text:
- News
- Business
- Sports
- Entertainment
- Lifestyle
- Health
- Travel
- Technology
Karl Urban is feeling a little under the weather, and it doesn't help that the fire alarm has been tripped in his elegant Toronto hotel. He's trapped in the lobby -- the elevators don't work when the alarm is sounding a high-pitched siren that he says is piercing his skull.
The unintended result is that the New Zealand actor, who's dressed in an elegant suit and has the square-jawed good looks that once made him one of the rumoured contenders as the new James Bond, has taken on a slightly intimidating intensity. In fact, you might say he looks a bit like Judge Dredd.
It's hard to tell, of course, because Dredd -- the comic book character making his big-screen comeback in the action film Dredd 3D -- is never totally seen onscreen. A futuristic policeman in a dystopian society of endless crime, he wears a helmet that covers most of his face, leaving only that square jaw and a mouth that is typically turned down in a frown of disapproval.
In his leather armour and constricting helmet, he looks like a kind of RoboCop in a future where the police are also judges and executioners of ultraviolent criminals. The helmet is one of the main challenges of the role, Urban says.
"The challenge was how to communicate with the audience without the use of the eyes. How do you communicate an emotion like doubt? It's really tricky."
"Obviously the voice takes on more importance because there's more resting on it, as does the physicality of the character. The way he does what he does. You can see in certain instances in this film where there's a gear shift. Dredd is like a tightly wound coil and you can see when he gets a little unhinged in this movie: when there's a loss of innocent life. Everything takes on a heightened significance."
It's a far longer speech than anything Dredd gives in the film, which is part of the Midnight Madness program at the Toronto International Film Festival. Urban -- best known as Eomer in the Lord of the Rings movies and Bones in the Star Trek reboot -- says one of the things he likes about Dredd is the fact that he's a man of few words.
"It has an early '90s sensibility: those classic one-liners and a male archetype that's something we haven't seen in quite some time," he says as the hotel loudspeaker finally announces that the alarm was false. "The male archetype is a character who is tough who's in control of his emotions, who has a very dry sense of humour and even in the midst of the most chaotic action, even though he doesn't externally show it, the fact that he's spouting off a one-liner here and there, you know there's a sense of humour in that man. You look back to Sean Connery's performance in James Bond. And Schwarzenegger. Clint Eastwood, obviously, the Dirty Harry films."
Dredd, though, talks a lot less than those action heroes. In fact, Urban says the screenplay by Alex Garland was redrafted to make Dredd say less and less. When Garland and Urban met, he says he opened his copy of the script to reveal that he had drawn lines through even more of his dialogue.
"He sort of looked at it and questioned what that was about. I said, 'Look, I love this dialogue mate, but Dredd says less.' So we took even more out."
The result is a character who is more of a mystery than the man Sylvester Stallone created in the 1995 version, Judge Dredd. The new Dredd lets his gun do most of his talking, and it has a lot to express: Dredd and his new assistant (Olivia Thirlby) are called to a gigantic highrise that's run by a ruthless drug gang. They have to clean it out, floor by floor, with a series of high-powered weapons.
The character is based on a British comic that has developed a cult following, and Urban, 40, says he is well aware of the devotion of fans. He researched the story by reading every Dredd comic he could find, and it seems to have worked. Early reaction has been good to both the character and the movie's dazzling use of 3D, including scenes where the gang's drug, called SloMo, sends wafts of three-dimensional smoke slowly into the air.
It's the sort of thing on which franchises are built, and Urban says he's game.
"I'd certainly love to come back and make more, but it depends whether it finds an audience. And if it does, I'd be elated and I'd come back and make more. And if it doesn't, I'm okay with that because it's a great film. It's a one-off classic cult film, and if that's what is, so be it."
Dredd 3D opens Sept. 21
To view this site, you need to have Flash Player 8.0 or later installed. Click here to get the latest Flash player.


text:
Frankie Breaks Down Crying at the 2009 BET Hip Hop Awards!
Ruhag TV reports "Keyshia Cole's mother Frankie breaks down into tears at the BET Awards when asked whether or not she's having monetary problems while sporting a new set of platinum gold fronts"
Please click the "Report" button below if the video on this page is not working properly.
Comments will only be displayed by verified emails. No Spamming or Racism.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
I'm a little late to the party this weekend with last week's recap, but we have a special request for all you viewers, so let's get down to it.
This week we published one WordCamp video and one tutorial—a little light considering recent weeks, but this week also saw a great livestream from WordCamp Phoenix. I hope you were able to watch it—there were some great sessions included and we're hoping to have them available on WordPress.tv soon.
The WordCamp video from was WordCamp Netherlands: Liz Strauss's presentation entitled "Meeting Your Audience Where They Are." If you're interested in community-building or in building a personal brand, it's definitely worth a look.
On the tutorial side, we published a run-through by Tom Johnson on running a local copy of WordPress using WampServer. Local copies can have tremendous development potential; if you regularly develop themes or plugins, or just like to tinker with WordPress, local installation can be a great help.
So here's the special request: I'd like you to take a moment and think up one thing—just one thing—you'd like to see covered in a video tutorial here at WordPress.tv. It can be anything WordPress-related, but here's an exercise to focus your thinking.
Think of questions like: What do I wish someone had told me when I started using WordPress? What kinds of things seem hard at first but really aren't once you get down to it? What feature of WordPress do I wish more people knew about and used? What's the feature, plugin, or whatever that gives me an awesome productivity boost or makes me a better WordPress user?
Come up with one thing you'd like to see covered in a future video tutorial, and then send us an email using our handy contact form. We'll take a look at those suggestions and report on them in a future week's recap so you know what your fellow community members are asking for.
Until then, stay tuned for more WordPress.tv!
2 responses on "Weekly Recap: Community Building, Local WordPress Installation, and a Request"
November 16, 2009 at 9:18 pm
What is the best way to customize a theme files without loosing the changes during upgrades. This would be a good topic to hear about. I have a theme and I have made several modifications. Not sure how to handle the upgrade.
November 20, 2011 at 9:40 am
I am completely new to the Word Press world. I need to know where I can get someone to take me by the hand and teach me 1) the meaning of the terms and acronyms used in this exciting endeaver. 2) exactly how to go about setting up a blog or website. Please help, I would like to get in on making money from home and being my own boss. Thank you, Cynthia P.S I can't evenfigure out how to get the sign off in the right place.


text:
Little Mix have opened up about booze, boys and bodies
Little Mix on men…
Perrie Edwards already has one foot up the aisle with her 'really sweet' One Direction boyfriend Zayn Malik.
In a Guilty Pleasures exclusive chat with Little Mix, the 19-year-old hinted at marriage as she heaped praise on her pop lover, who recently guided her through the rumour mill when he was accused of cheating on her.
Now they have 'more understanding of each other because we both do the same thing'.
After being welcomed into the heart-throb's family home for Eid, Edwards said: 'I can't wait to get married and have kids but it's Little Mix at the minute.'
Putting her career first, she continued: 'I want Little Mix to explode and be massive, then I think we'll all settle down and get married and have kids and stuff like that. It's going to be lovely. I can't wait.'
Malik, 19, has helped her bandmates with their own showbiz and boyfriend troubles. 'He gives us all advice,' she said.
'Every time he comes over and when we're getting our hair and make-up done he'll just sit and chat with us. It's really nice having him there to talk to. If I'm ever unsure about things, or me and the girls are like, "What does this mean? We need advice", we'll always ask him.'
For Jade Thirlwall, who dates 21-year-old Diversity dancer Sam Craske, she's more cautious about boyfriends selling her out.
'You've got to be careful who you meet in this industry, you don't know who wants to be with you because they actually like you, or if it's because of who you are,' said the 19-year-old, who claimed it's easier to date a famous lover.
'You don't get to see them as much, so when you do it's more special and you just make the most of it. You're not in each other's pockets all the time and arguing. I kind of prefer it.'
Singleton Leigh-Anne, 20, is not so worried about being betrayed and is prepared to be sold out during her bedroom escapades.
She conceded: 'You're going to get that anyway in this industry. It's probably going to happen. I think if it did happen I'd just have to handle it. It's happened to some of us already.'
Little Mix on nudity…
Squeaky clean Little Mix insist they won't be getting their kit off… yet. The girls said they would earn their stripes first – like their idol Rihanna. 'We are gonna grow as women. We're still young and we're still doing all the fun stuff,' said Perrie.
'We're not going to go from one extreme to another and then just be like "Pow! Shoot me when I'm in my bra".' Jade agreed: 'I think Rihanna can wear anything because she's earned it. She's worked her way up and nobody can tell her not to wear something because she looks amazing.'
Little Mix on booze…
The girls can now be dubbed Little Mixers after they spiked teetotal Jesy Nelson's cola with booze.
They left her so wasted she had to be carried home by dancer boyfriend Jordan Banjo from Diversity.
Jesy, 21, revealed: 'The first time I was ever drunk was on The X Factor tour and it was just not funny at all.'
She said that when people found out she wasn't a drinker 'they were like "all right, let's get her drunk" and they were giving me all these drinks'.
She added: 'I thought they were just normal Coke, and slyly they kept putting things in there. I kept feeling a bit like, whooo! It was really weird. My boyfriend looked after me, bless him.'
She's since given boozing another go, snitched hard-partying bandmate Leigh-Anne Pinnock.
'One night, the second time you got drunk, we went home and we were literally throwing bin bags around. We just went crazy,' said Leigh-Anne, who says she's much better at holding down the shots.
Little Mix on diets…
The Little Mix girls have vowed never to 'starve' themselves to conform in the music industry.
Tucking into a takeaway as I interviewed them, Perrie explained: 'In this industry you have to be fit and healthy. You need to eat the right things for energy but then, at the same time, we're just really casual with what we eat. We're not going to be like, "Oh I'm going to starve myself today".
'We're not going to be strict on ourselves for trying to lose weight. We just eat what we want and whatever makes us happy we're gonna do.'
jade is the best
jade is the best. I love her sooo much
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
Name *
Email *


text:
Window & Door E Gasket Rubber Glazing Seal E094 Black Pack of 5 Metres
- Brand: Extrudaseal
- Product Code: E094_Black_5 Metres
- Availability: In Stock
In Stock
Order within 10h : 22m : 19s for Same Day Dispatch
Same day dispatch if ordered before 3pm
Click and collect available at checkout
uPVC Double Glazing E Gasket Rubber Seal
E gasket is commonly found in uPVC windows and doors and is used to create a seal between the glass and the frame. E gasket however, does come with a few common issues like shrinkage, crumbling, moldue etc. These problems make your windows and doors look tired and shabby but can also lead to more serious problems like misted glass units.
