text:
- Font:
- +
- -
Guests: Jim Cramer, David Shuster, Pat Buchanan, Jim Cramer, Rev. Al Sharpton, Ruben Navarette, Anne Kornblut, Chesley "Sully" Sullenberger III
CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: Blocking the Rush.
Let's play HARDBALL.
Good evening. I'm Chris Matthews in Washington. Leading off tonight:
Sacked. Rush Limbaugh, a man who traffics in words, has learned the important lesson, words count. Rush's words, his racially insensitive and inflammatory words, have knocked him out as a potential NFL owner. The master of righteous indignation blames many for his failure, including the president of the United States and the Democratic Party, implying that it takes large forces indeed to bring down so grand a man as he.
Plus: Wall Street rises, bonuses for everyone, billion-dollar profits. How is it that the same incompetence, greed and arrogance that brought the near collapse of our financial system last year and cost us trillions to bail out ended up getting so richly rewarded? Now with unemployment still rising, with people making less money, working fewer hours, we learn that Wall Street is getting ready for a record payday, $140 billion in bonus income, more than during the boom times before the near collapse. What's going on? We bail these people out, and they reward themselves with record bonuses. At long last, we have no shame. Jim Cramer joins us tonight on HARDBALL.
And the next time you get on a plane, do you want the least expensive pilot the airline can afford flying the plane? Chesley "Sully" Sullenberger doesn't think so. He's the hero pilot who landed his plane in the Hudson River last winter, and he said it's gotten so bad for pilots that he used to bring peanut butter and jelly sandwiches along to eat in the cockpit while smelling the fine cooking wafting from first class. He'll be with us to talk about airline safety.
Also, Hillary Clinton, after a year living without politics, finds herself more popular than the guy who beat her last year. You want to know why? Well, it's about not having to face the lions. That's in the "Politics Fix."
And finally, Beau ideal? A young fellow just back from Iraq has his eyes on Dad's old job. Could be interesting. We've got that in the "Sideshow."
Let's start with Rush Limbaugh dumped by the group seeking to buy the St. Louis Rams. The Reverend Al Sharpton was critical of Limbaugh's potential involvement with the Rams. And Pat Buchanan is an MSNBC political analyst.
Boy, you've got your game face on still, Reverend. What do you think? Was this a good sack? Was this the right thing to do, to help knock this guy out of contention as a potential co-owner of an NFL team?
REV. AL SHARPTON, NATIONAL ACTION NETWORK: Yes, I do. I think that it started when the players themselves objected to it, based on the fact that Mr. Limbaugh had had—made certain statements such as saying that the NFL now looked like the Crips and the Bloods without weapons, making derogatory statements against Donovan McNabb.
And I think that if you want to be an NFL owner, you have to be accountable for what you say about those that generate the money in that league. And I think that Mr. Limbaugh, who has made a career out of holding people accountable, had to be accountable to his own statements, and I think he ultimately was.
Let's remember here, Chris, his name was withdrawn by those that submitted his name. The NFL, nobody disqualified him. They withdrew his name. So he can have all these grandiose ideas of a conspiracy, what sacked him was the people that brought him to the party withdrew him from the party.
MATTHEWS: Well, let's go over this. I know he made the comment about the teams acting like the Crips and Bloods, acting like an LA street gang against another LA street gang. I get that. He has said that he felt that he had said the wrong words that sounded racial by suggesting names of gangs that are, I believe, mainly African-American.
But here's the question. He also made some other comments about Donovan McNabb over the years. I remember that comment saying that the press was in love with the guy because he's an African-American but he really wasn't that good a quarterback. Well, people who watch the NFL can make their own mind up about that situation. Seems like McNabb's winning that argument. But are there any other statements he's made over his long radio career? He's on about three hours a day, every day. Can you add up more than those two comments that might be called insensitive, at least?
SHARPTON: I mean, there probably are, but I don't think they're material here. Those are the two I raised to the NFL. Those are the ones the NFL players raised. We're not talking about his politics here or even his racial views. We're talking about, he's asking to be part of an ownership of a team that will vote on the decisions of NFL contracts for players, vendors, stadium workers, and what he says about that industry is pregnant.
I think they're trying to broaden the argument—it's a very narrow argument—about the NFL and about the privilege of being part of the ownership. He has the right to apply. He does not have the right to be an owner. That's up to the NFL.
But what happened here is the people that were bringing him in decided to withdraw him. And I think that all of these other implications really don't deal with the fact that the people that thought he was an asset began to think he was a liability. He's trying now to make this like this is some wounding of American conservatism. He was rejected by his own partners, ultimately.
MATTHEWS: Well, let's take a look at this from another point of view, Pat Buchanan.
PAT BUCHANAN, MSNBC POLITICAL ANALYST: Yes, I think his act was shabby, vindictive, petty. It is disgusting in this sense. Chris, you and I have made controversial statements to Reverend Al Sharpton and the Tawana Brawley hoax case and Duke rape case, which turned out to be a hoax—have made we regret and apologize for.
At the same time, to blacklist an individual, just like they used to do out in Hollywood when they were communists, cost them their jobs because of something they said when those folks did terrible things. To do this to Rush Limbaugh—look, I heard his statement on Donovan McNabb. Look, we talked in the campaign. Journalists went in the tank for Barack Obama. Some of us said that. Does that disqualify us from a job?
He was wrong about McNabb. McNabb had a great season that year, so he made a wrong statement. You deny a man a position like that—this is blacklisting, in my judgment. It's contemptible. Liberals used to condemn it.
MATTHEWS: Well, first of all, I felt—and still do—that Barack Obama inspired me in that campaign.
BUCHANAN: Well, I'm not talking about you.
MATTHEWS: You can use phrases like "in the tank," if you want. Let's take a look at—no, I'll stand by my words. Here...
MATTHEWS: Well, she can respond, as well. Reverend?
SHARPTON: Yes. First of all, I had nothing to do with the Duke case. So again, let's not rewrite history. I had nothing to do with the Duke case. And my representing someone 22 years ago in the Brawley case is certainly a lot different than someone making statements against people that are saying, If he's going to have something with my employment, I don't want him involved.
And if someone does want to take that position, they have a right to take that position against me, you, or Pat Buchanan. I don't know how you mix apples and oranges.
BUCHANAN: Well, let me...
SHARPTON: Those players had the right to raise a question about what he said about them.
BUCHANAN: I'm not saying they don't have a right to do it. I'm commenting on what they did. Reverend Sharpton, if you were part of a group that was going to buy a baseball or a football team, I don't think conservatives in this country would say, No, let's cut that fellow out because of what he said 20 years ago or what he said down there in—down there in Louisiana, in that case...
SHARPTON: I do.
BUCHANAN: ... the Jena case. I think...
SHARPTON: I do.
BUCHANAN: Well, look, I don't think they'd stop you. This...
SHARPTON: Pat, I think conservatives tried to hold Barack Obama responsible for what his former pastor said, not what even he said. So I mean, how are you saying that? We saw a whole year where Barack Obama was questioned about everything his former pastor said for 20 years on whether he was qualified to be president of the United States. We can't ask Rush Limbaugh about what he said himself? Not his pastor, not his former pastor, what he said.
BUCHANAN: Sure.
SHARPTON: I mean...
MATTHEWS: Gentlemen, here's what Rush Limbaugh said about Reverend Sharpton earlier this week. Let's listen to Limbaugh himself.
RUSH LIMBAUGH, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: I know Reverend Sharpton. Sharpton's better than this. He knows better than this. You know, I didn't judge Al Sharpton's fitness to be in radio when he wanted to earn an honest living for once, given his well documented past, the author of the Brawley hoax. I believe in freedom, second chances. And I also don't discriminate.
MATTHEWS: Pat?
BUCHANAN: I think Rush makes a very good point. I mean, I've condemned Reverend Sharpton over the years and criticized what he said. I've written columns about him. I'm sure he's said things about me. But the idea of going after people the way they're making a living—Chris, the real problem in America is not Rush Limbaugh or Chris Matthews or Pat Buchanan or Al Sharpton, it is censorship! It is people trying to silence people, to cost them their profession, their jobs because of what they said, even Michael Savage. People go over the line.
What we ought to be standing up for is the right of people to speak their minds and make their living. This is so petty, I can't believe it!
MATTHEWS: Let's take a look at what Rush said...
SHARPTON: Well, I think Pat...
MATTHEWS: ... about the NFL. Let's let Rush Limbaugh get in here one more time, then you, Reverend. Here's Rush Limbaugh and what he had to say about the NFL. Let's listen.
LIMBAUGH: It's about much more than me. This is just the latest assault on people who believe in rugged individualism and liberty and freedom, who threaten the whole notion of state-controlled tyranny, and you know, the central command authority, which is what is typified by the Obama administration and now the Democrat Party.
MATTHEWS: Well, that's the question, Reverend. And you're as wise as anybody at this table, obviously, and you can make a judgment. Is this about words? You mentioned two statements he made as objectionable. Fair enough. Were those statements, as objectionable as they are, the basis for denying someone a chance to make a major economic investment in a pro football team, yes or no?
SHARPTON: First...
MATTHEWS: Those two statements alone, you seem to imply that they were disqualifying.
SHARPTON: No. What the answer is, he was not disqualified. He was withdrawn. If, in fact, he and his partners felt so strongly about it, his partners should have fought all the way to the NFL and see if he was qualified or not. Just like they had the right to apply, we had the right to say we oppose the application. He had the right to go forward.
MATTHEWS: Well, you're dodging the question...
MATTHEWS: Reverend, do you oppose—did you oppose...
SHARPTON: No, you're trying to misconstrue what happened here.
MATTHEWS: No, no, no.
SHARPTON: What happened here is...
MATTHEWS: You're taking your own...
SHARPTON: ... he was withdrawn.
MATTHEWS: ... responsibility aside.
SHARPTON: He was not rejected.
MATTHEWS: I'm just saying you are a powerful voice in this country. When you speak out, let's face it, the buildings shake. People do listen to you. You had a lot to do with the noise level here. Certainly, the players association was determinant because they are the guys on the field that make the money for these owners. Yes, we know that. But you got out there and joined their case.
