, like me. So my boyfriends were guys I met in grad school, or at work, or through friends, or, once, at the optician. (He fixed my glasses.) It wasn’t until the last couple of years, when I was already well into my thirties, that I began to date date, and I quickly learned that the only people who truly like dating — and by dating I mean the numbing dance of texting, and not hearing back, and then finally hearing back, and then making plans, and changing plans, and finally meeting and deciding within 30 seconds that this is not your Person, and then doing it all over again — are generally either sociopaths or masochists.

So I do want to be clear that the mostly bad things people say about Tinder were also mostly true (and bad) for me for the year or so that I was on and off it. I got the addictive rush when I matched with someone, and another one when a match would text me, and another when we would make plans. I felt a momentary dejection when someone I was convinced was a match, based on his photos and the briefest of descriptions, didn’t match with me. Or if I went a couple of days without a match, I despaired: Was it possible I had exhausted the entire population of age-appropriate men in Los Angeles, and none of them was interested in me? But no. There were always more matches to be had.

I Tindered on work trips and vacation, meeting up a couple times with people in New York — just to see, I told myself — and became fascinated with the differences among the photos of guys in Norway (lots of skiing), Boston (lots of Red Sox caps), and Israel (lots of shirtless pics). I started taking my phone to bed with me, which had been a longtime taboo, so that I could swipe, swipe, swipe late into the night. I Tindered at bars; I Tindered in the bathroom. When it started feeling like it was taking over my life, I deleted it from my phone, took a break of a few days or a few weeks, and started again.

My profile stayed essentially unchanged over the year or so I was on and off Tinder, and everything I wrote on it was true. I was in “digital media,” I was from Boston, I was relatively new to L.A., I loved tacos and avocados, I had met two internet-famous cats but I liked dogs better. I had around five photos up, showing me in various environments and outfits and hairstyles. What I think I was trying to say was that I was approachable but not desperate, reasonably but not intimidatingly attractive, funny but not someone who did it for a living (this felt important since there were so many stand-up comedians in L.A.). I was finally over obsessing about not being “that girl” — that is, the girl who is vocal about wanting to be in a relationship, who is actually confident enough in herself to be upfront about her own needs. So I was also very conscious of wanting to communicate that I wanted a relationship without explicitly coming out and saying it in the profile, which seemed like a bit much for an opening gambit.

But while my profile stayed mostly the same, my experience on Tinder shifted each time I left and got back on, as though the breaks I took were also opportunities for the app itself to catch up with me. When I started using it in the spring of 2013, most of the guys on it were in their early twenties — way too young for me — and seemed to be only looking for a hookup. I messaged with a few of them out of boredom, but the novelty quickly wore off. When it came down to it, was I really going to go over to a 24-year-old bartender’s apartment at 10 p.m. so he could “make us drinks”? No, the days when that would’ve been appealing — if ever — had long passed. But gradually the average age of my matches crept up, and I soon noticed a very real shift in the ways in which I engaged with people on the app — and that they were responding more sincerely to the message I was sending with my profile.

And soon, I realized that all of this Tindering was doing for me was making me feel more empowered. I got to make the decision about whether we went out again. I had been so conditioned to believe that I wasn’t in the driver’s seat when it came to dating (thanks, New York) that I had become way too passive; I was so obsessed with wondering whether someone liked me that I forgot about the part that was just as important: whether I actually liked them. And going out with so many different people — in fact, simply encountering so many different people, even just on the app — had the effect of, also, helping me refine what it really was I was looking for.

First it helped me figure out what I wasn’t looking for. And that might not be what you’re not looking for, and that’s fine! That’s the beauty of Tinder, and the world; there are lots of different kinds of people for everyone. But for me, that became: anyone whose first profile photo was of them holding a beer; anyone whose first profile photo was of them shirtless in an upside-down yoga pose (granted, this might be an L.A. thing); anyone who seemed deeply unenthusiastic about their career (too old for this); anyone who lived in Orange County (too far and too suburban); anyone who had a picture of themselves proudly holding a large fish they had caught. (It turns out we can intuit a lot of things about people just from a few pictures.) I liked men who were funny and smart and did something creative with their lives. I liked men who were kind.