E gasket is very easy to fit, and can be done with just your fingers. The hardest thing about replacing your gasket is getting the correct one, however, we have made this easy for you with the sample pack.
Our sample pack contains 6 coded samples which you can try in your window or door. Once you have identified the ideal gasket, return to this listing to purchase it.
- Dynamic and static applications
- Trade standard materials conforming to BS7412
- Alternative colour finishes
- Superior ageing properties
- Unaffected by most aqueous oils and oil based fluids
- UV stable
How to order your gasket
|5 Metres
|Gasket Type
At GB DIY Store we understand that when you've placed an order you want your goods as soon as possible. Any orders which are placed before 3pm will be despatched the very same day, Monday - Friday. Any orders made after that time will be despatched the following day. Orders placed on a weekend or bank holiday will be despatched the next working day.
More information about deliveries can be Found here.


text:
During human (or any mammalian) fertilization, if more than one sperm manages to get inside an egg, there are typically no survivors. A violent competition between the two sperm brings the whole kit and caboodle to a tragic end.
It's called polyspermy. And how human eggs avoid it has been pretty much a mystery until now. Scientists have discovered an enzyme called ovastacin fights off would-be fertilizers when there's already one in the mix.
Polyspermy is a problem because it presents an extra set of chromosomes. So would-be embryos with more than one sperm typically die spontaneously. But if everything is working properly, researchers at the National Institutes of Health have found—using mice as a model—that ovastacin kicks out the extra sperm intruder before sudden death has to happen.
The scientists publish their work in the most recent issue of the Journal of Cell Biology. It's the kind of thing that makes you realize how much there still is to discover about our own biology, let alone the rest of the universe. [Journal of Cell Biology]
Image: Burkart, A.D., et al.


text:
The main characters in these images were created with images from the Costică Acsinte Archive on Flickr Commons.
Costică Acsinte (sometimes spelled Axinte) was a Romanian war photographer who, after discharge, opened a studio in Slobozia, IL.
Around 5000 of this glass plates was purchased by Ialomița County Museum and in mid 2013 Cezar Popescu started to digitize them.
Selected images in this gallery are available to purchase as limited edition, hand signed prints. To view purchase options, click on the shopping cart icon on the bottom right of available images.


text:
- Font:
- +
- -
MR. DAVID GREGORY: This Sunday, as the president makes a surprise one-day trip to Afghanistan, Washington feels the full weight of a sour economy, with the jobless rate creeping up to 9.8 percent in November, a seven-month high. But still, no deal on taxes or unemployment benefits despite a summit-like sitdown between the president and Republican leaders, and a Democratic attempt to force the issue in the House.
MTP online
Twitter: @davidgregory,@betsymtp,@meetthepress
Facebook: David Gregory, MTP
Download the iPhone app
Subscribe to newsletter
Get text message updates
REP. JOHN BOEHNER (R-OH): This is nonsense. All right? We're--the election was one month ago. We're 23 months from the next election, and the political games have already started trying to set up the next election.
(End videotape)
MR. GREGORY: Can there be agreement? And what about the rest of the crowded agenda for the lame-duck session of Congress and beyond? The START nuclear arms treaty with Russia, the ban on gays and lesbians in the military, and the now stalled debt commission report. At the center of it all, my lead newsmaker guest this morning, Republican leader of the Senate, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, and for the Democrats, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, John Kerry of Massachusetts.
Then, America's anxiety. When will the economy turn around? Are taxes going up? How vulnerable are we to another terrorist attack? Can anything get done in Congress? And who leads us out of this sense of limbo? Our roundtable weighs in: from The New York Times, columnists Tom Friedman and David Brooks; Republican strategist Mike Murphy; and the
BBC's Katty Kay.
Announcer: From NBC News in Washington, MEET THE PRESS with David Gregory.
MR. GREGORY: Good morning.
MR. DAVID GREGORY: A political showdown yesterday, as the Senate met in a special Saturday session, Republicans blocked an effort to extend tax cuts to the middle class only, which would have raised tax rates on higher earners. The president, speaking after the vote, seemed to keep a door open to compromise.
(Videotape, yesterday)
PRES. BARACK OBAMA: We need to redouble our efforts to resolve this impasse in the next few days to give the American people the peace of mind that their taxes will not go up on January 1. It will require some compromise, but I'm confident that we can get it done.
(End videotape)
MR. GREGORY: Joining me now exclusively, the top Republican in the Senate, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.
Welcome back to the program. Welcome to the studio. Good to have you here.
SEN. MITCH McCONNELL (R-KY): Good morning. Good morning.
MR. GREGORY: So where are we? Are you close to a deal with the president on taxes?
SEN. McCONNELL: Well, let's put it this way, we've had more conversations in the last two weeks than we've had in the last two years, and I think that's a good sign. A growing awareness that the power's going to be more symmetrical in the next Congress, and I'm optimistic we'll be able to come together.
MR. GREGORY: And so what are the contours of what the deal might look like?
SEN. McCONNELL: Well, I'm not going to negotiate it here on, on MEET THE PRESS this morning. But I think you're, you're familiar with all the issues that are extant. The big, the big issue on the public mind, of course, is whether or not we're going to raise taxes on anybody in the middle of a recession. And it is almost laughable that we were in session yesterday. It reminded me of the old movie "Groundhog Day." We just kind of keep doing the same thing over and over and over again. The voting, once again, on the tax issue, it could have been dealt with at any point during the course of the year. Here we are at the end of the year. I think it's pretty clear now taxes are not going up on anybody in the middle of this recession. We're discussing how long we should maintain current tax rates. And there are other issues that many people feel are important to address on unemployment compensation.
MR. GREGORY: Well, let, let's break some of those down. How long of an extension would--could you agree to? Because there's a lot of talk of it being temporary, a year or two.
SEN. McCONNELL: Well, I, I don't want to frustrate you, but I'm not going to negotiate that here on the show this morning. You know, I...
MR. GREGORY: But the notion of a temporary extension is something that you could live with, whatever that exact figure is?
SEN. McCONNELL: I would prefer to do it permanently.
MR. GREGORY: Right.
SEN. McCONNELL: And you and I have discussed that on earlier shows. I think the current tax rate is appropriate for our country. It's been in place for, for 10 years. Obviously, the president won't sign a permanent extension of the current tax rate, so we're going to have some kind of extension. I'd like one as long as possible.
MR. GREGORY: But you're comfortable that rates are not going to go up on anyone in America?
SEN. McCONNELL: I'm very hopeful that, that rates are not going to go up. And what we saw yesterday in the Senate, every single Republican and five Democrats voted that we shouldn't be raising taxes on anybody. In other words, it's bipartisan opposition to raising taxes on anybody at this time.
MR. GREGORY: What about extending unemployment benefits? You have said in the past we're in the middle of a jobs crisis. That being the case, could you then agree to an extension of jobless benefits as part of any tax cut package?
SEN. McCONNELL: I, I think we will extend unemployment compensation. We've had some very vigorous debates not--in, in the Senate, not about whether to do it, but whether to pay for it as opposed to adding it to the deficit. All those discussions are still under way.
MR. GREGORY: Do you sense there is a mandate from the American people to keep tax rates where they are?
SEN. McCONNELL: I and my members feel that the American people feel strongly that taxes shouldn't go up. I know our colleagues on the other side don't see it that way. But, look, all of, all of Republicans in the Senate, and a significant number of Democrats, feel the same way. It isn't going to happen.
MR. GREGORY: What about the impact on jobs? Senator Reid, on the floor of the Senate this week, said it's, it's fantasy to believe somehow this is going to be helpful to the jobs situation. This is what he said.
(Videotape, Friday)
SEN. HARRY REID (D-NV): They can pretend giving the rich tax breaks creates jobs even though we know from the past decade that it doesn't. If that were the case, Mr. President, the economy would be booming.
(End videotape)
SEN. McCONNELL: Let me, let me give you some figures that aren't fantasy. Over 700,000 small businesses pay taxes as individuals. They would be hit by raising the top rate above $250,000; 700,000 of our most productive and effective small businesses. That's 50 percent of small business income and 25 percent of the work force in the middle of a recession.
MR. GREGORY: Democrats do point out a lot of those people include some, some people who are doing quite well, whether they're law partners or other individual business owners who are not exactly, you know, the typical small, you know, business owner, mom and pop store.
SEN. McCONNELL: I understand that. But the question is, is it a good idea to raise taxes on 700,000 small businesses, affecting 50 percent of small business income, in the middle of a recession, when we know that small business is the biggest job generator in our country? I mean, I--you know, look...
MR. GREGORY: Well, but you've had these tax rates in place since 2001. What's been the impact on jobs?
SEN. McCONNELL: Imagine, imagine how much worse it would been if we'd had the, the higher tax rate. Look, this argument's over, David. You and I can continue to engage in it, but it's over. The Senate voted yesterday, and every Republican and five Democrats said we're not raising taxes on anybody in the middle of a recession.
MR. GREGORY: And bottom line on, on the extension of the tax rates, unemployment benefits being extended, you see a compromise here in short order.
SEN. McCONNELL: I, I think the American people expect us to work together to make sure their taxes don't go up, and we're working on that package. We've had, as I said, we've had more conversations in the last two weeks than in the last two years, and I think we're going to get there.
MR. GREGORY: And, and assuming that that's the case, would that also open the door then for debate and actual ratification of the START nuclear arms treaty with Russia?
SEN. McCONNELL: Look, I don't set the agenda in the Senate. What we have said--42 Republicans sent our friends on the other side of the aisle a letter earlier this week saying the two things we need to do first, decide what people's tax rates are going to be come January 1, and decide how we're going to fund the government for the next 10 months. We haven't done that either. Once you get those two things out of the way, what we do the balance of the session is up to the majority leader. He sets the schedule. He will have to decide whether or not to bring up the treaty.
MR. GREGORY: Do you see it being ratified in a lame-duck session?
SEN. McCONNELL: I have no idea what, what the outcome of that will be.