Are you saying right now that you think Rush Limbaugh should have been allowed to buy part of that team or not? What do you think?
SHARPTON: I think that Rush Limbaugh...
MATTHEWS: In your judgment, based on those two statements by him.
SHARPTON: I think—in my judgment—in my judgment, if Rush Limbaugh was part of a group that was competing with other groups, and the other groups were able to show that they could do it financially and they had not made offensive statements against the players that generate the money, then I would have ruled for the other groups because I think what Rush Limbaugh did would be something that would be detrimental in competing with other groups. You got to remember this was a bidding process. And you have the right...
MATTHEWS: Those two statements is all I'm asking, those two statements you say disqualified him in your light.
SHARPTON: I think—no, in my light, I would have voted against him if I was one of the other owners...
SHARPTON: ... and some of the owners said yes.
MATTHEWS: That's the point here.
BUCHANAN: Well, look, he wasn't engaged in dogfighting, for one thing. He wasn't engaged in shooting himself in the leg. Other guys have been arrested, implicated in murders. Everybody says, Give him a second chance, let him play in the NFL. And because he said some sportswriters cut slack for Donovan McNabb—maybe they did or maybe they didn't. The idea this is a moral disqualification—I mean, what kind of moral community is the NFL owners?
SHARPTON: Pat, many of us—many of us supported that Michael Vick should have been held accountable for dogfighting, and Plaxico. So we had the right to say that Donovan McNabb—I mean, that Michael Vick was wrong, but we didn't have the right to say...
BUCHANAN: But a decent man...
SHARPTON: ... that Mr. Limbaugh was wrong?
BUCHANAN: A decent man would say...
SHARPTON: We're not talking about...
BUCHANAN: ... Cut him some slack.
SHARPTON: We're not—we're not talking about...
BUCHANAN: Cut him some slack! Let Vick play now. He did his time.
SHARPTON: Pat, we're not talking about him losing his job on the radio. No one is saying he shouldn't be on the air. No one's saying he shouldn't have a job. We're saying he shouldn't be an owner of a team and not deal with what he said.
BUCHANAN: Well, what did you say...
SHARPTON: (INAUDIBLE) his livelihood.
BUCHANAN: ... Don Imus? What did you say about Don Imus? Didn't you say he should be taken off the air?
BUCHANAN: We're saying that sponsors should not underwrite—we said that sponsors should not underwrite what he said, and sponsors agreed.
BUCHANAN: Well!
SHARPTON: They withdrew him. And Don Imus said...
BUCHANAN: Look, you ran a campaign...
SHARPTON: ... that we were right.
BUCHANAN: ... to get this guy knocked off the air...
BUCHANAN: ... in the morning.
SHARPTON: And Don Imus came back and said we were absolutely right, he should have been fired. Don Imus would be the best witness for us in this case.
SHARPTON: He said it himself, he should have been fired.
BUCHANAN: Are you proud of what did you in that case?
SHARPTON: Especially after Don Imus said I was right, absolutely. I think he learned his lesson.
MATTHEWS: Wow. This is a hot issue. Thank you, Reverend Sharpton, as always, sir. Thank you for coming on.
SHARPTON: Thank you.
MATTHEWS: I think you were a big part in this issue. I think that you demur on your authority here I think is wrong. You carry a lot of weight in this country, and you know it. Thank you for coming on this program.
Coming up: Wall Street greed nearly destroyed our financial system last year, and now the whiz kids of Wall Street are raking it in, taking record pay as millions of regular folks struggle to make ends meet. And by the way, nobody's getting a COLA for Social Security this year. These guys are getting that money. We'll ask CNBC's Jim Cramer about that little fix.
You're watching HARDBALL, only on MSNBC.
MATTHEWS: Welcome back to HARDBALL. Here's what "The Wall Street Journal" reported Wednesday. Quote, "Major U.S. banks and securities firms are on pace to pay their employees about $140 billion this year, a record high that shows compensation is rebounding despite regulatory scrutiny of Wall Street's pay culture. Workers at 23 top investment banks, hedge funds, asset managers and stock and commodities exchanges can expect to earn even more than they did the peak year of 2007, according to analysis by The Journal."
With us now, CNBC's Jim Cramer, the host of "Mad Money," and the author of "Jim Cramer's Getting Back to Even." You know, a lot of people don't think we ever get to even in this country, Jim. They feel that they love the way people that people make money. They love a guy like Lee Iacocca or Steven Spielberg or anybody that makes something they can imagine actually being made, even if it's a service. They get it. What they don't understand is why people make billions of dollars off of money.
Up on Wall Street, do these guys—and this is a fundamental question. Do they add to American life, the people making money in hedge funds, on derivatives, on things we can't understand? Are they helping us or just making money off the top?
JIM CRAMER, CNBC "MAD MONEY": I worked at Goldman Sachs, and I can tell you unequivocally not helping at all, not one bit.
MATTHEWS: So why do we have all this money manipulation or money, money, money, exponential money-making based on—what? Let me ask you this. What good does a derivative to, securitizing of these mortgages and all that stuff? And all the money that's being made seems to be made in an ether that most of us don't even know where to get to or GPS our way to. What's going on?
CRAMER: Well, let me—let me give you their side of things, first of all, because...
MATTHEWS: Sure. That's what I want.
CRAMER: They're not attacks on the system, but it's just that there is—I think it's fair to say that they shuffle paper really well. They take a cut of every deal, but the deals tend to be done by real companies that create things, and we need to have a croupier to make these cards travel. And what I think is a shame is that the croupier gets so much more than the people who are actually doing the business.
MATTHEWS: Yes.
CRAMER: A derivative? Yes, it's a bit like an insurance contract, where I want to be able to insure my house from fire. But the problem with the derivative contracts that you can—I can insure your house for fire and then set it on fire and get paid.
MATTHEWS: Yes. Well, let me ask you about this question of money making. We thought that everybody was going down after this big crash almost last year at this time. And there was a sense that even the big guys suffered a bit. Everybody took about a 30, 30-something percent cut in their liquid assets. I think everybody from the person struggling with a 401(k) all the way to the top, everybody took a big loss.
And everybody said, Well, that's OK. Good. Everybody took a loss. And now we see people making $140 billion in—I know it's part of their income, but bonuses. And we're learning that Goldman has made $3 trillion or whatever, $3 billion. And this kind of money shocks people because this year, everybody over 65 watching this year is not getting a cost of living adjustment, no raise, period.
So, there's a sense of vast inequality out there.
Your reaction, as a guy who knows the business.
JIM CRAMER, HOST, "MAD MONEY": It is. These are obscene bonuses.
I felt that the government should have done with all the banks like it did with Citigroup, which is to get the average guy a share of Citi. Remember, the government owns 34 percent of Citigroup. The government is up billions of dollars.
Why did the government not take stakes that it held on to with all of these guys, given the fact that, once the competitors got knocked out, the Goldmans, the Morgans, the J.P. Morgans, could make a fortune? We should have had a stake in them that we could then return to the American people and create jobs with. But we let them make their money without being along for the ride.
That was a mistake, Chris.
MATTHEWS: Is there any provision in TARP, that awfully named acronym from last year at this time, where they gave away the $700 billion, is there any string in there where the government can pull now and say, give me back the money we lent? Is—are they going to get it back, the federal budget, the federal treasury?
CRAMER: Oh, I think that the treasury secretary—I think the president should be demanding that all these banks raise money that haven't returned it—remember, Goldman did return it, and J.P. Morgan.
MATTHEWS: Right.
CRAMER: But to raise the money in the public markets—the stock market's going up—we have pierced 10000 -- and say, you give us our money back right now, or we're going to raise the interest, because every bank is making a lot of money here, Chris. And I don't want to hear that, oh, it's still a fragile time. They all say that.
The American people deserve to cash in on these banks. And we're not doing it. We're not pressing the banks for our own cut.
MATTHEWS: OK. Let's talk about macroeconomics now.
The average person out there is worried about the unemployment rate. It's up there knocking up against 10 percent, just at the time we're going over 10000 in the Dow. That drives a lot of people crazy.
MATTHEWS: The Dow's going over 10000. Unemployment looks like it's going over 10 percent.
Why the Wrong Way Corrigan? Why the market coming back and unemployment still rising?
CRAMER: We are seeing a lot of up—upticks in retail sales. Auto sales were actually better than we thought. We saw...
MATTHEWS: Are we going to have a good holiday? Are we going to have a good—is it going to be Black Friday, like they said in Philly, on the day after Thanksgiving? Are they going to make money or not?
CRAMER: You bet. Yes, Wanamaker's will be jammed. We're going to see a very good holiday season. September was very strong. October was extremely strong.
We're going to surprise—America will surprise each other. We are going to have a very strong holiday season. And that's across the board, whether it be from Macy's or Home Depot or Saks or Target or Family Dollar. We're spending, and we actually have some money, and we're starting to feel a little more secure.
MATTHEWS: Will that auger well for a reduction in the unemployment rate next year? Because that's the only measure most of us in the news business and most people think about. The unemployment rate is at 9.8. Will it go above 10? Will it drop below 8 or 7 by next election? How is that for a political question?
MATTHEWS: Will it be down below 8 or 7 by next October?
CRAMER: We're not creating enough jobs. That will not happen. We will not get that low. We will flirt with 10.
MATTHEWS: So, next Halloween is going to be bad for the Dems?
CRAMER: I think that, unless they create some real jobs, a $2.2 trillion infrastructure bill would be a lot better than we have got. Chris, the Democrats will get hurt badly, because we're not creating jobs. There's prosperity for a small group of people, not enough to go around, and there's no job creation.
It is a—it is a profitable period for many companies, and it's not creating any jobs.
MATTHEWS: Where did the $800 billion go in the stimulus bill?
CRAMER: Well, I think a lot of it went to state and local governments. A lot of it went to people who actually have the kind of tenure that most workers would like, people who work for governments.
And I think...
MATTHEWS: Exactly where it went.
CRAMER: Yes.
MATTHEWS: It went to pay off, so that mayors wouldn't go broke and they wouldn't have to go with layoffs.
CRAMER: True.
MATTHEWS: Thank you.
CRAMER: Thank you.
