Search Episodes (ITS GOING TO GET SERIOUS)

Is Isabella Cruise Engaged?

Added 01/31/12
0 Views

Is Isabella Cruise Engaged?

Added 01/31/12
0 Views

Newt on This Week: Mitt Can't Tell The Truth, Has A 'Character...

Added 01/29/12
0 Views

Newt on This Week: Mitt Can't Tell The Truth, Has A 'Character' Problem

[LESS INFO] 0 VIEWS | ADDED 21:00:11 01/29/12
video platform video management video solutions video player Now, I'm going to assume that you didn't come in during the third act of Newt's career, and therefore you can appreciate just how funny it is when, on This Week , he's whining to Jake Tapper about how hard it is to pin someone down who will just lie about anything ! > TAPPER: In many ways, you are where you are because of your debate performances. Last week, you had a couple that were not your strongest, to say the least. GINGRICH: Yep. TAPPER: Why do you think that was? What happened? GINGRICH: I was amazed. I mean, I'm standing next to a guy who is the most blatantly dishonest answers I can remember in any presidential race in -- in my lifetime. And I've seen, I think, every presidential debate -- presidential campaign debate or virtually every one. And, you know, he would say things that were just plain not true. Look, it's a little bit like yesterday's L.A. Times report. I mean, now it found 23 foreign accounts he never reported until he released his taxes. He would say -- he would say thing after thing after thing that just plain wasn't true. And I had -- I don't know how you debate a person with civility if they're prepared to say things that are just plain factually false. And that's going to become a key part of this. I think the Republican establishment believes it's OK to say and do virtually anything to stop a genuine insurgency from winning because they are very afraid of losing control of the old order. We tried a moderate in 1996 for president. He lost. We tried a moderate in 2008 for president. He lost. It's very hard to take Romneycare and Obamacare and have a debate and have the Republican win that debate. You need to have a conservative who is a very big distance away from Obama, because you've got to have the space so that, in fact, you can communicate with the American people. TAPPER: I want to follow up on some of these comments you're making about Mitt Romney. The race has taken something of a nasty turn. Here's an ad that you are currently running in Florida. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) (UNKNOWN): What kind of man would mislead, distort and deceive just to win an election? This man would, Mitt Romney. If we can't trust what Mitt Romney says about his own record, how can we trust him on anything? (END VIDEO CLIP) TAPPER: It sounds as if you're saying in that ad, and here this morning, that Mitt Romney is unfit and does not have the character to be president. GINGRICH: I am saying that he would not be where he is today, the debates this week wouldn't have been where they were, if he had told the truth. And I think that's a very serious problem for somebody. I think that you look at -- again, he's supposedly a great manager, yet he can't explain 23 different foreign accounts that weren't reported. He's a great manager. He can't explain being on the board of directors of the company which got the largest Medicare fine in history for fraud? Somehow, every time it's bad, he didn't know about it or he wasn't aware about it. He didn't really understand the Planned Parenthood by law, the largest abortion provider in the United States, is in Romneycare? Romneycare literally defines Planned Parenthood in a key -- in a part of the bill. He didn't seem to quite know it. Every time you turn around, this great manager consistently doesn't understand whatever it is that would have hurt him. And you just have to look back and say, why can't you be candid with the American people? You cannot be president of the United States if you cannot be honest and candid with the American people. And that's compounded, frankly, by a number of the ads he runs, which are just plain false. TAPPER: So you're saying that he does not have the character to be president of the United States, because he's, in your view, not honest. GINGRICH: I'm saying it is a very -- it's a -- it is a very serious problem when you have somebody who on item after item after item -- I mean, the clip you had just now, he knows what he said in that clip is not true. I did not resign in disgrace. I did not pay a fine. And, in fact, CNN ran an entire piece recently in which they pointed out that on every single substantive count in the ethics investigation, every single one, that I was vindicated, including vindication by a federal judge, vindication by the Internal Revenue Service, vindication by the Federal Elections Commission . Now, Romney knows that. (CROSSTALK) TAPPER: Well, the clip -- the clip... GINGRICH: So he's run a campaign of vilification. TAPPER: The clip I just played was actually one of your ads, but let's get to that Romney ad that you're talking about... GINGRICH: No, no, but I'm talking about the earlier -- I'm talking about -- I'm talking about the clip you showed of him campaigning yesterday. TAPPER: Oh, OK. GINGRICH: What he said yesterday, this wasn't true. TAPPER: There... GINGRICH: And so at some point, I don't quite -- I don't quite -- to be honest, Jake, I don't quite know how you deal with an opponent, because you want to deal with them with civility, you want to deal with them in a positive way. I want to talk about big issues. I talked about space this week, which I think is important for the country's future. I talked about housing. I talked about creating jobs. I talked about the record I had working with Ronald Reagan to create jobs and the record I had working with Bill Clinton to create jobs. We talked about welfare reform as the first great entitlement reform. There are all sorts of positive things. We have a proposal on Social Security which would allow every young American the option of having a personal Social Security account on the model of Galveston, Texas, and the country of Chile. So there are a lot of positive things. And if you'll notice, when you get outside the zone where Romney carpet-bombs with Wall Street money, and you look at what's happening in the rest of the country, I'm ahead in all three national polls that were released this week. I'm ahead by a big margin, because when you come to positive ideas, I represent real change in Washington, I represent unleashing the spirit of the American people to get us back as a country, rebuilding the country we love. And when we get to a positive idea campaign, I consistently win. It's only when he can mass money to focus on carpet-bombing with negative ads that he gains any traction at all.