MR. GREGORY: Are you prepared to vote to ratify it?
SEN. McCONNELL: I haven't made a decision on how I'm going to vote on that yet.
MR. GREGORY: Let me talk about the debt. The deficit commission proposal came out this week, and here are just some of the highlights. And tough medicine here in terms of what they propose. Social Security: Raise the retirement age, cut future benefit increases. On taxes:
Eliminate mortgage deduction, increase federal gas tax by 15 cents per gallon. Federal spending: Cap security, nonsecurity spending; freeze federal pay for three years; eliminate congressional earmarks. You said on the program back in August, if this was a credible proposal you'd be behind it. You had three senators who you appointed to this commission,
all of whom voted for it.
SEN. McCONNELL: Mm-hmm.
MR. GREGORY: Are you now prepared to endorse this and be a catalyst to get some of these measures passed?
SEN. McCONNELL: First, let me say I was extremely proud of my appointments: Senator Coburn, Senator Crapo, Senator Gregg. They supported it not because they liked every part of it, because they, because they thought that this comprehensive recommendation underscored
how deep-seated this problem is. This is an enormous problem. I think the message to us is: Let's see what we can do with the president. You cannot do entitlement reform--and for, for your viewers, entitlements mean long-term liabilities set by law. We don't even vote on them every year. Some--many of them very popular: Social Security, Medicare and the like. You cannot do entitlement reform with just one party. You can only do entitlement reform on a bipartisan basis. So I think the message to us coming out of this deficit reduction report is: It's time for the president of the United States, and people like John Boehner and myself and others, to sit down and talk about what we can do to make sure that we have the same kind of country for our children and our grandchildren that our parents left for us.
MR. GREGORY: But, but, Senator, people have been hearing this a long time, and politicians make these promises.
SEN. McCONNELL: Yeah.
MR. GREGORY: The president said there's got to be broad sacrifice.
SEN. McCONNELL: Yeah.
MR. GREGORY: Why can't you say whether you'll specifically endorse this plan, and what your, what you intend to do as a party, as the leader...
SEN. McCONNELL: Well, David...
MR. GREGORY: ...to, to, to make some painful choices?
SEN. McCONNELL: Well, it would be absolutely irresponsible to sit here on a Sunday talk show and blow the talks by starting to endorse and rule out things. What I'm saying is, this is the road map. We need to sit down with the president, see what we can do together, because the only way we will actually accomplish something--I want to actually accomplish something.
MR. GREGORY: But do you endorse these specific proposals?
SEN. McCONNELL: What I endorse is the, the effort to underscore the, the, the magnitude of the problem, and I'm prepared to sit down with the president and figure out what we can do on a bipartisan basis. That's what this report was about. Now it's time to do something.
MR. GREGORY: Let me ask you about this WikiLeaks controversy. How much damage has been done here? What's the real story here that you're focused on?
SEN. McCONNELL: I think the man is a high-tech terrorist. He's done an enormous...
MR. GREGORY: Assange.
SEN. McCONNELL: Yeah.
MR. GREGORY: Who runs WikiLeaks
SEN. McCONNELL: He's done an enormous damage to our country. And I think he needs to be prosecuted to the, the fullest extent of the law; and if that becomes a problem, we need to change the law. I think it's done enormous damage to our country and, and to our relationships with our allies around the world.
MR. GREGORY: Is there a question of incompetence here in the Obama administration, in your mind, about how this happened?
SEN. McCONNELL: Well, I'm sure that they're, they're going to pursue the way it happened internally as well. I hear that they know who, who did it. That individual also should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. And they need to be looking at how we can avoid this in the future.
MR. GREGORY: Well, that is the issue of information sharing, and Secretary of State Clinton has said, you know, part of the problem, after 9/11, more of an emphasis on information sharing. In fact, the Pentagon, she specifically said, has more access to a lot of these cables, and ultimately that's where Private Manning, who is accused of doing this, got that information. Is information sharing the problem? The ability to download information in the, in the government?
SEN. McCONNELL: I don't know, but we sure need to look at it thoroughly because this is a huge problem.
MR. GREGORY: I want to ask you, finally, about your measure of the, the president politically at this juncture. You had an opportunity to sit down with him. You said at the outset of this interview, it's more talking you've done with him face-to-face than you've done in a while, as
you've met with other congressional leaders and the president on Tuesday. Here is where the president stands politically compared to Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton at a similar juncture after they faced a tough midterm race. And you look at his approval rating, he actually rates a bit higher, which is counter to the conventional wisdom, because he's taken quite a licking here. What's your assessment of his political strength as a, as a political adversary for you?
SEN. McCONNELL: Well, the political thing will play out over the next two years, but the thing we need to do now is to figure out how we can work together. The American people didn't send us here to do nothing for the next two years. In fact, we've had a regularly scheduled election every two years since 1788 in this country, and I think--what I hope will happen is the president will hear the message of the American people. I think they spoke rather loudly and rather clearly. One pundit described it as a restraining order against what we've been doing the last two years, this splurge of spending and debt and Washington takeovers. That
needs to stop. And hopefully we can focus on things that we can agree on. For example, the president has apparently secured an agreement with, with Korea with regard to trade. That's something I'm very likely to support, can support.
MR. GREGORY: And do you consider that a big accomplishment by him? Because he was criticized roundly leaving South Korea without that free trade deal, and he got it. He waited for it and he got it.
SEN. McCONNELL: Well, regardless of how he left South Korea, if he now has an agreement, that's something we ought to go forward with. And by the way, we ought to do the Colombia agreement and the Panama agreement as well, which has been languishing for years.
MR. GREGORY: But, Senator, the question I ask here is about his political strength. You, you have said that your goal is to make him a one-term president.
SEN. McCONNELL: Well...
MR. GREGORY: That's what you told the National Journal.
SEN. McCONNELL: ...his goal is to be a two-term president.
MR. GREGORY: Right.
SEN. McCONNELL: I mean, so what's unusual about that?
MR. GREGORY: What makes you think he's vulnerable enough to be a one-term president that you could succeed?
SEN. McCONNELL: Look. I don't think that we ought to be talking about what's going to happen two years from now.
MR. GREGORY: But you did talk about it.
SEN. McCONNELL: He--well, but you know...
MR. GREGORY: You said you wanted him to be a one-term president, that that was your goal.
SEN. McCONNELL: He wants to be a two-term president, I want him to be a one-term president. The American people have put us both in charge for two more years, and we need to have a relationship with each other and see what we can do working together. I hope he pivots and starts helping us reduce spending, reduce debt, ratify trade deals. He, he's in favor
of nuclear power, so are most of my members. There are things we can do together for the American people that would be very important in the next two years.
MR. GREGORY: You predicted he'd become a born-again moderate. Is that...
SEN. McCONNELL: I sure hope so.
MR. GREGORY: Is that--but is that playing out in this tax debate?
SEN. McCONNELL: Well, we'll find out. We'll find out.
MR. GREGORY: But you're confident it will.
SEN. McCONNELL: You know. Dan Balz wrote in the Post this morning the two models we've been looking at for six months, the Harry Truman model and the Bill Clinton model. Truman decided to run against the Congress, worked for him in 1948. Clinton decided to do things with the Congress, it worked for him in '96. Those are decisions the president's going to have to make. My view is, we're all here to do the people's business for the next two years. To the extent that the president wants to do things that I and my members are comfortable with, we want to do that for the country.
MR. GREGORY: Is he tougher than a lot of people think in terms of being politically vulnerable, in your mind?
SEN. McCONNELL: I--look, I, I like him personally. We have different political agendas, but some of--there, there will be some overlap, and hopefully we can find a way to work together.
MR. GREGORY: Before you go this morning, "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"...
SEN. McCONNELL: Yes.
MR. GREGORY: ...the ban on gays and lesbians in the military, a lot of activity on that this week. Will that ban be lifted?
SEN. McCONNELL: It's a--you know, people are talking like that, that isthe only issue. That defense bill also has abortions in military hospitals. Once you get on the defense bill, it typically takes two weeks. I don't see how we can possibly finish the Defense Authorization Bill, a two-week bill, wholly aside from these controversial items that are in it--there are a whole lot of other things in it--before the end of the year.
MR. GREGORY: All right. But even as you get into January, in your mind, do you think the support is there to lift the ban in Congress?
SEN. McCONNELL: Well, my, my personal view is that Senator McCain is correct on this. I intend to follow his lead. We'll find out when we finally get around to debating this bill, which I think will not be before the end of the year.
MR. GREGORY: All right. We'll leave it there. Senator McConnell, thank you very much for being here.
SEN. McCONNELL: Thank you.
MR. GREGORY: Appreciate it.
Coming up, the view from the Democrats on all the looming battles in Congress--tax cuts, the deficit commission, gays in the military and more. Senator John Kerry will be here coming up next. Plus, our political roundtable weighs in: from The New York Times, columnists Tom Friedman and David Brooks; Republican strategist, Mike Murphy; and the BBC's Katty Kay.
MR. GREGORY: Coming up, the politics of the lame duck session. What can Congress get done before January? My exclusive guest, chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Democrat John Kerry, up next after this brief commercial break.
MR. DAVID GREGORY: We are back, joined now by the other side of the aisle, Democrat from Massachusetts, Senator John Kerry.
Welcome here. Good to have you in the studio as well.
SEN. JOHN KERRY (D-MA): Delighted to be here.
MR. GREGORY: So, so look, the big news is tax cuts, unemployment benefits. Senator McConnell was careful in his language, but seems to be suggesting a deal is at hand. Where are we?
SEN. KERRY: Well, David, I think that there will be an agreement because yesterday's vote made it very, very clear this enormous divide between the Republicans and the Democrats. The Republicans are fighting to keep in place a tax policy that has failed over the last eight years. It has failed. We have had a net loss of jobs. And what we've seen is a
Republican Party that's absolutely prepared to deny unemployment insurance to people who have been laid off, who can't pay their bills, who want to, you know, put food on the table for their families. They've said, "No, we're willing to hold that hostage so that we can give the
wealthiest people in the country a bonus tax cut." And what I mean by that is, you know, people aren't focused on the fact that, under the Democratic proposal, everybody in America got a tax cut. The wealthiest people in America got a tax cut, up to the $250,000 of income. What they're fighting for is to give those people who earned more than a million dollars a year a bonus tax cut above that, even though it's the least effective way of creating jobs and, and putting impact into the economy.