MATTHEWS: It went to pay off old bills.
Thank you, Jim.
It didn't create new jobs. I don't smell construction.
CRAMER: Not at all.
MATTHEWS: Thank you, sir.
It's great. Have a nice weekend...
CRAMER: Thank you. You, too.
MATTHEWS: ... Jim Cramer. It's great having you on.
You can watch, by the way, "Mad Money" weeknights at 6:00 and 11:00 Eastern on CNBC.
Up next: So, how much—much more popular is Hillary Clinton than the guy who beat her last year? Hillary Clinton you know, when you get out of the line of fire, politically, it's amazing how you warm up the public.
Anyway, the answer is coming up in the "Sideshow."
You're watching HARDBALL, only on MSNBC.
MATTHEWS: Back to HARDBALL. Time for the "Sideshow."
First up: in harm's way.
NBC's Andrea Mitchell gave an interview to Rachel Maddow, talking about the inequality of professional opportunity back in the news business during the Three Mile Island episode back in '79. In the first week of that nuclear disaster, it turns out that Andrea's boss, the bureau chief, sent out all the male reporters to cover that event, but the only two women reporters were cut out of the action.
So, here's what Andrea and her colleague did.
ANDREA MITCHELL, NBC CHIEF FOREIGN AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: So, finally, we Friday night came, and we marched into his office and said, why is it that we're the only two correspondents that have not been sent?
And the bureau chief said, because you're women of child-bearing age, and we don't know how bad the radiation is.
And I said, has it occurred to you that men's balls are as vulnerable as women's ovaries?
MITCHELL: This was back in the '70s, when no one talked that way.
MITCHELL: So...
RACHEL MADDOW, HOST, "THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW": And the response was?
MITCHELL: I got sent the next day.
MATTHEWS: God. Anyway, no comment there.
Next up: wagging the dog. Remember when the politicians were the leaders, and the commentators on radio and TV just followed along, commenting? Remember when the elected officials were the real leaders?
Well, guess what? To get ahead in Republican politics these days, an elected official needs to act more like a radio talk jock, you know, say crazy, over-the-top stuff. Check out the career arc of Minnesota's Michele Bachmann. She has got a profile on the front page of today's "New York Times" just about at the fold, with the headline, "GOP has a lightning wrong, and her name is not Palin."
Well, "The Times" highlights the Minnesota congresswoman's outlandish comments on HARDBALL last year, when the congresswoman said she was very concerned that Mr. Obama—quote—"may have anti-American views."
And, by the way, she also called on the media during that HARDBALL interview to investigate congressional Democrats for what she called anti-American views.
Well, this apparently is the right stuff, as far as the right is concerned these days. If you want to rise in the party and get on the front page of "The New York Times," forget the boring, legislative grind of being an actual member of Congress, you know, someone who does something. Just get out on the air and say stuff that makes you sound as wild as the radio commentators are.
Finally, Beau ideal? Beau Biden, son of the vice president, has just gotten back from a one-year tour of duty in Iraq with the Delaware National Guard. In his first TV interview since getting home, he talked about expectations that he will run for his father's Senate seat in Delaware.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You have a big Republican that's looking to run for this seat that was held by your father. When do you make the decision? I won't put you on the spot too much.
BEAU BIDEN, DELAWARE ATTORNEY GENERAL: Sure.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: But when do you have to make that decision of whether you run for Senate?
BIDEN: Well, you know, I have been away from my family for a year. First things first. I'm going to keep holding onto that guy you saw on the TV screen, as well as my daughter, Natalie, who's probably mad she's not on TV this morning.
BIDEN: But—and then get back to my job as the attorney general in the state of Delaware.
Look, am I considering it? Absolutely. Absolutely. But I will be making the decision in due course.
MATTHEWS: Well, this race in little old Delaware's going to be one of the most exciting races in the country this year if it's an Iraq vet and a 71-year-old.
Tonight's "Big Number," by the way, hearkens back to that late great Democratic battle between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. As the country's senior stateswoman now, Hillary Clinton has taken herself out of the political fray. She's no longer building up scar tissue from bruising battles over domestic policy, like health care and unemployment. And it shows.
Back in January, Barack Obama's favorable ratings were sky high at 78 percent, while Hillary's were lower, a still respectable 65. Well, after bruising battles on health care, the president is now hovering at 56 percent. Where's Hillary? Sixty-two percent, higher than the guy who beat her—Hillary's favorability up to 62 percent, and rising. Likable. Well, likable enough, in fact more than likable enough right now—tonight's "Big Number."
Up next: Next time you fly, why do you—well, do you want a pilot up there in that pilot seat who is the cheapest pilot the airline could find? Obviously, that's a Socratic question, a rhetorical question, if you will. Not me. The pilot of that U.S. Airlines jetliner that made a miracle landing on the Hudson River, Captain Chesley "Sully" Sullenberger III, doesn't think that's a good idea, to go with the cheapest. He's coming here next and sitting right there.
You're watching HARDBALL, only on MSNBC.
DAVID SHUSTER, NBC CORRESPONDENT: I'm David Shuster.
An intense search continues right now in Colorado for a missing 6-year-old boy. Falcon Heene was believed to have been inside this helium balloon constructed by his father when it came untethered earlier today at the family home in Fort Collins.
The balloon drifted for two hours, reaching an altitude of nearly 10,000 feet, before helium seeped out and the craft drifted downwards. It eventually landed 45 miles to the southeast near Prospect Reservoir.
Authorities believe the 6-year-old boy climbed into a box-like compartment attached to the balloon when it lifted out, but missing when it landed. Authorities are now investigating numerous reports of something falling off the balloon mid-flight. In this photo, you can see a piece of the balloon appearing to fall.
Authorities described Richard Heene, the father, as an amateur scientist and storm-chaser who participated last in a reality TV show last called "Wife Swap." The family has not issued any statements about the mishap today or the ongoing search.
I'm David Shuster—now back to HARDBALL with Chris Matthews.
MATTHEWS: We're back to HARDBALL, and a rare personal honor for me.
I have got a man sitting in front of me, one of the rarities, Captain Sullenberger. Of course, he safely piloted his disabled jet on the Hudson River, landing it, last winter, by the way. Look at that picture. Everybody remembers this. The passengers and crew all made it. What a scene. And it took, well, cool courage under fire. I think Hemingway called it, what, grace under pressure.
Good work, Captain.
CAPTAIN CHESLEY "SULLY" SULLENBERGER III, PILOT: Thanks, Chris. Good to be here.
MATTHEWS: It's great to—I want to be on your plane.
Anyway, you have logged more than 19,000 hours of flying time at the controls. Joining us now is the man. The name of the book is "Highest Duty."
You're very proud of this book, right?
SULLENBERGER: It was a labor of love.
A lot of the book was already in me. I have a lifetime of stories to tell, and about not only the event, but how—about my life leading up to the event prepared me for the event and the aftermath.
MATTHEWS: What is it like to get into a plane—I mean, I have flown a lot. I am flying tonight—flying tonight out West. And when you get in a plane, is there an adrenaline rush, or is it like being an old pro and it's just no change in the blood pressure? You're going to go up to 39,000 feet. You're in charge. The weather could be awful.
Do you get a—do you—do you have a different attitude about the weather when it's going up there? Is it going to be a tough night? Is it going to be an easy night?
SULLENBERGER: Well, you know what? We have different levels of alertness, and we're aware of everything going on around us, and we take great pride in knowing exactly what the most important thing to be paying attention to at any given moment of the flight is.
So, when it gets harder or—or more challenging, we just pay more attention to more, different things.
MATTHEWS: You know, when I get up there, when I'm not praying in an airplane over it—when there's turbulence, I always try to look at the eye of the flight attendant and see if they're bored, and it's the same old job...
MATTHEWS: ... and if they're just getting the food out or they're just doing something.
If I see anything that looks like nervousness, then I am very nervous.
MATTHEWS: Is the flight attendant a pretty good guide to how tricky it is up there?
SULLENBERGER: Absolutely.
In fact, one of the things I talk about in my book is that, on January 15, not only did we have the luxury of having very well-seasoned business travelers as passengers, but we had a highly experienced and highly trained flight attendant crew.
And I think they, by exiting a calm, professional demeanor, kept the cabin calm.
MATTHEWS: But I don't want to hear that. I want to know...
MATTHEWS: ... that, if it's really dangerous up there, that they're going to show it somehow with their eye ticking up and down or something.
SULLENBERGER: They...
MATTHEWS: I had one flight attendant who is—when we went through one of those shearing instances down here in Carolina years ago, my wife and I, when the shoes were hitting the ceiling and the drinks were hitting the ceiling, and she's sitting next to me—she's flying—she was flying as a passenger on a plane.
She said, "We're about to go into a tailspin." That was her comment.
MATTHEWS: So, I have been...
MATTHEWS: I have been through some hairy situations.
But you been ever in one of those shearing situations...
SULLENBERGER: No.
MATTHEWS: ... where the plane, it just drops a couple thousand feet?
SULLENBERGER: No, I—I have not.
MATTHEWS: Well, I have been there.
OK. Well...
SULLENBERGER: Keep your seat belt fastened.
MATTHEWS: Of course.
Let me ask you—OK, let's talk about the thing we love to talk about, the—I want to talk trouble with you. And I want to talk about American life right now. When I get on a plane, I want to know that the guy or woman up front flying that plane knows what they're doing. I want a pro up there, like if I'm being operated on, right?
SULLENBERGER: Exactly.
MATTHEWS: Are we putting the best people up in those cockpits right now, or are we putting the cheapest people up there?
SULLENBERGER: Well, you wouldn't want your surgeon to be the lowest bidder.
And I—I had the great luxury on January 15 of flying with Jeffrey Skiles. I couldn't have had a better colleague that day or since. And he, like I, have 20,000 hours of flying time. He had been a captain at this airline before the staff reductions. And he knew exactly what to do, the same as I did.
It's important that we have experience in both seats. This House bill that was passed—passed yesterday will increase the level of experience in both seats of airliners going forward. It's going to require for the first time that both pilots, and not just the captain, have an airline transport pilot certificate. That's...
MATTHEWS: And 1,500 hours or...