Newt on This Week: Mitt Can't Tell The Truth, Has A 'Character...

Added 01/29/12
0 Views

Newt on This Week: Mitt Can't Tell The Truth, Has A 'Character' Problem

[LESS INFO] 0 VIEWS | ADDED 21:00:11 01/29/12
video platform video management video solutions video player Now, I'm going to assume that you didn't come in during the third act of Newt's career, and therefore you can appreciate just how funny it is when, on This Week , he's whining to Jake Tapper about how hard it is to pin someone down who will just lie about anything ! > TAPPER: In many ways, you are where you are because of your debate performances. Last week, you had a couple that were not your strongest, to say the least. GINGRICH: Yep. TAPPER: Why do you think that was? What happened? GINGRICH: I was amazed. I mean, I'm standing next to a guy who is the most blatantly dishonest answers I can remember in any presidential race in -- in my lifetime. And I've seen, I think, every presidential debate -- presidential campaign debate or virtually every one. And, you know, he would say things that were just plain not true. Look, it's a little bit like yesterday's L.A. Times report. I mean, now it found 23 foreign accounts he never reported until he released his taxes. He would say -- he would say thing after thing after thing that just plain wasn't true. And I had -- I don't know how you debate a person with civility if they're prepared to say things that are just plain factually false. And that's going to become a key part of this. I think the Republican establishment believes it's OK to say and do virtually anything to stop a genuine insurgency from winning because they are very afraid of losing control of the old order. We tried a moderate in 1996 for president. He lost. We tried a moderate in 2008 for president. He lost. It's very hard to take Romneycare and Obamacare and have a debate and have the Republican win that debate. You need to have a conservative who is a very big distance away from Obama, because you've got to have the space so that, in fact, you can communicate with the American people. TAPPER: I want to follow up on some of these comments you're making about Mitt Romney. The race has taken something of a nasty turn. Here's an ad that you are currently running in Florida. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) (UNKNOWN): What kind of man would mislead, distort and deceive just to win an election? This man would, Mitt Romney. If we can't trust what Mitt Romney says about his own record, how can we trust him on anything? (END VIDEO CLIP) TAPPER: It sounds as if you're saying in that ad, and here this morning, that Mitt Romney is unfit and does not have the character to be president. GINGRICH: I am saying that he would not be where he is today, the debates this week wouldn't have been where they were, if he had told the truth. And I think that's a very serious problem for somebody. I think that you look at -- again, he's supposedly a great manager, yet he can't explain 23 different foreign accounts that weren't reported. He's a great manager. He can't explain being on the board of directors of the company which got the largest Medicare fine in history for fraud? Somehow, every time it's bad, he didn't know about it or he wasn't aware about it. He didn't really understand the Planned Parenthood by law, the largest abortion provider in the United States, is in Romneycare? Romneycare literally defines Planned Parenthood in a key -- in a part of the bill. He didn't seem to quite know it. Every time you turn around, this great manager consistently doesn't understand whatever it is that would have hurt him. And you just have to look back and say, why can't you be candid with the American people? You cannot be president of the United States if you cannot be honest and candid with the American people. And that's compounded, frankly, by a number of the ads he runs, which are just plain false. TAPPER: So you're saying that he does not have the character to be president of the United States, because he's, in your view, not honest. GINGRICH: I'm saying it is a very -- it's a -- it is a very serious problem when you have somebody who on item after item after item -- I mean, the clip you had just now, he knows what he said in that clip is not true. I did not resign in disgrace. I did not pay a fine. And, in fact, CNN ran an entire piece recently in which they pointed out that on every single substantive count in the ethics investigation, every single one, that I was vindicated, including vindication by a federal judge, vindication by the Internal Revenue Service, vindication by the Federal Elections Commission . Now, Romney knows that. (CROSSTALK) TAPPER: Well, the clip -- the clip... GINGRICH: So he's run a campaign of vilification. TAPPER: The clip I just played was actually one of your ads, but let's get to that Romney ad that you're talking about... GINGRICH: No, no, but I'm talking about the earlier -- I'm talking about -- I'm talking about the clip you showed of him campaigning yesterday. TAPPER: Oh, OK. GINGRICH: What he said yesterday, this wasn't true. TAPPER: There... GINGRICH: And so at some point, I don't quite -- I don't quite -- to be honest, Jake, I don't quite know how you deal with an opponent, because you want to deal with them with civility, you want to deal with them in a positive way. I want to talk about big issues. I talked about space this week, which I think is important for the country's future. I talked about housing. I talked about creating jobs. I talked about the record I had working with Ronald Reagan to create jobs and the record I had working with Bill Clinton to create jobs. We talked about welfare reform as the first great entitlement reform. There are all sorts of positive things. We have a proposal on Social Security which would allow every young American the option of having a personal Social Security account on the model of Galveston, Texas, and the country of Chile. So there are a lot of positive things. And if you'll notice, when you get outside the zone where Romney carpet-bombs with Wall Street money, and you look at what's happening in the rest of the country, I'm ahead in all three national polls that were released this week. I'm ahead by a big margin, because when you come to positive ideas, I represent real change in Washington, I represent unleashing the spirit of the American people to get us back as a country, rebuilding the country we love. And when we get to a positive idea campaign, I consistently win. It's only when he can mass money to focus on carpet-bombing with negative ads that he gains any traction at all.