MR. GREGORY: But, Senator, isn't it true that the president's own economic advisers have said to him at this juncture, "Look, you may feel like you've drawn a line in the sand, no extension on the tax cuts for wealthy Americans. But uncertainty right now in the economy means that
you could lose more jobs. You could have a worsening job situation if you
SEN. KERRY: Let me tell you...
MR. GREGORY: "...if you don't extend these tax cuts for now..."
SEN. KERRY: Yeah.
MR. GREGORY: "...for a temporary period"?
SEN. KERRY: We're--we want to extend the tax cuts for every single
American, but up to a level that makes sense in terms of our economy.
You talk about uncertainty of the economy, how much uncertainty is there
to our economy when you add $800 billion to the deficit.
MR. GREGORY: But the, but the...
SEN. KERRY: How much...
MR. GREGORY: ...president seems willing to deal, is the point. I
SEN. KERRY: Well, obviously.
MR. GREGORY: ...there may be a disagreement about this still...
SEN. KERRY: But I think...
MR. GREGORY: ...but he seems willing to deal.
SEN. KERRY: I think it's critical for people to understand what the Republican--how bankrupt, how fundamentally reckless their position is and has been. And the fact is--I mean, let me go a little bigger here for a minute. Our country is challenged economically as never before. You know, people talk about American exceptionalism and how there's sort of this automatic for America. Yes, we are exceptional, but we're exceptional when we do exceptional things, when we behave exceptionally. We're not doing that today. We're locked down into a gridlock status
where other countries are racing by us. I'll give you an example. Over the next 20 years, $600 billion is going to be invested in green technology and green energy. New jobs. New jobs that could be for Americans. Ninety percent of that investment's going to be in other
countries, David.
MR. GREGORY: What about the Chinese?
SEN. KERRY: By the Chinese and by a lot of other people. You know, two years ago China produced 5 percent of the world's solar panels. Today they produce 60 percent. We're not even in the game. We, we invented this technology at the Bell Laboratories 50 years ago. We don't have one company in the top 10 companies of the world. Shame on us. The point I'm making is that you can't just talk about American exceptionalism and then sit around and feed the frenzy of this tax cut at the upper end. You've got to invest in America's future.
MR. GREGORY: But, you know, a lot of viewers will look at this, especially liberals, Senator...
SEN. KERRY: Yeah.
MR. GREGORY: ...and they'll say, "Absolutely right. Senator Kerry's got it exactly right. Then why is the president caving to the Republicans?"
SEN. KERRY: He's not.
MR. GREGORY: What is the, wait a minute, but what is the political fallout if the president makes a deal where he might get an extension of unemployment benefits, but all of these tax cuts are, are extended for a period of time, including on the wealthy Americans.
SEN. KERRY: Well, let me tell you what the president is fighting for, and appropriately. And, and first of all, the president's not caving. The president insisted that we have the votes that we had yesterday so that America could see what the Republicans are fighting for, and they
could see what we're fighting for. His preferred position is $250,000. Give every American a tax cut up to say, $250,000, but don't, don't put money back into the pockets of people who may never invest it in the United States. I mean, if you're earning more than $1 million a year,
you--you're--that investment, when, when you give that tax cut, you get about a 30 cent return on the dollar given. If you give unemployment insurance, you get $1.60 back on the dollar that you put in. There are multiplier effects that are a reality of our economic laws. The
Republicans are ignoring them...
MR. GREGORY: All right.
SEN. KERRY: ...in order just to feed that upper end. And, and, and they're willing...
MR. GREGORY: But what's the political price, is what I'm asking.
SEN. KERRY: They're willing to hold unemployment compensation hostage to that desire to give a bonus tax cut.
MR. GREGORY: I understand. But, but you also heard that there may be a deal on that as well.
SEN. KERRY: Well, all right, let's say there's a deal.
MR. GREGORY: And that's, that's just political compromise.
SEN. KERRY: Here's the problem. You just had the minority leader sitting here for whatever period of time and all he talked about was the need to come to them. All he talked about was if they could do something that "makes us comfortable." That's not how you compromise. They need to have a little discomfort, just as we have a little discomfort.
MR. GREGORY: So what does the president do to create that discomfort?
SEN. KERRY: Well, I think he's...
MR. GREGORY: Would you not agree that politically the, the problem for the president has been he has done nothing to make the Republicans uncomfortable.
SEN. KERRY: Just a minute, David. Let me, let me take you on, on that. The president of the United States came into office with a president who'd left him with a $5 trillion add-on to the debt of this country, an unprecedented financial crisis. The fact is that the TARP that we passed that everybody hates--they hate the word, they hate the concept--it saved, it saved countless numbers of jobs in this country. The Recovery Act saved millions of jobs in this country and brought our financial system back from the brink. Wall Street ought to be singing this president's praises. We've had a 60 percent increase in the stock market in two years. How often does that happen? You have a $3 trillion increase in the net value of the Fortune 500 companies, $3 trillion increase in two years. Under George Bush, in eight years, it only
increased by several hundred billion. You've had the Hire Act, the Republicans opposed it. It created hundreds of thousands of jobs. The Recovery Act, the Small Business Act.
MR. GREGORY: I know that. But I'm asking you a political question, which is, where do you create the discomfort? I mean, you, you, you know the game here as a senator.
SEN. KERRY: The president...
MR. GREGORY: You've run for president.
SEN. KERRY: Right, let me tell you point blank.
MR. GREGORY: You know the pressure points in Washington.
SEN. KERRY: Here's what the president is doing. The president is fighting to get unemployment insurance that they have held hostage. This is the point. People need to focus in America. The Republicans have been willing to hold unemployment insurance hostage to this bonus tax cut that has the least impact and adds to the deficit. And the phony recklessness of their position is this, they've said for months, "We can't give you unemployment compensation because it's unpaid for and it will add to the deficit." But yesterday they were willing to vote for a $4 trillion increase that wipes out everything the debt commission is doing, in order to give a tax cut to the wealthiest people. Now, the president's prepared to compromise to get unemployment insurance, to get the work for pay tax cut, to get a child care credit tax cut, to get additional tax cuts that go to average people and will create jobs. But he wants to do more than that, and this is the most important difference between us and them. The Republican agenda is tax cut and cut spending. We cannot cut our way to
competition with these other countries. If we're going to be a great power, if we're going to project in the world, if we're going to put America back to work and be part of the $6 trillion market that is the new energy market of the future with six billion users, we need to invest
in America's future.
MR. GREGORY: All right.
SEN. KERRY: And the president is fighting to get an infrastructure development effort in America so we regrow our own country. He's fighting for an energy policy that they fought against all last year and delayed and delayed and delayed, even though we made compromise after compromise. And I know that because I was negotiating it. And we need R and D, we need science, technology, engineering, math. We need to kick America into gear. This is our Sputnik moment. We've sort of seen Sputnik going across the sky, but we've done nothing similar to what we did...
MR. GREGORY: All right.
SEN. KERRY: ...in the 1960s to respond to it.
MR. GREGORY: I want to get you on a couple of other matters here that are very important. I want to start with WikiLeaks. You heard Senator McConnell says this a "high-tech terrorist." Secretary Gates, Defense secretary, of course, had a slightly different view of what the fallout
actually is, and this is what he said this week. And I want to show it.
(Videotape, Tuesday)
SEC'Y ROBERT GATES: Now, I've heard the impact of these releases on our foreign policy described as, as a meltdown, as a, as a game changer and so on. I think, I think those descriptions are fairly significantly overwrought. The fact is, governments deal with the United States because it's in their interest, not because they like us, not because they trust us, and not because they believe we can keep secrets.
(End videotape)
MR. GREGORY: You disagree with that in terms of what the damage done here is?
SEN. KERRY: I think there, there is damage and maybe a little bit more profound than the secretary. I don't think it's, goes to the extent that some people have been saying, but, yes, there is real damage. Social Security numbers of individuals have been made public. Technology about roadside bombs has been made public. The relationship of a president, let's say, of Yemen, who is involved with us in helping to fight domestic terror in Yemen has been exposed for parts of his relationship with the United States. It could be very damaging to our efforts there. There are many similar kinds of efforts. In Germany, some people are calling
for the return of the ambassador. In other places, they won't talk to some of our people for a while. This hurts. This--I, I think this act...
MR. GREGORY: Will some ambassadors be removed from countries?
SEN. KERRY: I, I can't tell you, but it's possible that in some places people are going to say they can't work with them.
MR. GREGORY: Mm-hmm.
SEN. KERRY: And they'll say that quietly and behind the scenes. David, you know, I was very much involved back in the days when the Pentagon Papers came out. This has no relationship to something like that. This is voyeurism. This is sort of a anarchical kind of act by someone who wants attention that is not revealing some truth about a government lying or a policy that's been misled. This is just letting people in on the inside of something where it has great ability to undo our ability to protect the interests of our country.
MR. GREGORY: I want to ask you, finally--this is a bigger topic than we can get into all the details of, but I want to ask you about Afghanistan. The president visiting the troops there this weekend, a surprise visit. And when we talk about our goals, all of the concerns about Hamid Karzai, the Afghan leader, questions about corruptions and so forth. And it, and it takes me back to a famous moment before you were senator, April 1971, when you said this on Capitol Hill about Vietnam.
(Videotape, April 22, 1971)
SEN. KERRY: How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?
(End videotape)
MR. GREGORY: My question to you, as you look at the landscape of our withdrawal plans in 2014, is it a mistake in Afghanistan to think, to ask soldiers to be the last to die in a war that may not be able to achieve the results that we have laid out forth?
SEN. KERRY: Well, first of all, I, I just looked at that and I said, "Boy, he needs a haircut." But leaving that aside...
MR. GREGORY: Right, right.
SEN. KERRY: ...look, in my judgment, Afghanistan is just not Vietnam. We shouldn't have been in Vietnam. It was a surrogate war, it was a civil war, it was a Cold War surrogate war. There were any number of reasons why it was a gigantic mistake. In Afghanistan, we're there for a
purpose. Now, I don't believe we need the size of the footprint doing everything we're doing, and I've said that many times publicly. And I don't think the president, in the long run, wants to do that, which is why he has committed to this transition. I believe the president and our
military and our policy is on the right track, and that track is to turn this over to the Afghans as rapidly as possible, in a way that meets their needs to have sufficient stability and capacity to survive, and our needs...