SULLENBERGER: Fifteen hours vs a minimum...
MATTHEWS: Not 200?
SULLENBERGER: Not 250. That's a huge difference.
MATTHEWS: Right.
SULLENBERGER: It's a good step.
But there are still issues that we need to do. And my message is really very simple. I spent my life learning what makes aviation safer, and I have learned that economics and safety do have a linkage.
And one of the reasons historically we have been able to make aviation so safe is that many of the airline operators have chosen to greatly exceed the FAA bare bones minimums in many areas. Now, under this time of great economic financial hardship, with tremendous cost pressures, we're seeing some of those extra margins being cut.
I also think that if we keep pilots' salaries this low, we may not be able to, in the future, attract the best and the brightest. If this were an easy job, then anybody—anybody could do it.
MATTHEWS: What does a senior pilot make, who flies one of these big planes across the country, 150, 200 a year?
SULLENBERGER: Some of the higher ranges are --
MATTHEWS: That's high.
SULLENBERGER: That's high.
MATTHEWS: That's high. Once in a while—because I'm in the business I'm in, and I love this job—I meet people and I'm very approachable. People come up to me and they tell me, they just screwed us. They took away our pensions. How often has that gone on? I have been checking it out. Some of the producers here have checked it out. Some of the airlines have just gotten rid of—your airline, United, Delta, some of these have eliminated vested pensions.
SULLENBERGER: Oh, I know. What Americans are going through now, and have been for a year or two, airline employees have been going through for eight years or more, certainly since the September 2001 terror attacks.
MATTHEWS: Losing your pensions.
SULLENBERGER: Absolutely. I have taken a 40 percent pay cut. I have lost my pension. It's been replaced by a pennies on the dollar PPG guarantee. And I was a captain and managed to stay a captain.
People like Jeffrey Skiles, who were a captain and went back to first officer, took about a 60 percent pay cut.
MATTHEWS: What's this thing about how you smell the food, the nice food cooking in first class, and you're eating a peanut butter sandwich.
SULLENBERGER: In the book—I brown bag it. I told you in the book.
MATTHEWS: Why don't they let you have one of the meals?
SULLENBERGER: They don't board a meal for us.
MATTHEWS: But I see the flight attendants walking into the captain's
· into the cockpits with meals or coffee. Don't they bring the meal to you?
SULLENBERGER: On some airlines, they still board meals for the crew. Occasionally, if there's food left in back, on rare occasions, if the flight attendant don't eat it first, they offer it to the pilots.
MATTHEWS: You mean, if everybody says, I want my meal, you guys go hungry.
SULLENBERGER: You have to bring your own. Yes.
MATTHEWS: It's unbelievable they're that chincy. When did that start?
SULLENBERGER: That's been going on several years.
MATTHEWS: So when you're flying say from—just, for example, Washington to L.A., which I'm doing tonight, you're going to do that on a peanut butter and jelly sandwich?
SULLENBERGER: Hopefully, I will have time to get something better than that in the terminal and pay my 12 dollars for it, yes.
MATTHEWS: But you don't get the free meal?
SULLENBERGER: No.
MATTHEWS: OK. What does this do to safety, to have pilots squeezed down in salary and retirement plans? At some point, you have to quit, and you have to face the pension as your main source of—at least your base income. It's going to keep people flying longer than they should, right? Right?
SULLENBERGER: Yes. They just raised the retirement age about two years ago from 60 to 65. So it will give more people a chance to have a little bit more years of earning power. But I lost my pension when I was in my 50s with very little time to make it up.
MATTHEWS: What are you going to do about it? You're selling a book now, but you're a rarity.
SULLENBERGER: It's amazing the extreme to which I had to personally go to try to make up some of what we have lost as an industry. So I'm—the first priority for me is to take care of my family, rebuild my pension, rebuild my kids' college funds.
MATTHEWS: Yes. I thought United was an employee-owned firm, one of those firms that's employee owned now.
SULLENBERGER: United I think was for a while.
MATTHEWS: But did that—did they screw the pilots there, too, when they got to vote on it.
SULLENBERGER: I don't work for United.
MATTHEWS: I know. You work for US Air, which is a great airline, by the way.
SULLENBERGER: All of the airlines, with a few exceptions, Continental and American, managed to keep their pensions.
MATTHEWS: This is depressing.
SULLENBERGER: Northwest froze—
MATTHEWS: You know what? I remember that movie with—what's his name—Leonardo Dicaprio playing you guys in the '60s, early '60s—
SULLENBERGER: "Catch Me If You Can."
MATTHEWS: The sharp uniforms. The flight attendants were sharp. It was very cool. There was a lot of esprit de corps, a lot of pride. Everybody wanted to be a flight attendant. We used to call them stewardesses. Everybody wanted to be an airline pilot. Is that still the case? You getting the best and the brightest in your business?
SULLENBERGER: I don't know a single professional pilot who wants their children following in their footsteps. And that concerns me. This is a profession I love and I care about greatly. We can't afford to rely on the investments made by previous generations to keep the safety trend going in the right direction. We have to continue to make new investments, and investments not only in technology, investments not only in the system, but in people.
MATTHEWS: You got any good news, besides you exist?
SULLENBERGER: Jeff Skiles is out there with the same --
MATTHEWS: Let's buy this book. This is a romantic story of what it's like to be a great pilot, and what it's like to have been through all of those—how many years—how many hours?
SULLENBERGER: Um, 20,000 hours, 42 years flying, almost 30 at the airline.
MATTHEWS: A lot of stories, and they're all in here. And you were just dying to tell them.
SULLENBERGER: Thank you, Chris.
MATTHEWS: I'm glad you were a hero for everybody on that plane and for all of us. It does inspire me. Sometimes I think the squares are the really good guys. Like you, you're a square.
Up next, so Hillary Clinton's more popular than Barack Obama. What kind of world is this? Just kidding. We're going to get into that in the politics fix. This is HARDBALL, only on MSNBC.
MATTHEWS: We're back in time for the politics fix, with Ruben Navarette of the "San Diego Union Tribune" and Anne Kornblut of the "Washington Post." Thank you very much, Ruben and—
We're going to talk about something I am going to surprise with you. That's this new poll out just now that shows that Hillary Clinton is now beating Barack Obama 62/56. It's a Gallup poll, therefore very authentic, 62/56. Big change from where it was at the beginning of the year, when she was way down from him.
You're thoughts about this. Is this about duty? Is this about getting out of the line of fire politically? What is this about?
ANNE KORNBLUT, "THE WASHINGTON POST": Well, look, it is about duty in part. She has decided to announce that she's not going to run again. And I think she wants to change the subject. I think she wants to convince people. She says it in one interview and then another.
MATTHEWS: So it's tactical?
KORNBLUT: No, I think she actually means it. I have interviewed people around her, and some are divided. They're all divided. Some people think that this is temporary, short term; she's focused on her job. Other people think no, she means it.
MATTHEWS: Is she playing possum politically, though? You know what that means.
KORNBLUT: Pretending that she's not going to run?
MATTHEWS: Yes.
KORNBLUT: I think there's always the possibility she could change her mind.
MATTHEWS: Right now, do you think—you're a good reader of her. You have written a book about her. Do you think that she is an authentic person when it comes to her career sense right now, where she's headed?
KORNBLUT: I think she's not being coy. She's a politician.
MATTHEWS: I thought it was so staggering and so unnecessary, Ruben, I was blown away from it. Especially when she said that incredible statement, retirement. No politician retires. Their idea of retirement is joining a law firm and knocking out op-ed pieces for newspapers so they can stay in the game. The idea of actually leaving—I think Ed Musky was the last guy to walk from the business.
RUBEN NAVARETTE, SYNDICATED COLUMNIST: I believe too she's going to back away from it. But again, never say never in this business. With her, I think this poll is about something else, about buyer's remorse on the part of liberal Democrats, who are disappointed with Obama on a number of fronts. Most recently on the Baucus bill. If he signs the Baucus bill without a public option, you'll see a big uproar on the left. Likewise on immigration, there's concern that he gotten to that issue soon enough.
MATTHEWS: Wait a minute. Let me get—you're use thing as an opportunity to make a case here. This has nothing to do with Hillary or Barack. It has to do with you. You are making the case that you don't like this bill without a public option. So I will now jam you, sir, since you exposed yourself here. How does he not sign the bill? He has two choices. The bill sits in front of him, he signs it or not. You say don't sign a health care bill. Don't be the Democrat in history to have a health care bill?
NAVARETTE: Here's what I like—
MATTHEWS: Answer the question. You're saying don't sign it?
NAVARETTE: I'm saying, if you want real health care reform, don't sign it. That's what I'm saying. I'm saying don't call it health care reform if it really isn't. I'm personally am against the idea of a public option. But what I find very interesting is this idea that the left is saying, listen, we're not going to support a bill without a public option. They may even turn against him if he signs this and doesn't veto it.
So I see a lot of disgruntled folks on the left. The civil libertarians are upset. His anti-terror policy, Chris, looks just like the Bush administration's anti-terror policy.
MATTHEWS: Let's stay on this topic. A lot of these people that talk about him not signing it have never run for office, never helped anybody run for office, never worked a precinct. By the way, bottom line, they can't count. It takes 60 votes in the Senate and 218 in the House. You tell me how to get a public option through the Senate. How do you do it?
NAVARETTE: It's a very good point. I read the editorials in the "New York Times."
MATTHEWS: It's called reality.
NAVARETTE: I hear you, Chris. I'm not against you on this. I think there are a lot of pundits out there, again, who don't have to worry about doing a head count in the Senate. And they say why not stick a public option in there? You put a public option in there, you lose Olympia Snowe and a lot of those conservative Democrats.
MATTHEWS: I think you lose 30 Democrats, because the last time I saw, 30 Democrats out of 60 said—Anne, check me on this. Only 30 said they're for the public option.
KORNBLUT: They don't have it within the Democratic caucus. There's no chance of it at this point, no.
MATTHEWS: That's why they stopped talking about this reconciliation and doing it with 50, because they only had 30.
