text:
- Font:
- +
- -
Guests: Jonathan Alter, Chuck Todd, Jeanne Cummings, Rep. Keith Ellison, Steve Kornacki
CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: The deal. Let's play HARDBALL.
MATTHEWS: Good evening. I'm Chris Matthews.
Leading off tonight, the deal is done. We now know the outlines of the deal between the White House and congressional Republicans that was announced by President Obama just minutes ago.
It looks like this: a two-year extension of all Bush tax cuts, including those for the wealthy; a 13-month extension of unemployment insurance; and a 2 percentage point increase drop in the payroll tax for one year. He also teased what looks to be a major Obama push for debt reduction, tough choices he called it, that he said would give him a powerful case to end the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy in two years.
We'll take a look at the deal and what it means for the economy and who won, who lost politically at the top of the show.
Also, Democratic sources tell NBC News that liberal members are objecting to the extension of the Bush tax cuts and to a reduction of the estate tax for inheritances of more than $5 million. Well, a lot of progressives say President Obama didn't, quote, "fight hard enough to win more concessions from Republicans." We'll get into that argument.
Plus, has the word gone out among some Republicans that it's OK to bash Sarah Palin? Where once seldom was heard a discouraging word. Now, Sarah Palin is taking shots from the likes of Ed Rollins, Joe Scarborough and even Barbara Bush. Has someone sounded the dog whistle?
And a federal appeals court heard arguments late today on Proposition 8, the ban on same-sex marriage in California, out in California. David Boise is fighting to overturn that ban. He may win. He joins us here tonight.
Finally, another brilliant idea for the people who brought you the Tea Party: voting rights should be limited to people who own land. Boy, does that sound like a federalist policy from 200 years ago? We'll check out the "Sideshow" for that.
We start with a new deal in taxes.
Jeanne Cummings is with "Politico." Jeanne, thank you for joining us.
It seems like there's a lot in this, not just extending the Bush tax cuts including those for the people who are making the top brackets, but the earned income tax, which is a Democratic idea, child tax, 2 percent drop in the payroll tax, accelerated depreciation which allows business to make investments in the coming year and have it count as an immediate write-off.
A lot of this stuff seems to be aimed at helping the economy. You know? It's what's interesting here, as we've been talking the politics is: will he fight or won't he fight? I got the feeling the president was looking at the economic picture and that ridiculously high unemployment rate and what he can to do lower it.
JEANNE CUMMINGS, POLITICO: I agree with you, Chris. The last two items that you mentioned are very important in terms of economic stimulus. I think that the White House was looking at this from two different angles, one of them was do everything he can to get the economy going again, because if he can get the economy going again, he can get strength back. He can gain some political capital—
MATTHEWS: Exactly.
CUMMINGS: -- for the fights that could come—
MATTHEWS: That's what the leverage would be. Right.
CUMMINGS: -- in the future. Right.
MATTHEWS: That is so right. What do you make—I thought there was a huge tease, Jeanne, I know you look for these things as well.
Well, let's take a look at the president. We get him a shot here. I think he had some big tease item in there about debt reduction that he's going to grab on to something from that commission. He never mentioned it before tonight and he did tonight.
Let's listen to the president late today.
BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I have no doubt that everyone will find something in this compromise that they don't like. In fact, there are things in here that I don't like, namely, the extension of the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans and the wealthiest of estates. But these tax cuts will expire in two years. And I'm confident that as we make tough choices about bringing our deficit down, as I engage in a conversation with the American people about the hard choices we're going to have to make to secure our future and our children's future and our grandchildren's future, it will become apparent that we cannot afford to extend those tax cuts any longer.
MATTHEWS: Jeanne, two big stories here. Let's get to them.
First of all, the compromise that he's made with Republicans—do we know if that sells with the House Democrats?
CUMMINGS: We don't know that. In fact, right after the president started speaking, I touched base by e-mail with a senior aide over in the House, and they don't know where the votes are right now. They have not had an opportunity to sit down with their people. Some of the early reaction has been—from progressives, has been to blame the Republicans and not necessarily the president. If he stays along those lines, they should be all right.
But the progressive base is very hot on this issue, and they are really riled up about the fact that they feel like the White House gives in as we heard on Ed's show, gives in and gives in. And there's going to be a lot of pressure on the progressive members of the House to resist.
MATTHEWS: Well, the point is, they're the only people left in the Democratic Party. You think they'd be embarrassed by the fact if they're such a successful political movement, why are they getting smaller and smaller? That would be my question.
Let's bring in Jonathan Alter here. Jon, and thank you for joining us, from "Newsweek."
It seems to me that the reason progressives can talk with such a simple voice, a clear-hearted left-wing voice, if you will, is there's so few of them now. And they're only in seats now that couldn't be beaten by Republicans in the best Republican year in history, right? That's why they can talk like clear lefties.
JONATHAN ALTER, NEWSWEEK: And they have the freedom to do that because they're in safe seats.
The big question here for the liberal Democrats is where Pelosi is and how committed she is. Obviously, she was in on this, but is she giving it with a wink or is she truly going to go and, as they say, whip these votes to make sure that the president doesn't have trouble on this? The part of the package I'm the most puzzled by is the time of the extension. Two years.
MATTHEWS: Yes.
ALTER: It takes it out past the next election. Why didn't the Democrats hold out for a year or a few months?
MATTHEWS: Because they didn't have a choice, because they insisted, the Republicans, I think on two years. They want this battle right before the next election.
The president, however—I want Jeanne on this—the president seemed to tease something very important. I think based upon what he said tonight, he's going to go to the State of the Union in the beginning of next year and ask the American people to join him in a major long-term debt reduction effort, in the context of where he's asking people to, perhaps, accept way down the road later retirement, cost reductions in Medicare and Medicaid, very painful cuts, military cuts. Things like that.
Is it harder for the Republican business crowd to demand tax cuts for the rich in that kind of environment? In other words, two years from now, the environment may be different for the president. He may be counting on that.
ALTER: Oh, yes, I think it probably will be different. Also, the big difference, they hope, is that we're not in a hole economically, where it's very hard to raise taxes in the middle of a recession on anybody.
MATTHEWS: If we still have a recession in two years, that will be a depression.
ALTER: They'll kick it down the road, again, because you can't raise taxes very easily on anybody in the middle of a recession.
MATTHEWS: I agree with that. Let's go to Chuck Todd at the White House.
Chuck, perhaps I'm reading into this, but I'm reading hard. It is that this president intends to fight the fight over taxes later. He didn't just kick this down the road. He expects to use the State of the Union to come out with some major commitment to debt reduction. A lot of pain and agony, as he said, tough choices.
Does that mean he thinks the context later will be not co conducive to rich people demanding tax cuts?
CHUCK TODD, NBC NEWS POLITICLA DIRECTOR: You talk to some folks within the White House and they say, hey, you know what, we're fine with having this as an election year fight in 2012. They want to have it.
And now, of course, the question is: will he have credibility with some voters? Because he spent a lot of time in 2008 talking about rolling back tax cuts for those folks who make over $250,000. But I think we'll know how hard he's going to do this.
You bring up the State of the Union. The debt commission plan that came out, which has a lot of pain in there for everybody, but the centerpiece of it is tax reform. The tax reform—is he going to take that part of it up? Is that what he's going to put in his State of the Union?
There are a lot of folks inside this White House that would like him to do that. There are some who don't. I don't think he has made up his mind.
Does he take the entire debt commission plan and own it, or does he at least take tax reform and own that? Because that actually—some support with serious Republicans that aren't looking to just score political points but that do want to bring down the overall rates. Does he put that in there? And if he does, that goes to what you're saying that this is almost chess, not checkers, as far as the future of this fight over taxes.
MATTHEWS: Let me ask you about the theatrics here. Frank Rich weighed in this weekend for "The New York Times."
TODD: Yes.
MATTHEWS: He's a smart guy. But I think he was playing theater director this week with the president, suggesting he should act like Ralph Kramden, the loud mouthed guy in the "Honeymooners," rather than Barack Obama.
Was there any thought ever given to this president coming up with a full-throated populist argument against the Republicans on this?
TODD: No. But he gave you that six months ago, not after the election. I heard Jonathan talking about this sooner. Look, six months ago, don't forget it was the president that was talking about having a fight about taxes that wanted to make an election, have a fall election debate about these Bush era tax cuts. And it was Capitol Hill Democrats, all the ones now that have a spine, that didn't have the spine six months ago and didn't want to do this. And so—
ALTER: Russ Feingold.
TODD: -- the White House is sitting there going, hey, guys, guess what, we lost this election. We lost—the best hand we've got is this. If we wait out the end of the year, not only is it going to be fiscally hard on millions of Americans, both lower income, upper income, every income, but they're going to get a worse deal what comes out in a compromise between a Democratic Senate and Republican house.
So, what's amazing here about this criticism coming right now from the so-called "Professional Left," to borrow a phrase from Robert Gibbs, is it seems to be not grounded in reality.
MATTHEWS: You know, I think they have a point of view, but I'm one—
I think the president has a job which is different than a point of view.
Let's start with Jeanne Cummings then around to Jonathan then back to
you, Chuck, with my question. Let's take the alternative scenario to the
one he took tonight. Suppose the president came out and said, I'm fighting
to use the metaphor the people in the progressive community use, fight.
It's really a metaphor. It means I'm willing to go through Christmas, New Year's, next year, for months if necessary, I'm going to challenge the Republicans to hold their stance on rich people tax cuts at the expense of higher taxes for everybody, the death of DADT, the death of new START Treaty, the death of unemployment insurance being continued—all those things, just to make my point, because that's what it would have taken.
And my question to you, Jeanne, was that a reasonable probability for him to do? In other words, what he decided not to do tonight, against all the advice from the loud left, would it have worked politically?
CUMMINGS: It probably would not have worked politically, if we're talking about the independents, which is the group that the White House needs to win back. And the independents did not want that kind of fighting, if you look at focus groups and polling. They wanted Washington to focus on how to get the economy going again. The stimulative pieces of this are a part of a reaction to that.
The independents wanted an end to some of the fighting.
MATTHEWS: Right.
CUMMINGS: They wanted to see their country working together. So, compromise is the way to go to appease them in that regard as well.
And the other question—the other element of your question, Chris, to look at, is let's say he did fight for the next two months or three months and, see, you know, all of the bad things that might happen. In the end, would he have ever gotten the votes—
MATTHEWS: That's the question. Yes.
CUMMINGS: -- to do what he wanted to do? And if you look at the Democratic-controlled Senate today, it appears as though he doesn't have the votes right now. So, would that have improved when you got a House Republican majority? Of course not.
MATTHEWS: So, he looked down the tunnel, Jon, and he saw defeat, even at the end of a long struggle.
ALTER: And in the meantime, there's what he calls—to use the military nicety—collateral damage. That's a real thing.
As he said at the end, he reiterated, this is not an abstraction. You're talking about 2 million people who are going to have unemployment insurance run out and 98 percent of the American public that would have a pretty steep tax increase at the beginning of January.
You know, he—while we're fussing around in Washington, he's thinking, we just can't do that to people. So, it became a responsibility test for him, a governing test.
MATTHEWS: It's an easier position to take for a safe seat, a Democratic president of the United States who's trying to win control and leadership of the country.
Thank you, Chuck Todd, as always, thanks for coming in tonight on
Jonathan Alter, thank you. And Jeanne Cummings, thank you.
Coming up: much more on the deal between President Obama and the Republicans that's just been cracked. Let's see if it holds. Some liberals aren't happy as we've heard. And we're going to get reaction from the loud left, the progressive left, whatever. There are all kinds of names for them, but they have a big role to play in the Democratic Party.
You're watching HARDBALL, only on MSNBC.
MATTHEWS: We learned this afternoon that Elizabeth Edwards, wife of former presidential candidate John Edwards, is gravely ill. Edwards family sources tell NBC News her condition has taken a turn for the worse, with doctors telling her aggressive treatment for her cancer is no longer advisable. Elizabeth is receiving care now at home in North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She's said to be not in pain right now and is surrounded by family and friends. It doesn't look good.
We'll be right back.
MATTHEWS: Here we go. How will liberals react to this compromise plan the president just announced with the Republicans?
Joining me now is Democratic Congressman Keith Ellison of Minnesota.
Sir, you've been working hard tonight. You're sort of on the night duty here.
Let me ask you this—it seems to me there's two kinds of Democrats:
the ones who got beaten this November and the ones that survived. The ones that survived probably can't get beaten because this is the worst year a Democrat is probably going to face for centuries. So, they can be progressive.
REP. KEITH ELLISON (D), MINNESOTA: I'm not sure that's true, Chris.
MATTHEWS: You think it can get worse?
ELLISON: I don't—no, I think it could get worse and I think the people who won this time around won because they really dug in and worked hard and convinced the voters. Nobody was handed anything in this last election.
MATTHEWS: Well, there are no such things as safe seats, sir.
ELLISON: No, there are not. There's no such thing as a safe seat.
MATTHEWS: Excuse me.
ELLISON: I disagree.
MATTHEWS: San Francisco, the Bay Area—
ELLISON: (INAUDIBLE) there are no safe seats. A lot of long-term Democrats have been there for a long time.
MATTHEWS: OK. Every time, Pete Stark get 70 percent in a reelection campaign, that's a safe seat. OK? I end my story right there. You can't be beaten in San Francisco as a Democrat.
ELLISON: Well, what about Oberstar?
MATTHEWS: I mentioned New York, San Francisco, Philadelphia, Chicago.
You can't lose in the inner city if you're a Democrat. You can't lose.
ELLISON: Well, I would—I would venture to say anybody who thinks they're in a safe seat is probably—
MATTHEWS: We're arguing over something—let's face it, Congressman, I'm right, you're wrong on this one. Let's move on, OK?
ELLISON: No, I don't agree.
MATTHEWS: But you have the right attitude which is—
ELLISON: And don't forget about the primary—and don't forget about the primary challenge either, Chris. Don't forget—
MATTHEWS: Yes, it's from the left.
ELLISON: You know, you got—well, look at—no, look at Detroit. You know, Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick got beat by Hansen Clarke. She got a challenge there. So, the fact is, no safe seats.
MATTHEWS: OK. We're—no safe seats from the right. Let's go in—
I'll make it that way. Let's go now.
The issue now is that what will be the responsibility of your Progressive Caucus to the president's deal tonight? Can you speak it or do you have to check with the people?
ELLISON: Well, I got a—we got to huddle and check in. I will say this, I think that—I hate that the president was put in a position to have to make this kind of compromise. I mean, the fact is, is that we shouldn't have to—we shouldn't have to fight this way just to extend unemployment benefits for so many Americans who paid into unemployment insurance. No time when unemployment is this high have we had to fight over this kind of thing and now, 2 million people are looking at being without unemployment insurance and another 2 million by the end of February.
So, the fact he had to make this kind of compromise I feel very bad about and it just—I hope it motivates people to get out there—
ELLISON: -- and to campaign hard so that we can really have some economic policies that benefit the whole economic structure.
MATTHEWS: Just to make your progressive point, which I think I know how to make, I would have put that on the floor and forced the Republicans to vote against it on Christmas Eve, I would have said, go ahead, guys, we'll make your day. You want to be scrooge, go ahead and vote up or down on unemployment insurance extension. Why didn't you do that?
ELLISON: Well, you know what, I don't make those calls.
MATTHEWS: Why don't you do that?
ELLISON: I'm not—but the thing is, I think we did make that point. I got up on the House floor and said that. And I think the American people know who was on their side and who was not.
MATTHEWS: Well—
ELLISON: Look at the people who voted against unemployment insurance.
MATTHEWS: OK. I agree with you. Let's dramatize these things. Let's get smart. Let's listen to the president tonight, what he said, because I think you're right, he was boxed in. Here he is. He got boxed in.
OBAMA: I'm not willing to see 2 million Americans who stand to lose their unemployment insurance at the end of this month be put in a situation where they might lose their home or their car or suffer some additional economic catastrophe. So, sympathetic as I am to those who prefer a fight over compromise, as much as the political wisdom may dictate fighting over solving problems, it would be the wrong thing to do.
MATTHEWS: Congressman, last response to that. What do you make of that? Bottom line it.
ELLISON: Well, bottom line is—I think the president is right. He's in a very tough position. But—and the answer is, we've got to dig in and fight and get out there between now and every day until the next election comes by, to help make the case to the American people that the Republicans are not good at managing the economy, they don't have the best interest of the working classes at heart, and we got to make sure that even the people in the well-to-do community understand that we're not going to have the economic ladder that they climbed up if we keep on doing these kind of things.
MATTHEWS: Thanks so much for staying around, sir. Keith Ellison—
Congressman Keith Ellison of Minnesota.
Let's bring in "Salon's" Steve Kornacki.
Steve, this question—it seems to me you have to keep looking at the alternatives the president faced. This fight through Christmas, through the New Year's, it never ends. He's afraid he could never get enough Democrats to make the case to stop the tax cuts for the rich. That's what he was saying tonight.
STEVE KORNACKI, SALON.COM: I think you're absolutely right. I think that's sound reasoning. And I think what's been lost in this whole debate is that there's a disconnect between what you call the loud left, which is very real, and the Democratic Party base. If you look at Barack Obama's poll numbers among Democrats right now, his approval rating is 81 percent. That is higher than Reagan was among Republicans at his point in this term.
I don't think Obama has a problem with his base that you would think when you just listen to what you call the loud left. And I think—
MATTHEWS: Well, I don't want to put down the loud left, that's their job to be loud.
KORNACKI: Well, no, no, I agree. But when you look at this—this is, you know, you can portray this if you want as a cave-in—
MATTHEWS: that Congressman Ellison has.
KORNACKI: -- if you're—if you're a member of the Democratic rank-and-file, there's a possibility, we'll see, there's a possibility that coming out of tonight as a result of this "don't ask, don't tell" gets repealed in the next month, the START Treaty gets passed.
MATTHEWS: Good stuff.
KORNACKI: You know you have unemployment extension.
MATTHEWS: And if he didn't go the route he went tonight, all that stuff is dead to the foreseeable future.
KORNACKI: And we know that the economy—
MATTHEWS: And the progressives would kill him on it.
KORNACKI: And the economy is the primary thing that determines re-election. And if you get unemployment through right now, that's stimulus.
And if you have stimulus, you can get reelected and you can bring Democrats
MATTHEWS: Do these fellows in Congress and women know he that he has
a different job than they do? That his job is to make sure that tax cuts -
that people don't get stuck with higher taxes. They can talk loudly and make a good progressive argument. His problem is, if they keep the argument up, everybody's taxes go up.
KORNACKI: But you hit the nail in the head. They're in safe districts where their biggest threat is a primary challenge. And that's the language you use when you're worried about a primary than you are about a general election campaign.
MATTHEWS: Yes. Don't they see this or are you just arguing with any?
KORNACKI: That's how you survive.
MATTHEWS: These guys—anyway, let me ask you about this issue of the debt. It seems to me what he's planning to do in the State of the Union, based upon what he said tonight this is a tease, get serious about long-term debt reduction. That means adjustments in Social Security, Medicare, military spending, tough stuff.
In that context, is it harder for people to be completely selfish at the top and say, I want my tax cut no matter what?
KORNACKI: Well, yes.
MATTHEWS: That's what he seems to be saying.
KORNACKI: You understand, I think the argument on this really has already been won by Democrats. If you take a poll on this and you ask people on the abstract, do you think that, you know, in this—under these conditions, the wealthiest Americans deserve a tax cut, the answer is overwhelmingly no. The problem is, we're in a climate—you know, the economy is this bad, people want to blame Obama for everything. And that's the logic between pushing this down the road. You get a better climate in two years, he can do it.
MATTHEWS: I watched a weatherman, he was on television. He's a big heavy set guy, huge guy, and he told jokes. They had him on three months, and after three months, they said, lose weight and stop telling jokes.
That's what people sound like here when they go after Barack Obama. He's the coolest customer ever elected president. He's a smart progressive, and they said, no, become a loud mouth, big guy that just slobbers all over people—
KORNACKI: Not how he won, right?
MATTHEWS: And, you know, they keep acting like change now. I love you, and now, change, you know? Anyway, I think he was smart tonight. Don't you?
KORNACKI: I agree.
MATTHEWS: I think he was smart tonight. And I think a couple things people ought to be looking at is economy, because if they accelerate (INAUDIBLE) he announced tonight and the lower payroll tax that people are going to have to pay next year—all will stimulate this economy. And if he can stimulate the economy, he's going to be stronger next year. If he can't stimulate the economy, he's going to be weaker next year.
KORNACKI: The bottom line is—
MATTHEWS: Those are the reality.
KORNACKI: -- every president depends on the economy.
MATTHEWS: It's not about pretending and theater and Frank Rich stuff.
It's about making the economy stronger. Anyway, thank you, Steve Kornacki. And thank you, Frank Rich, for giving me something to talk about. Ralph Kramden.
Up next: the latest zany idea from the Tea Party. Wait until you hear this. The head of the Tea Party Nation wants you to own property or not be allowed to vote. Doesn't this sound like the Federalists back around 200 years ago?
You're watching HARDBALL, only on MSNBC.
MATTHEWS: Back to HARDBALL. It's "Sideshow" time.
Live from New York, it's Julian Assange. "SNL" imagined what the WikiLeaks founder would do as head of celebrity gossip site TMZ.
UNIDENTIFIED ACTOR: Tonight, I present a new WikiLeaks, where the leaks are even more embarrassing and the details are even more sordid.
Welcome to:
UNIDENTIFIED ACTOR: WikiLeaks: TMZ.
UNIDENTIFIED ACTOR: So, where we at today, guys? Looking for world leaders behaving badly. Come on.
UNIDENTIFIED ACTOR: Well, our guys caught up with President Hamid Karzai leaving (INAUDIBLE) last night, and I think it kind of speaks for itself.
UNIDENTIFIED ACTOR: So, your boy Obama was in Afghanistan. Did you get to see him?
UNIDENTIFIED ACTOR: I did.
UNIDENTIFIED ACTOR: Did he ask you about all the bribery in your administration?
UNIDENTIFIED ACTOR: Sir, you forgot your briefcase.
UNIDENTIFIED ACTOR: I do not take bribes.
MATTHEWS: Anyway, Assange will be the one soon ducking cameras. Great Britain, where Assange is believed to be hiding, has just received a European warrant for his arrest.
Next: Those were the days, my friend. The head of Tea Party Nation, Judson Phillips, said on radio last month that restricting voting to just property owners makes a lot of sense.
JUDSON PHILLIPS, FOUNDER, TEA PARTY NATION: The founding fathers originally said they put certain restrictions on who got the right to vote. It wasn't just you were just a citizen and you automatically got to vote.
Now, some of their restrictions were—you know, you obviously would not think about today. But one of them was, you had to be a property owner. And that makes a lot of sense, because, if you're—if you're a property owner, you actually have a vested stake in the community. And if you're not a property owner, you know, I'm sorry, but they—property owners have a little bit more of a vested stake in the community than non-property owners.
MATTHEWS: Hmm. Let's get this straight. You live in an apartment today, for example, forget it. You're in college living in a dorm, forget it. You're in a senior citizens residence, forget it. Tea, anyone?
Now to tonight's "Big Number."
Treasury unveiled these new high-tech $100 bills in April of this year. The problem? Production of these notes is so complicated that some ended up with a design defect that renders them unusable. Making matters worse, there's no easy way to separate the correctly printed $100 notes from the duds, which means there's a whole lot of bills now sitting in government quarantine.
That's what they call it. How much are they worth? Well, according to CNBC, $110 billion. That value represents 10 percent of the total U.S. currency supply -- $110 billion in bills are worth the paper they are printed on, tonight's "it would be a lot funnier if it weren't true" "Big Number."
Up next: Republicans against Sarah Palin. Well, the establishment of the Republican Party apparently fears, if they don't stop her now, she will cruise to the presidential nomination come 2012, only to get blown away in the general election by President Obama. And now some of her potential 2012 rivals are making some noise. That's ahead.
Wait until you hear. They're scared of her. They're talking it.
You're watching HARDBALL right now, only on MSNBC.
HAMPTON PEARSON, CNBC CORRESPONDENT: I'm Hampton Pearson with your CNBC "Market Wrap."
Stocks ending mixed, as investors regroup after some strong gains last week, the Dow Jones industrials sliding nearly 20 points, the S&P 500 losing 1.5, and the Nasdaq adding 3.5 points.
Investors taking a bit of a breather today. Stocks were moving in a narrow range on light volume for most of the session, but precious metals were sparkling on the notions the Federal Reserve could extend quantitative easing. Gold settling above $1,415 an ounce, silver prices hitting a 30-year high.
Meanwhile, Sprint Nextel shares jumping more than 6 percent after getting a thumbs-up from hedge fund president David Einhorn. International GameTech surging nearly 5 percent on bets Nevada Senator Harry Reid will pass a bill regulating and taxing online poker sites, but Dollar General tumbling 7 percent on a drop in same-store sales growth, that despite solid quarterly profits and an upbeat forecast.
That's it from CNBC, first in business worldwide—now back to
MATTHEWS: Welcome back to HARDBALL.
Are Republicans putting out the word that it's time to stop Sarah Palin?
Just before the midterm election, Karl Rove told "The London Telegraph"—quote—""With all due candor, appearing on your own reality show on the Discovery Channel, I am not certain how that fits into the American calculus of what keeps me—or helps me see a person in the Oval Office."
A few days later, Politico ran this headline: "Next For GOP Leaders:
Stopping Palin."
A few weeks after that, some Bushes weighed in. Listen to this.
LARRY KING, HOST, "LARRY KING LIVE": What's your read about Sarah Palin?
BARBARA BUSH, FORMER FIRST LADY: Well, I sat next to her once, thought she was beautiful. And I think she's very happy in Alaska, and I hope she will stay there.
JEB BUSH ®, FORMER FLORIDA GOVERNOR: If it's between my mom and Governor Palin, I got to go with my mom just in general, because she's my mother.
MATTHEWS: Well, that was Jeb Bush, of course.
And then rising Republican star New Jersey Governor Chris Christie chimed in.
JIMMY FALLON, HOST, "LATE NIGHT WITH JIMMY FALLON": Do you think Sarah Palin could do it?
GOV. CHRIS CHRISTIE ®, NEW JERSEY: Be vice president?
FALLON: Be president.
CHRISTIE: Well, you know, who knows, Jimmy.
FALLON: Yes. Yes. Yes.
CHRISTIE: It's an amazing world.
FALLON: Crazier things have happened, I guess?
CHRISTIE: I don't know, but it's an amazing world.
MATTHEWS: You have got to like a guy who rolls his eyes when he's asked a political question.
And then just yesterday, veteran Republican strategist Mike Murphy was on "Meet the Press."
MIKE MURPHY, REPUBLICAN MEDIA STRATEGIST: I have been a critic all along, started on this show at the Republican Convention saying I thought she was a bad strategic choice, because she's a poison pill in the general election, wipe us out, I believe.
But in the Republican primaries, particularly in the movement conservative silo, which generally will win the Iowa Caucus, and therefore get a lot of momentum, she's very, very powerful, if she runs. So I think she will have a half-life, but she is going to be a terrifically powerful force, in some ways, for good. She's kind of a polemicist and everything. But, as a candidate, she'd be a disaster.
And we will see if other Republicans start to take that position.
Quietly, a lot of them do.
MATTHEWS: "As a candidate, she'd be a disaster."
So, is the word out?
Pat Buchanan and "The Washington Post"'s Eugene Robinson are here.
They're both MSNBC political analysts.
Gene, I want to start with you, because you're not, I don't think, a member of the active Republican Party right now.
MATTHEWS: I have got to get your views on this, because there is—there does seem to be a pattern of, not a whispering campaign, a "right out in the open" campaign, of clearing the deck of Sarah Palin. I'm not sure it works, but it's certainly trying to work.
EUGENE ROBINSON, MSNBC POLITICAL ANALYST: Yes.
I mean, Chris, it will come as a shock to you that I'm not on the Republican star chamber mail—e-mail list, so I don't get those e-mails, but maybe one went out. I mean, clearly, there are people who are getting very nervous about Palin and her—and her what I would call preeminent position in the Republican field right now.
There's nobody who has got her charisma. There's nobody who has got her Twitter following.
MATTHEWS: Yes.
ROBINSON: There's nobody who has got a reality show like she's got.
She's Sarah Palin.
And it's not just Iowa, as Murphy said, where she could do well. When she gets to my home state of South Carolina, they're going to love her there, too. So, if I were a Republican thinking about running for president, I would be really worried about Sarah Palin, too.
MATTHEWS: Pat, is there a real differential between popularity in the evangelical wing of the Republican Party and general election prospects? Or is that unfair? Is that a left-wing assessment?
PAT BUCHANAN, MSNBC POLITICAL ANALYST: It's a left-wing assessment, but it's also not unfair in this sense, Chris.
Let me take Mike Huckabee, who ran a very strong primary race back in 2008. But I think he bumped his head at a point because he is so strongly identified with the evangelical Christian South, if you will.
MATTHEWS: Yes.
BUCHANAN: I think he would have a tough time in a general. There's no question about it, that that alone gives you enormous strength and power in a nominating process. It does not necessarily translate in the general.
MATTHEWS: You mean the Republican Party wouldn't be advised to run Marjoe for president?
BUCHANAN: I don't know who Marjoe is and what...
MATTHEWS: Oh, come on. Remember, he was the young preacher. Come on. You...
MATTHEWS: If I get outside the narrow focus of politics, I lose you, Pat.
MATTHEWS: Let me ask you this. I'm just talking about you—he had a preacher's background.
BUCHANAN: Right.
MATTHEWS: Does that preacher's sort of Jesus on the radio religion—type of religion turn off the suburban Republican voter?
BUCHANAN: There's no doubt, Chris, it turns off some.
But let's take Sarah Palin now. She has the—the Tea Party, the Christian right, the right-to-lifers, many of these folks come out of the Democratic Party that you grew up in. And their children do.
MATTHEWS: Well, I grew up in the Republican Party.
BUCHANAN: And so that's real reach across there.
But the suburban Republicans can be overrated, you know?
MATTHEWS: Yes.
BUCHANAN: There's no doubt that, say, Reagan, to get those folks with him and then go after the Reagan Democrats, he did a very smart thing in putting George H.W. Bush of Walker's Point on his ticket with him to close the party...
MATTHEWS: Yes.
BUCHANAN: ... and then go after basically the conservative Democrats and independents.
MATTHEWS: Do you think, Gene, that the Democrats are hoping that they can get a break and get a weak opponent coming around? Because it's going to be a very tough time for anybody running for re-election in America, especially trying to carry the whole country and getting 270 electoral votes next time as an incumbent.
Do you think the White House people can get towed? Are they just rooting for her? Or rooting for Huckabee or somebody on the evangelical right who would just have no chance in the Philadelphia suburbs, the New York suburbs, the Cleveland suburbs, the kinds of places they need to win?
EUGENE ROBINSON, MSNBC POLITICAL ANALYST: Sure. I think they are rooting for that. I think it's a mistake though if that's their electoral strategy for 2012, to root for a defeatable Republican opponent. In fact, what I think they have to do is build an affirmative case and then if, on top of that, if on top of having built your affirmative case for reelection, then you get—you also will happen to get Sarah Palin as your opponent with her high negatives. Then I think you feel a lot better going into 2012 than otherwise you might.
MATTHEWS: Let's take a look at Sarah Palin. And, Pat, I'm sorry to interrupt. But we have a great picture of Sarah Palin coming up. Here she is—a scene from last night's episode of her reality show. What do you catch in this? This is almost hard for people like me to grow up in the sort of burbs and the cities to appreciate, but listen to it.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It's coming right here. Just wait. Wait. OK.
Go ahead.
SARAH PALIN ®, FORMER ALASKA GOVERNOR: Good.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: There you go, baby. There you go. There you go.
PALIN: OK, good.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That's just perfect.
MATTHEWS: So, what do you make of that, Pat? I mean, this is unusual. That wasn't John Kerry in camo. That was the real thing.
BUCHANAN: That wasn't John Kerry. What is it? What is it, that thing off the shores of Nantucket or wherever?
ROBINSON: It's windsurfing.
BUCHANAN: Windsurfing.
MATTHEWS: Pat, I mean, probably the deer hunter country in Pennsylvania, I would bet.
BUCHANAN: This is where she has real strength. I mean, hunters and sportsmen and outdoor folks and men will really say, you know, this is really a terrific gal.
And, Chris, let me say this. She is getting picked at, but they're not by major, I think, with—you know, with some exceptions, major figure figures. Look at how Mitt Romney is handling this. And Bobby Jindal is handling this. Mitt Romney is praising her. Jindal said, of course, she can be elected.
This is what the Republican Party's got to do. With regard to Republican establishment, they tried—they wanted Rockefeller instead of Goldwater; Rockefeller instead of Nixon in '68; George H.W. Bush instead of Reagan.
And the Democrat Party wanted Goldwater and they wanted Reagan. They were wrong about Reagan and right about Goldwater. So, I would not, if I were the Democrat Party, automatically start celebrating because this woman has an enormous amount of reach outside of politics and culture.
MATTHEWS: OK. She's a dead shot, too.
Anyway, thank you, Pat Buchanan and Eugene Robinson.
MATTHEWS: Up next, the fight for gay marriage—talking about different subjects. California's controversial gay marriage ban is back in the courts today. It may well go down. This could be a big change in American history.
Attorney David Boise joins us. He's the one fighting that ban in California of Prop 8. If he wins, same-sex marriage wins as well.
This is HARDBALL, only on MSNBC.
MATTHEWS: Republicans have long pushed states rights and now, they're offering legislation to essentially would have proved of a nullification of federal laws at the state level. Mississippi Senator Roger Wicker is planning to introduce a bill this week that would allow state officials to challenge the constitutionality of federal laws before they go into effect, prior review. The so-called states rights bill is in large part a reaction to health care reform, of course. But Wickers said it could be used for other regulation, such as those from the Environmental Protection Agency. We'll be right back.
MATTHEWS: We're back.
The legal battle over gay marriage is now one step closer to going before the Supreme Court. Supporters of Proposition 8, which bans same-sex marriage out in California, brought their case before a federal appeals court today.
And David Boies and Ted Olson were once at odds in the Bush versus Gore case joined to argue against the ban on gay marriage.
David Boies joins us now. He's an attorney for American Foundation for Equal Rights. He's also chairman of the firm Boies, Schiller & Flexner.
And Chad Griffin is the board president of the American Foundation for Equal Rights.
Gentlemen—let me start with David Boies.
Could you give me, David, a layman's case for striking down Prop 8?
DAVID BOISE, PRO GAY-MARRIAGE ATTORNEY: Sure. Marriage has been ruled to be a fundamental right by the United States Supreme Court 14 times over the last hundred years. And the question is: should that fundamental right be available to gays and lesbians? What we proved in court was that depriving gays and lesbians of the right to marry harmed them in very significant ways and harmed the hundreds of thousands of children that gay and lesbian couples are raising today.
We also proved that preventing gays and lesbians from marrying had no social benefit to anybody else. It didn't help heterosexual marriages, obviously. It didn't help anybody else in our society. So, there was no rational basis for depriving these people of this fundamental right.
MATTHEWS: Let's go to Chad Griffin for a response to what we just heard.
CHAD GRIFFIN, AMERICAN FOUNDATION FOR EQUAL RIGHTS: Yes, Chris, thank you. The legal arguments and political arguments are so important. But also in this case, there are four plaintiffs. And those four plaintiffs and their families were seated in that courtroom today. And every single day we continue to have state-sanctioned discrimination is doing grave harm to those plaintiffs, to their children and to their families and to the millions of other young people across this country, whether they're from Fresno, California or Little Rock, Arkansas, or Washington, D.C.
And as long as we have state-sanctioned discrimination in this country against a class of people, it gives license to others to discriminate.
MATHTEWS: Let me ask you, Chad—let me go back to actually David on this.
Does your argument hold if you were to say it would be equally valid to make this argument in the early days of our republic? Had this argument been made in the late 18th century, would it have seemed credible or how would it be different? What's changed in terms of your understanding of the Constitution or what would have been the understanding of the Constitution since you're arguing is a fundamental right to equal marriage rights?
BOISE: I think there are two aspects of that. First, I think one aspect of that is that the bias that we see against gays and lesbians, today, is really a product of the last 100 years. People talk about this going back generations and centuries. In fact, there was much more tolerance of this in past periods than there has been—
MATTHEWS: When did we have same-sex marriage in this country?
BOISE: You've never had same-sex marriage in this country. You've had same-sex marriage in other ancient societies and we demonstrated that at trial. But you've never had same-sex marriage in this country.
The question is whether recognizing, as we do now, the equality of all people in our country, not just the words but the reality of it, should we extend this fundamental right to them? Remember, when this country was founded, we the people was essentially we white male property owners. It's been an expansion of what it means to be equal from the beginning.
MATTHEWS: Let me go to Chad.
Should the American people get to vote on this or should it be a court decision?
GRIFFIN: Chris, one's fundamental constitutional rights should never be put up for the vote of the people. Political campaigns are decided upon who has the most money, who has the best political rhetoric, who can put the best ads on television. And one's fundamental constitutional rights should never be put for a vote of the people.
And I am one who believes in the ballot initiative process and there are certainly things across this country that are voted on by the people. But a fundamental constitutional right, particularly that of a minority, should never be put up for a vote of the people and decided by a political campaign, and who has the best advertising and the most money.
MATTHEWS: What are the chances, David, of getting Scalia on this, some of the more conservative judges on the argument that it is a—it is a fundamental right and that they might just jump the fence and join you guys?
BOISE: Right. We're not—we're not giving up on any of the justices because—I mean, if you look at Ted and myself, it's hard to find two lawyers farther apart on the political spectrum.
MATTHEWS: Right.
BOISE: And we've always believed from the beginning this was not a conservative or liberal, Republican or Democratic issue. This was an issue of constitutional rights. And conservatives, at least as much as liberals, want to keep the government out of people's private lives.
So, I think that this is something that we could win. No one ever likes that prediction, we're going to win 9-0, but we could win every justice on this.
MATTHEWS: Let me go to Chad on this.
Does this have to do with gay orientation or is this about equality? I'm just trying to figure the marriage issue here. A lot of people argue marriage isn't necessarily about procreation. It's not necessarily about boy/girl. It's only about an association between two people.
Give me your philosophy on it.
GRIFFIN: Sure. There's no question. I mean, look, many of these facts came out in our trial with a tremendous amount of evidence and with two brilliant bipartisan lawyers on our side of this case. And marriage is clearly a bond between two loving people. There was a time in this country that when one said marriage, in many states, it did not mean a marriage between a black man and a white woman. And then—
MATTHEWS: Yes. OK. Well said. We're moving on. We're with you.
Chad Griffin, thank you, sir, for joining us. David Boise, good luck with the odd's couple case out there in the ninth circuit. It's one of the great stories in history.
When we return, let me finish with what I think people are looking for when they say they want President Obama to fight. Is it a metaphor? Do they mean it, fight with his fists?
You're watching HARDBALL, only on MSNBC.
MATTHEWS: Let me finish tonight with a man everyone's talking about, President Obama. I've never seen anything quite like this. Everybody talks—everybody I talk to has advice for the guy. Everybody knows what he ought to do and is to varying degrees angry that this man is not doing it.
Well, the most obvious advice is for him to fight. That's the favorite word these days. No, they don't mean that literally, invite Republican senators up to the White House and start punching them. They don't mean grabbing them around the neck and squeezing them so they agree to cut taxes for people who making under $250,000 a year and not cutting those taxes for people who make more.
Or they mean to fight constitutionally? Do they mean telling the Republicans who are now holding up this tax-cutting proposal the he, the president, won't sign any other version and is willing to let the Congress adjourn this month for Christmas and New Year to come and go and let those tax cuts evaporate for everybody if necessary? Is this what they mean? Taking the risk of letting the economy take an additional beating in the first months of 2011, risk having the country turn on him as the one man standing between them and not just their tax cuts but an improving economy? Is willing to have half the country or more seeing him as the country's number one economic problem?
Hmm, I think a lot of people want something in the middle. They want President Obama to fight verbally. They want him to go on TV and blast away at the Republicans as protectors of the wealthy.
But didn't we think we were electing a hot-headed as president? Didn't we think we were picking a guy who shouted off his mouth and yelled bad things about those who disagree with him, deriding their motives any way he could?
The problem with us getting mad on television is simply not in this president's nature. If we're honest with ourselves, we know he wouldn't be president if he was.
Look, it's hard being a smart liberal. The right can bellow from the gut. They hate government, even though it's taxes necessary to pay for it. They don't even have to think about it.
The left can also bellow from the gut. They don't like big business. They love activist government. They can call for more government, higher taxes to pay for it without shame.
It's not so easy when you're a liberal president trying to lead a centrist country in a difficult time. It's not so easy following your gut when your brain warns you this is precisely what everybody else in the country is doing, yelling from their gut and calling people names.
That's HARDBALL for now. Thanks for being with us.
Right now, it's time for "THE ED SHOW" with Ed Schultz.
Copyright 2010 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of CQ-Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.> PASTE THE TRANSCRIPT HERE
Copyright 2010 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All materials herein are protected by
United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed,
transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written
permission of CQ-Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark,
copyright or other notice from copies of the content.>


text:
Flush Toxins, Tone Up, and Torch the Calories TODAY!
Valid at participating locations only. Valid on services, memberships, and packages only. See spa for details and restrictions may apply.
By clicking this button you submit your information to Planet Beach, who will use it to communicate with you regarding events, tips, special offers, product and service news. We will NOT share your information with any other business or entity.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Executive Briefing and Way Forward04 April, 2012 | (01 hr)
Sign In to access this Webcast
With the first six months of operation under the new (and still controversial) Dodd Frank whistleblower program now completed, key leaders from the enforcement, whistleblower advocate, and corporate defense communities join in this interactive executive briefing, with opportunity for Q&A and audience polling.
How is the new program managing the record number of whistleblower tips (344 in the first 7 weeks, nearly 50 per week) from individuals not only in the U.S., but also foreign jurisdictions including U.K., China and Australia? How have companies reacted to these developments? What lessons and takeaways for industry, particularly Boards, CEOs, CECOs, GC's and other leaders within organizations? This "must attend" briefing includes an analysis of the results so far: including the SEC website listing of more than 170 cases (where sanctions against a company exceeded $1,000,000) potentially eligible for whistleblower payouts of between 10–30 percent of the total penalties paid. And the coffers of the SEC's Investor Protection Fund (which helps fund the bounty hunter payments to whistleblowers) are full. The fund balance is more than $452 million. In May 2011, SEC Chairman Mary Schapiro stated, "Our rules create incentives for people to report misconduct to their employers, but only if those companies have created an environment where employees feel comfortable that management will take them seriously—and where they are free from possible retaliation."
Our high-level, knowledgeable panel will review the Dodd Frank program results so far and what they mean for organizations going forward.
Audience: Boards, CEOs, Corporate Secretaries and leaders of Compliance, HR, Legal, Audit, Security, and other areas responsible for supporting legal and ethical culture, compliance, and internal investigations within organizations.
Steven Pearlman
Mr. Pearlman, a partner in Seyfarth Shaw's Labor & Employment Department, is the Co-Chair of the Firm's national Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) Whistleblower Team (www.seyfarth.com/SOX). Recog...Full Bio
Stephen Kohn
Stephen M. Kohn is the Executive Director of the National Whistleblowers Center and the author of The Whistleblower's Handbook: A Step by Step Guide to Doing What's Right and Protecting Yourself (Lyons Press, 2011).
...Full Bio
Stephen Cohen
Stephen Cohen is an Associate Director in the Securities and Exchange Commission's Division of Enforcement. In that capacity, Steve oversees a broad range of domestic and international enforcement activities, including investigations involving accounting fraud, insider trading, F...Full Bio
Donna Boehme
Donna Boehme is an internationally recognized authority in the field of organizational compliance and ethics with 20+ years experience designing and managing compliance and ethics solutions, both within the US and worldwide. As Principal of Compliance Strategists LLC, Boehme has advised a w...Full Bio


text:
Hi everyone:
I've had DirecTV TV service for a number of years and Service Electric for internet service.
I am considering making the switch to Service Electric TV service. Has anyone switched to/from Service Electric?
I can't say I am thrilled with Service Electric's internet speeds but curious about their TV service.


text:
Blanco's offseason will focus on conditioning
SAN FRANCISCO -- Gregor Blanco plans to break an old habit in hopes of becoming a new man.
Blanco said Sunday that he will decline to play in the Venezuelan Winter League this offseason for Tiburones De La Guaira, ending 11 consecutive seasons of performing for the club. This represents a major shift in Blanco's offseason approach. Just two winters ago, 2011-12, he was named the league's Most Valuable Player. He has hit .306 during his extensive Tiburones career.
Blanco intends to work out with second baseman and countryman Marco Scutaro in the Miami area. But Scutaro isn't the only teammate who's serving as an example for Blanco.
"I want to be able to be like Hunter Pence, " Blanco said. "That kind of player. Hunter brings consistency and energy, 100 percent, every day."
Blanco said he wants to concentrate on conditioning, paying particular attention to strengthening his legs. Blanco noted that his legs occasionally have felt fatigued, which might explain his stolen-base decline. He entered Sunday with 11 thefts in 17 attempts, compared with 26 in 32 tries last year.
"I'm excited about it," said Blanco, 29. "I want to put myself in a good situation, physically. I'll be better prepared."


text:
German Professor is very similar to another occupation for which we have
a full profile.
Check out our full profile for:
Foreign Language and Literature Teachers
Teach courses in foreign (i.e., other than English) languages and literature.
Biblical Languages Professor
Bilingual Instructor
Bilingual Teacher
College Professor
English Professor
Faculty Member
Faculty Member, College or University
Foreign Language Instructor
Foreign Languages and Literature Professor
Foreign Languages Department Chair
Foreign Languages Professor
French Instructor
French Professor
German Professor
Greek Professor
Hebrew Professor
Humanities Professor
Japanese Professor
Language Arts Teacher
Language Instructor
Language Specialist
Modern Languages Professor
Spanish Instructor
Spanish Lecturer
Spanish Professor
Spanish Teacher
Teacher, Arabic
Teacher, Chinese
Teacher, French
Teacher, German
Teacher, Hebrew
Teacher, Italian
Teacher, Language
Teacher, Russian
Teacher, Spanish
Teacher, Swahili


text:
I hate to admit it, but it's the right thing to do.Michael Mozina wrote:My recent conversation with Tom Bridgman began when I made the following comment to Mr. Bridgman several weeks ago with respect to his erroneous particle flow diagram which he has posted on his blog in relationship to Birkeland's cathode solar model:
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogI ... 460&bpli=1
That particle flow image on his blog is absolutely *not* Birkeland's solar model as erroneously stated by Bridgman. Mr. Bridgman has the red arrow related to protons and ions flow pointed in the wrong direction. In Birkeland's cathode surface model both types of charged particles flow from the cathode surface, to the heliosphere. The inbound positively charged particles would be located outside of the heliosphere in Birkeland's one and only cathode "sun".It's rather difficult to take you seriously as a so called "skeptic" of EU/PC theory while you either willfully or ignorantly misrepresent various EU/PC concepts. For instance, you claimed this on a previous post:
http://dealingwithcreationisminastronom ... ot-so.html
Your particle movement diagram of Birkeland's cathode sun model however is absolutely *incorrect*, as well as your (false) assertion that his cathode solar model is mine, or has anything to do with me personally. The cathode solar model belongs to Birkeland, and I have never tried to take credit for it, although unlike you, I have tried to understand his theory properly. You apparently never did that because Birkeland predicted that *both* types of charged particles flow from the sun, to the heliosphere, whereas you have positive ions flowing into the sun, and only negatively charged particle flowing from the sun. I simply can't take you seriously when you blatantly misrepresent the scientific theory presented by Birkeland. Either your ego is still in the way, or you simply willfully misrepresent the facts. Which is it?
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-vICwYkSEzug/U ... athode.png
"Mozina's "Birkeland" model: As I read more of Birkeland's work, it's becoming clear this model is more Mozina than Birkeland."
Either fix your serious error, or stop pretending to be a legitimate "skeptic" of concepts that you don't even begin to understand or appreciate.
August 6, 2015 at 2:45 PM
Instead of fixing his original wiring diagram error as requested and as warranted by scientific and historical accuracy, Bridgman continues to misrepresent Birkeland's works and statements. He's now compounding his original problem by not fixing the original error in the diagram, and instead making additional false assertions with respect to different current flow options which he erroneously calls different 'suns'. Oy Vey.Electrostatic force caused sputtering which allowed intense cathode rays to escape into space. Some of these beams would intercept the Earth and cause visible light. To the objection that the cathode rays would be torn apart by Coulomb repulsion long before they reached Earth (e.g. Schuster, 1911), Birkeland responded that cathode rays escaping the Sun drag positive ions along with them. Thus, material found between the Sun and the Earth should be an electrically neutral ionized gas, with roughly the same number of positive as negative charged particles.
I believe that I owe Tom Bridgman a partial public apology for one (not all) of my criticisms of his blog description of Birkeland's *one* cathode solar model. Tom's particle flow diagram of Birkeland's cathode solar model is in fact "oversimplified" as I pointed out to him earlier, but it's actually not entirely incorrect either.
Until I started thinking of cosmic rays as a form of high speed current, and I started including cosmic rays in the overall 'current flow" process, I didn't see the point of that inbound red arrow in Tom's diagram.
However, after reading about the composition, the charge, the speed and the quantity of cosmic rays recently, Tom's diagram actually makes a lot more sense to me today than it did a few years ago. There are actually *more* particle flow arrows to account for in Birkeland's model in terms of outbound, positively charged solar wind particles, and in terms of inbound cosmic ray electrons. There is however an observed high speed inflow of positive ions into the sun in the form of cosmic rays, and there is in fact an observed high speed outward flow of strahl electrons and electron beams flowing away from the sun, so Tom's wiring diagram is actually fine, if somewhat oversimplified.
Tom is still confusing the three current flow patterns that Birkeland observed and wrote about with the concept of promoting three different solar models, but at least Tom's wiring diagram is actually ok, if somewhat oversimplified. Sorry about that Tom.


text:
« best of 2009 (part three). | Main | »
My name is Elise Blaha Cripe. I live in San Diego, California with my husband and our two young daughters.
I make stuff like it's my job.
In 2015 I launched GET TO WORK BOOK®, a daily planner + goal-setting journal. In October 2019, my book about getting stuff done, Big Dreams, Daily Joys hit bookstores everywhere. For almost ten years, this blog was where I shared (daily!) general life musings, insight into being a small business owner and the occasional craft project. I have closed comments, but feel free to email me at elise[@]gettoworkbook.com if you have any questions about a post you see here.
If you're new here, I invite you to browse the archives, read my small business story or start with some of my favorite things to write about, DIY home decor & goal-setting. You can also listen to my motivational speech about the power of making bold statements.
Still looking for more content? Subscribe to my weekly creative podcast, ELISE GETS CRAFTY.
Thank you so much for dropping by.
Profile photo at top right by Cortnee Brown.
This website uses Google Analytics to learn more about where visitors to the site come from and how they browse the shop. Through google analytics the following information may be collected: IP address, date and time website was visited, type of browser and device used, pages visited and what site brought you here. This data is sent to Google and helps Elise Joy Inc learn more about our customer base, improve engagement and ideally help serve you better. Google Analytics is used by many websites. If you would like to "opt-out" of providing your data to websites, Google has created a Google Analytics Opt-out Broswer Add-on.
Unless otherwise stated, all words and photos on this blog are my own. If you use a photo, please link back to this site to provide credit. Under no circumstances, should the text of this blog be copied and re-posted elsewhere unless you have permission from me to do so. Since I no longer post frequently to this blog, I have closed comments. You can always get in touch via email elise AT gettoworkbook.com
This is a for profit blog. I use affiliate links for shops and products that I love on the sidebars and in posts as well as on my other social media sites (like Pinterest and twitter). If you purchase a product through an affiliate link, I receive a small commission. Occasionally I will receive products free of charge or be paid to share about products and services here. This will be clearly noted and please know that when I am writing about something the words and opinions expressed are always my own.
Thank you so much for reading.


text:
It is Fast Friday again and time for another fast and fabulous dinner suggestion. If you are anything like me, by the time Friday rolls around the last thing you want to do to cook a big meal yet we all still have to eat. The dishes featured in this series aren't necessarily fancy but they bring together simple ingredients most people already have in their pantries or have easy access to and allow you to put a real meal on the table in between 30 and 45 minutes. Enjoy and if you have your own fast recipes you want to share, please send them my way and I will in turn share them with all of my readers.
I absolutely love this pasta dish from Noble Pig. The ingredients are quite simple–pasta, either fresh or frozen, summer squash and bit of cheese and cream. But when these ingredients are pulled all together the results are truly delicious. The secret is the combination of cream and parmesan cheese combined with bright and tangy lemon zest. It is unexpected yet so welcome. And as an added bonus you truly get a balanced meal in a single dish thanks in part to a generous amount of squash. What a perfect end of the week meal. Enjoy!
CREAMY RAVIOLI w/ SQUASH, LEMON & CHIVES
16 to 18 ounces cheese ravioli
1 Tablespoon olive
1 shallot, chopped
3 summer squash (zucchini and/or yellow squash; about 1-1/2 pounds), thinly sliced
Kosher salt and black pepper
3/4 cup heavy cream
1 Tablespoon grated lemon zest
1/2 cup grated Parmesan cheese
2 tablespoons chopped fresh chives
- Cook the pasta according to the package directions. Reserve 1/2 cup of the cooking water; drain the pasta and return it to the pot.
- Meanwhile, heat the oil in a large skillet over medium heat. Add the shallot and cook, stirring occasionally, until soft, 3 to 4 minutes.
- Add the squash and 1/2 teaspoon each of salt and pepper to the skillet.
- Cook, tossing often, until the vegetables are just beginning to soften, 4 to 5 minutes.
- Add the cream and lemon zest and cook until the vegetables are tender and the cream is slightly thickened, about 1 to 2 minutes.
- Add the squash mixture, grated cheese and 1/4 cup of the reserved cooking water to the cooked ravioli and toss gently to coat. Add additional reserved water if the sauce is too dry.
- Serve sprinkled with the chives.


text:
MediaInfo provides you with a quick access to the inner values of your audio and video files. Whether you want to glance at the set-up of tracks included...
|MediaArea.net SARL
Windows 2000, Windows 2012, Windows 10, Windows 98, Windows 8, Windows 7, Windows 2003, Windows 2008, Windows Vista, Windows XP
MediaInfo provides you with a quick access to the inner values of your audio and video files. Whether you want to glance at the set-up of tracks included in a file or you want to know all the precise details about the codecs used, MediaInfo will offer the suitable view.
You can choose between a graphical user interface to quickly select the appropriate view on the data and a command line interface to automatically retrieve and process media information in your own scripts. For these purposes, MediaInfo's views are customizable the easy way.
MediaInfo's Features:
- Different and customizable views on media information (Text, Table, Tree Structure, HTML, XML...)
- Data Export as Text, CSV, HTML, XML...
- Graphical User Interface, Command Line Interface, DLL
- Integration in MS-Windows (Drag'n'Drop, Context menu)
- Localization
Information Categories:
- Basics: Title, Author, Director, Album, Title Nr., Date, Length...
- Video: Codec, Aspect Ratio, Frame Rate, Bit Rate...
- Audio: Codec, Sampling Rate, Channels, Languages, Bit Rate...
- Text: Language of Subtitles
- Chapters: Nr. of Chapters, Outline
Supported Formats and Containers:
- Video: MKV, OGM, AVI, DivX, WMV, QuickTime, Real, MPEG-1, MPEG-2, MPEG-4, DVD (VOB)... (Codecs: DivX, XviD, MSMPEG4, ASP, H.264, AVC...)
- Audio: OGG, MP3, WAV, RA, AC3, DTS, AAC, M4A, AU, AIFF...
- Untertitel: SRT, SSA, ASS, SAMI...


text:
A charming YouTube video is making the rounds, showing a very small child playing with an iPad, and then trying to get a magazine to respond to her finger gestures in the same way. My favorite part is when, with transcendent infant logic, she tests her finger on her leg, to make sure her finger is working properly.
Reasonable parents might disagree on the probity of giving such a young child an iPad to play with, but that is not where I think her proud parental units have gone most seriously wrong. Rather, their error comes near the end of the video, when a title comes up saying, "For my one year old daughter, a magazine is an iPad that does not work. It will remain so for her whole life." Well, I hope not, because that would mean a profound lack of intelligence on her part. Those of us who grew up with TV on the rise and radio on the decline did not think of radios as TVs that did not work. (Although I would have to admit that, in my family, it was a truism that a TV was a radio that stole your imagination away.)In reality, one imagines that all too soon this baby will learn to expect different things from different media; then she will at first be charmed by her own infant foolishness, but probably later change her mind and ask her dad to please not show the video to all her boyfriends.The video concludes, "Steve Jobs has coded a part of her OS." The misreading of the significance of what this child is doing is pretty typical of the common brand of techno-projection which observes a molehill and immediately projects it into a towering mountain. It is only useful to think about just how far things might go if we spend at least as much time considering why they might not get there.


text:
This comment is currently awaiting admin approval, join now to view.
Antiryad Gx is an unified cross platform 3d game engine that stands out thanks to its vast platform support capability.
Only registered members can share their thoughts. So come on! Join the community today (totally free - or sign in with your social account on the right) and join in the conversation.


text:
KANSAS CITY, Mo. – Real Salt Lake shouldn't be here.
By all reasoning and logic, a team that subtracts three starters from its core and replaces many of them with bench players and kids has no business being in MLS Cup.
A team that needs crucial goals from a rookie striker and a 22-year-old attacking midfielder shouldn't have gotten this far. A side that was forced to play a 19-year-old center back for more than a third of the season couldn't waltz into MLS Cup.
A team that relies on timely contributions from guys like Lovel Palmer, Abdoulie Mansally andKhari Stephenson, for heaven's sake, should be miles from Saturday's grand finale.
And yet here they are, "RSL 2.0" strolling into Sporting Park to face Sporting Kansas City (Saturday, 4 pm ET, ESPN, UniMas, TSN2/RDS in Canada). Bits and pieces remain from the near-dynasty of 2009-2012, but it's still somewhat hard to wrap your head around how a relatively inexperienced group ousted the two-time defending champions and then pummeled the top finishers in the Western Conference to return to the championship game.
Even more stunning: Many of the veterans on this team think this version is better than the previous version. More capable than a team that won more regular-season games than all but one team from 2010-2012. Pluckier than the side that became the first MLS club to reach the finals of the CONCACAF Champions League, and came within inches of winning it back in 2011.
Here are five reasons why this incarnation of Real Salt Lake is better than its predecessors.
1. They're the underdogs once again
When RSL won their first championship, they did so in perhaps the biggest upset in MLS Cup history over the heavily favored LA Galaxy. That became their rallying cry over the next several years.
They were small market (Salt Lake is still the smallest metropolitan area in MLS). They had one Designated Player (Alvaro Saborio joined in 2010, and didn't qualify as a DP until 2011). They prioritized "value" players instead of high-profile signings (for some, GM Garth Lagerwey is the Billy Beane of MLS).
But then they joined the elite of MLS thanks to their success on the field. RSL finished in second place twice and in third once in the West over the past three seasons. They stopped being underdogs. And they couldn't handle being favorites.
They flopped in the Western Conference Semifinals in 2010 and 2012, and were ultimately stomped in the Western Championship at LA in 2011. They were the higher seed each time.
"If I have to make a criticism [about us]," center back Nat Borchers tells MLSsoccer.com, "when expectations around us are high, maybe we haven't been able to come through."
On Saturday, they'll be the underdog in a big game really for the first time since their defining title. They'll be playing away from Rio Tinto Stadium, where they've bagged some of their biggest results over the years. And they're relishing it again.
"We always feel like the underdogs, even if we're playing a team that's the next-biggest market [in MLS]," says Borchers. "We can play that card because we're away. We'll play that card until the end."
2. The core is still intact, and stronger
Yes, Jámison Olave, Will Johnson and Fabián Espíndola are gone. But despite the reboot, the beating heart of RSL is still intact: Nick Rimando and Kyle Beckerman have been there since 2009; Javier Morales, Chris Wingert and Tony Beltran all arrived in Utah in 2008 and all are wrapping up their sixth season together.
Throw in guys like Ned Grabavoy (who joined in 2009), Luis Gil (2010) and Robbie Findley(back after four seasons with RSL from 2007-10), and that's half the gameday 18 whose experience dates back before the good times. And yet despite that…
3. The chemistry is better
It's hard to understand since the veterans have been through so many battles together. But in talking to the veterans, you begin to understand that the locker room is looser than it has been, and tighter at the same time.
According to Wingert, the veterans have been inspired by the attitudes of the younger, newer faces – many of whom have seen limited minutes this season.
"Cole Grossman, Devon Sandoval, John Stertzer, Aaron Maund, Olmes Garcia, Joao Plata – they've all brought some young, fun energy," Wingert tells MLSsoccer.com. "They're kind of a little ridiculous. I think the older guys are feeding off that a little bit."
Most remarkable, he says, is that they cut the intensity of the locker room by joking and engaging with the mainstays and never sulk over their lack of playing time. Outside of Plata, who logged significant minutes in 2013, the rest of the above-mentioned sextet averaged less than 14 minutes per game this season.
"Those guys on most teams tend to be a little bit down," Wingert explains. "I was like that [at the beginning of my career] in Colorado. It's hard to be in great spirits every week when you're not playing. Here, it's a sign that we have a great spirit. Guys that aren't playing feel like they're a part of this."
4. The legacy is incomplete
The analogy has been made before: If they don't win another title, Real Salt Lake could become MLS' version of the Atlanta Braves of the 1990s. Despite their dominance over the league, the Claret-and-Cobalt don't have the silverware to show for it.
If it all ended tomorrow, RSL would be left with a lone MLS Cup title. And instead of being remembered as the class of MLS over a sustained period, playing pretty, possession-oriented soccer while developing national teamers past, present and future, they'll be a one-hit wonder.
A title on Saturday would bookend that '09 championship, putting an indelible stamp on this group's legacy and a spot in the history books as a team that won two titles in five years.
"When we're playing our best soccer, we're the best team in the league," says Borchers. "I think there's definitely a sense that we haven't achieved enough given the opportunities we've had."
Lagerwey agrees 100 percent.
"It's also been a source of frustration to a great many of us – from the front office to the coaching staff to the players – that we've won one title," he tells MLSsoccer.com. "We don't have a lot to show for what's been an incredible run.
"Is it life or death? No. But to have a bookend to that mantlepiece? That'd be nice."
5. They've got a chip on their shoulder
Something changed for RSL when they lost October's US Open Cup final to D.C. United – the worst team in league history – at Rio Tinto Stadium. It was another failure at home. It was a missed layup to achieve the quickest benchmark for this group to prove their success was no fluke.
They failed miserably. And it lit a fire under them. Wingert tells it best.
"I've thought about that a million times in my head," he explains. "I thought we were going to win. And I thought, if we had won, the rest of season would be gravy. Maybe that was the difference. Maybe if we won, we would've been relaxed and we wouldn't have beaten LA and then Portland.
"I'm not exactly sure if it was in everyone's conscious mind, but everyone is a bit more on edge [now]. We kind of blew it with Open Cup, and I believe we all, in the back of our minds, knew we had to make up for that."
Real Salt Lake shouldn't be here at all. That's what they want you think. And that's why they're more dangerous than ever.
Jonah Freedman is the managing editor of MLSsoccer.com


text:
|Biosequences .. Software .. Molbio soft .. Network News .. FTP
Cell Death Society Wednesday, May 6, 1998 "Apoptosis in oncogenically-transformed cells: Caspase activation in p53-dependent and independent pathways" Dr. Maria Soengas Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, Cold Spring Harbor, New York. "Neuronal survival, but not differentiation, requires direct activation of c-Ha-Ras by nitric oxide". Dr. Ken Teng Department of Hematology/Oncology Cornell-New York Hospital 6:00-6:30 PM Pizza, 6:30-8:00 PM Talks and Discussion Rockefeller University, 130 York Ave. Weiss Research Bldg., Room 301 Free parking after 5 PM at 66th St. and York Ave. Please car pool as parking space is limited. Important notes: To help plan for pizza and number of attendees, please call Dr. Zakeri's lab (718-997-3429) to indicate that you are coming. If you want to receive information about the Cell Death Society, please contact Dr. Zakeri's lab to verify your phone, fax, and email listings. If you have a new email address and did not receive this message by email, please send it to lockshin at stjohns.edu or register on this page To join the society, please see announcement. Richard A. Lockshin (lockshin at mindspring.com;lockshin at sjumusic.stjohns.edu) check out Cell Death Soc web page: http://rdz.stjohns.edu/~lockshin/index.html


text:
Only 12,037 Miles! Scores 40 Highway MPG and 31 City MPG! This Honda Civic Sedan boasts a Regular Unleaded I-4 2.0 L/122 engine powering this Variable transmission. Wheels: 16" w/Full Covers, VSA Electronic Stability Control (ESC), Valet Function.
This Honda Civic Sedan Features the Following Options
Trunk Rear Cargo Access, Transmission: Continuously Variable (CVT), Tires: P215/55R16 93H AS, Systems Monitor, Strut Front Suspension w/Coil Springs, Steel Spare Wheel, Sliding Front Center Armrest, Single Stainless Steel Exhaust, Side Impact Beams, Seats w/Cloth Back Material.
Stop By Today
Test drive this must-see, must-drive, must-own beauty today at Val Strough Honda, 1 Heitzinger Plaza, Seaside, CA 93955.


text:
Request a custom golf vacation estimate here!
Complete the simple form below and our local golf directors will reply. Be sure to give us a little detail about your trip so we customize your estimate.
- Do you have any special requests or instructions?
- Are there any specific courses you are interested in?
- Do you need lodging while visiting Myrtle Beach?


text:
Thank you for subscribing to our Push Notifications
Instantly get the most heartwarming & meaningful stories
delivered to you weekly!
This site is protected by reCaptcha
Want to use LittleThings' editorial content?
Please contact us at email@example.com
At Soma, Beautiful Begins Underneath®. Soma offers sensual lingerie, loungewear, beauty, swim and an always perfect bra fit in sizes 32A-44G.
Soma on Facebook
Soma on Twitter
Soma on Pinterest
Soma on Instagram
Please help us improve LittleThings by taking our short survey.


text:
By Roger S. Gottlieb
Suddenly, it seems, meditation is all the rage. Prestigious medical schools (Harvard, Duke, etc.) have whole departments devoted to "Integrative Medicine" in which meditation plays an essential part. Troubled teens are given a healthy dose of mindfulness and their behavior improves. Long-term prisoners in maximum security prisons have gone on ten day meditation retreats, sitting for 12 hours a day in a makeshift gymnasium ashram. There is meditation for alcoholics and heroin addicts and overworked corporate attorneys, for those facing death from untreatable illness and for those nearing the day when, with the grace of God or Nature or Luck, they will give birth. Studies have shown that meditation helps in medical conditions from depression to diabetes, psoriasis to high blood pressure to the side effects of cancer treatments.
How come?
Spiritually, meditation's efficacy stems from the power of the mind to shape reality. From yoga's two-thousand-year-old goal of "stilling the movements of the mind" to most any eclectic spiritual teacher of today, we are told that how we think is an essential constituent of the world we inhabit. Familiar examples of this truth are not hard to find. Think that a room full of strangers won't like you, and you'll most likely be withdrawn, suspicious, or a tad hostile, provoking a comparable response. Treat co-workers as if they deserve respect and kindness, and there's a good chance you'll get that back from them. Live in constant state of stress and you will burn out your immune system.
Even more, our values and beliefs color the entire fabric of existence. After all, if a pickpocket sees a saint all he sees are pockets. People for whom only success or wealth are important become blind to simple beauty, moments of tenderness, the ability to enjoy what they have instead of always wanting more. A glass is half empty or half-full not because of how much liquid is in it, but because of what we believe.
This all relates to meditation because meditation is a kind of yoga of the mind, doing for our consciousness what yoga postures do for our muscles and bones. With meditation we discover not only how much the mind shapes what we see in the world, but how much we ourselves can determine the mind's contents. We realize that it is both crucially important and malleable. We can detach from it, examine it, decide what part makes sense and what doesn't and act—or better think—accordingly.
The two main dimensions of meditation are awareness and focus. In the first, which is the core of the widely taught vipassanā or insight meditation that is a major component of integrative medicine, you simply sit comfortably and attend to your breath, allowing thoughts to come and go, learning to witness thought forms, bodily sensations, and emotional patterns. Extended practice of vipassanā can help us answer basic questions: What thoughts keep appearing, no matter what else is going on? How do we define the world for ourselves? How many of our thoughts really make sense and how many are simply unthinking, irrational, even destructive habits?
In my first extended experience of meditation I found myself in near agony sitting in a cross-legged position with strained my hips and aching knees. Being the Type AA personality I am, I kept myself in the position until the session ended. Then, with a blinding flash of insight (which any acquaintance could surely have told me!) I realized how much of my life was defined by setting goals, doing anything to meet them, and ignoring the unpleasant consequences to myself or (as the inevitable fatigue, irritation, or depression resulted) to others.
Perhaps the ultimate gift of simply watching one's mind is the ability not—or not necessarily—to be moved by what one is thinking. Chronic anxiety, lasting grief, burning rage, even a maddening itch between the shoulder blades—all these can be witnessed, experienced, and understood without driving us to act. The constituent parts of emotions and sensation—where they arise, how long they last, whether they burn or throb, vacillate or stay the same—start to lose their power over us. Instead of doing something because we want a drink, are angry at our mothers, or are nervous about an upcoming test, we simply note the discomfort, study it, and let it pass. The result can be a precious inner calm, one that not only makes our experience a lot more pleasant but has manifold healing effects on our nervous system, glands, and soft tissues.
For most spiritual teachers it is a profound truth that, as Buddha taught: "Whatever harm an enemy may do to an enemy, or a hater to a hater, an ill-directed mind inflicts on oneself a greater harm." Thus the second form of meditation — common in both religious tradition and contemporary, non-traditional spirituality — is focus: concentrating the mind on a thought or image, a desired virtue (kindness or humility), or a sacred figure (God or some inspiring teacher). Here "What kind of person do I want to be?" becomes for a time the question "What do I want to think about?" And so a Christian might meditate on an image of Jesus—a face of love and perfect forgiveness; or as He was blessing a repentant sinner. A Jew might take one line, or even one word, from a familiar prayer. Someone who finds the divine in nature might concentrate on the grace of a bird in flight, the healing powers of a forest, or the generosity of the web of life. A purely secular person could reflect on someone she particularly respects.
Through mental reflection we seek to absorb the qualities we want to manifest. Equanimity, gratitude, compassion, love—such things are not simply a matter of will, but of practice. And as we practice thinking about them, thinking of them, this practice can help us face disappointment, conflict, and danger in ways that promote a calm, energetic, and connected life.
For ultimately what we do on the meditation mat or the prayer room is of little consequence until it can be made real in work, family, and community. Can I recognize my agitation and respond skillfully when my kids act self-destructively? Can I face the mammogram results with acceptance and gratitude for what I have; or if the news is truly bad, can I accept my fear without trying to escape it? If I am a Christian, can I treat hostile people as Jesus taught me to? If Muslim, can I remember that only Allah is God, not money, fame, or the seductive delights of telling everyone how holy I am? If I am "spiritual but not religious," can I face a decidedly non-spiritual world with the virtues that attracted me to spiritual life to begin with?
Attending to the mind, focusing on our highest values—we are more likely to answer such questions in the affirmative.
Can there be a single greater gift to our lives?
Professor of Philosophy (WPI) Roger S. Gottlieb's most recent book is the Nautilus Book Award-winning Spirituality: What it Is and Why it Matters. You can read the Introduction on his website or his previous post on the OUPblog.
Subscribe to the OUPblog via email or RSS.
Subscribe to only religion articles on the OUPblog via email or RSS.
Image credit: Photo by Robert Bejil. Creative Commons License via Wikimedia Commons.