MR. GREGORY: Can you do that by 2014?
SEN. KERRY: ...and our needs to be able to prosecute counterterrorism efforts. I think you can do a lot of counterterrorism with a smaller footprint and still manage the, the, the progress of Afghanistan. And most of that, in my judgment, will depend on what we're succeeding in
doing in Pakistan.
MR. GREGORY: Mm-mm.
SEN. KERRY: Pakistan is as much the key of the outcome in Afghanistan as anything else. Now, can we do it by 2014? Yes, I believe we can. And I think the president is absolutely intent on preventing this from being the mistake that begged the question that I posed in 1971.
MR. GREGORY: We will leave it there. Senator Kerry, thank you very much, as always.
SEN. KERRY: Thank you.
MR. GREGORY: Coming up next, America's anxiety. Questions about the economy, terrorism and the direction of the country. Our roundtable weighs in on our discussion so far, the question of politics and leadership. From The New York Times, columnists Tom Friedman and David Brooks; Republican strategist, Mike Murphy; and the BBC's Katty Kay.
MR. DAVID GREGORY: We are back now with our roundtable. Joining me now, the BBC's Katty Kay; Republican strategist Mike Murphy; and from The New York Times, columnist Tom Friedman and his colleague, fellow New York Times columnist David Brooks.
Welcome to all of you. So much to get to.
David Brooks, this question of this, this sense of limbo that we're in, in the country. Are we going to recover from this economy? Is there another terrorist threat out there? The fallout from WikiLeaks. What about the debt? What's going to get done in Washington? Do we learn
anything in this moment about the prospect for compromise on taxes, just based on what you've heard this morning?
MR. DAVID BROOKS: Well, it depends what we believe. Sixty-five percent of Americans think the country's in decline. We go through pessimistic phases. I can't remember a pessimistic phase this long. And to me, the problem is we don't know what we want to be in 50 years. President Obama talked about building new foundations. New foundations for what? And so
that's the big question that's out there. And I would just say, as the beginning of an answer to it, the one thing the United States has that no other country has is that we're a universal nation. People come here from all over the world, and we have connections to all over the world. China will never have that. And that's got to be the basis as we move forward. Once we have that defined, we'll know where we can compromise, what we can work with, what we can't do.
MR. GREGORY: Mike Murphy, this was a cartoon that caught my eye this week. I'll put it on the screen. You see it there from Weyant's World by Chris Weyant, and it's, it's Obama and Boehner, "In the spirit of bipartisanship, why don't you take a step toward the middle first?" Into the chasm. And yet, on taxes and even the extension of unemployment benefits, it looks like we're seeing the contours of a deal.
MR. MIKE MURPHY: Yeah. Yes.
MR. GREGORY: I mean, Mitch McConnell apparently underrates the value of negotiating on MEET THE PRESS, but was signaling that they're close.
MR. MURPHY: Yeah. No, no, that was, that was under McConnell's sunshine sending strategy there. Something's going to happen. I think they're going to get START, I think they're going to get the Bush tax cuts, even though we're doing this silly kind of political litigation of it now,
which we just did in the election. Democrats think the big word is millionaire, Republicans think the big word is jobs. Republicans will win in that fight. But something's going to come. It is in the president's interest to understand that two things happened at the election: People
want to get something done; and they want the country to move right economically. So if he will move right economically, something will get done.
MR. GREGORY: But there's this question--for, for Katty first, and then Tom--about whether we're having the right conversation. Here is the job growth chart from 2009 to 2010. I'll put it up on the screen here. And what you'll see is the, the, the down arrow, in too many cases, lasting for too long. You see the change in jobs going up last month, but then November, only 39,000 new jobs. That sense of anxiety, and whether--we're talking about all this austerity in cutting the debt, what about investing in the economy? Are we having the right conversation?
MS. KATTY KAY: And I think that's what exactly is producing anxiety amongst ordinary Americans. And to get back to David's point that, you know, there is this sense of where the country is going, and I think Americans are thinking, "Well, if I haven't got a job, and I don't see how we're going to get out of this slump, I'm worried for the first time in generations that I might not be passing on a better country to my children; that my, my children might not be better off, better educated than I am." And that is tied in with these unemployment numbers, because that's how it's affecting people directly. And what, what's interesting, I think, to me is looking at the bright spot for America is that you don't have what you've got in Europe, where tens of thousands of people are taking to the streets demanding that the state intervene and give them those jobs or give them those benefits. And this is the saving
grace for Americans and always has been is that they want to do it themselves. That you--so it's anxiety, it's not anger at the government that people are feeling. They want to fix this problem themselves.
MR. GREGORY: Tom Friedman, you wrote this week a, a column that was so popular, called--you know, about "Wiki China." Explain the premise, and why that had such traction in terms of being top of mind in, in what you're thinking about.
MR. TOM FRIEDMAN: Well, the column was about what if we could read China's cables about us, basically. And I think what the Chinese would be saying is, is how polarized the Americans are about all the wrong things. And, and that's really what I think is, is the, is the big story
right now, David. I think what, what people want to know first of all, from President Obama and our political leaders, where are we going? OK? If you don't know where you're going, any road will get you there.
So it starts with what world are you in? Well, I think we're in a flat world where, for the first time, we're competing with two billion more people just like us. OK. That's the first reality. Second reality is, in that kind of world, how do you get rich? Well, you've got to create
more jobs that make people's lives more productive, more secure, more entertained, more comfortable and more healthy, OK? And you have to do that with such good infrastructure and such a productive, educated American worker that one American worker can do the job of five or 10 Chinese, and therefore be paid like five or 10 Chinese.
Well, if that's the world you're in, OK, then what do we need? We need better education, more investment in infrastructure, more immigrants. You can go right down the list. Well, if that's what you need, then what is the hybrid politics that says, jeez, we've got to cut here so we can invest over here. OK? We need to raise gas, gas taxes or carbon taxes to get money so we can actually cut payroll taxes and encourage businesses to invest in this country. So I think what people are really looking for is a hybrid politics. What they're looking for is not two parties, OK, that grudgingly compromise on their ideologies, but actually come
together for a strategic collaboration.
MR. GREGORY: But that interests me, Mike Murphy, because Matt Bai wrote something in his column in The New York Times this week, and I want to put it up on the screen because I think it gets to something important here in terms of the political calculus.
MR. MURPHY: Mm-hmm.
MR. GREGORY: He write--writes, "Mr. Obama has almost invariably sought to position himself halfway between traditionalism and reform, just as his vague notions of `hope' and `change' during the '08 campaign were meant to appeal simultaneously to both disaffected independent voters and core progressives. And in virtually every case, he has satisfied pretty much no one."
So look. Here's the president...
MR. MURPHY: Right.
MR. GREGORY: ...he's probably willing to deal on tax cuts because he, he realizes the Republicans have the leverage on that right now.
MR. MURPHY: Right.
MR. GREGORY: Liberals are going to be very, very unhappy. They are unhappy about that, they feel like they're caving. Then you've got this disaffected middle that doesn't necessarily agree with Tom that says, "Well, government's got to play a big role in investing in some of this
new economy."
MR. MURPHY: Well, he's caught because his base has actually become more liberal in the Congress because of many of the losses. He ought to cut them loose. They're the losing team. They just lost an historic election. The ideology is discredited. His biggest problem was he campaigned in the center, and he governed from the left. What he does--what his problem now is he looks weak and he looks secondary to the congressional battle. He ought to get out in front, he ought to pivot, he ought to have--I think you could create, and Tom kind of implies this, kind of a national interest, economic agenda to link the two because we are in a tremendous economic competition now. But it does mean a rightward move on things. And he ought to, frankly, call the Republicans to task on entitlement cutting. We campaign on it.
MR. GREGORY: Right.
MR. MURPHY: Make us do it. That would be good for the country. It would be politically tough for the Republicans, but he could become the leader again from the center.
MR. GREGORY: And it is striking to me that the Republicans won't specify painful choices when this is where they say they have the mandate to cut spending, and yet they're still so hesitant to do that.
MR. MURPHY: Well...
MS. KAY: But, David, maybe nobody will specify painful choices. The one word that politicians can't say at the moment is that you have to sacrifice. We're living in this age of entitlement where there is an almost messianic attitude to either raising taxes or cutting spending
from both Democrats and Republicans. Neither side want to give on those.
MR. BROOKS: If I, if I...
MS. KAY: And neither side want to make the tough choices it's going to take.
MR. BROOKS: There's a two-level conversation going on here. At the surface level, Katty's absolutely right, that no one is going to step out and say the--make the painful choices. But inside, in private conversations, they're having a different conversation. I guarantee you right now, at the White House, they're having serious conversations about tax reform, big tax reform. In the Republican Party, there are Republicans like Paul Ryan who are campaigning within the Republican caucus for serious entitlement reform. There's pushback from the
leadership, obviously.
MR. GREGORY: Right. But look at the disagreement, though.
MR. BROOKS: So what strikes me is the...(unintelligible)...level of the private conversations, which are more inspiring than what we see.
MR. GREGORY: So what do we do with that? I mean, what does it do for the country if we have inspiring private conversations?
MS. KAY: Right.
MR. BROOKS: Well, but what...
MR. MURPHY: No, no, that's the first step.
MR. BROOKS: ...Mitch McConnell said today was important...
MR. MURPHY: He said...
MR. BROOKS: ...that he was willing to sit down.
MR. GREGORY: Yeah.
MR. BROOKS: That...
MR. GREGORY: Yeah.
MR. BROOKS: To willingness--I thought what he said today was actually quite newsworthy.
MR. GREGORY: Yeah.
MR. BROOKS: He, he didn't commit himself to too much.
MR. GREGORY: Yeah.
MR. BROOKS: But he said he was willing to have a meeting, and you don't say that unless you're willing to put a lot of stuff on the table the Democrats want.
MR. GREGORY: To do something.
MR. MURPHY: It's very important because it has to start on the inside, and then it has to be forced on the voters, because it's easy to say in a poll you want all this sacrifice. And most of the time voters look at sacrifice, they grab the person suggesting it and they throw them in the political wood chipper.
MR. GREGORY: Mm-hmm.
MR. MURPHY: Voters do not reward sacrifice. Politicians are very tuned into voters. Look at the deficit commission vote. The, the retired politicians were 5-to-1 for it. The active politicians were split 50-50, on a bipartisan basis, to the credit to some Democrats.