OK, let me ask you about Hillary Clinton, because I find her fascinating. She has really committed to this job of secretary of state. She's got fine people around her. You talked to Chris Hill in Iraq, Jack Lewis (ph) an old colleague of mine, incredibly smart, hard-working people. And also, until this issue came along of Afghanistan, not even a bit of light between her and the president.
KORNBLUT: That's right. What's interesting about her and Afghanistan is we've heard out of these war council meetings in the White House a lot of different points of view. We know where the vice president is. We know where General McCrystal is. We don't know where Secretary Clinton is. We know she and Defense Secretary Gates see eye to eye. We've heard that much.
But she's been playing her cards very close to her vest. It seems like she'll probably come down in the middle. But she has not been doing any leaking. That is something that is very new.
MATTHEWS: Does she still have those people around her who do all dirty leaking and stuff? Or did she get rid of them?
KORNBLUT: It's not a political campaign anymore.
MATTHEWS: She got rid of those people?
KORNBLUT: It's not the political team.
MATTHEWS: Yes, she a bunch. All they did was go around and leak all the nasty stuff. We'll be right back with Ruben Navarette and Anne Kornblut about something that's really divisive in this country. That's the huge amount of money being made on Wall Street, while nobody else is making it. You're watching HARDBALL.
MATTHEWS: We're back with Ruben Navarette and Anne Kornblut for more
of the politics fix. Ruben, now we're going to sing the same song, you and
I. What do you think of the fact that the people on Wall Street—Goldman just made three billion this quarter. What do you think about the fact they made more, 140 billion dollars, spread around, than they made before the almost crashed. Here's Larry Summers, a very smart guy, trying to explain it. I say trying.
JOHN HARWOOD, CNBC ANCHOR: Is there anything more that your administration can do about that 140 billion dollars right now?
LARRY SUMMERS, NATIONAL ECONOMIC COUNCIL: The real question for our financial system isn't if some people succeed. It's if some people succeed while others are left behind. If we're not seeing the kind of lending we should to small businesses, if people are not carrying through on an aggressive program to mitigate foreclosures --
MATTHEWS: Spoken like the best and the brightest. Unfortunately, other people are being left behind, Anne Kornblut. We have an unemployment rate going over 10 percent, at the same time the Dow Jones is going over 10. They're going in different directions.
KORNBLUT: They made the case early on that they had to save Wall Street in order to save Main Street, and they stopped with the Wall Street part. It never translated.
MATTHEWS: So what's with this—why are they playing defense for Wall Street? Why is Larry there defending such a huge amount of money being made on the street?
NAVARETTE: Because Larry is thinking about his next job after he leaves the administration, going back to Wall Street.
MATTHEWS: I always think of that. You said it. You don't know that.
NAVARETTE: Yes, it's happened before.
MATTHEWS: I know. It's called the revolving door.
NAVARETTE: The bottom line here is I disagree with Larry Summers. This is not about being people left behind. That's not the problem. The problem is you and I work—all Americans work in industries where, if you do well, you get rewards and bonuses and promotions. Here, you get rewarded for companies that fail, whether you be Merrill Lynch or whatever. It doesn't make any sense to most people. People bankrupt the company, here's 16 billion dollars on your way out the door. It doesn't make sense.
MATTHEWS: How do they get paid all this money if they're not doing well? Somebody is doing well up there on the street.
NAVARETTE: In many cases, the companies fail and then they turn around and, to get rid of these people, they give them large amounts of money. It doesn't make sense.
MATTHEWS: Let me go to Anne on the bigger question. Is this going to hurt the president? At some point, are people going to say, wait a minute, we elected a populist Democrat, someone center left, not far left, but center left, and yet we have a reality out there that still seems to benefit money?
KORNBLUT: Absolutely. They have to respond to this. We have to see some more outrage. We saw it early on.
MATTHEWS: Not a speech, please.
KORNBLUT: No. I think actually outrage, some kind of emotion from him that we saw earlier, but then actually some kind of result, some discussion of pay caps, something.
MATTHEWS: I think they got to go back and grab some of that money back, that 700 billion. Don't you think, Ruben, Tarp money, take it back.
Thank you, Ruben Navarette and Anne Kornblut. Join us again tomorrow night at 5:00 and 7:00 Eastern for more HARDBALL. Right now it's time for "THE ED SHOW" with Ed Schultz.
Transcription Copyright 2009 CQ Transcriptions, LLC ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. No license is granted to the user of this material other than for research. User may not reproduce or redistribute the material except for user's personal or internal use and, in such case, only one copy may be printed, nor shall user use any material for commercial purposes or in any fashion that may infringe upon MSNBC and CQ Transcriptions, LLC's copyright or other proprietary rights or interests in the material. This is not a legal transcript for purposes of litigation.>
Transcription Copyright 2009 CQ Transcriptions, LLC ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
No license is granted to the user of this material other than for research.
User may not reproduce or redistribute the material except for user's
personal or internal use and, in such case, only one copy may be printed,
nor shall user use any material for commercial purposes or in any fashion
that may infringe upon MSNBC and CQ Transcriptions, LLC's copyright or
other proprietary rights or interests in the material. This is not a legal
transcript for purposes of litigation.>


text:
Are there others out there trying to investigate or manipulate the data?
Mark and others here have truly inquisitive approaches to what you are doing, what others may be doing and in going extra steps to make the science more useful. That said here are some other questions that we hope will assist in doing that.
· On what panel are the bars mounted?
I will check which are the X and Y axis and get back to you
· What is the emissivity of the two bars, or if that isn't available, perhaps a little more description of the surfaces? Is the shiny one chrome plated or is it just polished Al. Is the anodized one dull or smooth?
The two bars are both 6063T6 alloy. One is polished and then chrome plated - the other is satin and black anodized. The structure is also 1/2 black and 1/2 silver - see the many fotos. In this case they are both matt finished - one face silver anodised and one face black anodised
· In the DashBoard, what is being reported in the materials science experiment?Both the strips
What is the chassis temp (what is the chassis and where is the thermistor mounted), what is the panel temp (what is the panel and where is the thermistor mounted)?
The strips have a rear cut out in which the thermistor sits - see foto below
Which is the temp of the experiment bars? Which is the temp of the side bars?
uum so many questions:) we have 4 thermistors, one on each strip and one on each of the chassis members - again have a look at the fotos. !
· I made some crude guesses, but they aren't good enough. What is the mass of the experiment bars?
2.40 gms
Sorry - over the years I think we have developed a number of different terms for the same things - we know what we are talking about but it must be confusing for newcomers...we will try to do better!
Thanks, again and. 73,
EMike McCardel, KC8YLD
VP for Educational Relations AMSAT-NA

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Products List
Regular Price: $99.95
Special Price: $89.95
Regular Price: $299.95
Special Price: $199.95
Best Sellers
Mattresses & Pillows - Pocket Spring, Memory Foam, Latex and Gel.
At Mattress & Pillow Science, we offer a superb selection of premium quality pillows to buy online at great value prices including pillows for neck pain, side sleeper pillows, anti-snore pillows and pillows for kids. Our range features a variety of luxurious materials to enhance your quality of sleep including memory foam pillows, latex pillows, feather pillows, gel pillows and polyester pillows. We also have a variety of pillow accessories to enhance comfort, pressure relief and temperature for hot and cold sleepers. Our pillows are delivered Australia-wide at a competitive, flat shipping rate. View our pillows online now or visit our Caulfield South store in Melbourne for an expert consultation with one of our sleep consultants.
Mattress & PIllow Science - the healthy sleep specialists.
Mattresses Melbourne
At Mattress& Pillow Science, we specialise in better, healthier sleep. We have developed a unique range of therapeutic mattresses designed specifically to enhance the quality of your sleep. Our mattresses are ideal for anyone looking for exceptional comfort, top quality and excellent value for money. Our range includes memory foam mattresses, latex mattresses, gel mattresses and pocket spring mattresses (also known as pocket coil mattresses). Visit us in-store today at one of our Melbourne showrooms in Caulfield South, Moonee Ponds or Surrey Hills and test out our mattresses for yourself. Ask one our healthy sleep consultants to find the right mattress for your requirements and sleep better tonight!
Mattress & PIllow Science - the healthy sleep specialists.


text:
Wow! It's been a busy week!
I've been in training with the other interns at work all week. We've been attending classes all day most days, but yesterday and today we got to do some hands-on training which was really fun. I started my summer classes on Tuesday and they are enjoyable.
Last weekend was a lot of fun. On Friday I had friends over and we all hung out. On Saturday I played ultimate frisbee!!! In the rain. It was very fun and after we all got cleaned up, my family, pharm-student and I all went to see Star Trek. It was my second time seeing it and I love it.
On Sunday, I had to get everything ready for the party I had on Monday. SO I was quite the busy gal. I had to buy food, clean up and get most everything set up so that the next morning would run smoothly. It turned out really well. I got the "men" to grill hot dogs and we had plenty of snacks and drinks. We played Whose Line is it Anyway? and volleyball and guitar hero world tour. Fun fun.
This weekend will be filled with homework, but hopefully a fun project or two as well.
Friday, May 29, 2009
Wow! It's been a busy week!
Posted by Morgan at 2:18 PM 0 comments
Friday, May 22, 2009
I love my life
So I went over to Kelly's house today and we walked in to her father watching TV.
Kelly: Hey dad
Father: I was watching this guy rob a fast-food restaurant.
Kelly: Ok.
Father: He was dressed up like a woman.
Kelly: Ok.
Father: He went through the drive-thru and climbed through the window.
Kelly: ?
Posted by Morgan at 7:20 PM 0 comments
Labels: random
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
I cooked dinner last night. I made pasta with homemade alfredo sauce. Baked veggies with cheese and french rolls with olive oil. Once it was all done:
McKenna: Will you make me a hot dog?
Me: Um, ok number 1 - I just made dinner. Number 2 - I don't eat meat. So yeah, no....
McKenna: Oh, ok.
Meat comments aside, dinner was very good and everyone really enjoyed it. Afterwards, my best friend Kelly and I watched a movie while I worked. It was a lot of fun.
We're plannning on having a Whose Line is it Anyway party on Friday. I'm really excited because I LOVE planning parties. =) And I love Whose Line. I've got lots of stuff up my sleeve. I'm so looking forward to it!