text:
If you were one of the 111.3 million people who tuned into the Super Bowl over the weekend, I'm betting you have an opinion or two on the commercials. There was the race to get to the giant Coke bottle, the goat that loved Doritos, the darkened corners of a Budweiser party, the chiseled abs of a guy in Calvin Klein boxers, and the fun adventures of the beloved M&Ms characters. And don't forget the Clydesdale colt.
Of course, there was the much-talked-about Dodge Ram "So God Made A Farmer" commercial.
There was also another notable commercial that aired just before the game, which I hope caught the attention of a lot of viewers. That was the commercial by HumaneWatch.org, a project of the Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF), which highlighted the deceptive fundraising practices of the Humane Society of the U.S. (HSUS). The ad explained that only one penny of every dollar raised by HSUS actually goes toward the support of animal shelters. "Paw-thetic," was the HumaneWatch.org ad's catchphrase. Watch the entire commercial below.
HSUS CEO Wayne Pacelle responded on his blog that he thought the HumaneWatch.org ad was a waste of cash. However, I think any effort to educate consumers about the fact that HSUS, the 72nd largest charity group in the U.S., has consistently received a D grade for its lack of honesty and integrity in using donated funds to actually help animals is well worth it. Instead, HSUS is an animal rights organization focused on abolishing animal agriculture and eliminating meat, dairy and eggs from the dinner table. Hopefully, viewers who saw the commercial followed up by checking out HumaneWatch.org and will think twice before donating to HSUS in the future.
"Most viewers will be bowled over this Sunday to find out that HSUS doesn't operate as a pet shelter umbrella group," says CCF Senior Research Analyst J. Justin Wilson. "HSUS purposely uses emotionally manipulative ads featuring sad-looking dogs and cats in cages, yet it gives just one penny of every dollar it raises to hands-on local pet shelters."
What did you think of the ad? Was it effective? How about the Dodge Ram commercial celebrating farmers and ranchers using a poem narrated by Paul Harvey? Over all, what was your favorite commercial of the night? You can weigh in on those questions in the comments section below.


text:
Wednesday, February 24, 2016
Adopt Cacica!
Today, February 24, 2016, Cacica turns one year old! Why not celebrate by adopting this adorable baby dolphin? Head over to the Memberships & Donations section of the Dolphin Research Center website to learn more.
Being a Dolphin Research Center Member entitles you to year-round complimentary admission, newsletters, online access to our Members Only area of the website, special event invitations, discounts at our onsite and online Gift Shops and other benefits depending on Membership level. As well as for you, adoptions are wonderful gifts for friends and family and all memberships, gifts and donations are 100% tax deductible.
Thank you for supporting the DRC mission and allowing us to provide a forever loving home to our animal family.
Posted by The DRC Family at 10:06 AM


text:
Electricity is changing the way we drive – for the better. Choosing an electric car allows you to "refuel" your car by plugging it into the grid. It's a seemingly small difference from today's cars, but it has a big impact.
As a matter of convenience, electric cars can charge up while parked – usually at home, but increasingly at a workplace or even while shopping – which cuts out on trips to the gas station. Many electric car drivers report having a better driving experience: the vehicles are quiet and smooth and, thanks to the high-torque of electric motors, a lot of fun to drive too.
Perhaps most importantly, driving on electric power saves money on fuel. Combining the high efficiency of electric vehicles with the relatively low cost of electricity means that driving on electricity is typically three or more times cheaper than driving on gasoline. For all of these reasons, more and more drivers are choosing electric cars.
The term "electric car" generally refers to two types of vehicles:
The Electric GenerationGoElectricDriveFuelEconomy.govAFDC cost calculator


text:
Last year's darlings are 2014's dogsJanuary 16, 2014: 1:09 PM ET
The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Paul R. La Monica. Other than Time Warner, the parent of CNNMoney, Abbott Laboratories and AbbVie, La Monica does not own positions in any individual stocks.
Best Buy (BBY) learned the hard way on Thursday that momentum is very, very, very fickle.
Shares of the electronics retailer plunged nearly 30% after it reported disappointing sales for the holidays. In other words, it was not a Holly "Joly" Christmas for CEO Hubert.
Is the sell-off an overreaction? Not necessarily. Best Buy was a market stud in 2013. The stock surged 237% last year, making it the third-best performer in the S&P 500. Anytime a stock goes up that much, the company will immediately face the type of expectations that Charles Dickens wrote about.
Best Buy isn't the only Wall Street hero of 2013 that's turned into a zero in the early part of 2014. Netflix (NFLX), which soared nearly 300% and was the biggest gainer in the S&P 500 last year, is down more than 10% already. It's the second-worst performer in CNNMoney's brand spanking new Tech 30 index.
The stock has fallen due to concerns about valuation and whether or not investors are overly optimistic about subscriber growth.
In the past few days, there have also been worries about how a court decision to overturn so-called net neutrality rules will impact Netflix.
The fear is that Verizon (VZ), Comcast (CMCSA) and other Internet service providers could start charging Netflix tolls because its video streaming service is such a bandwidth hog.
Related: Why Netflix investors shouldn't celebrate yet
And momentum (like Elvis) has also left the building for these 2013 winners: Twitter (TWTR), Nike (NKE) and GameStop (GME).
Twitter shares are down about 5% this year. Sure, that's not that big of a drop. But Twitter, which has more than doubled from its initial public offering price, is down nearly 20% from the all-time high it set late last month.
The stock has been insanely volatile this year, getting whipsawed almost daily due to conflicting opinions from Wall Street. It goes up when a sell-side analyst says something nice about Twitter and tanks when someone publishes something bearish.
Still, the fact that there is any skepticism at all shows that investors are a little worried about how strong the company's financial results will be. Twitter's first earnings report as a public company is due out on February 5 -- and it's probably a misnomer to call it an earnings report since analysts are predicting a loss.
Related: The market has #jitters about Twitter
Nike was one of the biggest gainers in the Dow last year, rising more than 50%. But the stock is down 5% this year, making it the Dow's second-worst performer.
The company's earnings report from December raised some concerns about growth in emerging markets. And since the stock routinely hit all-time highs last year, the valuation may be higher than the vertical leap of LeBron James. There is also tough competition from the likes of Under Armour (UA).
And then there's GameStop. Shares nearly doubled last year on excitement about hot new games, such as "Grand Theft Auto V" from Take-Two Interactive (TTWO) and "Call of Duty: Ghosts" from Activision Blizzard (ATVI).
Sony (SNE) and Microsoft (MSFT) also released their new PlayStation 4 and Xbox One consoles.
That led to very lofty expectations. And GameStop did not live up to them. It said Tuesday that earnings for the fourth quarter would miss forecasts. The stock fell 20% that day and is down nearly 25% so far this year.
Related: Sony's game streaming coming this summer
What all the companies I've mentioned so far have in common is that they went up a lot in 2013 and were therefore priced for perfection. All of these companies have shown hints that they are far from perfect.
And that usually has momentum investors fleeing for the exits faster than bugs running away from a can of Raid.
Of course, not every hot stock from 2013 is suffering this year. In fact, there are a few that have continued to surge. Delta (DAL) and Facebook (FB) were the fourth-best and tenth-best performers in the S&P 500 in 2013. They're both up in 2014 and remain near all-time highs.
And Tesla (TSLA) is up 13% thanks to the company's promise of
reckless relentless growth in Model S sales this year.
Although one could argue that it's a stock that has rediscovered momentum as opposed to maintaining it. While shares of the electric car maker did go up nearly 350% in 2013, it did have a noticeable hiccup last autumn.
So investors looking at last year's rock stars have to realize that chasing momentum is very risky. The winners of 2013 need to keep proving that last year's run-up was justified. If any of them miss the mark, they could suffer the fate of Best Buy and immediately go from being a hot dog to a plain old dog.
Reader Comment of the Week! The FDA issued a warning this week about the risks associated with high doses of acetaminophen. This should not impact anyone taking over-the-counter painkillers with acetaminophen like Tylenol. So this isn't something that should affect shares of Johnson & Johnson (JNJ).
But the warning did prompt me to tweet out a Name that Tune challenge. One of my favorite bands has a song that includes acetaminophen prominently as a lyric. "Acetaminophen, You see the medicine oh girl."
My really good college buddy (and groomsman in my wedding!) Brian Nolan was the first to respond correctly that it was a song by The White Stripes. (Give me a sugar pill and watch me just rattle down the street.)
And since he was born and raised in Massachusetts, I could not resist taking a shot at his favorite football team.
Congrats Brian! Although I still am rooting for Denver and their Papa John's/DirecTV/Buick/Gatorade loving quarterback Peyton Manning. (Omaha!)
Then again, if the Patriots triumph on Sunday and also go on to win the Super Bowl, it would prove that Tom Brady can only win the big game when he's not playing my beloved (but now sadly mediocre) New York Giants!
How's that for a sad bit of rationalization?