MR. FRIEDMAN: I think, David...
MR. MURPHY: So this is where it begins inside, and it, it is a hopeful sign.
MR. GREGORY: Tom.
MR. FRIEDMAN: I think, you know, you were saying that this 40 percent in the middle, or, or Mike was saying that, I'm not sure who said--that they're against what's going on. I disagree. I think they will be for it if they think the president has a plan to make America great again.
MR. GREGORY: Mm-hmm.
MR. FRIEDMAN: If they don't think he has a plan for that, but he's just doing health care, they're going to say I don't want to spend a dime. What we're looking for is something big. We're doing things that are small and easy when we need to be doing things that are big and hard.
MR. GREGORY: And a big move by--excuse me.
MS. KAY: And it's been possible. It was possible in '92. You had Ross Perot come in. He campaigned on a platform of reducing the deficit, and he got votes on it. He gave Bill Clinton the political cover to do it. But there was a very big difference. In '92, interest rates were at 8 percent, so American voters were feeling the pain directly. Anyone with a car payment, a mortgage, was feeling the pain of the deficit.
MR. GREGORY: All right.
MS. KAY: They're not feeling it today.
MR. GREGORY: Let me take a quick break here.
MS. KAY: It's an abstract concept.
MR. GREGORY: I want to come back, continue this, but also talk about some of the political leadership questions. Who leads us out of this sense of anxiety? More from our roundtable right after this break.
MR. GREGORY: We're back. More from our roundtable. This sense of America's anxiety and who leads us out of this.
David Brooks, I want to put this back on the screen because I think it's instructive in terms of where the president rates in his approval compared to Reagan and Clinton, November '82 and '94, they both suffered big midterm defeats. We know how that story played out in terms of
second terms. Is the conventional wisdom wrong here, that somehow Obama's vulnerable and he's weakened? Is he, in fact, after all the beatings he's taken, potentially stronger politically?
MR. BROOKS: The conventional wisdom is never wrong.
MR. GREGORY: Never wrong. Right. Yes.
MR. BROOKS: No. He's weaker than those guys because the economy is not Reagan's economy, it's not Clinton's economy. And he's good nationally, but we don't win elections nationally. We run in Ohio and Indiana and North Carolina and places like that...
MR. GREGORY: Yeah.
MR. BROOKS: ...and he's extremely weak there. And then the important thing that happened this week is the collapse of liberal morale. A lot of liberals have said he's just not strong, he's not fighting. And he, you know, Brother Murphy, as much as I love you, but he can't just leave those guys as the losing team. He's a Democrat.
MR. GREGORY: Right.
MR. BROOKS: He's got to rally those guys and win back the Senate. I think he's strong, he's a great politician, he'll be back. But I, I think the troubles have been mounting on the left and the center for him.
MR. GREGORY: The issue is, and I've tried to raise this with Senator Kerry, I'm not sure I got, you know, a very clear answer on this, which is politically, what does the president do to make life hard for Republicans? Because they, I mean, I've talked to Republicans who say
he's making it very easy for us to say no.
MR. MURPHY: The meanest thing you can do in politics is steal the other guy's act. Bill Clinton was a master at it. He ought to go to that playbook and learn. I think he is in more trouble for those structural reasons, but more trouble also means more opportunity. He needs to make
big moves, he needs to move ideologically. He's never going to get the left back. He's broken their hearts. And they are the losing team in numbers. So yeah, he can't completely cut them off, but he can't do what he did for the last two years, which is let them drive. He needs to be the--he needs to run against all of them and create this agenda of economic nationalism with a conservative tilt. He's got to move or we're going to keep relitigating this stuff. The Democrats are silly to keep doing this millionaire thing.
MR. GREGORY: Hm.
MR. MURPHY: It's been beaten to death, it's a loser.
MR. GREGORY: Ah, ah, ah...
MR. MURPHY: We keep winning that way. Now, it--I'm a, I'm a partisan Republican. I'm happy to keep winning.
MR. GREGORY: Yeah.
MR. MURPHY: Wait two years, get a Republican president and run the table, which we have a good shot, now, of doing.
MR. GREGORY: But what's the theory of the case for a Republican?
MR. MURPHY: Right now?
MR. GREGORY: To win, yeah.
MR. MURPHY: We can run the economy.
MR. GREGORY: That's it?
MR. MURPHY: We win that, we win the election.
MR. GREGORY: I want, I want to come back to some of the presidential stuff.
Tom Friedman, I want to show the cover of The Weekly Standard this week on this WikiLeaks fallout. It's Hillary Clinton on the, the cover with a number of phones to her ears, trying to mitigate the damage here. What have we learned and what really hurts about all this?
MR. FRIEDMAN: Well, I think the thing that we've learned the most, David, is how we're, we're leaking power. You know, that, that's my view of it. We're--what do we do? We're begging the Saudis to not have their private donors fund al-Qaeda. OK? So what do we do, we borrow money from China. We cycle it through our cars, send it to Saudi Arabia. They send it to the Taliban, their private individuals, and then our soldiers go over and try to kill them. We're begging China, "Please, China, North Korea wants to send ballistic missile parts to Iran through Beijing Airport, could you not do that?" No, can't do that either. So why are we in this situation, David? Because basically we were hooked on oil. We're addicted to oil, and we're addicted to credit. And there's a fundamental law, OK, of geo politics. Addicts never tell the truth to their pushers. China is our credit pusher, Saudi Arabia is our oil pusher, and we cannot
have a frank conversation with them because we are in their debt.
MS. KAY: Yeah.
MR. BROOKS: Can I, can I--I rarely disagree with either of these guys, but let me disagree with you, Tom, on this one. You know what...
MR. GREGORY: There's extra points, by the way, for Freeman--Friedman. Friedman.
MR. BROOKS: When, when Jimmy Carter was president, did he snap his fingers and the country do what he wanted? When Bill Clinton--I covered those summits in the '90s, we did not snap our fingers. When Ronald Reagan was trying to place missiles in Europe, didn't snap his fingers.
Harry Truman, we were the height of our power, we couldn't tell China what to do. China attacked us in North, in Korea. So, you know, I'm not sure--I, I think what it shows--I'm not sure we're leaking power.
MR. FRIEDMAN: Mm-hmm.
MR. BROOKS: We've got the problems that you've described. But the other thing it shows is there's no secret conspiracy, that the stuff that's going on inside, which these cables reveal, is the stuff that we, as journalists, reveal ever day. And the people who think there's some
hidden secret conspiracy in government, that's just not true.
MR. GREGORY: But what about the fallout? I mean, does this really hurt America?
MS. KAY: I think it hurts, the fact that there are not back channels and, perhaps, people who had been willing to share information with American diplomats are going to be less willing to do so. We've already seen a senior German official resign because he had--was named in the
WikiLeak cables as sharing information and being useful to American diplomats. We have a Canadian ambassador also might be resigning for the same basis. I think having people around the world who are now thinking twice about whether they're going to have private conversations with American diplomats doesn't help Americans.
I agree with Tom. I think that the WikiLeaks shows that this is a super power whose powers are not so super anymore. And when it comes to--we had a period, after the end of the Cold War, where America was the only big guy on the block and where you could get other countries to do what you wanted in very big questions, and you haven't got that now. With
China, North Korea, Russia, even. We're having to do deals with Moscow to get what we want there, and we're not always getting it when it comes to Iran. So...
MR. GREGORY: It was...
MR. FRIEDMAN: I'll get to David, which is that that was a bipolar world. The reason we couldn't do a lot of it because there was a Soviet Union on the other side.
MS. KAY: But post, post the end of the Soviet...
MR. FRIEDMAN: That Soviet Union has collapsed now, and we should actually have more leverage.
MS. KAY: And we were the, we were the big guy.
MR. MURPHY: A lot of these countries have a cynical strategy of abdicating any responsibility because Big Brother America will do it.
MR. FRIEDMAN: Yes. Absolutely.
MR. MURPHY: The Middle East is a great example. In the private room, go clean up every problem we have.
MR. FRIEDMAN: Absolutely.
MR. MURPHY: And meanwhile we cash in on oil.
MR. FRIEDMAN: Yeah.
MR. MURPHY: I think the problem with the WikiLeaks things, and I think Senator Kerry was right about that, it, there was no ideologist reason for it, no argument. It was pure destruction. It was a huge monkey wrench into the machinery of American diplomacy. I feel sorry more than anybody in the country right now for the U.S. ambassador in France, because you know the French foreign minister he's going to play that stuff to the max. And in a thousand small little negotiations...
MR. GREGORY: Yeah.
MR. MURPHY: ...our team now is playing with a sandbag tied around it...
MS. KAY: It makes the job harder.
MR. MURPHY: ...which is bad for America. This was an act of treason.
MR. GREGORY: And to that point, the politics of this, and I want to, I want to touch on some of how this is used and, and more broadly. It was interesting, as, as we think about the theory of the case for the right and who some of the players are on the right, Romney was out this week on Jay Leno. Sarah Palin continues to be out there in big form with her book. And my colleague, Joe Scarborough, wrote this in Politico, that I thought was interesting in terms of how the right is dealing with Sarah Palin. "Republicans have a problem," he wrote. "The most-talked-about figure in the GOP is a reality show star who cannot be elected. And yet
the same leaders who fret that Sarah Palin could devastate their party in 2012 are too scared to say in public what they all complain about in private.
Enough. It's time for the GOP to man up."
MR. FRIEDMAN: Mm-hmm.
MR. GREGORY: And my question is, what impact does she have whether she runs or doesn't run? Because she's a force.
MR. MURPHY: Yeah, a huge force, though a huge force now. You know, we're 14 months away, even though that sounds painfully close, to when the caucuses and primaries may begin. I think--you know, I started--I've been a critic all along. It started on this show at the Republican convention saying I thought she was a bad strategic choice because she's a poison pill in the general election, wipe us out, I believe. But in the Republican primaries, particularly in the movement conservative silo, which generally will win the Iowa caucus and therefore get a lot of momentum, she's very, very powerful, if she runs. So I think she'll have a half life, but she's going to be a terrifically powerful force, in some ways for good. She's kind of a polemicist and everything. But as a candidate, she'd be a disaster.
MR. GREGORY: I've...