I’ve always hated those stories, whether it’s a Modern Love piece in the New York Times or an essay published somewhere else, about the single girl who finally, FINALLY finds love, and lives happily ever after. So this isn’t going to be one of those stories, mostly because I’m old enough now to know that there is never a happily ever after, that “ever afters” mean a million different things, and besides, an asteroid might kill us all tomorrow anyway. But I will end with this: that after a year on Tinder, and many matches but many, many misses, I matched with someone last March. We texted for pretty much 24 hours straight, and then talked on the phone for an hour and a half, and then had the best first date I’d ever had, where we talked about nothing and everything and I told him that smoking was a deal breaker and he agreed to quit on the spot. He is smart and funny and handsome and most of all, kind and thoughtful in ways that make me more mindful of how I treat other people. And the other night, when I wasn’t feeling well, he drove 25 minutes each way to pick up chicken soup from the Vietnamese place I like. Sometimes we talk about what would’ve happened if we hadn’t swiped right. I’m just happy we both did.

Read more:

Here’s Who’s Actually In The Black Flag Reunion Lineup

Everyone who has ever owned a T-shirt with the Black Flag bars on it, get ready, because the band is getting back together for an extensive tour both in the U.S. and abroad. They’re also recording a new album, to be released later this year. But for a band with so many revolving members over the years, what exactly does it mean that they’ve re-formed? Are fans going to get stuck with, like, four guys who were in the band for six months before being replaced by the really good members? Well, yes and no. The lineup definitely has its bright spots, but there are also randos in the mix, including a bass player who doesn’t exist yet. GULP. Here’s what we know about who’s signed on so far:

1. Ron Reyes

Ron Reyes singing vocals for Black Flag in 1980.

Although he originally quit the band in 1980, Ron Reyes will be providing vocals for the new incarnation of Black Flag. He’s best known for singing on the perfectly bratty, tough EP Jealous Again and appearing in the classic punk documentary Decline of Western Civilzation. As far as non-Rollins vocalists go, a reassembled Black Flag could do way worse than Reyes.

2. Greg Ginn

Greg Ginn shredding guitar with Black Flag in 1984.

OK, Greg Ginn is the real deal. He’s one of Black Flag’s founders and the only member to stick around for the whole stretch, which is no small feat considering that the band has had 16 different lineups over the course of its existence. He wrote many, if not most, of Black Flag’s songs and is widely considered to be one of the most influential guitarists in rock ‘n’ roll. My feeling is, as long as a Black Flag reunion has got Ginn, it’s got a good chance of at least some legitimacy.

3. “Dale Nixon”

This repeat image isn’t a mistake: “Dale Nixon” is an alias Ginn used to credit himself for playing bass on certain Black Flag albums.

Dale Nixon = Greg Ginn. A release from the band’s PR says, “While Dale has lent his skills to the new album, he is currently contractually obligated for a stint on Celebrity Rehab. Still, as he has always done in the past, he will continue to provide insight and spiritual guidance to the current bass player.” This is basically a joke that alludes to the fact that the new Black Flag doesn’t have a bassist yet, which isn’t a good sign.

4. Gregory Moore


It doesn’t bode well that I couldn’t even find a picture of this randonious drummer anywhere on the internet. Apparently, Moore played drums with Ginn’s side-project band, Gone, beginning in 1993. He also served as the drummer for some of Black Flag’s 2003 shows. He was never a part of any lineups from the band’s real heyday, and there’s little information about him available anywhere. Cool job of picking a drummer for your “reunion” who was never really part of the band, guys.

So here’s the takeaway: Half of Black Flag’s new lineup never played with any of the band’s most memorable lineups, and one of those non-members isn’t even a real person yet. As for the musicians who actually were valid parts of the band, while Ginn was unquestionably one of the strongest driving factors of making Black Flag the force they were, Reyes was in Black Flag for, like, a year, albeit a great one. Although this tour might be fun for super-fans, those expecting some Black Flag realness shouldn’t get their hopes too high.

Read more:

Old Photos Of Victorians Prove That Even They Could Be Silly

Smiling in photographs has become such a regular occurrence that it’s hard to image doing anything else in front of a camera. Since cameras come standard on every cell phone (unless you’re still holding onto your Zach Morris-style brick), it’s easier than ever to take pictures of friends, family, and yourself, 24/7. Unfortunately, this wasn’t always the case.