When High Fives Go Wrong

Added 01/28/12
4 Views

You Don't Want to Miss This Ride!

Added 01/20/12
1 Views

British Newlyweds Describe Surviving Cruise Ship Sinking

Added 01/17/12
0 Views

Notable Death of the Year: RIP Austerity Economics, 1921-2011

Added 12/28/11
5 Views

Notable Death of the Year: RIP Austerity Economics, 1921-2011

[LESS INFO] 5 VIEWS | ADDED 19:00:30 12/28/11
"Smokestack Lightnin'," with Hubert Sumlin backing Howlin' Wolf in 1964 This is the time of year when we're reminded of all the famous people who died over the last twelve months, a list which includes two of my favorite guitar players ( Hubert Sumlin and Cornell Dupree ). But there were also some notable non-human deaths in 2011, especially in the world of economic policy. One of those deaths should have completely altered the political debate in Washington. The name of the deceased was "Austerity Economics," and it was first glimpsed in a 1921 paper by conservative economist Frank Wright. Austerity died of natural causes brought on by prolonged exposure to reality. But the debate in Washington didn't change nearly enough after its passing. In the nation's capital, dead things still rule the night. Why Austerity? "Austerity economics" backers claim that today's economic woes can only be fixed by dramatic reductions in government spending, which will lead to increased private-sector confidence and therefore to greater investment and growth. But it's never worked. And if investors have lost confidence in the U.S. government's fiscal stability, they're sure not acting that way. There hasn't been this much demand for Treasury bonds since the government began tracking it twenty years ago, and they haven't performed as well since the go-go 1990s. It's easy to understand austerity's attraction for power elites inside and outside of government. The people who suffer from austerity budgets aren't the kinds of people they know personally, since they're typically public employees like teachers, police, firefighters and the administrators of social programs; people who need government assistance, like the poor; and middle-class people with the temerity to either grow old or become disabled. Austerity's attraction became even greater in the U.S. because once it became conventional wisdom that tax increases on the wealthy was "politically infeasible." That made it a program whose sole purpose was to cut government spending, lowering the pressure to increase taxes on the wealthy from today's historically low levels. For a one-percenter, what's not to love? Austerity Comes of Age The idea's been around in one form or another since that 1921 paper, and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) had been imposing it on Third World nations for decades. But 2009 was the year that austerity really came of age. That was the year that a wealthy stockbroker's son named David Cameron began campaigning for Prime Minister of Great Britain on an explicitly pro-austerity platform. It was also the year that Cameron helped to form a group named European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR) dedicated to electing like-minded politicians across Europe and helping them collaborate on ways to slash government spending. It was also the year that right-leaning Angela Merkel won reelection as the Chancellor of Germany with a stronger mandate than she'd been given in her first term. With Nicolas Sarkozy as President of France, Great Britain was the only major European power not yet in the hands of the corporate-backed austerity crowd. The Global Sado-Erotic Thrill Machine That changed with Cameron's election as Prime Minister in May 2010, an event that threw pro-austerity Americans into throes of near-erotic ecstasy. And if that sounds like hyperbole, consider conservative Anne Appelbaum's reaction to Cameron's budget in September of 2010: > Vicious cuts." "Savage cuts." "Swingeing (sic) cuts." The language that the British use to describe their new government's spending-reduction policy is apocalyptic in the extreme. The ministers in charge of the country's finances are known as "axe-wielders" who will be "hacking" away at the budget. Articles about the nation's finances are filled with talk of blood, knives, and amputation. And the British love it. What can I say? There are people who collect serial-killer memorabilia, too. But Appelbaum wasn't just speaking for herself. It became unacceptable for any politician in Washington, Democrat or Republican, to advocate anything other than an austerity budget for the United States. And it was more than an economic strategy to its backers. Austerity became a way to demonize those who had suffered most from the banking abuses and self-indulgences of the wealthy, a totemic "blame the victim" response that turned the political debate into a grotesque inversion of morality. Again, Appelbaum: > "Not only is austerity being touted as the solution to Britain's economic woes; it is also being described as the answer to the country's moral failings." Bad Metaphors vs. Good Economists The Democratic President of the United States, Barack Obama, jumped onto the bandwagon with both feet by repeatedly lecturing Americans on the need for government to stop "spending beyond its means." Obama recycled the popular conservative metaphor of a family that has to sit around the kitchen table and decide how much money it has to spend. That's one of the worst metaphors in modern politics. Does a family establish its own currency -- especially one that has the unique position of the dollar? Can a family borrow money at rates so low they're effectively less than zero? Would a family let Grandma go hungry because Junior bought too many Porsches out of the family kitty and then gambled it away on lousy mortgage investments? The world's top economists, those who had successfully predicted the crisis of 2008, tried telling the rest of the world what was wrong with the idea: Joblessness and consumer fears were killing any chance of real recovery. More short-term spending was needed to get the economy moving again. Austerity would make things worse, not better. But nobody listened. Austerity's S%M-like attraction had the world's elites in its grip. Death of a Delusion And then something else came into the picture: Reality. Cameron's austerity budget had a shattering effect on the already-struggling British economy. His government's financial stability was downgraded five times during his first year in power and retail sales had fallen 2.5 percent. Household income was projected to fall an additional 2 percent if his austerity plans were carried forward. Britain's modest employment gains were reversed, youth unemployment reached record levels, and income inequality was the worst it had been in more than half a century. Anne Appelbaum's erotic dreams had become Great Britain's nightmare. As Europe's ruling austerity class pushed forward with their plans, even the IMF tried to dissuade them. It was clear to anyone who wasn't blinded by ideology or political cynicism that austerity economics was a failed program. Even in countries like Greece, where government was far graver than elsewhere, the austerity programs imposed from outside threatened to destabilize society while other reasonable measures like improved tax collection were still not taken seriously enough. And now the entire Eurozone hangs in the balance. Bankers became wealthy by treating governments as if they were mortgages, lending recklessly and pocketing their fees without considering the long-term reliability of their loans. European leaders insisted for months they were take the kind of sensible steps that should've been taken in the United States by requiring bankers to accept at least part of the losses for the bad loans they had issed. That plan was quietly dropped last month. "Austerity economics" never calls for austerity from those who have gotten rich by being irresponsible, only from those who didn't benefit from it at all. The Afterlife President Obama has dropped his austerity rhetoric, at least for the time being, but the Republicans have not. Listening to Mitt Romney discuss economics is like having a doctor wave a dead chicken over your head and saying he's decided to cast a spell on you rather than operate on that thing they found in your X-rays. Aside from the bill introduced this month by the House Progressive Caucus to almost no media attention, there's no comprehensive plan for dropping this country's ineffective austerity strategy and replacing it with an agenda that works. Rational solutions to our economic problems are being ignored. There won't be a real debate about alternatives to austerity until an entire political party, not just part of it, adopts this kind of program. Until then there will be chaos. And where there is chaos, austerity's powerful advocates can step in and take charge. Austerity economics died in 2011 and is survived by the British, German, and French governments as well as the GOP and large portions of the Democratic Party. Instead of sending flowers, the family has asked the public to abandon all hopes of future economic growth.

Notable Death of the Year: RIP Austerity Economics, 1921-2011

Added 12/28/11
1 Views

Notable Death of the Year: RIP Austerity Economics, 1921-2011

[LESS INFO] 1 VIEWS | ADDED 19:00:30 12/28/11
"Smokestack Lightnin'," with Hubert Sumlin backing Howlin' Wolf in 1964 This is the time of year when we're reminded of all the famous people who died over the last twelve months, a list which includes two of my favorite guitar players ( Hubert Sumlin and Cornell Dupree ). But there were also some notable non-human deaths in 2011, especially in the world of economic policy. One of those deaths should have completely altered the political debate in Washington. The name of the deceased was "Austerity Economics," and it was first glimpsed in a 1921 paper by conservative economist Frank Wright. Austerity died of natural causes brought on by prolonged exposure to reality. But the debate in Washington didn't change nearly enough after its passing. In the nation's capital, dead things still rule the night. Why Austerity? "Austerity economics" backers claim that today's economic woes can only be fixed by dramatic reductions in government spending, which will lead to increased private-sector confidence and therefore to greater investment and growth. But it's never worked. And if investors have lost confidence in the U.S. government's fiscal stability, they're sure not acting that way. There hasn't been this much demand for Treasury bonds since the government began tracking it twenty years ago, and they haven't performed as well since the go-go 1990s. It's easy to understand austerity's attraction for power elites inside and outside of government. The people who suffer from austerity budgets aren't the kinds of people they know personally, since they're typically public employees like teachers, police, firefighters and the administrators of social programs; people who need government assistance, like the poor; and middle-class people with the temerity to either grow old or become disabled. Austerity's attraction became even greater in the U.S. because once it became conventional wisdom that tax increases on the wealthy was "politically infeasible." That made it a program whose sole purpose was to cut government spending, lowering the pressure to increase taxes on the wealthy from today's historically low levels. For a one-percenter, what's not to love? Austerity Comes of Age The idea's been around in one form or another since that 1921 paper, and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) had been imposing it on Third World nations for decades. But 2009 was the year that austerity really came of age. That was the year that a wealthy stockbroker's son named David Cameron began campaigning for Prime Minister of Great Britain on an explicitly pro-austerity platform. It was also the year that Cameron helped to form a group named European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR) dedicated to electing like-minded politicians across Europe and helping them collaborate on ways to slash government spending. It was also the year that right-leaning Angela Merkel won reelection as the Chancellor of Germany with a stronger mandate than she'd been given in her first term. With Nicolas Sarkozy as President of France, Great Britain was the only major European power not yet in the hands of the corporate-backed austerity crowd. The Global Sado-Erotic Thrill Machine That changed with Cameron's election as Prime Minister in May 2010, an event that threw pro-austerity Americans into throes of near-erotic ecstasy. And if that sounds like hyperbole, consider conservative Anne Appelbaum's reaction to Cameron's budget in September of 2010: > Vicious cuts." "Savage cuts." "Swingeing (sic) cuts." The language that the British use to describe their new government's spending-reduction policy is apocalyptic in the extreme. The ministers in charge of the country's finances are known as "axe-wielders" who will be "hacking" away at the budget. Articles about the nation's finances are filled with talk of blood, knives, and amputation. And the British love it. What can I say? There are people who collect serial-killer memorabilia, too. But Appelbaum wasn't just speaking for herself. It became unacceptable for any politician in Washington, Democrat or Republican, to advocate anything other than an austerity budget for the United States. And it was more than an economic strategy to its backers. Austerity became a way to demonize those who had suffered most from the banking abuses and self-indulgences of the wealthy, a totemic "blame the victim" response that turned the political debate into a grotesque inversion of morality. Again, Appelbaum: > "Not only is austerity being touted as the solution to Britain's economic woes; it is also being described as the answer to the country's moral failings." Bad Metaphors vs. Good Economists The Democratic President of the United States, Barack Obama, jumped onto the bandwagon with both feet by repeatedly lecturing Americans on the need for government to stop "spending beyond its means." Obama recycled the popular conservative metaphor of a family that has to sit around the kitchen table and decide how much money it has to spend. That's one of the worst metaphors in modern politics. Does a family establish its own currency -- especially one that has the unique position of the dollar? Can a family borrow money at rates so low they're effectively less than zero? Would a family let Grandma go hungry because Junior bought too many Porsches out of the family kitty and then gambled it away on lousy mortgage investments? The world's top economists, those who had successfully predicted the crisis of 2008, tried telling the rest of the world what was wrong with the idea: Joblessness and consumer fears were killing any chance of real recovery. More short-term spending was needed to get the economy moving again. Austerity would make things worse, not better. But nobody listened. Austerity's S%M-like attraction had the world's elites in its grip. Death of a Delusion And then something else came into the picture: Reality. Cameron's austerity budget had a shattering effect on the already-struggling British economy. His government's financial stability was downgraded five times during his first year in power and retail sales had fallen 2.5 percent. Household income was projected to fall an additional 2 percent if his austerity plans were carried forward. Britain's modest employment gains were reversed, youth unemployment reached record levels, and income inequality was the worst it had been in more than half a century. Anne Appelbaum's erotic dreams had become Great Britain's nightmare. As Europe's ruling austerity class pushed forward with their plans, even the IMF tried to dissuade them. It was clear to anyone who wasn't blinded by ideology or political cynicism that austerity economics was a failed program. Even in countries like Greece, where government was far graver than elsewhere, the austerity programs imposed from outside threatened to destabilize society while other reasonable measures like improved tax collection were still not taken seriously enough. And now the entire Eurozone hangs in the balance. Bankers became wealthy by treating governments as if they were mortgages, lending recklessly and pocketing their fees without considering the long-term reliability of their loans. European leaders insisted for months they were take the kind of sensible steps that should've been taken in the United States by requiring bankers to accept at least part of the losses for the bad loans they had issed. That plan was quietly dropped last month. "Austerity economics" never calls for austerity from those who have gotten rich by being irresponsible, only from those who didn't benefit from it at all. The Afterlife President Obama has dropped his austerity rhetoric, at least for the time being, but the Republicans have not. Listening to Mitt Romney discuss economics is like having a doctor wave a dead chicken over your head and saying he's decided to cast a spell on you rather than operate on that thing they found in your X-rays. Aside from the bill introduced this month by the House Progressive Caucus to almost no media attention, there's no comprehensive plan for dropping this country's ineffective austerity strategy and replacing it with an agenda that works. Rational solutions to our economic problems are being ignored. There won't be a real debate about alternatives to austerity until an entire political party, not just part of it, adopts this kind of program. Until then there will be chaos. And where there is chaos, austerity's powerful advocates can step in and take charge. Austerity economics died in 2011 and is survived by the British, German, and French governments as well as the GOP and large portions of the Democratic Party. Instead of sending flowers, the family has asked the public to abandon all hopes of future economic growth.

ACW Excel 19

Added 12/28/11
1 Views

ACW Excel 19

[LESS INFO] 1 VIEWS | ADDED 12:27:51 12/28/11
ACW EXCEL 19 On the next episode of ACW Excel, it is one episode that you better not miss for these following reasons. Haru Glory, on Excel 18, had a lot of people to thank but it was one Elie Glory, Haru's wife, that got special attention for making him the man and the champion he is today. As they were taking their leave, Hiei showed up on the screen and still displayed anger from his loss against Haru for the Excel championship at Genesis. Hiei demanded he get another rematch or else there will be "serious consequences". What will unfold between Haru and Hiei going forward on ACW Excel 19? GAMMA has made their primary goal a very dedicated one as Sasuke and Miroku plan to get rid of all the "old farts" in ACW that are polluting GAMMA's spotlight. That point was made as a strong one when Miroku and Sasuke beat down Kinnikuman and Kakashi to end Excel 18. We can confirm that Kinnkiuman and Kakashi are critically hurt and will not be cleared by doctors to return to Excel until they recover under doctors' satisfaction. However, Roger Smith has made a match for Excel 19 as Sasuke Uchiha will face Akuma in a non title match. Is Akuma back in the game and can he defeat a champion in Sasuke or will GAMMA's attacks continue to have a major effect? Plus, after news broke out, it was made official. Zuko lost to Aang at Genesis and feels that he deserves another shot. So with Zuko's request, along with an always open and fighting champion in Aang's approval, Roger Smith has made it the final decision. It will be a Best of Five series that will extend the remaining episodes of Excel until Fusion in February. The first man to winn three matches out of possible five matches in the series will be crowned the Excel Road to Destiny champion. The first match started on Excel 19. Who walks out with a strong victory to kick off the series. Momochi Zabuza has now destroyed a team in Hibiki Toaki and Kazukio Muto for the past few weeks. Where will the destruction come to and end and who will be able to put an end to it? Finally, The Titans' Speedy goes one on one with the Zodiac's Seiya as their own mini feud continues. All that on ACW Excel 19. Don't miss it. Of course you won't. ANNOUNCED MATCHES Best of 5 Series for the Excel Road to Destiny Championship Match 1 Aang(c) v. Zuko Sasuke Uchiha v. Akuma Seiya v. Speedy

On "If I were a poor Black kid"...

Added 12/28/11
0 Views

On "If I were a poor Black kid"...

[LESS INFO] 0 VIEWS | ADDED 07:41:54 12/28/11
[ VIDEO ] Joe Hicks discusses the controversy over Gene Marks' blog post at Forbes entitled " If I were a poor Black kid ". Basically he asks, "Why can't white people contribute to the national dialogue on race and racism?" It does seem like a cop out to just tell someone that they have nothing to say because they're not a poor Black child so they can't relate in any way. I've had a white geography teacher in high school - GO FALCONS - who said that he could relate because he was poor. Of course the conclusion could be that he thinks all Blacks are poor, but that's only a thought and not necessarily based on reality. All the same Marks bounces off of a recent speech by President Obama in Kansas where he discussed the gap between the rich and the poor: > The President’s speech got me thinking. My kids are no smarter than similar kids their age from the inner city. My kids have it much easier than their counterparts from West Philadelphia . The world is not fair to those kids mainly because they had the misfortune of being born two miles away into a more difficult part of the world and with a skin color that makes realizing the opportunities that the President spoke about that much harder. This is a fact. In 2011. I am not a poor black kid. I am a middle aged white guy who comes from a middle class white background. So life was easier for me. But that doesn’t mean that the prospects are impossible for those kids from the inner city. It doesn’t mean that there are no opportunities for them. Or that the 1% control the world and the rest of us have to fight over the scraps left behind. I don’t believe that. I believe that everyone in this country has a chance to succeed. Still. In 2011. Even a poor black kid in West Philadelphia. It takes brains. It takes hard work. It takes a little luck. And a little help from others. It takes the ability and the know-how to use the resources that are available. Like technology. As a person who sells and has worked with technology all my life I also know this. If I was a poor black kid I would first and most importantly work to make sure I got the best grades possible. I would make it my #1 priority to be able to read sufficiently. I wouldn’t care if I was a student at the worst public middle school in the worst inner city. Even the worst have their best. And the very best students, even at the worst schools, have more opportunities. Getting good grades is the key to having more options. With good grades you can choose different, better paths. If you do poorly in school, particularly in a lousy school, you’re severely limiting the limited opportunities you have. And I would use the technology available to me as a student. I know a few school teachers and they tell me that many inner city parents usually have or can afford cheap computers and internet service nowadays. That because (and sadly) it’s oftentimes a necessary thing to keep their kids safe at home than on the streets. And libraries and schools have computers available too. Computers can be purchased cheaply at outlets like TigerDirect and Dell’s Outlet . Professional organizations like accountants and architects often offer used computers from their members, sometimes at no cost at all. You will see at the end of this posting links to several rebuts to Marks' comments. I will add my two cents just as Hicks and those other links have. I didn't go to the very best schools in Chicago. I'd say my old elementary school was an average at best school and my old high school - when I attended - was one of the worst. My marks weren't that great in elementary school but for some reason my marks in high school were often in the honor roll range. With that in mind though I consider that a fluke today. My time in high school wasn't a time to seek out options. I never thought of my grades as a ticket mainly because they were had too easy. It was never a challenge academically and who knows how that would've been weathered. The serious challenge was in college where I struggled to keep up. If only I had the tools back then that the young people have today to help me study and understand the various subjects. I wouldn't just be ahead of my peers but it would be light years ahead of them. But when I was in public school most of those tools did not yet exist. In spite of the nay sayers - and I will get to one in a moment - Marks isn't wrong. Make the best grades you can where you are take advantage of all the tools you can. Don't have a PC at home go somewhere to use one, especially the library. At that there are people at your school who if you establish a relationship with them will help you move forward. This nay sayer, well is making more of this than he realizes: > No believer in Bell Curv-ish nonsense about black intellectual inferiority, Marks makes clear that the children about whom he speaks are no less capable than his own kids. Of course, one wonders just how much of a compliment Marks really intends for this to be, given his strange habit of dissing his offspring, on more than one occasion, as rather unintelligent, unmotivated, promiscuous and even inclined to petty criminality. Not sure what kind of asshole says things like this about his children in print, but I suppose we can leave that discussion for another day. No doubt Marks would say that he was simply encouraging poor African American kids to take personal responsibility for their success. He might even say that by acknowledging unfair and unjust structural inequity (and even, indirectly, white privilege), he was doing so in a politically ecumenical way. Certainly Marks would perceive his words and intentions as quite different from those of right-wingers whose hectoring of the poor so often involves blaming those at the bottom of the nation’s economic hierarchy for their station in life. To Marks, poor black kids are not to blame for the position in which they find themselves, but they nonetheless hold the keys to their own liberation, and if they would simply follow his sage counsel they could surely make it, like anyone else: even the cerebrally challenged and oversexed spawn who slumber each night just down the hall from he and his wife. There is much one could say about Marks’s advice — rather typical bootstrapping fare about studying hard, coupled with a more modern emphasis on becoming a techie like him, and thereby, presumably, an irresistible college or job applicant — and most of it has been said already. Like, for instance, this piece , or this one , or this one , or maybe this one , all of which eloquently critique the privileged and naive mindset displayed by Marks, and explain how even when poor kids of color do everything right, the structures of society are too often set up to help them fail anyway. ... And it’s this last point that we might do well to explore further. Fact is, Gene Marks knows his readership at Forbes . He knows that it includes virtually none of the people to whom he is ostensibly offering advice, which means that he isn’t really giving them advice at all; rather, he is inviting his mostly white, mostly affluent audience to engage in a perverse moralistic voyeurism at the expense of impoverished African American youth, almost none of whom that readership will ever meet, and whom they will, in fact, go out of their way to avoid. He is offering a kind of secret white-male handshake to others in the club, assuring them that the problems of urban poverty are not theirs to fix, that they are off the hook as it were, and isn’t that a relief? That Marks may not be as vile in his desire to blame the poor for their status as some, hardly acquits him of the charge that by pandering to the biases of his readership, he has, with some 700-odd simple (and simplistic) words, managed to reinscribe all the worst of their prejudices, many of which one can see on grand display in the readers’ comments section of the original article. Make no mistake, Gene Marks’s column is contempt cloaked as compassion and bigotry dressed up as benevolence. And it can do nothing but contribute to the indifference and even antipathy towards the poor that those who rely on Forbes for insights already possess in ample supply. Starting with that last paragraph it's true, Forbes may not have a significant audience in poor inner city communities. Without having to purchase a subscription you can always go to a library to access past issues of magazines. Also with internet access you can access magazines as well and blog posts such as this one which surely don't require a subscription. As for Mr. Tim Wise who wrote the above excerpts, how is he going to call that man out for what he refers to his kids. Yeah it may be wrong to say your kids are very bright, but somewhere out there some parent is doing it. I also recognize that Marks is merely a commentator who is definitely using his platform to say what he wants to say. The main point surely Marks is making is that his children are not much different than poor inner city children. Just that they have different opportunities living in a different part of the Philadelphia area than the inner city children. Perhaps even different expectations from parents, perhaps different staff and different schools. He didn't write the "poor black kid" piece to denigrate his children. I think what he wrote was real. It shouldn't be impeached merely for that reason. That alone is weak! Although to Mr. Wise's credit he is at least has some suggestions for Marks to put his money where his mouth is. Marks could always help get the information out aside from using his platform at Forbes.

The ever inflating higher education bubble...

Added 12/27/11
0 Views

Why You Wouldn't Want to Use Android

Added 12/24/11
10 Views

The Sandusky Court Appearance: Attorney's 800-Quip Backfires.....

Added 12/14/11
5 Views

The Sandusky Court Appearance: Attorney's 800-Quip Backfires...Badly

[LESS INFO] 5 VIEWS | ADDED 15:00:05 12/14/11
This is a video of a press conference Jerry Sandusky's attorney Joseph Amendola held after an abbreviated court appearance Tuesday where Sandusky waived his right to a preliminary hearing. Waving the preliminary hearing was a media savvy move on the part of Sandusky and his lawyer, because it means the prosecution's case will not be heard ahead of the actual trial, nor will witnesses have to testify ahead of trial. However, Amendola went one step too far in his press conference afterwards. When questioned about Mike McQueary's testimony and how they planned to attack his credibility, Amendola went through about a two minute description of what one would have to believe in order to believe McQueary. Right at the end, he says this: > If anyone is naive enough to think for one minute that Tim Curley, Joe Paterno, Gary Schultz and for that matter Graham Spanier, University President, were told by Mike McQueary, that he observed Jerry Sandusky having anal sex with a 10-year old looking kid in a shower room at Penn State or Penn State property and their response was simply to tell Jerry Sandusky that "don't go in the shower any more with kids," I suggest you dial 1-800-REALITY . Well, someone at Deadspin.com did just that, and discovered that it's a real 800 number for a gay phone sex line. Deadspin has the audio of the intro to prove it. Yes, for 99 cents per minute, you too can "join the fun." You seriously cannot make this stuff up. I'm sure Amendola thought he was being snarky, but next time he might want to leave off the 800 number reference. Amendola made it clear during his press conference after the abbreviated court appearance that Sandusky will go after the credibility of each and every victim along with McQueary. They fully intend to challenge the veracity of Mike McQueary's testimony, which the Grand Jury said they found very credible, as well as the eight victims' credibility. I'm sure this is why the attorney for Victim #1 spoke out after the hearing and said he hoped for an acceptable plea bargain. Even with eight victims whose stories touch one another's in different ways, there will be a concerted effort in public and behind closed doors to intimidate, challenge and otherwise discourage each of them from testifying. As I was searching for this brief clip from today's press conference, I combed through CNN and ESPN transcripts and videos from earlier today. Poor corporate media. They were simply bristling with anticipation, and so disappointed afterward. I particularly enjoyed this bit of angst by reporters who clearly ought to know better: > PAUL CALLAN, CNN LEGAL CONTRIBUTOR: You're going to see most of the victims tell their story. They'll be subjected to cross- examination. It's a limited cross. They can't be attacked about, for instance, their credibility whether they have criminal convictions and things like that. But they will be questioned about their story and whether the story is true or not. so I think we'll get a good picture of what is actually involved in this case today. (END VIDEO CLIP) ROMANS: Or not, because Jerry Sandusky, we are just learning, waived his right in court to a preliminary hearing. VELSHI: Which means that this hearing that will take place will not happen. He will go straight to trial. We don't know what "straight to trial" means, because this could take -- COSTELLO: Which many analysts say it is a smart move, because you don't want to lay out your case in court. And is it necessary to hear from these six to eight victims to testify in open court with reporters all over the world. Probably, maybe, Paul Callan would know better than I. VELSHI: According to the people that are there, the judge did ask Sandusky in doing so, does he understand that he's waiving certain rights. In Pennsylvania, ask you a right to this preliminary hearing. And as we discussed earlier, some chance, remote it might be, that the judge determined there wasn't enough to go to trial with. COSTELLO: With six to eight witnesses. ROMANS: With all of the prehearing analysis of what to expect today, what to expect today, I didn't hear anybody say you waive this right to this preliminary hearing, which may be another crazy like a fox move from his attorney to kind of -- COSTELLO: Or just a crazy move because a lot of people have accused his attorney. I'm not sure whether these folks were around during the OJ trial, but anyone who paid even a little bit of attention to it knows there was almost no way Sandusky would have actually gone through with a preliminary hearing. Look at what releasing the Grand Jury presentment did to the case. It's one thing to claim a presumption of innocence and entirely another to expect human beings with human flaws to presume it, particularly when the media is blasting details from the hearing all over the airwaves. There was absolutely no way it was going to happen. But I do love seeing their disappointed and shocked faces at the realization their sensational sex story might not be flogged every single day.

MW3 Makes Bank and Zelda Keeps Motion Controls - Press Pause D...

Added 12/14/11
19 Views

MW3 Makes Bank and Zelda Keeps Motion Controls - Press Pause Daily

[LESS INFO] 19 VIEWS | ADDED 04:00:00 12/14/11
Modern Warfare 3 makes another milestone very fast and Zelda producer wants to keep using motion controls. SHOW NOTES: Story 1: So it goes without saying that A LOT of gamers love them some Modern Warfare 3. How much you say? Well...the latest game in the Call of Duty series managed to reach over $1 Billion in sales in just 16 days. This makes it reached that milestone faster than any other entertainment property. It managed the feat a full day faster than the previous holder of that title: James Cameron’s 2009 smash hit movie Avatar. It just goes to show that more and more, video games are becoming THE entertainment choice for a very large section of the population. And this looks to be just the beginning. http://www.gamespot.com/news/modern-warfare-3-tops-1-billion-in-16-days-6347435?tag=topstory%3Btitle Stor y 2: So the latest Legend of Zelda title is a big hit with gamers, as it is wont to do, but there are some people who aren’t as enamored of the game’s motion controls. To those people, i regret to inform you that you’re just gonna have to accept it. According to reports, producer Eiji Aonuma had seriously contemplated getting rid of motion controls, but has now decided that there’s no going back. Aonuma told the Official Nintendo Magazine that “I honestly think we cannot go back to button controls now, so I think that these controls will be used in future Zelda titles, too.” Now, motion controls are all fine and good, but this is a little disappointing to hear, as we like using a regular controller as well. I guess if anyone can do it right, it would be Nintendo. http://kotaku.com/5867173/hope-you-like-zelda-motion-controls That will do it for your daily dose of Press Pause. You can always find all our episodes over at presspause.mevio.com . You can also check them out over at our Youtube channel: youtube.com/presspausemevio .