MR. MURPHY: And we'll see if other Republicans start to take that position quietly. A lot of them do.
MR. GREGORY: I've got a minute left. Tom Friedman, the president, we saw, I think we have some of the pictures of the president, a surprise trip to Afghanistan in the holiday season to buck up the troops. But it's also coming at a time when we have a review that's under way of our Afghanistan policy. You heard Senator Kerry say he thinks the footprint can get a lot smaller. Where are we on Afghanistan, and how fraught do you think this review process will be?
MR. FRIEDMAN: To me, David, the first rule of Middle East politics is the Middle East only puts a smile on your face when it starts with them. OK? When they want it more than we do, whether it was Camp David or the Oslo peace agreement. And you read the WikiLeaks, basically, and it's all about, "Who's going to pay me which, you know, amount of money and, which, rubles or dinars or dollars, to do what you want." So we are basically paying our Afghan and Pakistani partners to be two-faced because if we didn't pay them to be two-faced, they would be one-faced and all against us. That's not a winning hand.
MR. GREGORY: And that's...
MR. FRIEDMAN: That's the hand we're holding.
MR. GREGORY: That's what we're up against right now.
All right, we're going to, we're going to have to leave it there. But thank you all very much.
MR. DAVID GREGORY: Before we go, a quick programming note. Be sure to join us next week. I'll have an exclusive interview with New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg on leadership and politics and where we go.
That is all for today. We'll be back next week. If it's Sunday, it's MEET THE PRESS.


text:
16 January, 2013 | (01 hr)
Sign In to access this Webcast
This is a story about an organization with a strong reputation and proud history of success. Hear about a journey of leaders who tackled critical business challenges by restructuring people and operating practices to better align with their strategic goals and growth strategy. This case study shares insights on the approach and tactics used to help drive and sustain true change, and ultimately turn the tide of growth and success.
Audience: This webcast is intended for executives from any function charged with leading or supporting major change management or organization design initiatives within their companies.
Glenda Friesen
As a global organization development leader, Glenda has spent 20 years guiding leaders and organizations in tackling the tough challenges of building healthy, productive organizations.? In her current role as Director, Organization Effectiveness (OE) at Black & Veatch, a global engineering, c...Full Bio
Hannah Sohn


text:
Philips Sells Consumer Business to Japan's Funai
Philips Electronics announced earnings on Tuesday and another divestment to an Asian company, the latest in the Dutch company's plan to reduce its reliance on more cyclical consumer products.
The Dutch company said it would sell its Lifestyle Entertainment Business, which includes audio, video, multimedia and accessories, to Japan's Funai Electric Co. Ltd for 150 million euros ($202 million) in cash and a brand license fee.
Philips has been restructuring its portfolio to shield it from more volatile consumer-focused businesses to focus on defensive products such as lighting, healthcare and wellbeing products, which include electric toothbrushes and shavers. Philips said its healthcare order intake grew 4% in the fourth quarter and comparable sales also grew 4%, compared with 2% growth in the consumer lifestyle unit.
In 2011, Philips announced it would spin-off its loss-making television operations by setting up a joint venture with a Hong Kong-based contract manufacturer TPV Technology Ltd., as it faced intensifying competition from lower-cost TV manufacturers in Asia.
The sale was part of Chief Executive Frans van Houten's plan to make the company nimbler, and includes cutting costs by 800 million euros by 2014 and axing 4,500 jobs globally. Philips swung back into the black in the second quarter of 2012.
Continue reading your article with
View Membership Options
a WSJ membership
Walmart coupon: $10 off all departments
Home Depot:
10% off furniture using Home Depot coupon code
TurboTax service code: $60 for Deluxe version


text:
Informe.com is a new initiative taken by a group of Web 2.0 enthusiasts, dedicated to providing the best services to the online community and taking active part in Internet communities and open-source software development. This is a project which allows everyone to start his/her portal based on the best open-source software products available: PhpBB, Mediawiki, Wordpress and Gallery.
We offer unique portal hosting solution - no size limits, no post or topic number limits, no banners or pop-up windows, instant forum activation - absolutely FREE for you here and now!
Informe.com forum solution uses the most popular open-source engine - PhpBB. Since we always keep an eye on new PhpBB releases, it is possible for our users to get the most out of the new features available and make our users` voice heard in regard to the features most wanted by them.
Our team is always open for partnership suggestions and service improvement requests because we value our users and their opinion.
Please, feel free to contact us or just leave us a note or comment using our contact form.
Yours sincerely,
Informe.com Project Team


text:
"Under Stars"
Tess Gallagher
The sleep of this night deepens
because I have walked coatless from the house
carrying the white envelope.
All night it will say one name
in its little tin house by the roadside.
I have raised the metal flag
so its shadow under the roadlamp
leaves an imprint on the rain-heavy bushes.
Now I will walk back
thinking of the few lights still on
in the town a mile away.
In the yellowed light of a kitchen
the millworker has finished his coffee,
his wife has laid out the white slices of bread
on the counter. Now while the bed they have left
is still warm, I will think of you, you
who are so far away
you have caused me to look up at the stars.
Tonight they have not moved
from childhood, those games played after dark.
Again I walk into the wet grass
toward the starry voices. Again, I
am the found one, intimate, returned
by all I touch on the way.
Reproduced from Amplitude: New and Selected Poems by Tess Gallagher (Graywolf Press, 1987). Gallagher's most recent book of poetry is Dear Ghosts, (Graywolf Press, 2006).


text:
The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Paul R. La Monica. Other than Time Warner, the parent of CNNMoney, Abbott Laboratories and AbbVie, La Monica does not own positions in any individual stocks.
Google has stolen all of Apple's thunder and Apple needs to try and reclaim some of it.
During the past few years, Google (GOOG) has become the most innovative company in the tech industry. It has used its cash to buy extremely interesting startups. The $3.2 billion deal for connected home/Internet of Things (we need a better buzz phrase) hardware company Nest on Monday is just the latest example.
Related: Nest co-founder Tony Fadell on why company was sold to Google
Google bought mapping company Waze last year for nearly $1 billion. That could have been a smart deal for Apple (AAPL), given how maligned its map apps are. (To be fair, Apple has also announced several map-related deals in the past year. But none were as splashy as Waze.)
And last month, Google announced a flurry of acquisitions in robotics, most notably the purchase of military robot maker Boston Dynamics.
What has Apple done in the past few years? Since Steve Jobs passed away in 2011, the spirit of innovation seems to be gone. Apple has mainly been getting by on product updates that are not all that exciting. Ooh. A smaller iPad! A bigger iPhone! iYawn!
Maybe Apple is employing the rope-a-dope strategy that Muhammad Ali famously used against George Foreman in the Rumble in the Jungle in 1974. Google could be expending a lot of energy (and cash) on various acquisitions while Apple sits back and waits for the best opportunity to finally punch back. (Since Google is Foreman in my analogy, does that mean Nest will soon make an indoor grill that talks with your fridge? Hmm.)
But even if Apple is biding its time, absorbing everything Google has to throw at it and hoping that Google will suffer a misstep from doing one deal too many, it's clear that Apple will eventually have to fight back. And sooner rather than later.
Related: Google and Apple are both members of CNNMoney's new Tech 30 index
This may not be the 12th round (or 15th to go old-school boxing on you) of this epic tech equivalent of the Rumble in the Jungle -- The Tally in the Valley? -- but Apple is behind on the judges' scorecards.
The most important judge is Wall Street. The market seems to be as "super excited" about Google as CEO Larry Page is. Just look at how Google's stock has fared since Jobs' death versus Apple.
Google is near an all-time high. Apple is not. Of course, it is ridiculous to expect Apple CEO Tim Cook to completely live up to the legacy of Jobs. Nobody could do that. But investors hoping that Cook would at least keep the company's innovative spirit alive have legitimate reasons to be concerned.
Now does that mean Apple has to go out and spend a lot of money to prove to Wall Street that it's not about to get knocked out in this battle of tech heavyweights? Not necessarily. But it does need to prove to Wall Street, beyond the shadow of any doubt, that it is still innovating.
The iPhone 6 (or is it iPhone Air?) probably won't cut it. A long-rumored iTV may not even be enough, given that there has been speculation (and high expectations) for such a product going back to when Jobs was alive.
Apple has to show that there are other new product lines that it is working on. Trip Chowdhry, an analyst with Global Equities Research, wrote in a note Monday that Google's Nest deal should be a "wake up call" to Apple.
He added that the potential for Google with Nest's smart devices, robots, self-driving cars and wearable tech (even if Google Glass is still clunky and makes you look like a dork) is a much grander strategic plan than what he deems Apple's "myopic vision of a connected living room."
Chowdhry also noted that Apple's sagging stock price could create morale problems at the company and make it more difficult to retain key employees.
Of course, I'm not trying to suggest that Apple is on the verge of obsolescence. That's silly.
Apple is still supercalifragilisticexpialidociously profitable. (Perhaps Apple's next big hit could be an Internet-connected, smart flying umbrella?)
One Twitter follower was quick to remind me that Apple is hardly struggling.
Very true. According to FactSet Research, analysts predict Apple will report net income of $39.5 billion in the calendar year of 2014, while Google is expected to post a profit of "just" $15 billion this year. (Apple's fiscal year ends in September but I used calendar year estimates so I could make an, uh, apples to apples comparison with Google.)
But another Twitter follower agrees with me. Apple needs to operate with a greater sense of urgency.
The iPod came out in 2001. The iTunes music store was launched two years later. The iPhone hit the market in 2007 and was followed by the App Store in 2008. The iPad debuted in 2010.
The tech industry is littered with examples of companies that once were on top and did not do enough to stay there. Google isn't resting on its laurels. That's why Apple needs something else new. Now.
Not a member yet?Sign up now for a free account


text:
Why aren't investors scared?January 17, 2013: 12:04 PM ET
The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Paul R. La Monica. Other than Time Warner, the parent of CNNMoney, Abbott Laboratories and AbbVie, La Monica does not own positions in any individual stocks.
If you didn't know any better, you'd think that earnings were surging, the economy was expanding at a robust pace, everyone who wanted a job had one and that there was peace and harmony in Washington.
That's obviously not the case. But look at the stock market and it's as if we've all been transplanted back to the good old days of the mid-1980s or late 1990s.
The S&P 500 is near a five-year high. The VIX, a measure of market volatility often known as Wall Street's fear gauge, is near a 52-week low. And CNNMoney's own Fear & Greed Index, which looks at the VIX and six other indicators to measure market sentiment, has been firmly in Extreme Greed mode since the start of the year.
What gives? Why aren't investors a little more nervous about the future?
Sure, things aren't awful right now. The last-minute deal to avoid most of the tax hikes that would have taken place if Congress and the President pushed America off the fiscal cliff is a positive.
There are also more signs that the economy is picking up more steam. Thursday morning, the government reported strong housing starts numbers for December and a big drop in the number jobless claims filed last week. Retail sales for December were also better-than-expected.
If the housing and job markets continue to heat up and consumers keep spending, I might finally be able to abandon the low and slow barbecue recovery metaphor I've been using to describe the economy for more than two-and-a-half years.
But are the recent signs of life in the economy really enough to cause this level of excitement on Wall Street? No. I'm worried that investors are being too glib and are not concerned at all about what will happen if lawmakers and the White House don't reach an agreement to raise the debt ceiling. Another credit rating cut could lead to disastrous consequences for stocks just like the first one from Standard & Poor's did in August 2011.
With each passing day, investors' faith in Washington to actually do something smart to avoid a default should diminish.
How pathetic is it that many people think the United States, the world's biggest economic superpower, will have to resort to financial gimmickry to try and solve our budget woes? The lack of any constructive dialogue on the debt ceiling has given birth to preposterous ideas like a $1 trillion platinum coin, selling the gold in Fort Knox and invoking the 14th amendment. What are we? A banana republic?
Related: Debt ceiling FAQs: What you need to know
Outgoing Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner has already said that the government has started to borrow from the federal employee pension fund to keep paying our bills. That's just one of several "extraordinary measures" the U.S. has resorted to since we technically hit the debt ceiling at the end of last year. What's next? Putting federal property up for sale on eBay or Craigslist?
Oh. And if the debt ceiling concerns weren't enough, the fiscal cliff tax deal also didn't solve the pesky problem of the sequester. Automatic federal spending cuts that were scheduled to go into place at the end of last year are now scheduled to take effect in March.
Yes, investors often ignore Washington with good reason. The political freak show is largely theater and Wall Street has gotten used to deals happening at literally the last nanosecond. So why worry?
It's not as if the budget debate is the only cloud hovering over the market right now. Earnings have not been that good so far. Just look at the banks. Goldman Sachs (GS) was the one bright spot. Investors have found reasons to be nervous about the results from Wells Fargo (WFC), Bank of America (BAC), JPMorgan Chase (JPM) and Citigroup (C). Considering that all of those banks have a lot more average consumers as customers than Goldman, that's a worrisome sign.
Related: Bank of America profit dinged by mortgage charges
It's often said that you need the banking sector to be healthy in order to have a healthy stock market overall. That's not the case so far this year though.
What's more, earnings are only expected to increase by about 7% for the S&P 500 this year, according to Thomson Baseline.
Another cause for concern? Individual investors plowed a record amount of money into stock mutual funds last week. That comes after investors pulled money out of stocks in droves last year even as the market was rising. The so-called retail investor has a history of getting to a bull market late ... just as it's about to end.
Now I'm not predicting some epic market collapse like we had in 2000 or 2008. Plus, there are plenty of blue chips throughout a wide swath of industries that look attractive. Apple (AAPL), Union Pacific (UNP), Walgreen (WAG), UnitedHealth (UNH), Allstate (ALL) and Corning (GLW) are examples of companies in the S&P 500 with relatively low debt loads, healthy earnings outlooks and valuations that are cheaper than the overall market.
But the market at large looks like it could be getting frothy. With earnings growth expected to be so lackluster this year, does the S&P 500 deserve to trade at about 14 times 2013 earnings estimates? I haven't even mentioned two other big global risks in this story, the possibility that Europe's woes linger and that China's suddenly resurgent stock market overheats.
Don't mistake this for bearishness. It's just realistic cautiousness. There simply aren't enough good reasons to be this jazzed about the market right now, not with all the possible dangers lurking around the corner.


text:
Excel spreadsheets are all about numbers. But tons of numbers are often not the most effective way to communicate.
That's where charts come in handy. Charts can display numeric data in a graphical format, making it easy to understand large quantities of data and the relationships among data.
If you want to learn about Excel charts, you've come to the right place. We've pulled together out best tutorials and articles on charts to get you started.
- Create a chart from start to finish
This tutorial covers all the basics, including, 1) getting to know the elements of a chart, 2) modifying a basic chart to meet your needs, 3) applying a predefined chart layout and chart style for a professional look, 4) adding eye-catching formatting to a chart, and 5) reusing charts by creating chart templates.
- Free training: Take the next steps in growing your Excel skills (Lesson 2)
In Lesson 2 of the Excel Skills Builder, you learn about how to create a chart and other ways to visualize your data. (The Excel Skills Builder is a training series of short videos (typically under 5 minutes each) that give you an overview of a task or feature in Excel.)
- Go beyond the basic chart type
Excel comes with lots of chart types, including column, line, pie, and so on. However, many of you asked for more information about other kinds of charts. This post covers how to work with floating column charts, Gantt charts, combination charts, and organization charts.
- Can't find the Chart Wizard? No worries
It's true that Excel 2007 and Excel 2010 didn't include the Chart Wizard. For those of you using or upgrading to Excel 2010, this post explains where to find the chart functions on the Ribbon.
- Use sparklines to show data trends
A sparkline is a tiny chart in a worksheet cell that provides a visual representation of data. Use sparklines to show trends in a series of values, such as seasonal increases or decreases or to highlight maximum and minimum values. This tutorial explains 1) what sparklines are, 2) why you should use them, 3) how to create one, and 4) how to customize them.
- Line or scatter chart?
That's a good question! Choosing the wrong chart type for your data can easily happen when it comes to line and scatter charts. They look very similar, especially when a scatter chart is displayed with connecting lines, but there is a big difference in the way each of these chart types plots data along the horizontal and vertical axes.
- Format column sparkline charts using the date axis and cell merging
Sparkline charts are great, but there may be times they need to be visually enhaced to maximize their usefulness. This post shows you one way to do that.
- Combining Chart Types, Adding a Second Axis
Often, you'll find it is useful to create charts which compare and analyze different types of data. For example, you might want to compare share price with trading volume. In Excel, you can make a chart easier to understand by using different chart types in the same chart, and by using a secondary vertical axis to plot values that are in a different value range. You can read this post to learn how, or you can watch this video: Combine two or more chart types in a chart
If haven't found what you're looking for, leave a comment, and we'll see if we can write another blog post.


text:
Huntington Beach CA
Huntington Beach, CA City Page
Huntington Beach boasts plenty of pet-friendly outdoor areas and off-leash parks so that its four-legged residents get plenty of opportunities for exercise and play. And with perfect sunny weather year-round, there's no shortage of time to get out and explore the city's pet-centered facilities, shops and eateries make it a well-rounded home for pets to enjoy.
Whether they're searching for a dog boarding facility, pet grooming services or another offering, pet owners in Huntington Beach can choose from an abundance of pet service professionals. PetSitting.com has a large citywide network of Huntington Beach's best pet professionals who offer full pet services and will work with you to find the perfect Huntington Beach-based pet professional who will care for your pet as their own.
Huntington Beach Pet Sitters
For pet owners that must be away for vacation or business, a great pet sitting company or professional is an essential pet care component. Pet sitting is the most common service requested in the pet industry, and there are plenty of Huntington Beach dog sitters and cat sitters in the area who are well qualified to care for your pets in your absence. PetSitting.com's vast network of the leading Huntington Beach pet sitters provides pet owners with insured and bonded services for worry-free, pet-free trips. To receive a quick response from an established pet sitting company in Huntington Beach, simply fill out our pet sitting form.
Dog Training in Huntington Beach
To ensure that he exhibits basic manners and is obedient, training your dog is a must. By training your dog, you can ensure that he will be well-behaved in public and around company, and you can trust that he'll be good while you're away. Because they are responsible for shaping your dog's behavior, a dog trainer should be carefully selected with many important factors in mind. PetSitting.com maintains a citywide network of skilled Huntington Beach professional dog training providers who use a variety of dog training tools and home dog training methods to fully develop your dog's obedience.
Huntington Beach Pet Boarding
If you're heading out of town and would prefer to leave your pet in the care of an Huntington Beach pet boarding company, look no further than PetSitting.com. Our network is filled with high-quality Huntington Beach pet boarding companies that can make your time away much less stressful.
Dog Walkers in Huntington Beach
Exercise is important to the maintenance of a dog's healthy lifestyle, but is oftentimes neglected when owners do not have time to follow their pet's daily routine. PetSitting.com's online match service makes finding a professional dog walker in Huntington Beach an easy process. Each Huntington Beach dog walking business in our network offers a variety of fitness services for your beloved pet. Whether you're looking for part time dog walking services, an uptown dog walker or a multiple-dog walker, we can assist you in finding the ideal provider.
Huntington Beach Pet Grooming
Whether through a routine bath or full-service grooming, pets should be groomed periodically to maintain their health and beauty. At PetSitting.com, we have built a top-notch network of Huntington Beach's best pet grooming professionals who have solid references and are well established in the dog grooming and pet grooming industries. Our contracted Huntington Beach pet grooming companies provide various general services such as a shampoo and condition, cut and blow dry, and cuticle and dental services, as well as some specialized services for grooming your dog or other beloved pet.
Huntington Beach Pet Waste Removal
Do you love your pet but don't have the time or desire to clean up pet waste? At PetSitting.com, we work with only the best Huntington Beach dog waste removal businesses. Our contracted dog poop scoop specialists remove dog waste and the waste of other outdoor pets through a variety of service offerings, ensuring that your yard is clean and comfortable.
Doggie Daycare in Huntington Beach
While their owners are busy at work, pets can still receive essential care such as meals, walking and playtime through one of Huntington Beach's many doggie daycare facilities. Much like daycare centers for children, dog daycares provide only daytime care for pets. PetSitting.com's citywide network of elite Huntington Beach dog daycare providers makes it easy to choose a cozy and loving daily care facility for your pup.
Find Help Now!
To find a professional pet care company in Huntington Beach, please fill out the pet services form on the top right of this page. It takes just a few minutes and is always completely free of charge.