Portraits used to be a big deal, and those lucky enough to have them made took them pretty seriously. This might explain why everyone in the 1800s looked so prim and proper in their portraits. You see, a photograph was the most official form of identification you could have, and no one would have ever dared to turn theirs into a mockery by smiling. Not to mention, taking photos during the Victorian era required a lot of time – we’re talking hours of sitting still. Can you imagine trying to hold a smile for that long? Ouch. Pair this with poor oral hygiene and it’s no wonder our Victorian ancestors weren’t willing to “say cheese.”

Believe it or not, though, some photos have emerged from the 1800s that actually showcase a lighter side of life back then. From goofing around outside to making silly faces, these 19 photos prove that not everyone in the 19th century was as stuffy as we thought.

1. This Victorian couple couldn’t resist laughing in the photo booth.


2. That’s one way to serve tea …


3. Even Victorians could dance better than Drake.

Historic UK

4. This would have made a delightfully awkward Christmas card photo.

Bored Panda

5. “Whatever you do, don’t sneeze!”


(deployads = window.deployads || []).push({});

6. Three Yale students dressed in drag, 1883.

Huffington Post

7. Even their snowmen were more distinguished than ours.

The Strand Magazine

8. This must have been the 19th century’s take on “duck lips.”

State Archive

9. When you unlock your phone and the front-facing camera is on:

Bored Panda

10. Tsar Nicholas II being a goofball in the garden.

State Archive

11. Unfortunately, there weren’t any social media apps where they could post their vacation photos.

Strohmeyer & Wyman

12. A young couple plays in the surf, 1897.


13. Richard Freiherr Von Krafft-Ebing


(deployads = window.deployads || []).push({});

14. “Where’d her legs go?!”

Bored Panda

15. Roughhousing outside is always in style.

State Archive

16. The only things more beautiful than their hats are their smiles.

Digital Victorianist

17. Photobombing your parents will always be fun.

State Archive

18. The 19th century was home to some truly stunning fashion.

19th Century Modern

19. A fun double date at the beach.

Bored Panda

Don’t forget to SHARE these funny photos with your friends and family!

H/T: Bored Panda

Read more:

Sleeping Dog Wakes Up From Adele Song, Sings Along

Superdatsun posted this video last week, and it quickly has gone viral over the weekend, amassing over two million views. Rev was raised listening to Adele, so whenever his human buddy cranks up the British Grammy winner, he gets all emotional and sings along. And the Internet loves Rev.


Read more:

Evidence Suggests Missing Students In Mexico Were Not Incinerated By A Drug Cartel

One of the worlds leading experts in fire forensics says the Mexican governments account of the fate of 43 students that went missing in September 2014 is impossible, adding to the suspicion that a state cover-up may be afoot. According to the Mexican attorney general, the students were murdered by members of a drug cartel before being incinerated at a trash dump, butJose Torero from the University of Queensland says the evidence suggests otherwise.

The students from the Ayotzinapa Rural Teachers College had hijacked five buses in order to travel to a protest in Mexico City commemorating the massacre of up to 300 students in 1968. However, members of the Guerreros Unidos cartel later claimed to have ambushed the students in the town of Iguala with the help of local police, who were supposedly acting under orders from the local mayor.

The cartel members say they abducted and executed 43 individuals, later burning their bodies on a pyre made of wood and tires at a dump near the town of Cocula. Shortly afterwards, investigators uncovered bags of ashes in a nearby river.

The contents of these bags were completely charred, with virtually all of the organic matter having been burned away. As a result, scientists were unable to extract much DNA from the remains, and could only identify two of the missing 43 students from this grisly discovery. It is this detail that aroused the suspicion of Torero.

In an interview with Science, he explained that it is virtually impossible to eliminate all the organic material from a human body when burning it on an open fire. This is because bodies contain a large water content, and not enough fat to provide the fuel for such complete incineration.