I'm also planning a beach trip for sometime in June. A bunch of friends and I were thinking of going, but it will have to be on the cheap cause I am poor.
Posted by Morgan at 2:55 PM 0 comments
Labels: cooking
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
McKenna: You know those chocolate fountains that they have at weddings?
Me: Yes.
McKenna: *smiles*
Me: And?
McKenna: *runs away*
Posted by Morgan at 11:27 AM 0 comments
Monday, May 18, 2009
My Family
They don't listen to me. Either that or they forget what I say. Several incidents have occurred because of this that are less than desireable for me.
A few years ago in college, I was on a band trip in Tulsa, Oklahoma. I had been going home most weekends back then, so I made sure to tell my family two weeks ahead of time that I wouldn't be home. Out at dinner, my phone rings:
Mom: Morgan! When are you going to be home tonight?
Me: I'm in Tulsa right now......
Mom: Tulsa? What are you doing in Tulsa??
Me: Mom, I'm on a band trip. I told you 2 weeks ago.
Mom: No you didn't. Tulsa? Are you joking Morgan?
Me: No mom. I'm really in Tulsa.
A few minutes later, the phone rings again:
Grandpa: How's everything going?
Me: Pretty good, you?
Grandpa: Good. I'm coming to pick you guys up for dinner in about 20 minutes. Tell your mom.
Me: Uh, I'll call her and tell her, but I'm in Oklahoma, remember?
Grandpa: No you're not.
Me: ...
Grandpa: Morgan?
Me: I really am in Oklahoma. Remember after church last week? I told you all that I would be out of town for a band trip.
Grandpa: No. I don't remember that.
After dinner on the way back to the hotel:
Mal: Hey! McKenna wants to know when you're going to be home! We all want to go to the park after dinner.
Me: Um, seriously?
Mal: Yeah! Where are you at?
Me: I'm in Oklahoma!
Last summer, I worked at the same job I'm currently at and I usually worked from 8 to 4:30 or 8 to 5. On Tuesdays McKenna had soccer practice and either Mom, Mal or I would take her. I warned a week in advance that I had a doctors appointment at 4 on Tuesday and would be unable to take McKenna that day and I told Mal and Mom that they'd have to sort it out. You can imagine what happened..... I get out of my appointment and I have all sorts of text messages and voicemails asking how could I forget to pick up my little sister.
How could YOU forget when I told you 5 or 6 times, put a note on the fridge and put an orange Post-It note on the front door?
I love my family. =)
Posted by Morgan at 3:45 PM 0 comments
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Frisbee and baking
Played frisbee after I got off work yesterday. My little sister came as well and it was a lot of fun. My team didn't do too well, but it was still nice to be outside playing my favorite sport. After frisbee, came back home and made some more pita pocket salads and they were once again very delicious. Afterwards, I got cleaned up and then started making Bakerella's cupcake pops! I've been wanting to try these and so I got them started. =)
These were so fun and they tasted delicious. =]
Posted by Morgan at 2:35 PM 1 comments
Labels: baking
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Vegetarian Meals
So I made dinner last night which I was really excited about because I just recently got back home from college for the summer and I didn't get to cook much there. I had been craving salad all day, so I decided to do something of that nature. I started by boiling some water for some brown rice and my sister steamed some broccoli for us. We had some pita pockets lying around so I decided I would make pita pocket salads. My family hadn't had those before so I gave it a shot. I chopped up some orange bell peppers, cucumbers and carrots and also prepared some romaine lettuce. I added a little shredded cheese to each and then made some homemade peppercorn dressing to go in the pita salads as well. This whole process went much faster than I thought it would and by the time the rice and broccoli were finished I had put together all the pita pockets.
The whole family loved it. Success!
Posted by Morgan at 1:25 PM 0 comments
Labels: cooking, vegetarian


text:
wateringfalls on Family Tree Circles
view: full | list
Journals and Posts
Bishop Family Tree South Australia
Wanting to know if any one has come across any of these names in Australia and if they are related.
A wonderful person has helped me get this infomation that I have posted, Needing to find Name BISHOP(nee: Moore)< WARD< Familys to trace the imediate linage of the family.
thankyouBishop/Moore> > > For what its worth!> > >From friends of Kangarilla/Clarendon cemeteries book.> > St Ninians Baptismal records:> BISHOP Albert Mark b: 8/7/1895 Son of Albert & Elle Fodora nee EUSTICE.> BISHOP Keneth Arthur b: 27/6/1894 Son of Albert & Elle Fodora nee EUSTICE.BISHOP Marjory Dorothy b: 13/12/1898 Daughter of Albert & Elle Fodora nee EUSTICE.> BISHOP Tottie Priscilla b:3/2/1893 Daughter of Albert & Elle Fodora nee EUSTICE.> ***Note:Albert was son of Mark & Hepzibah and sibling to Eli. > Albert & Elle Fodora (Nee Eustice) were married at New Darlington, Adelaide, SA on 19/4/1892> +++++> Only BISHOP burial at Clarendon/Kangarilla cemeteries is for:> Rachel Ellen BISHOP b: 22/2/1881 d: 1/11/1881 aged 8mths > Daughter of Mark BISHOP & Hepzibah nee HAINES> This is the Rachel you show as being a sibling of Eli, which is co!
rrect.> SA BDM shows father as Mark & Mother as Hepzibah (nee Haines).> +++> BTW Elizabeth Jane ZEINAH should read Elizabeth Jane ZELNAH according to SA BDM CD!> +++> Add another child to your list below for Eli & Myrtle Agnes (nee WELLS)> namely:> Hazel May BISHOP b:8/4/1906 Unley, Adelaide, SA B#903/426> she married Robert CLIFT 16/1/1931 in St Aidans Anglican church, Payneham, Adelaide, SA > +++> See some marriage details interdispersed below.(in RED)> +++> Montacute where Ethel (Eli's sister) married in Adelaide Hills has had in 1950-1960 era,> Market Gardeners at Montacute by surname Bishop.> Not sure if they still live in that area,
http://www.whitepages.com.au/wp/initResSearch.do <> Enter Bishop as surname,> Montacute as suburb and South Australia and search> I only see Bishops at Basket Range which is nearby in the Adelaide Hills, so they may (long shot)be Elis' relatives,you never know!> +++> There is a marriage for a Doreen!
May WARD born in 1908 to a Andrew William Rutherford on 16/9/1932...m
Bishop/Moore> > Hi there, was hoping that someone might be able to help.> The Bishop family was from SA.> myrtle Agnes wells married Eli bishop they had my grandfather CARL MARK BISHOP/Also known as JOHN ARTHUR MOORE> I am trying to trace the movements of my Grandfather that seems to have changed his name from Bishop to Moore, I know he went by both these names.> > He may or may not have married my grandmother, Doreen May WARD. Family of the Unley park area,streaky bay area.)> > He may have gotten Married to a lady over here in WA, after my Grandmother.Her name being Doreen Mary Murphy.> > His sister Ethel lived in SA. I believe that she was still there in the 1980s, if I have found the right link to them.> > CARL aka John was born in Fifth Creek !
Norwood SA.> > Ethel Agnes Bishop b.3.5.1908 Parkside> Married Hector McDonald SMITH 7/6/1930 in Methodist Church, Montacute (Adelaide Hills),Adelaide, SA > Alfred Henry Bishop b.18.1.1910 Parkside> Married Clarice Liola Rose nee GRAY 24/2/1933 in Methodist Church,Payneham, Adelaide, SA> Ronald Eli Bishop b.27.2.1912 Parkside> no marriage found> CARL MARK BISHOP See also John Arthur MOORE,b.22.3.1914> no marriage found> Hepzebah Myrtle Bishop b.16.4.1917> Nickname KEWP> Married ______ CLIFT and died during 2007 (source SAGHS website newspaperdeath adverts)> > www.saghs.org.au/graves.html <> > I am looking for relations to these above.> If any one has relations to this I would love to know the history ,> > > I have a few of the family names from Eli's siblings, Eli was born in bakers gully, 28th sept 1886.> his siblings were::> Albert, 22.8.1872 Clarendon> Married Elle Fodora nee EUSTICE (See above for children buried in Clarendon cemetery)> Edward Ernest ,20.7.1892 mitcham>!
Married Olive nee GIBB 1/11/1913 at brides fathers home at Lameroo> E
lizabeth Jane Zeinah 20.9.1877 clarendon> Married Joel UZZELL 23/3/1895 in Adelaide> Herbert james Thomas 2.11.1882 Kangarilla> Married Edith Alice nee STRETTON 17/5/1901 in Parkside, Adelaide, SA> john, 20.3.1875,port Gawler> Married Ada Jane nee SMITH 12/9/1895 in Adelaide, SA> > Rachel Ellen 22.2.1881,Kangarilla ( passed 1.11.1881 nr Kangarilla)> Rachel Ellen 20.10.1889 Nr Goolwa> No marriage or death found for Rachel> Walle(also Walter)21.7.94 Mitcham> Married Vida Beatrice nee GRAY 26/9/1914 in Methodist churd=ch ,Magill, Adelaide, SA> and Willie 17.10.1884 clarendon> No marriage or death found for Willie> > > if this is the case,> Eli died 1954??> 7/3/1954> > Eli's father mark died 1914> 27/7/1914> eli's mother Hephzibah died 1924> 10/7/1924> Myrtle Agnes (Eli's wife) died 1977> died during 1977 (source SAGHS website cemetery indexes)> > www.saghs.org.au/graves.html <> > Anyone's help would be great, as I have found no links on Carls family side at all.> Yet they all s!
eemed to live in the SA area.
- Displaying 1-1 of 1 Journals
- 1
- of1


text:
by Brennan O'Donnell and Liu Volpe
About two months ago, Teenagers Inc made its way south again to Antigua, Guatemala, with a group of 25 young people from the Chestnut Hill area. Many of the teenagers didn't know one another prior to the trip and were unsure about how the trip would unfold. None of the teens, however, could have predicted just how life changing the trip would be.
For eight days, the teenagers performed various acts of service that most of the them had never done before. Building a small house with only simple tools, visiting a malnutrition center, spending an evening serving meals at a local homeless shelter, playing with children in an orphanage, and listening to families on social work visits became our everyday routine.
"Of course we would have lunch breaks at our host families' houses," said Liu Volpe, a rising senior at Springside Chestnut Hill Academy, "but I think the best part of my day was being out there with my group and sharing this experience together."
The experience, although fun at times, revealed all too many truths about the world from which we had been so shielded while at home. A particular occasion that was certainly eye-opening for every group member was on our first day. We had come back from visiting Casa Jackson, the malnutrition center, and were waiting in the Dreamer Center. We had just seen, first hand, the devastating effects and realities of malnutrition, an incredible problem in Guatemala.
Yet later we all found ourselves ravenously hungry and greedily awaiting our pizza delivery for lunch. That moment might have been the most embarrassing and shameful moment of our trip. During that lunch, on our first day, we all ate a bit more slowly and understood more fully why we were there.
With a deepened sense of humility and awareness, we spent our next few days committed to our service work. But, as most of us soon realized, this trip presented more challenges to overcome.
One of the many barriers we encountered during the trip was the barrier of language. Few of us had taken Spanish classes at their high school or college and only a handful of us were able to translate conversations for one another. Despite its difficulties, the translating brought us together in a particularly interesting way because we so often had to rely on one another.
"It was difficult attempting to speak to Guatemalans," said Brennan O'Donnell, a rising junior at LaSalle College High School, "but it was enjoyable when they understood you and you could understand them."
Even though most of the children at the Dreamer Center didn't know a word of English, it turned out we didn't need to speak Spanish, and they didn't need to speak English. As someone once said, "All people smile in the same language." Almost all of us thought playing with the kids at the Dreamer Center and the Orphanage was by far one of the best parts of the trip.
During our time at the Dreamer Center and the Orphanage, as we gave out the toys we had brought down with us, we realized just how precious a small animal figurine is or how magical it is when a Suction Cup Popper bursts into the air.
"It was amazing," O'Donnell said. "The simplest toys that many Americans take for granted made the Guatemalan children light up with joy and feel so blessed."
These children reminded us of our younger siblings or people we knew, which made our awareness of the neglect and abuse these children had survived all the more difficult to accept.
Tiring as our trip had already been, as we neared our first day of building, everyone surged with renewed energy. The night before we were encouraged to read stories about the families for whom we would be building a house. We were excited and nervous to begin. Our excitement and enthusiasm remained throughout the course of our three days of building, but the nervousness we had felt melted away once we had stepped onto our worksites for the first time.
Most worksites were empty spaces a couple of feet from the family's current home. We witnessed the "self-made houses" in which many Guatemalans live. Such houses consist of bamboo walls and a metal sheet over the roof. No carpet, no bathroom, just a 10- by 15-foot room for an entire family. Each team's mission was to build its family a house with concrete floors to decrease exposure to parasites and with a strong foundation to shelter the family and stand up to Guatemala's rainy season when torrential rains cause flooding and create powerful mudslides.
Although much of this year's team was new to the experience of building, everyone embraced the new experience, working hard and cooperatively with their team.
"The first day was the hardest," Volpe remembered. "We mixed and laid cement for seven hours. I never thought I'd despise cement so much as I do now."
Because of the physically demanding tasks and unfamiliar procedures, veterans of the trip led their teams through the days of building.
"It gave us the opportunity to lead those who had never been before," said three-year veterans Brendan and Michael Dwyer and Pat O'Donnell. "Whether it was addressing their concerns, giving advice or providing direction during the building of the houses, we fully embraced our roles as leaders"
By the end of the three days of building, everyone's work gloves and clothes were saturated with cement, soil and hard work. Haley Cranch, a junior at Gwynedd Mercy Academy High School, remarked, "The people we helped were grateful and appreciative of our service, but more importantly we gained life lessons in return."
Throughout our other service work, especially house building, our teams formed personal bonds with the people they served and the host families with whom they lived "Everybody was fully immersed in the culture of a third-world country, and it was not always easy," Brendan Dwyer said. "The food was different, living conditions were different and the way of life was different."
Everyone gained a new perspective on their own lives and the lives they had touched through their service. Nearing the end of the trip, we had all become assimilated to the pace of life in Guatemala and had become familiarized with our service work. Everyone expressed interest in doing the trip again, because everyone found it to be transforming.
Alexis Zollo, junior at Gwynedd Mercy Academy High School, reflected on her experience:
"There are no words to properly explain the effect Guatemala has had on me. Every person I met opened me up to a world that I never completely understood. Sure, I've heard all of the sad stories of starving children, but standing in the "house" of a family that is barely surviving, I learned to appreciate even the smallest things in life. Although we went to Guatemala to help others, they ended up helping me on a much grander scale. I cannot wait to go back next year!"
All 25 of us agreed that to donate money or material items or to talk about affecting change can only do so much.
"Everyone should experience it," Brendan Dwyer said.


text:
ELYRIA: Ohio has returned more than $3.4 million in unclaimed funds to a northeast Ohio city in what it says is the largest such payment in state history.
The state�s Department of Commerce director presented the check Monday to Elyria�s mayor.
State officials say the money resulted from a policy the city had with Anthem Insurance Co. for employee life insurance coverage. The insurance company converted to a stock company in 2001, providing policy holders such as Elyria with shares of company stock.
Unclaimed funds are reported to the state for safekeeping until the rightful owners can be found.
Elyria Mayor Holly Brinda says the money will help the city repay debt and cover one-time expenses it otherwise couldn�t address.


text:
Have you ever listened to a couple in an open relationship explain it to people? Your face is always screwed up. I'll be flat out honest with you, I've never believed both people when they explain it. Will and Jada have been explaining their relationship to people for years. Black folk pushed back in their seats trying to figure out if that's something they could ever do, make it easy on yourself, you can't. But since like Day 1, I've always thought, does anybody remember that Jada is a lesbian? Remember that episode when Tupac came to visit Jada on Different World? As soon as he appeared on the screen just about everybody watching busted out laughing. They knew wasn't no way that little girl was dating Tupac, she wasn't into men like "that".
Anyway, here's the gist behind open relationships; basically since you never stop being attracted to other people there's no reason to suppress your inner desires. There's a chance they'll come out at any moment, so rather than running from your feelings, you just manage them in a mature manner. Now this was best explained to me by my boy Columbus, "That's like those guys who swear up and down they not gay, but then his wife come home and catch him with his ass up in the air. No reason for him to be trapped in the closet, just bring your ass out so we can all see you. Not ass first though." A few things, we call him Columbus because he's horrible with directions even when holding the GPS. Two, it wasn't until we had this conversation that I realized that Trapped in the Closet was about more than R. Kelly being trapped in a closet. Point is, when you suppress your real feelings ain't no telling when they will show their face.
|You should try it. ;)
|Read: NOT HAPPY
An open relationship is like Pandora's Box, or more accurately described as a capitalistic relationship. And we all know that you can't regulate Capitalism, there's no way to control chaos. You just have to let it go. One you open your relationship up and you agree not to be monogamous, then you can't try and regulate free trade. That's nonsensical. I can see it now, "oh because you dipped out on the relationship on Wednesdays and that's supposed to be our day, I'm setting up a P*ssy embargo." Do you logically think that's going to work? It's a damn open relationship, the man will just go eff another chick. And you can't be mad about that? You know why, because he's allowed to! And please don't think I haven't thought about men in this situation who think it's a good idea to open their relationship up. It's all fun and games until you slip in a little too easily one time. Yeah, I said that shit. Men need to stop acting like we are not territorial as all hell. The only way someone like Will Smith agrees to let Jada go outside of their relationship is because it's supposed to be so she can sleep with other women. The second he found out that Marc Anthony was not another woman, he went bat shit. No man wants anyone parking in his garage. None. Not me, not you, not any of us. You ever have a FWB that you keep around for years. (If you are a man, that means a chick that you mess with but you know in your head she really want to be with you. She willing to take a piece of you, rather than nothing at all, so you just give her FWB.) What happens to your ego when you find out she had a man for the last six months that you decided not to talk to her because you were banging some other broad? It shrivels and then all of a sudden she ain't all that attractive no more. You cannot regulate chaos. Women and men are not able to deal with open relationships like that.
|This is what Babyface was talking about in "Our Feelings"
|So glad I found this exact picture to put it in perspective.
As I close, I just want to say, I don't think that cheating is a wise thing. I just think that if you're going to cheat, do it like all the rest of us. It's like when someone drops a mixtape. I can't respect a hot mixtape like I can a hot album. I want to see that you can do it like all the rest of the people you compete with. Anybody can get someone to listen if it's free. Anyone can find multiple people to sleep with if it's allowed. I respect that woman who can get away with it even though it takes hard work and determination. Prison Break would have been a wack TV show if the front gate to the jail was open. It was the fact that it was closed and it wasn't allowed that made it a great show. Open relationships are like halfway houses, they don't have any real purpose. Just let the man go, or keep him locked down, you can't have it both ways.
And then there were three...


text:
4:16 p.m. EST (11:16 p.m. Cairo) DON'T KILL MANY PEOPLE or we'll take away your money. That, I think, is an apt translation of White House spokesman Robert Gibb's message on Egypt today. His actual words: "We will be reviewing our assistance posture based on the events of the next few days." I presume that threat could also extend to Egypt turning back on the Internet and cell phone service, and perhaps delivering on some of these vague "reforms" that the US keeps saying Egypt needs. At any rate, it's getting on towards midnight in Cairo, so I think this is the last post for my live blogging experiment today. Not sure how useful it was, but I enjoyed it.
2:47 p.m. EST (9:47 p.m. Cairo) US SAYING IT WILL "REVIEW" aid to Egypt, according to the AP. Well, a "review" can mean many things. By all accounts, the demonstrators are outraged at ongoing US military aid to Egypt – about $1.3 billion last year. Protesters were shown on Al Jazeera holding up "Made in America" tear gas canisters today and saying they saw little distance between the US and the Mubarak regime. I need to find out the specific inventory of weapons that the US provides Egypt. But the key thing to remember is that aid, like money, is fungible. Any equipment the US supplies to Egypt frees up money to be spent elsewhere – like on equipment to control public protests. US military ties with Egypt are longstanding and deep. I'm currently sipping coffee from my "Peace Vector III – Program Management Review, May 1989" coffee cup, that a friend picked up for me in a Boston yard sale last year. Peace Vector III was a US-funded program to improve Egyptian air bases, particularly ones serving US supplied F-16s.
2:40 p.m. EST (9:40 p.m. Cairo) STILL NO WORD from Mubarak, and I think it's safe to say he won't be going on television to speak to Egypt tonight – though it would be fascinating to be proven wrong. The Egyptian strongman is a moody, touchy man, who must certainly feel at the moment that he's being put under pressure by the rabble. Responding to them must seem beneath his dignity. Issandr El Amrani compared him to a water buffalo in a post trying to explain his silence yesterday. "If you only knew Hosni as I do, you'd know he's terribly stubborn. He likes to dig in his heels. He won't be forced into a decision. He is like a gamoosa (water buffalo, as common as cows in Egypt) that just won't be moved off a railroad track. This is his strength and weakness: this stubbornness can be determination (in the 1980s and 1990s, against radical Islamists), but it can also be his Achilles' heel, his inability move quickly to grab opportunities."
2:06 p.m. EST (9:06 p.m. Cairo) SIMON TISDALL IN THE GUARDIAN has some interesting analysis on the tight spot the Obama Administration finds itself in:
"While the US favours Egyptian political reform in theory, in practice it props up an authoritarian system for pragmatic reasons of national self-interest. It behaved in much the same way towards Saddam Hussein's regime in the 1980s, when Iraq was at war with Iran. A similar tacit bargain governs relations with Saudi Arabia. That's why, for many Egyptians, the US is part of the problem... Amid the juggling, one fact may be pinned down: the US would not welcome Mubarak's fall and the dislocation a revolution would cause in Egypt and across a chronically unstable region. Gradual reforms of the kind Clinton discussed in a recent speech in Doha about the Arab world, and a competitive presidential election this autumn, would probably be Washington's preferred prescription. As matters stand now, this is the least likely outcome."
1:45 p.m. EST (8:45 p.m. Cairo) EGYPT AIR FLIGHTS leaving Cairo have been canceled for the next 12 hours, Al Jazeera is reporting. Don't know what to make of this yet, but it's sure to lead to frenzied speculation, considering that a full airport shut down in Tunis preceded the departure of Ben Ali. But so far, the reporting is just Egypt Air, not the many other carriers that fly in and out of Cairo.
1:35 p.m. EST (8:35 p.m. Cairo) IT'S NOW 81 HOURS into Egypt's crisis, and still no word from Hosni Mubarak. It's about 4 hours since NDP officials started putting it around in Cairo that the president would address the Egyptian people "soon." What's going on? Who knows? It's hard to see Mubarak finding any words at this point that would mollify the public. He's certainly well-aware that the lame (and disbelieved) promises of reform made by Tunisia's Ben Ali shortly before his Waterloo didn't do him any good. At this point, Mubarak's long career as Egyptian leader is over – and will probably end formally next September, when the rigged presidential elections are scheduled. I'm sure folks are getting together in back rooms now to sort out who will replace him.
1:05 p.m. EST (8:05 p.m. Cairo) THE BATTLE FOR BEST English-language television coverage of the Egyptian uprising today isn't even close. I've got MSNBC, CNN and Fox on here in the office. I have to watch Al Jazeera English on the internet. And, well, Al Jazeera is leaving the US channels in the dust. (Its Arabic-language coverage is also setting the pace.) They have multiple correspondents around the country, the best live and canned footage, and they don't break for Alka-Seltzer commercials or extended conversations with non-Egypt experts in Davos (as Alex Pareene at Salon caught MSNBC doing).
12:39 p.m. EST (7:39 p.m. Cairo) RAWYA RAGEH IS REPORTING from Alexandria, for Al Jazeera English, that soldiers are emerging from tanks in the city and shaking hands with protesters. The protesters are all in violation of the curfew the government has declared, but she sees no signs they're trying to push them off the street. It now appears the attempt by protesters to storm the Foreign Ministry was unsuccessful. If protests swell again, will the army be willing to use deadly force against protesters (and take the public blame from the Egyptian people) to save Mubarak? That's the big question. Of course, this all could peter out. Perhaps the violence, including the burning of armored personnel carriers and the NDP headquarters today, will frighten many Egyptians away from further protest. I'm beginning to think it's going to take until at least this time tomorrow to get a full picture of what has happened today.
12:28 p.m. EST (7:28 p.m. Cairo) THE ASSOCIATED PRESS is reporting that protesters have stormed the Foreign Ministry in Cairo. Details are sketchy, but I will post a link to a full story or more information when I can.
12:07 p.m. EST (7:07 p.m. Cairo) SECRETARY CLINTON SPEAKING LIVE now, calling for restraint by the security forces. This is interesting: "The Egyptian government needs to engage immediately with the Egyptian people" to implement "reform." Still no use of the "democracy" word from a US official regarding Egypt. But that call for "immediate" engagement is new.
11:55 a.m. EST (6:45 p.m. Cairo) TONIGHT IS CRUCIAL for Mubarak. If the ongoing revolt and rioting gain steam – despite the army being called out onto the streets – then senior generals could withdraw their backing and try to massage a transition. Analogy is always difficult, but I was in Indonesia for the May 1998 rioting that ultimately drove President Soeharto from power. (Incidentally, he was a US client who had been in power 32 years at that point. Mubarak is just shy of 30 years on the job.) Here's how it went down. At first there were peaceful student protests, then the police shot and killed about 12 unarmed demonstrators at Trisakti University and the nearby Semanggi interchange in central Jakarta. (I saw a pretty young woman fall with a bullet through her neck.) That, in turn, sparked rioting and looting for the next few days: thousands dead; shopping malls, government offices, and the homes of the president's wealthy cronies looted and burned. Students occupied Parliament. The Army took to the streets of Jakarta and an uneasy calm prevailed, but the country was still seething. A week later on May 20, General Wiranto, the Armed Forces chief, gave an evening press conference with only tepid words of support for Soeharto – a man he'd been swearing undying loyalty to a week before. I remember a friend turning to me as we walked out of Wiranto's presser: "The old man is done," he said. He was right. Soeharto resigned the next day. Indonesia is obviously a very different place from Egypt. But that's one way a seemingly unassailable strong man can be brought down.
11:33 a.m. EST (6:33 p.m. Cairo) REALLY BIG PROTESTS on January 25 when the Internet was up and the cell phones were working. A really massive, full-blown revolt today, 24 hours after the Internet was shut off and text messaging stopped. Good old fashioned street power is the name of the game now. Still waiting, waiting, waiting, waiting for Mubarak to speak. For that matter, still waiting for President Obama to address events in this close Middle Eastern ally.
11:19 a.m. EST (6:19 p.m. Cairo) THIS IS ONE of those times when I wish I were allowed to swear: What certainly looks to be the ruling National Democratic Party's headquarters in central Cairo is being shown ON FIRE by Al Jazeera and Al Jazeera English. I attended meetings in that complex with NDP officials before the rigged November 2010 parliamentary elections, during which they informed me that the party remains supported by the majority of the Egyptian people. (The election gave the party about 95 percent of the seats in Parliament.)
11:12 a.m. EST (6:12 p.m. Cairo) THE POLICE HAVE clearly disengaged protesters in Cairo, Alexandria and Suez. Whether this is "strategic" or a "rout" remains to be seen. The Army has been called out, with tanks rolling in Suez and Cairo. Some protesters are hoping that the Army – which is generally viewed with pride and respect by the public – will take their side, but I can't see it. We'll know soon how far the Army is willing to go to enforce the curfew and back Mubarak.
11:05 a.m. EST (6:05 p.m. Cairo) AL JAZEERA IS REPORTING that Mubarak is expected to finally address Egypt "soon." (It's about 80 hours and counting since this started, and he hasn't said a peep in public.) Just stunning scenes being shown live on AJ right now: burning, semi-armored police trucks in central Cairo – protesters are trying to push them into the Nile.
11:01 a.m. EST (6:01 p.m. Cairo) AL JAZEERA ENGLISH is carrying live shots of Cairo right now: what looks like thousands of protesters are streaming through central Cairo, not far from the Parliament, the Interior Ministry, the Foreign Ministry – the symbols of government power. The government has declared a nighttime curfew in multiple cities. Will they be able to enforce it? And when was the last time that happened? Checking...
9:47 a.m. EST (4:47 p.m. Cairo) IT'S BEEN ABOUT 77 hours since the unprecented protests of January 25 broke out in Egypt, and President Hosni Mubarak has still not addressed his nation or been seen in public. Is he polishing his speech for the Cairo Book Fair (where he's officially scheduled to speak tommorrow)? Somehow, I doubt that's the reason.
9:39 a.m. EST (4:39 p.m. Cairo) FOR TWITTER USERS who don't speak Arabic, Ben Wedeman of CNN is on the ground in Cairo and intermittently getting out useful stuff. Two folks keeping an eagle eye on the Arab-language press and tweeting about it in English from outside the country are Sultan Al Qassemi and Alaa Abd El Fattah.
9:32 a.m. EST (4:32 p.m. Cairo) HERE'S AN AMAZING GRAPHIC that shows the moment the Egyptian government turned out the lights on the Internet yesterday, a situation that persists now. The decision to shut down the Internet and restrict cell phone use (calling has been shut down in select areas and text mesaging has been turned off everywhere) shows how seriously the government is taking the uprising – and, perhaps, panic. About 20 percent of Egyptians use the Internet; about 70 percent use cell phones.
9:15 a.m. EST (4:15 p.m. Cairo) CAIRO CORRESPONDENT Kristen Chick finally checked in with us about a half an hour ago. She attended noon prayers in Mohandiseen (a huge neighborhood on the Giza side of the Nile). She describes middle-class housewives and old men hanging over balconies and cheering on thousands of marchers trying to get across the bridge to downtown, where tens of thousands of protesters are converging on Tahrir (Liberation) Square. Most cell phones in central Cairo appear to be shut off, and she had to borrow a land line to feed us a story. Keep an eye on our home page – it should go up soon.