To confirm this, he ran a series of experiments using pig carcasses, which he burned on a pyre made of tires and dry wood. His findings revealed that it takes around 27,000 kilograms (59,500 pounds) of wood to burn 43 bodies, and that even this still leaves around 10percent of the organic material intact. As such, he began to suspect that the Ayotzinapa students must have been disposed of at a crematorium.

He then decided to visit the site of the alleged fire in order to look for signs that a major blaze had occurred. Given the scale of the inferno that would have been needed to reduce the bodies to ashes, many of the surrounding trees should have been permanently scarred, yet Torero found no such markings on the nearby vegetation.

As a result, he states that the hypothesis that 43 bodies were burned in that dump is impossible, placing yet more pressure on the government to uncover the truth.

Read more:

How To Be Sassy: A Lesson From Taylor Swift

1. Wear a “Haters Gonna Hate” shirt with a unicorn on it:

Ethan Miller / Getty Images

2. When your bodyguards tell you that you can’t see your fans, tell them to shut up:

5. Do it anyway:

7. Use the term “breaking news” when you’re about to get real sassy:

Christopher Polk / Getty Images / Via

8. Throw on some shade when necessary:

13. Especially if a reporter insinuates that you lip-sync:

14. Blatantly call your boyfriends out in live performances:

Ex: Joe Jonas

Ex: Joe Jonas (again)

18. Stick your tongue out when your friends are being gross:

19. Toys are also a great way to channel your sassiness:

21. Be sassy with yourself:

26. Make sure you make sassy faces to go along with your sassy songs:

32. Most importantly, be as sassy as you want:

35. Because, no matter what:

Read more:

Community Post: 8 Classic Nerd Maneuvers Tops The Morning Links

Read more:

After bang-up job on Benghazi, Hillary hits Middle East for ceasefire talks!/fretbunny/status/270873939511742464

Fresh off her tipsy jaunt to Australia and a swing through Cambodia, Thailand and “Myanmar” with President Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is taking the sisterhood of the traveling pantsuit to the Middle East today “to consult on the situation in Gaza.” Let’s hope she left her bottle down under.

Breaking: SecState Hillary Clinton will arrive tonight in Israel for a surprise visit to try and promote Gaza cease fire

— Barak Ravid (@BarakRavid) November 20, 2012

An Israeli official said a possible ground invasion has been put “on hold” as Clinton prepares to join ceasefire talks with leaders in Israel, the West Bank and Egypt.

Israel has agreed not to launch a ground operation for at least 24 hours, as Hillary Clinton heads for the region to help broker a ceasefire

— Henry D’Andrea (@TheHenry) November 20, 2012

Unsurprisingly, Obama will not be joining Clinton at her meetings with Netanyahu and Abbas.

Thousands of Marines & Hillary are headed to Israel. Hmmm. Obama will probably be on another vacation on talk show. MESS! Pray……..

— Debbie(@beachlvr21399) November 20, 2012

But hey, maybe the White House will grace us with another Historic™ photo of the president phoning it in. More on Clinton’s trip to the region:

#SecClinton to Ramallah, Jerusalem & Cairo in surprise visit. She’ll talk Gaza invasion, Palestinian membership at UN, Israeli strikes

— margaret brennan (@margbrennan) November 20, 2012

#SecClinton to try to “reopen the path” to 2 state solution for Israelis & Palestinians. Talks dormant in past 4 yrs

— margaret brennan (@margbrennan) November 20, 2012

#SecClintonto commend Egypt’s efforts to de-escalate the situation in #Gaza. US is hopeful that these efforts will be successful

— margaret brennan (@margbrennan) November 20, 2012

No worries, guys. Hillary’s got this covered!

“Oh goody, everything will be better now that Hillary is headed to Israel. She totally helped with Benghazi.” – says no one.

— Whitney Neal (@WhitneyNeal) November 20, 2012

Makes sense to send Hillary to Israel. Obama still refuses to step foot in the country, or even recognize our closest alliance.

— JeffW (@jeff28w) November 20, 2012

Will Clinton continue to remain silent on Turkey’s claim that Israel is engaged in acts of “terrorism”?

Also headed to the region is U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, who is expected to arrive ahead of Clinton.

UN Chief Ban Ki-moon to arrive in Israel earlier than scheduled

— Yiddish News (@YiddishNews) November 20, 2012

Read more: