text:
European corporate tax base - guide17 March 2011
by eub2 -- last modified 17 March 2011
The European Commission has proposed a common system for calculating the tax base of businesses operating in the EU. The aim of this proposal is to significantly reduce the administrative burden, compliance costs and legal uncertainties that businesses in the EU currently face in having to comply with up to 27 different national systems for determining their taxable profits. The proposed Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base (CCCTB), would mean that companies would benefit from a "one-stop-shop" system for filing their tax returns and would be able to consolidate all the profits and losses they incur across the EU. Member States would maintain their full sovereign right to set their own corporate tax rate. The Commission estimates that, every year, the CCCTB will save businesses across the EU €700 million in reduced compliance costs, and €1.3 billion through consolidation. In addition, businesses looking to expand cross-border will benefit from up to €1 billion in savings. The CCCTB will also make the EU a much more attractive market for foreign investors.
What is the Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base (CCCTB)?
The Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base is a single set of rules that companies operating within the EU could use to calculate their taxable profits. In other words, a company or group of companies would have to comply with just one EU system for computing its taxable income, rather than different rules in each Member State in which they operate. In addition, under the CCCTB, companies active in more than one EU Member State would only have to file a single tax return for the whole of their activity in the EU.
How would CCCTB work in practice?
The CCCTB would make it possible for companies or groups of companies to consolidate all profits and losses across the EU, thereby recognising their cross-border activity. The single consolidated tax return would be used to establish the tax base of the company, after which all Member States in which the company is active would be entitled to tax a certain portion of that base, according to a specific formula based on three equally-weighted factors (assets, labour and sales). This would all be done through the tax authorities of the company's principal Member State (i.e. through a one-stop-shop system).
Under the proposed Directive, clear procedural rules are set out on how companies should opt-in to the CCCTB system, how they should submit their tax returns, how the relevant forms should be harmonised and how audits should be coordinated. For each company or group, the tax return for the whole of their activities within the EU would be filed through the tax authorities in their principle Member State, and this same Member State would be responsible for coordinating the appropriate checks and follow up on the return.
What does each element of CCCTB mean?
To explain each of the individual elements of CCCTB:
Common – One single set of rules that could be applied across the EU.
Consolidated – Consolidation means adding up all the profits and losses of a company / group of companies from different Member States, to arrive at a net profit or loss for the whole of its activity in the EU. This would then be used to decide the final taxable base of the company or group.
Example: A CCCTB group consists of companies A, B, C and D. Companies A and B have revenues equal to €10 million each; Company C has revenue equal to €5 million; Company D has a loss equal to €8 million.
The consolidated tax base for this group is A+B+C-D = €17 million.
Corporate – Relating to the taxation of companies
Tax Base – The amount of a company's profit that will be taxed. The tax base is calculated as: the company's revenues, minus the amount that can benefit from tax exemptions and deductions such as wages and depreciation. Each Member State has a different set of rules for calculating this tax base. For example, Member State A may allow assets to be depreciated over 10 years while Member State B might allow deprecation only over 5 years. Or Member State A might allow all entertaining expenses to be deducted from profits whereas Member State B might not. A single EU tax base would mean that companies only need to do their calculations in line with one set of rules.
Example: Company has revenues of €10m (e.g. sales of goods)
Less Expenses of €3m (e.g. wages and costs of the good purchased to sell)
Less Deductions of €2m (e.g. depreciation costs of the delivery vehicles)
=Total tax base of €5m.
Why do we need the CCCTB in the EU?
The CCCTB would make things far cheaper and simpler for businesses by creating one set of rules for calculating the tax base of a company or group, and by setting up a one-stop-shop system for filing tax returns. Currently, companies have to deal with 27 different rulebooks for calculating their taxable profits, and must file returns with the tax authorities in each Member State in which they are active. This results in high compliance costs, administrative burdens and complex re-adjustments. The complicated transfer pricing system which is currently in place for intra-group transactions is particularly expensive and burdensome for businesses operating within the EU, and can lead to disputes between Member State administrations and result in double taxation of companies.
Furthermore, by allowing the consolidation of profits and losses at EU level, the CCCTB would enable the cross border activities of businesses to be fully taken into account and would avoid over taxation.
Is the CCCTB a first step towards harmonisation of tax rates?
No. The CCCTB is not about tax rates, and the Commission has no plans to harmonise Member States' corporate tax rates. Member States will continue to decide their own corporate tax rates, as is their sovereign right. Where this does not lead to distortions, differences in tax rates allow a certain degree of tax competition to be maintained in the Internal Market. What the CCCTB will do, however, is create more transparency with regard to the effective corporate tax situation in Member States, thus creating fairer tax competition within the EU. The CCCTB will also be far more effective in boosting EU competitiveness globally than any measure related to uniform corporate tax rates.
Are there figures to show the benefits that the CCCTB could bring?
For businesses operating cross border in the EU, the CCCTB unequivocally translates into savings in compliance time and costs. It is estimated that the current compliance costs could be reduced by 7%, which is equivalent to a saving of €0.7 billion across the EU.
The new system will also bring tangible benefits for companies that wish to expand into other Member States. Currently, it costs a large enterprise over €140,000 in tax related expenditure alone to open a new subsidiary in another Member State. The CCCTB will reduce these costs by €87,000 or 62%. Medium sized enterprises stand to gain even more, with their average tax-related costs of expanding within the EU dropping from €127,000 to €42,000 (a decrease of 67%). If even just 5% of SMEs were to decide to expand on this basis, overall savings would be of the order of €1 billion.
In addition, by allowing businesses to offset losses in one Member State against profits elsewhere in the EU for tax purposes (i.e. consolidation), the proposal could result in additional savings of €1.3 billion for companies across the EU.
In summary, the CCCTB would save businesses €0.7 billion in reduced compliance, €1 billion in reduced costs to expand cross-border and €1.3 billion through consolidation.
Why has the Commission proposed that the CCCTB should be optional for companies?
The CCCTB would be optional, allowing companies that felt that they would truly benefit from this harmonised system to opt-in, while other companies could continue to work within their national systems. This is a common sense approach, as it means that companies that have no intention of expanding beyond their national borders, and therefore will only ever work within one system, do not have to shift needlessly to a new tax system. The Commission also believes that a compulsory CCCTB would be out of line with the principle of subsidiarity, as it would mean that EU measures were being introduced to cover purely domestic, as well as EU-level, activity.
Why is consolidation an important part of this system?
Consolidation is a crucial aspect of the CCCTB because it means that a company's cross-border activity within the EU will be fully recognised.
For example, today a group can add the profits of one subsidiary in Member State A to the losses of another subsidiary in the same Member State A to arrive at a net profit or loss. However, the same group cannot take into account losses it may accrue in another Member State B. This means that, even if the group's losses in one Member State were bigger than its profits elsewhere in the EU (i.e. there was a net loss), it would still have to pay tax in the Member States where any profits were made. There is no cross-border loss relief. Under the CCCTB, the group would be allowed to add its profits and losses from all subsidiaries throughout the EU together, to reach a net figure. Tax would then be paid on the group's net profit for the whole of the EU. This reflects the true spirit of a Single Market.
In addition, consolidation would eliminate the need for the complex transfer pricing system that is currently in place for cross-border intra-group sales. Given that transfer pricing is one of the most burdensome and most expensive aspects of corporate taxation for enterprises, its elimination will lead to significant benefits for companies and groups within the EU.
How did the Commission arrive at the apportionment formula?
Under the CCCTB, once the company's tax base is determined, it will then be shared out (apportioned) to all Member States in which the company is active on the basis of a fixed apportionment formula. This formula will be based on three factors, equally weighted:
* Assets: All fixed tangible assets, including buildings, airplanes and machinery will be covered. The costs incurred for R&D, marketing and advertising in the 6 years prior to a company entering the CCCTB will also be included as a proxy for intangible assets for 5 years.
* Labour: Two factors will be taken into account under the heading of labour: 50% payroll costs and 50% the number of employees.
* Sales: This will be calculated on the basis of where the goods are dispatched to / destined for. For services, this will be where the service is physically carried out.
Companies A, B and C form a CCCTB Group. The consolidated tax base is 900.
Company A has capital of 100, wages of 100, 1000 employees and sales in MS A of 10000.
Company B has capital of 200, wages of 200, 2000 employees, and sales in MS B of 20000.
Company C has capital of 300, wages of 300, 3000 employees, and sales in MS C of 30000.
The calculation is as follows:
One third of 900 on capital: 100/600 to A, 200/600 to B and 300/600 to C
½ of one third of 900 on wages: 100/600 to A, 200/600 to B and 300/600 to C
½ of one third of 900 on employees: 1000/6000 to A, 2000/6000 to B and 3000/6000 to C
One third of 900 on sales: 10,000/60,000 to A, 20,000/60,000 to B and 30,000/60,000 to D.
A's Tax Base = 50 + 25 + 25 + 50 = 150 – taxed in MS at A's rate
B's Tax Base = 100 + 50 + 50 + 100 = 300 – taxed in MS B at B's rate
C's Tax Base = 150 + 75 = 75 + 150 = 450 – taxed in MS C at C's rate
Companies' profits are derived from sales, labour and assets, which is why these three criteria make up the apportionment formula. These three factors mean that the formula draws on data which is readily available, will be difficult to manipulate and will be representative of where profit is really created in a business.
How does depreciation come into play in calculating the tax base? Will this be harmonised under the CCCTB and how?
Depreciation is the declining value of an asset over time, which is taken into account as a deduction for tax purposes. For example, if you buy a machine for 100.000€ and you sell it five years later for 20.000€, the machine 'depreciated' by 80.000€. This did not happen in year five - it depreciated a little each year. When a company buys an asset, e.g. a building or car, its taxable base each year is income minus expenses, minus an allowance for the depreciation of this asset. The estimated depreciation of the asset is spread over the expected period that it will be used by the company, and on this basis, a deduction from the tax base is given each year.
There are different depreciation rules in each Member State. Some may choose to spread out the deduction over a longer period (e.g. 5% over 20 years), while others might condense the deductions into a shorter space of time (e.g. 20% over 5 years). The aim is to spread the costs of assets over the appropriate number of years and not distort the profits, e.g. by allowing all the costs to be deducted in the first year.
There will be one set of depreciation rules laid down within the CCCTB (25% over 4 years), for companies that opt-in. For those that stay outside the CCCTB, national rules will continue to apply.
How will the CCCTB benefit SMEs?
The CCCTB opens up the possibility of expansion within the EU for SMEs that may, up to now, have thought it too costly and complicated to do so. As SMEs do not tend to have the same resources (tax lawyers and experts; consultants and advisors) as larger enterprises, the obstacle of having to deal with divergent rules for calculating the tax base in other Member States is often insurmountable. The CCCTB would allow SMEs to continue to work with just one system and one tax administration, as they do now, even if they choose to expand into other Member States. It is estimated that the tax-related costs of a medium sized enterprise expanding within the EU will be reduced by 67% with the CCCTB. The Commission has worked to ensure that the proposed new rules are accessible enough for SMEs, as well as large companies, to understand and use.
Will the CCCTB help to encourage R&D and innovative companies?
The treatment of R&D expenses within the CCCTB is earmarked by generous and innovation friendly rules: for example researcher's wages and salaries are fully deductible the year which they are incurred (irrespective of the time when the result of the research will be available) and an immediate 100% deduction for expenditure on research buildings is allowed. In addition, the general depreciation rule is assuming a very fast technical progress and generates deductible cost of nearly 60% in the first three years. This method is better reflecting the fast drop of economical or technical value of fixed assets. Overall, CCCTB offers better environment for research and innovation than foreseen in the current corporate tax systems of most Member States.
Are there conditions linked to opting in and out of CCCTB?
Yes. Companies would have to opt-in to the CCCTB for a minimum of five years (to avoid them opting in and out for tax planning purposes). In addition, an annex to the proposal lists various criteria that a company must meet to be eligible for the CCCTB system (e.g. type of corporate tax rules that it must be currently covered by; type of company …).
Would CCCTB be available to non-EU companies based in Europe?
Yes. Non-EU companies with branches or subsidiaries in a Member State would be able to opt in to the CCCTB in relation to their EU activities, so long as they met the same qualifying criteria as is required from EU companies (see above).
Will the CCCTB help to attract foreign direct investment?
The CCCTB can make the EU a much more attractive market for foreign investors. For example, at the moment, companies operating in third countries such as the USA or China only have to deal with one national tax system. This is compared to a European system of 27 different sets of rules, which creates far more complexity and costs. A single set of rules for the corporate tax base, and a one-stop-shop system for filing tax returns, would make the EU a much easier place for foreign firms to invest in. Many third countries have already indicated to the Commission that the CCCTB would help to make the EU a more interesting market for foreign investment.
Will there be a different tax rate for CCCTB than for the national system?
Member States will continue to decide on their own corporate tax rates, including the rate for companies working within the CCCTB (as the CCCTB deals only with the tax base, not the tax rate). A Member State could choose to apply a different tax rate for the CCCTB if its own national base was extremely different and it wanted to maintain the same effective tax rate (i.e. the real level of tax paid once the rate, base and various deductibles are taken into account). For example, if the CCCTB base were broader than the national base, the Member State may choose to set a lower rate for the CCCTB to maintain the same effective tax rate. Another possibility is that Member States will align their national bases close enough to the CCCTB in order to avoid having different rates for the two. It will be for each Member State to decide the approach it considers best for its own national needs.
Will there be a safeguard to protect Member States against companies shifting assets to gain most from the formula?
The CCCTB proposal contains strong anti-avoidance rules to ensure that groups cannot artificially shift their profits from one Member State to another. Companies will still be able to exercise their freedom of movement and establishment for genuine commercial reasons however (e.g. building a new factory in another Member State), as they do today.
What anti-abuse measures are included in the proposal?
The proposal contains a general anti-abuse clause which is in line with what is already in place in many Member States. In addition, it contains specific anti-abuse measures such as a restriction of interest deductibility in some cases and an exception to the exemption of foreign income in other cases.
Could CCCTB contribute to greater tax competition?
In creating a uniform base, the CCCTB will provide greater transparency and should therefore ensure that competition takes place on the effective tax rate, rather than on potentially hidden elements in different bases. This should result in more open and fairer tax competition. Member States would continue to set the corporate tax rates for their territories. It will be for each Member State to decide the approach that best fits its own national budgetary needs and tax policy mix.
Would the CCCTB lead to the broadening of the tax base in most Member States?
For most Member States1, the CCCTB base would be broader than the existing national tax base. On average, the common tax base is broader by 7,9%. This broader tax base means that Member States should not have to worry about the sustainability of their tax systems in the context of budget consolidation (i.e. the broader tax base reduces the risk of fiscal losses).
Could the CCCTB lead to companies actually being taxed more if profits fall into higher tax markets?
The CCCTB will be optional. If companies do not believe that they will benefit from it, they do not have to opt in. However, the vast majority of businesses (80%) have come out in support of the CCCTB, seeing the benefits it offers in terms of reduced administrative burden, lower compliance costs and the avoidance of transfer pricing disputes (KPMG study of 2007, "Harmonised corporate tax base – are European business for or against it? Pan-EU survey results investigating reactions to proposed Common Consolidated Corporate Tax base", Jeff Wagland).
Is this proposal in line with the principle of subsidiarity?
Yes. The CCCTB is about removing obstacles to the Internal Market, so that it is cheaper and easier for businesses to operate cross-border. It can only be successfully implemented at EU-level. An EU approach is needed to establish common rules and a "one-stop-shop" system for cross-border businesses; while some of the main elements of the proposal (e.g. cross-border loss relief, allocation of the tax base through a common formula) would not be attainable at purely national level.
What are the next steps?
The proposal now needs to be discussed and agreed by Member States in Council, following the opinion of the European Parliament.
Full text of the proposal on CCCTB
1 : Estonia is not included as the country has a distribution tax only applicable on paid out dividends and a tax base definition is not needed.
Source: European Commission


text:
Scientists have been examining the terribly under-researched problem of erectile dysfunction, and you'll never guess who's the source of the trouble: women. It's all your fault! Again! And among middle-aged men the issue isn't what their female partner is (or isn't) doing in the bedroom, but how she treats his friends.
Though TV led us to believe that shrewish wives are throwing a fit every time their husbands want to hang out with the guys and watch the game, researchers from Cornell and the University of Chicago say the problem is actually that women are descending into the man cave too frequently. According to a study of 3,000 Americans ages 57 to 85, about a quarter of men have a problem with "partner betweenness," or the feeling that their female partner is closer to one of their friends than they are. Of that group, 92% were more likely to report erectile dysfunction.
The problem is the most pronounced among men ages 57 to 64. University of Chicago sociologist Edward Laumann tells the Chicago Sun-Times, "This is when people are retiring, leaving the work force, reorganizing their life. This is very threatening to a male's understanding of himself." By becoming close with another man, wives threaten their husbands' masculinity by undermining their "feelings of autonomy and privacy."
Of course, it's possible that the man creates his own sexual troubles by neglecting both his wife and best friend, thus driving them closer together. Just kidding! It's definitely the woman's fault for encroaching on guy time. Let that be a lesson to you, ladies: When the game is on, don't get chummy with your man's friends, just stay in the kitchen whipping up snacks. And definitely don't invite any female friends over to help. Other women are always trying to steal your man!
Wife Closer To Your Friends Than You? It Could Affect Your Sex Life [Chicago Sun-Times]
When A Man's Female Partner Becomes Too Buddy-Buddy With His Pals, His Erections May Suffer [ScienceBlog]
Image via Archipoch/

subset: commoncrawl


text:
From tubes and cubes to haute cuisine - the refinement of space food
Astronaut food – this term still conveys a vivid picture of dusty and tasteless food-bars, which might have all the nutrients and vitamins a person needs per day, but still has more in common with cardboard than with a proper dish. But the days when space food resembled papier-mâché - in taste as well as in consistency - are long gone.
Nowadays, renowned chefs make space food a culinary experience and the European food industry has the possibility to supply astronauts on the International Space Station with high quality and delicious food products: a gap in the market that opens up new and possibly lucrative opportunities for the European Nutrition Industry.
Early space meals: tubes and cubes
The food of the early space travellers was not exactly a gourmet experience, to say the least. In their very first considerations of how space food should look like, the Russians planned to develop tablets, which should feature all the necessary nutrients and vitamins. Luckily for the cosmonauts, this 'superpill' never materialised.
The first space-dish of Russian cosmonaut German Titov, the first man to dine in space in 1961, came in containers largely resembling toothpaste-tubes. The three-course meal consisted of one tube of vegetable puree soup, one tube of liver pate and one tube of blackcurrant juice.
When American Astronaut John Glenn took off in his Mercury spacecraft in 1962, his lunchbox was filled with bite-sized, crummy cubes, freeze dried foods that had to be re-hydrated in space to form a pulpy puree, and semi-liquids in tubes which had to be squeezed out into one's mouth.
Needless to say that neither cosmonauts nor astronauts were too fond of their meal plan.
It wasn't long before the astronaut food was improved. The tubes were the first things to go. They were replaced by the 'spoon bowl' and later by different typed of food trays, using knife, fork and spoon to eat, to make a meal in space an experience that more closely resembled a normal meal on Earth.
With improved packaging came improved quality and variety of meals. As early as the 1980s, space travellers could choose from a stunning number of 200 specially treated and processed food items, and also warm meals were available.
Crucial space food issues: variety and freshness
Today, astronauts and cosmonauts on the International Space Station (ISS) can choose from a vast variety of food before their mission to the ISS starts. The astronauts and cosmonauts have the opportunity to choose among a variety of dishes however, there are limitations: after eight days, the meal plan is repeated.
But still the variety of food is a critical aspect for space travellers during long-term missions. Astronauts and cosmonauts who stay on the ISS for half a year have little variation in their day-to-day life apart from performing different experiments, so food is an important element to add flavour to their daily routine. Any extra variation is more than welcome and cherished by the astronauts and cosmonauts.
But naturally, not any food will make the grade to be flown to the Space Station. All foods going to space have to pass through a regime of tests to make sure they are able to endure an outer space environment without deteriorating.
The food the astronaut and cosmonauts on the International Space Station eat at the moment is either dehydrated (provided by the Americans) or canned food (provided by the Russians). Fresh food items are a rarity on the Station, as fruit or vegetables stay fresh only for up to two days in space. So the challenge in designing nutrition that is fit for space is to create food that withstands the extreme conditions of the space environment, is highly balanced and efficient as for nutritional value and at the same time is fresh and delicious.
This is a unique opportunity for the food and nutrition industry: by developing fresh, nutritious and tasty astronaut food, nutrition firms don't solely enter a unique marketing platform and use the popular and fascinating factor of space for their PR, they can also use their findings for growing market sectors.
Initial exercises have taken place to introduce quality foods to the ISS environment but there is now an opportunity for companies to exploit this situation on a regular and on-going commercial basis.
Space food: not only for astronauts
The space environment has detrimental effects on the human body: astronauts who stay in space for a longer period of time loose bone and muscle mass, their cardiovascular system is strained as the body fluids shift into the upper part of the body. These processes are well known on Earth, too: we call them 'ageing'. There are, however, countermeasures that can work against these effects. The two most important means are physical training – and nutrition.
The opportunities for application of space food on Earth are vast. Possible target groups range from elderly, hospital foods, or functional foods for people who have to deal with extreme situations like athletes, adventurers or the military.
The food provision for the ISS is a real gap in the market: Why not provide a variety of European food commercially to the Space Station? It would not only add diversification to the astronauts' menu, but would also be a great opportunity for the respective food company – not everybody can say that their products are marketed not only globally, but even beyond. After all, astronauts may not form the largest consumer base in the world, but they for certain are premium customers. And they are not the only ones who could be interested in highly nutritious, sustainable, healthy and delicious food.
A range of commercially provided national delicacies of European countries provided for the Space Station would not only benefit the astronauts, but also benefit the European food industry – who might become the forerunner to create a regular outer-space menu.


text: Rowdy pubs figure in today's Geo Quiz. The waterhole we're looking for today is in the Southern Hemisphere. It's the capital of the state of New South Wales. The history of its sometimes flamboyant pub culture is celebrated in a new exhibit at the city's Justice and Police Museum. The Justice & Police Museum: www.flickr.com/photos/ajouhuangThe Justice & Police Museum: www.flickr.com/photos/ajouhuang There are newsreels that recall important chapters in this city's drinking history. Here's one from the 1950's when authorities tried to crack down on rowdy events called the "6 o'clock pig swills", and came up with a more dignified name: ?February 1st 1955 is b e day beer in the evening day and there is much rejoicing in the land.? So can you name this Australian city? Last call ... We were looking, in our Geo Quiz today, for an international city whose flamboyant, even frenetic pub culture is celebrated in a new art and history exhibition. The answer is Sydney, Australia. Organisers of the exhibition say Sydney's watering holes have had a huge influence on the character of Australia's biggest city since day one. Phil Mercer reports from Sydney.


text:
Make sure your models reach the correct parking position in your showcase or diorama. The vehicle features transparent windows, rolling wheels and a light bar
MicroMiles Credit: Purchasing this product will give you 16.95 MicroMiles - currently valued at 0.68
Release info:
New Releases November-December, now available for pre-order.
For more information, please visit this products webpage.
For other countries click here!
disclaimer: Description and pictures may be different from the delivered product. Pictures are always from pre-production samples. MicroWings is not responsible for the correctness of this information. If you need to know the exact registration number of the model that will be delivered, please contact us before your purchase.
< € 150: -10%
From € 150: -20%
From € 250: -25%
From € 500: -30%
From € 1000: -40%
(discount will be applied at checkout)
Take advantage of these discounts to complete your collection!


text:
Fiance of man shot by police says he was 'depressed'
The woman engaged to a man shot and killed by Omaha police early Tuesday says her fiancé was depressed, but did not deserve to die.
Levette Spracher's new year starts with the unthinkable.
"It wasn't right," Spracher said. She talked to KETV Newswatch 7's Natalie Glucklich just hours after her fiancé, Tyree Bell, 31, was shot by Omaha police during an armed confrontation.
Spracher says early Tuesday morning, she and Bell had an argument and, for Bell, a painful discussion about the future.
"He cried and I [could] see it in his eyes, it's like, he was giving up," said Spracher. "I mean, I actually looked and I felt his pain; he was giving up."
Spracher says her fiancé struggled with depression and schizophrenia. He'd been convicted of terroristic threats and assault, among other crimes. Spracher says Bell assumed the worst after someone called police to their house near 42nd and Pratt.
"He was like, 'Man, they're going to kill me, they're going to kill me,'" said Spracher. "I was like, 'No, they're not, no, they're not.'"
Spracher says she ran outside to tell officers her fiancé was armed with a shotgun.
"I said, 'It's not loaded,'" said Spracher. "It wasn't loaded."
Omaha police say Bell became an immediate threat to officers and to one of the couple's three children still inside the home. At one point during negotiations, police say Bell held a shotgun in one hand and his three-year-old son in his other arm. After trying to get Bell to surrender for two hours, police say at least four officers opened fire.
"As soon as he put his son down, they shot him. They shot him in front of my son, a three-year-old," said Spracher. "My son comes to me and says, 'Mommy, Daddy's dead.' A three-year-old!"
Spracher says Bell loved his little boy and would never have hurt him. Now, instead of a fresh start to the new year, a mother is left with grief and questions.
"They could have done something, they could have tasered him," said Spracher. "They didn't have to kill him like that."
Spracher also says Bell came out of the house with his hands up several times during the ordeal. Omaha police did not confirm that Tuesday.
The department is expected to talk to reporters during a news conference Wednesday morning. They are also expected to name the officers involved in the shooting.


text:
Mothers Day is round the corner and what better way to celebrate than to zero in on the best gifts from a wide selection. Infibeam's Mother's Day gifts section now has a revamped look with new gifts, enticing offers and more. Revelers have a special reason to rejoice as Infibeam offers the best selection of gifts and easy options to send them to any destination across India.
Commenting on the exclusive and revamped gifts section, Mr. Anish Parikh, Vice President, Lifestyle, Infibeam.Com said, "The revamped selection of gifts will help shoppers choose better gifts. The wide selection is accompanied with some really enticing price tags so a shopper with a small budget will not have to think twice before zeroing in on gifts".
Though Mothers Day is predominantly a western festival, it is gaining popularity in different parts of the world. In India it is a festival much looked forward to. It is marked by special Mothers Day greeting cards and expressive gifts. Infibeam has been offering shoppers nothing but the best gifts. This Mothers Day, the catalog is even better. There are gifts ranging from cakes and sweets to eternal gifts like jewelry. Contemporary gifts like gift vouchers and customized presents also form an integral part of the gifts section.
That is not all; if you want to gift your mother, special and thoughtful gifts; there are special skin care products. Diamonds are gifts for forever and you could choose from an exclusive selection of branded diamond jewelry. There are cost effective yet elegant gifts to choose from in this all improved Mothers Day gift section.
This Mothers Day can be really special with well thought out gifts for the special and most deserving person. Log in to Infibeam.com and get nothing but the best.
Bookmark this post:


text:
- Font:
- +
- -
Guests: Eugene Robinson, Chris Cillizza, Bertha Coombs, John Heilemann, David Corn, Chris Cillizza, Robert Draper, Jon Lovett, Nia-Malika Henderson
CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: Angry money.
Let`s play HARDBALL.
Good evening. I`m Chris Matthews in Washington. And leading off
tonight: Enemies of democracy. Each of you watching tonight has a single
vote. But what about the right-wing billionaires? What about the moneyed
dictators who can direct millions of dollars to elect or destroy whoever
they wish? The Koch brothers -- Koch brothers` group, Americans for
Prosperity, is dumping $6 million-plus in eight battleground states this
summer to take down President Obama. And what about the power of these
interests to control House and Senate races?
Plus, back in the USSR. Are Mitt Romney and his ideologues of the
right looking to reignite the cold war? One ally said we aren`t doing
enough to stop the Soviets -- the Soviets! -- While another said we`ve
abandoned Czechoslovakia, which hasn`t existed since 1993. Romney himself
infamously said that Russia was now America`s number one political foe.
Well, they can`t wait to get back into power and can`t wait to get
back to the cold war, it seems. These people always seem to have their eye
on yet another war to fight.
Also, we know Republicans have made it their goal to destroy Barack
Obama, but did you know they started planning to sabotage him the very day
of the inauguration?
And it`s an old Hollywood adage, "Funny as money." So try making a
buck when the audience is the White House correspondents dinner this
Saturday night. It`s a tough crowd, but tonight we`ve got a comedy writer
who once came up with gags like this one for President Obama.
BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Others say that I`m
arrogant, but I`ve found a really great self-help tool for this -- my poll
MATTHEWS: We`re going to look back at some of the best moments from
past dinners as Washington gets ready for tomorrow nights the big night,
which you can actually watch here on MSNBC.
But "Let Me Finish" tonight with my deepest concern about the
influence, subversive influence of angry right-wing money on what we still
treasure as our democracy.
We begin with that angry money. John Heilemann is national affairs
editor for "New York" magazine and David Corn is Washington bureau chief
for "Mother Jones." Both men are MSNBC political analysts.
I was struck this morning by a small item, gentlemen, in "The
Washington Examiner," which I try to read every day. It`s a shopper with
lots of interesting news. Americans for Prosperity, it turns out -- that`s
the group been funded in part by billionaire brothers Charles and David
Koch. They`re also -- they`ve also spent a $6 million ad buy in eight
battleground states attacking the president right now.
So let`s watch what they`re up to, these ads.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: $1.2 billion to a solar company that`s building a
plant in Mexico, half a billion to an electric car company that created
hundreds of jobs in Finland, and tens of millions of dollars to build
traffic lights in China.
President Obama wasted $34 billion on risky investments. The result?
Failure. American taxpayers are paying to send their own jobs to foreign
countries. Tell President Obama American tax dollars should help American
MATTHEWS: Well, Think Progress, a progressive organization, disputes
the facts in this. Among other complaints, it says two of the ad`s claims
about the jobs in Mexico and Finland are based on simply false stories by
conservative bloggers.
By the way, gentlemen, these Koch brothers, these two guys that make
all their money in oil and gas, don`t like any green industry, period.
They don`t like alternative fuels. So they`re out spending millions and
millions of dollars to trash any effort to get us an escape route down the
road in the future from oil and gas.
DAVID CORN, "MOTHER JONES," MSNBC POLITICAL ANALYST: Yes, this is a
two-fer for the Koch brothers because they don`t -- they don`t like the
president, they don`t like Democrats, they support Republicans. And they
really hate Democrats who talk about alternatives to fossil fuels.
So here they are attacking Obama falsely, with false information,
based on blogs that don`t -- you know, that haven`t been fact-checked. And
at the same time, they`re making it sound like it`s kind of crazy and nutty
to care about green jobs. All this talk by Obama about green jobs, it`s
really helping China and Mexico. So you get some xenophobia mixed in. I
mean, it`s a wonderful -- right out of Karl Rove`s playbook.
MATTHEWS: And guess what -- and guess where it comes from, Citizens
United. John, I want to talk tonight -- probably, I`m going to keep
talking about it. Everybody goes to vote treasures their vote. I don`t
care if you`re left or you`re center left or you`re someone on the right,
you treasure your vote. But you only get one. And you only get to vote in
one place.
People like these Koch brothers with their billions of dollars can go
into any community in the world, a small congressional race, they can drop
-- like they`re going to do, apparently, all over the country -- they did
it out there for Lungren -- dump tons of money and just switch a race
JOHN HEILEMANN, "NEW YORK" MAGAZINE, MSNBC POLITICAL ANALYST: They
can, and they will. And you know, it`s -- look, we`ve had a series of
decisions made, starting with the Supreme Court back in Buckley-Vallejo
(ph) in 1972. We have progressively seen the system of campaign finance
destroyed by the influence and the raging (ph) (INAUDIBLE) We have this --
every cycle, it gets worse.
The Supreme Court says -- Citizens United is the last in a string of
bad decisions, regulations, dock (ph) of regulations. It`s gotten worse
and worse and worse and worse, and now we have reached a point where it`s
hard to imagine it could get worse in terms of the way in which unregulated
private money is getting involved in our election cycle.
MATTHEWS: I know.
HEILEMANN: But I`ll tell you, as a strategic matter, it`s a huge
problem for the president because right now, although there are a lot of
rich people who like Barack Obama and who supported him in 20080 -- he is
in danger of getting not just outspent in this election, but getting
dramatically outspent in this election.
MATTHEWS: Because of the -- and what`s driving this huge amount of
spending by these corporations and rich people, angry.
HEILEMANN: Yes.
MATTHEWS: They hate Obama.
HEILEMANN: Well, they hate Obama. And David pointed out that they
have -- that a lot of them are not ideological. Some of them are just
businessmen who want...
MATTHEWS: Who want tax breaks.
HEILEMANN: ... who want tax breaks, or regulations repealed or
regulations that have been repealed not reinstated. They have specific
business interests. And then there are others who ideologically just
detest the president...
MATTHEWS: Did you read Ezra Klein today? He was brilliant. He said
all these groups have to do it, and anybody watching can understand this --
they simply go to some local congressman or woman who may be moderately
popular in the district, doing the job, and they say, Look, if you don`t
vote for this creepy little deal for corporations that gives them some tax
break on debt, that nobody in your district`s ever heard of -- if you don`t
vote for it, we`re dumping a half billion bucks against you and we`re going
to blow you away.
CORN: And what does...
MATTHEWS: And the congressman says, Well, people won`t pay attention
to this, I guess I`ll do it.
CORN: They don`t even have to say it. The thing is, these ads can
happen at a moment`s notice, with a week left, when the candidate himself
or herself doesn`t have the ability...
MATTHEWS: Yes.
CORN: ... to put an ad together, to get it up. They can come in and
buy all the TV time in your district or the last weekend. So people are
running scared and are preemptively looking out for what not to do because
they don`t want to become the target...
MATTHEWS: So they kiss the butt of these right-wingers. Let`s take a
look. Bloomberg News this morning reporting on the staggering difference
in fund-raising between the two sides when it comes to these super-PACS.
Quote, "While Obama had a 10-to-1 campaign cash advantage over Romney
at the start of the month, that ratio drops to almost 2-to-1 when the
Republican super-PACs are added to Romney`s arsenal, according to campaign
finance reports. When you look at just the super-PAC money, the pro-Obama
super-PAC, Priorities USA, raised just $9 million, while the conservative
super-PACs American Crossroads" -- that`s the Rove operation -- "and
Restore Our Future," which is Romney`s, "$80 million. When all is said and
done, both sides are expect to raise in excess of three quarters of a
billion dollars."
Back to you, John. You`re writing "Game Change" again. You`re
writing the sequel, I assume. I know you`re working on it all the time.
Is this -- I mean, how do people keep the morale up when they go to vote,
knowing they`re up against this -- this crapola of money thrown at them?
HEILEMANN: Well, you know, look, I mean, I just said that it`s --
this has been a progressively degenerating system over the course of the
last 30 years, 40 years in American life.
It has not been -- and we`ve seen it, again, cycle by cycle, gotten
worse. Voters so far look at this as a process issue. It has not yet --
now, maybe we`re at a tipping point...
HEILEMANN: ... but so far...
HEILEMANN: ... voters have...
HEILEMANN: ... politics is dirty and corrupt.
HEILEMANN: There`s a lot of money. I don`t care. Both sides are
MATTHEWS: I don`t carry -- I don`t carry a torch for Santorum,
although I think he ran a gutsy campaign, and Newt Gingrich`s interesting
to watch. I`ll say this.
MATTHEWS: I didn`t root for either of these guys, but they went up
against this guy Romney and his money machine. And all of us watched this
in places like Iowa and Florida and Michigan and Ohio. They weren`t even
in the race because of this money.
CORN: Right.
MATTHEWS: Money ran those primaries.
CORN: Well -- well, the election is -- is becoming -- and I -- and
John is right. It`s been going on...
MATTHEWS: This`ll happen in November.
CORN: Yes. It`s been going on for decades. But I think we may be
getting to, like, the curve when it starts going to hyper-speed, if you
remember "Star Wars." And you have what -- you have these angry
billionaires -- I call them "venting billionaires," call them zillionaires
(ph) -- who can come in and tilt the...
MATTHEWS: The Koch brothers.
CORN: The Koch brothers. But there are others, as well...
MATTHEWS: Sheldon Adelson.
CORN: I mean, there are a whole bunch of others. At a moment`s
notice, they saved -- you know, Romney`s super-PAC friends saved his butt.
Sheldon Adelson kept new Newt in the game longer than he otherwise would
have been. They`re having real impact. And this is before we get to the
general election.
Remember, in the general election (INAUDIBLE) six, eight, ten state
elections, not nationally. So you take $6 billion, $10 billion, $20
billion, and put them in those key states, and that`s a lot of influence at
those tipping points.
HEILEMANN: But look, let`s been clear. The fact that the Democrats
have raised only $9 million -- Priorities USA has only raised $9 million in
the last year is not because they`re not trying to do this. This is -- I
mean, there are -- right now, it`s dominated by right-wing venting
billionaires, right? It`s not like Democrats wouldn`t take that money.
They`d be overjoyed...
MATTHEWS: But they don`t do what those guys want.
HEILEMANN: Well, so far...
MATTHEWS: Why would they give to Democrats?
HEILEMANN: So far, the reason, it seems -- if you ask the guys at
Priorities USA, the reason they think they`ve not gotten big checks -- and
again, they are out trying to get those big checks. It`s not like their
hands are clean. They just haven`t been successful so far -- is that
Democratic billionaires are not scared enough. They`ve looked at this
HEILEMANN: They`ve looked at the nomination fight, and they don`t
think Romney can beat Obama.
MATTHEWS: ... number of ads that can be -- look, let me get back to
what -- real people. People who watch programs like this pay attention and
care. Most -- or not most voters, but those 20 percent in the middle, we
all know that decide elections, pay attention to elections near the end,
the last couple weeks an months. That`s when they focus...
CORN: Yes.
MATTHEWS: But if you do it like that...
CORN: Yes.
MATTHEWS: ... and you begin to watch television the last couple
months, which people do...
CORN: Yes.
MATTHEWS: ... primetime TV...
CORN: Yes.
MATTHEWS: ... you can`t turn on even a non-political show like, I
say, "Entertainment Tonight."
CORN: Yes.
MATTHEWS: It`s saturated with this negativity paid for by -- look at
this -- the Karl Rove-led group, American Crossroads, released this video
attacking the president for being cool. Now, to a non-attentive voter who
doesn`t pay a lot of attention, this can be a turn-off to Obama.
CORN: Yes.
MATTHEWS: Let`s take a look, see if it is. Let`s watch.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Oh, yes.
JIMMY KIMMEL, HOST, "LATE NIGHT WITH JIMMY KIMMEL": Preezy of the
United Steezy.
BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: (SINGING) I`m so in
love with you...
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Oh, yes.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (INAUDIBLE) jackass. (INAUDIBLE) jackass.
MATTHEWS: I can see some regular voter in Scranton, anywhere I grew
up, northeast Philly, anywhere I grew up, watching this, going, That guy`s
screwing around as president, he`s not taking it seriously, thinks he`s
cooler than we are, screw him. I`m voting for the other guy.
CORN: Well...
MATTHEWS: And if you don`t pay a lot of attention, that is Obama.
CORN: Well, you have to...
MATTHEWS: That`s the way he`s portrayed.
CORN: You have to believe that before they put $6 million into this,
they did the focus groups. They`ve showed this to people (INAUDIBLE) and
they polled them before and after, and they got the sense that this sort of
cheap shot might work with a certain type of voter in a certain place.
MATTHEWS: You know -- you know what kind of voter.
CORN: Yes. I know, and listen...
MATTHEWS: ... voter, perhaps a white voter, not necessarily, but a
person who`s, like, turned off to what looks like too cool.
CORN: Yes. I mean, to me, there is a hint of race in this, when they
have the Barry White (ph), "Oh, yes"...
MATTHEWS: I know.
CORN: ... over and over again. And you know, it`s hard to know what
is in someone`s heart when they`re making that or what they`re trying to
play on. But it`s ugly politics one way or the other.
HEILEMANN: It`s very -- it`s very interesting, though. Republicans
are always really good at running at a candidate`s strength and turning it
into a weakness. They do that all the time...
HEILEMANN: Here it is. He`s cool. He`s likable. Those are...
MATTHEWS: He`s got a sense of humor.
HEILEMANN: Those are the things that give Obama advantages and
personality attributes over Romney. And they want to say, No, this is --
he`s above you and he`s weak, weak leader. Romney is strong, Obama is
weak. They`re going to try to turn hip into he`s frilly, he`s frothy.
MATTHEWS: Yes.
HEILEMANN: He`s not serious. He`s not out working for you. And
they`re going to do this over and over again. The economy is an issue that
works to the Republicans` advantage. What Obama has right now is personal
attributes. Republicans are going to hammer...
MATTHEWS: I know.
HEILEMANN: ... and these personal attributes for the next six months.
MATTHEWS: Yes, I still think my son, Michael, raised this really
well. He said, You know -- he said, If you look at this election seriously
and you look at what this president confronted when he came into office,
how difficult the times and how scary they were, and what he was able to do
to move this country out of that horror pit we were in, and able to do the
things he did with our economy and move us to where we are today, you vote
for him.
If you look at it very facilely and lightly, with low -- not much
attention, look at this kind of idiot ad, you go, Oh, I`ll try the other
CORN: I mean, where`s...
MATTHEWS: That`s what they`re thinking. Anyway...
CORN: Where`s -- where`s Libya, Egypt, the bin Laden raid...
CORN: You know, it`s not in that ad.
MATTHEWS: OK. Thank you. And thank you, John Heilemann and thank
you Paulson (ph) and all those guys were (ph) new (ph) -- bailing out the
auto industry, real jobs. How`s that one?
Anyway, thank you, gentlemen. Thank you, Heilemann, and thank you,
MATTHEWS: John Heilemann and David Corn.
Coming up...
HEILEMANN: Thank you, Chris.
MATTHEWS: (INAUDIBLE) save time here. Coming up: Is Mitt Romney
still fighting the cold war? Apparently. If you listen to him, he`s
talking about the free world. They`re talking about the Soviet Union.
They`re talking about Czechoslovakia. They got the old lingo. And his
advisers are out there talking this up. Well, do you really want to go
back to the days of "duck and cover"?
This is HARDBALL.
MATTHEWS: Just 10 days after John Boehner endorsed Mitt Romney, he`s
became Romney`s number one ally on Capitol Hill and spokesman, apparently.
The House speaker has escalated his attacks on President Obama now, saying
the president is AWOL and on a constant campaign and that he`s failed to
lead on the economy and a host of other issues.
Well, the Democratic National Committee responded in kind. I`d say.
The DNC`s Brad Woodhouse hit back on Twitter, calling Boehner, quote, "The
most useless, feckless, weak and failed speaker of the House perhaps in
American history." Wow. This guy knows how to talk!
We`ll be right back.
JOSEPH BIDEN, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Americans know --
Americans know that we can`t go back to the future and see the world
through a cold war prism that is totally out of touch with the realities of
the 21st century.
MATTHEWS: Back to HARDBALL. Does Mitt Romney want to re-fight the
cold war? Well, Vice President Biden left no doubt that he thinks Mitt
Romney is out of his depth, out of touch at -- wrong, actually, in foreign
But before Biden`s speech yesterday, the Romney campaign set up a call
with reporters to serve as a -- what they call a "prebuttal" to Biden`s
speech, to get him before he talks. The problem is, Romney`s foreign
policy advisers wound up making Biden`s points about being -- actually
being old-time cold warriors without even Biden making it. Let`s listen to
PIERRE-RICHARD PROSPER, ROMNEY FOREIGN POLICY ADVISER: Russia -- give
you another example of where we give, Russia gets, and we get nothing in
return. We -- the United States abandoned its missile defense sites in
Poland and Czechoslovakia.
MATTHEWS: Well, Czechoslovakia, as everybody knows, has not existed
as a country since the early `90s. We have the Czech Republic and the
Slovakia when it split into those two countries.
Another of Romney`s foreign policy advisers said Obama`s making the
United States weak and revived an old cold war word. Let`s listen.
JOHN F. LEHMAN, ROMNEY FOREIGN POLICY ADVISER: The reality is, it`s
opening up huge new vulnerabilities. We`re seeing the Soviets pushing into
the Arctic with no response from us.
MATTHEWS: Well, that`s John Lehman of the "600 ship Navy." He did a
good job then. But the Soviets -- they`re gone.
With foreign policy advisers like these, Romney doesn`t need enemies.
Anyway, Nia-Malika Henderson covers politics for "The Washington
Post." Chris Cillizza`s managing editor of Postpolitics.com and author of
"The Fix" on Washingtonpost.com. He`s also an MSNBC contributor. And I
read him all the time.
Look, this -- this -- you guys are both young, but I have to tell you,
this lingo is familiar to my ears. You know, the free world, the Soviets,
Czechoslovakia. I understand how -- my grandpop used to call Connie Mack
Stadium, the old baseball stadium in Philly, Shibe Park because 100 years
before, that`s what it was called.
Right. Right.
MATTHEWS: But you begin to sound like a geezer and a little out of
HENDERSON: No, it`s true.
And I think a lot of the folks who are surrounding Mitt Romney are
from George H.W. Bush`s foreign policy team. And in some ways, you feel
like they can`t quite run on the rhetoric of George W. Bush. So they are
sort of hearkening back to this Reagan era and Bush era of the Cold War.
MATTHEWS: Oh, interesting.
HENDERSON: Yes.
But I also think obviously this is the Democrats making this argument
that this is a throwback. But you also see Romney trying to make the
argument that in some ways, Obama embodies the old soft Democrats who are
soft when it comes to defense policy and national security.
MATTHEWS: Well, Chris, it almost seems more dangerous than comical to
me, because it always seems like neoconservatives, of which this group is
largely made up of we`re talking about, they always have a war they want to
They were randy to get into Iraq and into Afghanistan. They always
want to fight a war. Now it`s Iran that -- I read Krauthammer wants us to
be more aggressive in the arming the rebels in Syria. They always want to
push us to another war over there. It`s not like a comedy team here.
These people are always pushing. They`re always war hawks. And they
always have in their little PEZ dispenser the next little -- the next war
is always waiting its turn. And it`s always like that. They never say,
let`s hold back and see what happens. It`s always, let`s get in there and
CHRIS CILLIZZA, MSNBC POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, I agree this is
serious stuff.
I think, Chris, that sometimes in the political dialogue we go down
these rabbit holes of misstatements and things that don`t matter. This
stuff, how you articulate America`s role in the world does matter in a very
real way. And I was struck -- I talked to Norm Coleman, who is another --
a former Minnesota senator and an adviser, a foreign policy adviser to
I talked to him yesterday. And he said essentially that Barack Obama
represents a break with how America has presented itself to the world since
basically World War II, this peace through strength idea, the idea that
Obama, well, he bows to foreign dictators and he wants to weaken America in
the world. It`s an interesting thread that they`re trying to draw, that
Obama is anomalous -- I think the Obama team would argue -- and I`m no
foreign policy expert, but I think with some justification -- that the
world has changed since the Cold War.
It`s no longer just us and Russia. It`s us and Afghanistan and Syria.
There is a huge number of threats that exist out there. That older
approach doesn`t work as well. But it`s a fascinating sort of a line of
argument on foreign policy that, if not Romney is making, all of his
advisers are trying to craft.
MATTHEWS: Well, our presidents who have been popular in the world
like Kennedy and Eisenhower and all, they were smart about restraint in
U.S. power. They were not hawks.
Anyway, the Obama campaign is out with a new Web ad today narrated by
Bill Clinton that actually plays up Obama`s courage in taking out Osama bin
Laden last year and questions whether Romney would have done the same.
Let`s listen to President Clinton here, at least part of it.
BILL CLINTON, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: That`s one thing
George Bush said that was right. The president is the decider in chief.
Nobody can make that decision for you.
Look, he knew what would happen. Suppose the Navy SEALs had gone in
there and it hadn`t been bin Laden. Suppose they had been captured or
killed. The downside would have been horrible for him.
But he reasoned, I cannot in good conscience do nothing. He took the
harder and the more honorable path and the one that produced in my opinion
the best result.
MATTHEWS: Wow. You can`t do better than that. Bill Clinton giving
you the testimony like that is just for real.
HENDERSON: And, as always, this was the rejoinder to this ad that
they came out with that showed Obama singing and all that sort of stuff.
HENDERSON: But I think one of the things that is apparent here is
that Romney hasn`t necessarily articulated yet what his foreign policy
vision is.
He gave one major speech in October.
MATTHEWS: You`re being kind. He made wild statements about going to
war with Iran.
HENDERSON: He gave one major speech in October. I`m told from his
campaign that at some point in May, he`s going to start ramping...
MATTHEWS: What about his rejoinder to Biden? Biden says he wants to
get tougher with Iran. How can you get tougher with Iran without going to
war right off the bat?
HENDERSON: No, that`s true.
I think his criticism of Obama is that he would really have tougher
MATTHEWS: Do these guys have to bring a war with every new president?
The Bushes all have a war. The first Bush had the Gulf War. The second
Bush had a couple more wars. These guys do like to have something on deck
in the on-deck circle.
HENRY: And they`re out of synch with Americans when they talk about
MATTHEWS: Anyway, you had a thought there, Chris.
CILLIZZA: Chris, I would say take one step back.
I think even what Romney has said -- and I think Nia is right --
there`s been generally a lack of specificity, though he has made some
statements, but a broad lack of specificity on what his foreign policy
vision would be.
CILLIZZA: Why? Why, Chris? Because Mitt Romney served as the
governor of Massachusetts for four years.
This is someone who has -- he`s at least as inexperienced in foreign
policy as Barack Obama was when Barack Obama was elected president of the
United States. And that was the main Republican -- if you remember back,
John McCain`s main attack was, is this guy ready to lead in a complicated
Mitt Romney is not someone with deep knowledge when it comes to
foreign policy. I`m interested to see how they flesh this out if Nia is
right, because he can`t lose -- part of being commander in chief is that
people think you can stand up in the world and represent U.S. interests.
So while I don`t think a lot of people will vote on foreign policy in
this election, Chris, if you can`t pass that test, if you can`t clear that
hurdle, all the economic stuff may not matter.
MATTHEWS: Well, just remember Barack Obama made his bones, if you
will, in politics and actually beat Senator Clinton at the time because he
came out as a state senator opposing the Iraq war.
MATTHEWS: This guy Romney is interested in making money. He would
like to be president now. He`s made a lot of money. It`s time to do
something different.
But he`s never expressed any interest in the world, any interest in
the foreign policy, never written anything about it. And now he comes out
and says, I think I`m going to develop a foreign policy. Well, he`s going
to do is sit-down with a bunch right-wingers and neocons and he`s going to
do what they want to do. And that`s the scary part.
He doesn`t have a gut interest in foreign policy, and that`s the scary
part, or we would know what it was by now. He`s a grownup, by the way. We
should know where he stands.
Anyway, Nia? Right.
MATTHEWS: Anyway, Nia-Malika Henderson of "The Washington Post" and
Chris Cillizza of "The Washington Post," have a nice weekend, guys. Enjoy
the big festivities this weekend which I say everybody here can watch on
MATTHEWS: Newt Gingrich, by the way, lost his Secret Service
protection, but he`s still going to zoos. Now, this will be one of the
strangest things in history. People are going to say, what did this guy
have to do with running for president and going to zoos all the time?
That`s what he does. You can`t beat it.
He`s created the sideshow, and he`s in it tonight. We will be right
MATTHEWS: Back to HARDBALL and now for the "Sideshow."
First up, a slip-up that says it all. We see it time and time again,
Republicans dancing around questions on President Obama`s religion and
whether he was born in the United States or not.
REP. JOHN BOEHNER (R-OH), SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The president says
he`s a Christian. I accept him at his word.
SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL (R-KY), MINORITY LEADER: I think the faith that
most Americans are questioning is the president`s faith in the government.
The president says he`s a Christian. I take him at his word.
NEWT GINGRICH (R), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I take him at his word.
BOEHNER: The American people have the right to think what they want
to think.
GINGRICH: I think it is very bizarre that he is desperately concerned
to apologize to Muslim religious fanatics.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: He is an avowed Muslim. Why isn`t something
being done to get him out of the government? He has no legal right to be
calling himself president.
RICK SANTORUM (R), FORMER U.S. SENATOR: Yes. Well, I`m doing my best
to try to get him out of the government.
MATTHEWS: Oh, Santorum had no problem with that.
Well, it came full circle this week. Dave Spence, a Republican
candidate for governor in Missouri, got caught facing backlash when he said
he didn`t know if the president was a Muslim. Well, one of the candidate`s
aides then put together a list of go-to responses for Spence in case his
blunder came up at an event this week.
Well, the snafu? The aide actually e-mailed her pointers to a group
of reporters. So what he was Spence supposed to say if was asked about his
earlier comment? Plan A, "This is not an issue that I felt was pertinent
to my candidacy for governor and expressed those sentiments."
Well, if that one doesn`t do the trick, there`s plan B for the
candidate -- quote -- "I will be clear. President Obama says he`s a
Christian, and I take him at his word."
And if all else fails, here was his pivot point, if needed: "Return to
jobs plan."
My question to the staffer and to the consultant and to the candidate,
why not just say, I believe President Obama is a Christian? That`s pretty
simple and it gets it behind you.
And while the real face-off between Mitt Romney and President Obama is
taking place at center stage, we will be counting on their "Saturday Night
Live" imitations to give us some laughs along the way.
NBC`s David Gregory caught up with Jason Sudeikis and Fred Armisen and
asked them for their in-character pitch for the presidency.
JASON SUDEIKIS, ACTOR: I go across this country and I see so many
happy and unhappy, you know, men and women and grandmothers.
FRED ARMISEN, ACTOR: Let me take an applause break. Thank you.
Thank you.
SUDEIKIS: How do you compete with this guy?
I could buy the White House. I could flip it.
ARMISEN: Take it. Move it.
MATTHEWS: Well, I still miss Darrell Hammond doing Bill Clinton.
That was the very best.
And, yesterday, we looked back at some of Newt Gingrich`s greatest
hits and misses for the campaign trail. But there`s more. Guess where he
opted to kick off the final weekend of his run for presidency?
GINGRICH: I have been to about 100 zoos. When I was here, they fed
the meerkats. It was unbelievable. I never fully understood before, but
the speed and the alertness.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: T-Rex, that was also what the Secret Service
called you, right?
GINGRICH: Yes. That`s because I used to have a T-Rex skull in the
office when I was speaker. It`s now at the Smithsonian. I don`t mind
petting a rhino. I just don`t want to be one.
MATTHEWS: I wonder if he got his animal crackers. Anyway, that was
Newt going to the zoo.
But next, we know the Republicans vowed to make President Obama a
failure. We know that from the beginning. But now we have learned they
started hatching their plan on the very day he took office. They had a
dinner that night to plan his demise.
You`re watching HARDBALL.
BERTHA COOMBS, CNBC CORRESPONDENT: I`m Bertha Coombs with your CNBC
"Market Wrap."
The stocks all end on a positive note, the Dow Jones industrials
gaining 24, the S&P 500 up three, and the Nasdaq ending at 18 to be the
best index of the week. Economic growth slowing to 2.2 percent in the
first quarter. That`s down from 3 percent at the end of last year. But
consumer sentiment increased slightly in April to its highest level since
February of 2011.
Meantime, earnings from Ford came in ahead of expectations. And Merck
also turning in a better-than-expected profit report.
That`s it from CNBC. We`re first and worldwide -- now back to
MATTHEWS: Welcome back to HARDBALL.
If you have thought Republicans are plotting to kill the president`s
agenda, you`re right. But do you know a group of influential House members
and senators met to start their planning just hours after President Obama
was inaugurated here in this city?
A terrific new book about the 112th Congress details the gutsy GOP
agenda from that cold night in 2009 all the way through the debt talks,
when Speaker John Boehner faced a revolt from many members of his own party
as he tried to compromise with President Obama.
Well, the book is called, "Do Not Ask What Good We Do."
It`s author is Robert Draper. And he`s with us now along with
"Washington Post" columnist Eugene Robinson.
Robert, congratulations on the book.
Explain, if you will, a couple things, but start with the title, "Do
Not Ask What Good We Do."
ROBERT DRAPER, AUTHOR, "DO NOT ASK WHAT GOOD WE DO": Sure.
Yes, the title actually comes from the one of the first federal
congressmen, Chris, Fisher Ames from Dedham, Massachusetts. He was the
author of the final language of the First Amendment and the first great
orator of Congress.
But after serving first four terms in the House, he quit in disgust,
upset by partisan factions. And he wrote a friend, and said, do not ask
what good we do. That is not a fair question in these days of faction.
MATTHEWS: Well, let`s take a look.
You wrote about a meeting held by many top Republicans in 2009,
including Cantor, McCarthy, Paul Ryan, a handful of Republican senators,
Newt Gingrich, and the pollster Frank Luntz.
You say in part: "The Republicans had agreed on a way forward. Go
after Geithner. Show united and unyielding opposition to the president`s
economic policies. Begin attacking vulnerable Democrats on the airwaves.
Win the spear point of the House in 2010. Jab Obama relentlessly in 2011.
Win the White House and the Senate in 2012."
"`And you will remember this day,` Newt Gingrich proclaimed to the
others, as they said goodbye. `You will remember this as the day the seeds
of 2012 were sown.`"
Well, that`s kind of grandiose. But, anyway -- grandiloquent.
This decision to destroy Obama, which was also echoed by Mitch
McConnell in the Senate, how significant was that early decision; we, the
Republican leadership, we, the Republican right wing, we, the Tea Partiers,
will destroy this president before he gets started?
DRAPER: Well, basically, Chris, they had -- that meeting, by the way,
was called originally just really to drown their sorrows.
It was orchestrated by the pollster Frank Luntz. But it evolved from
guys sitting around feeling sorry for themselves, to them talking about
what had gone wrong with the Republican Party, to then strategizing on how
to retake power.
And, by the way, one person who was not there was the ranking head of
the -- of the Republicans in the House, John Boehner, who would later
become the speaker of the House. He was not invited because he and Frank
Luntz didn`t get along.
But in the course of this, they decided Obama at that point had a
stratospheric popularity. In fact, a lot of those guys had gone to the
inauguration and seen the 1.8 million people out there on the Mall. But
they figure instead to go after his legislative agenda, to show unity, to
vote lockstep, you know, unanimously against the stimulus, to attack his
cabinet members, and as well to attack every freshman, Democrat, and others
with the intent, then, of regaining the House, using that as the spear
Gene, there`s something about this, it seems, for all the attack on
President Obama as being European, this is very European. This absolute
discipline, like the British Labour Party, you know all about, you`ve
covered it.
EUGENE ROBINSON, MSNBC POLITICAL ANALYST: Yes, of course.
MATTHEWS: Where they all vote in lockstep, they don`t wear uniforms,
exactly, but they act like they do. Everything is absolutely we vote the
party leaders, and we destroy the other party.
ROBINSON: Right. That`s why the party in power in Britain gets to
do whatever it wants to do, essentially.
MATTHEWS: Because there`s no room to compromise.
ROBINSON: And that`s what I find so fascinating about what they
accomplish. I`d love to hear Robert Draper speak on this point. How do
they enforce this discipline? You spent time on Capitol Hill.
MATTHEWS: Yes, I did. You couldn`t enforce it.
ROBINSON: And the idea that you can get unanimity in a caucus on
anything, really, that no member has a special reason in his or her
district why they have to buck the leadership and vote a different way,
that didn`t happen this time. They managed to keep --
MATTHEWS: Let me ask you about Boehner. Boehner seems like a
regular Republican, the kind I grew up with who makes deals, who
compromised, who has an ideology, but he`s willing to accept the fact that
the goal was to govern the country, not just to protest. I get the sense
that these Tea Partiers came to Congress not participate in government but
to protest it.
DRAPER: No, I think --
MATTHEWS: Yes?
DRAPER: Yes, I think that`s an acute point. I mean, I`m -- and
Speaker Boehner would say, I take him at his word, that he wants to
legislate, that he wants to govern, but, you know, he became speaker of the
House because of these freshmen who rode into town in a Tea Party way. And
these guys were -- not of them willing (ph) to compromise.
As Raul Labrador, the Tea Party freshman Idaho put it to me, "I
didn`t come to Washington to join a team." He came to represent his
constituents. His constituents and a lot of others believed there was too
much spending going on, that Obamacare needed to be rolled back, and that`s
where they planted their flag. You know, it was not let`s figure out a way
to legislate with the Democrats and the Senate.
MATTHEWS: Yes, but this is all nonsense. Let me tell you, Robert,
I`m just going to make a statement here. It`s all nonsense, because you
can`t just vote against spending. Most of the government spending is in
the entitlement programs. Most of it grows naturally because of
demographic, races, people are getting older, getting sicker, and they grow
these programs naturally.
The trick is to pass changes and modifications and restraints. And
the only way to do that is to get a deal from the other side, right?
DRAPER: Of course.
MATTHEWS: You don`t just sit there. If you just sit there, the tree
keeps growing, government keeps getting bigger.
DRAPER: Yes.
MATTHEWS: So, this is a lie to go back to your people in the rural
areas and say, we Tea Partiers won`t vote for spending. No, unless you get
a deal with the Democratic side to reduce government spending and race a
little revenue, the government will keep growing. You`re not doing a job.
DRAPER: Right. Well, but, Chris --
MATTHEWS: I don`t think they know that.
DRAPER: Yes. Well, to give Republicans their due, I mean, they
passed the Ryan budget plan and the Senate refused to act on it. They
basically tabled it.
MATTHEWS: That didn`t do anything. That didn`t reduce the size of
government, did it?
DRAPER: What it addressed was entitlement reform and the Democrats
didn`t show an appetite for doing that.
MATTHEWS: So, it didn`t get done.
DRAPER: Yes. Well, that`s --
MATTHEWS: Therefore, the Tea Partiers got nothing done. That`s what
I`m asking.
DRAPER: Sure. No.
MATTHEWS: Eugene, this is the problem. If you want to cut the
government spending, you have to get both sides to agree to it, you got to
get the president to sign it, and that means you got to compromise. Or
else you`re just protesting.
ROBINSON: When you`re working on a bill, do you want policy or do
you want an issue? They wanted an issue. They wanted to make a stand.
And so, in that sense, the way the Tea Party freshmen have been voting is a
protest. It`s a statement rather than an actual, honest attempt to enact
policy, because they know that`s -- they know what they want is not going
to happen.
MATTHEWS: I don`t think people should be paid $170,000 a year to
hold a placard in the air. These are not a protest. They get a staff,
they a get allowances to go back and forth. They get fed. Everything for
them to participate in government and all these Tea Partiers do is hold
placards in the air and it doesn`t get anything done.
Anyway, great book. Anyway, the book is called "Do Not Ask What Good
We Do."
Thank you very much, Robert Draper. You`re going to make news with
this book.
DRAPER: My pleasure.
MATTHEWS: And thank you, Eugene Robinson.
Coming up on Monday, by the way, former Pennsylvania Governor Ed
Rendell is going to be on this show. We`re going to talk about the
Clintons and how Big Bill, that`s President Clinton, is already paving the
way for a possible run. In fact, to begin to look a plausible run for
Hillary Clinton four years from now.
Up next, comedy and Washington don`t always mix, but tomorrow night`s
White House Correspondent dinner, which you can watch in this network, is
the exception. We look back over President Obama`s funnier moments from
past dinners and we got a writer to join us.
And this is HARDBALL.
MATTHEWS: Boy, Americans down on the federal government. Check out
the numbers on the new Pew poll. Sixty-one percent say they`re satisfied
with their local government, 52 percent say they`re satisfied with their
state government, but only 33 percent say the same thing about the federal
government. And that`s the lowest level of favorability for the federal
government in 15 years. That would be going back to 1997, back to Clinton.
We`ll be right back.
BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Others say that I`m
arrogant, but I found a really great self-help tool for this. My poll
MATTHEWS: Wow. We`re back.
That was President Obama poking fun at fun at himself at last year`s
White House correspondent dinner, the annual event that brings a bevy of
journalists, politicos and Hollywood celebrities to the Capitol here. And
this year, it`s going to be held tomorrow night, the big one. You can
watch it right here on MSNBC.
So, up until six months ago, Jon Lovett was a speechwriter for
President Obama. He helped craft the president`s speech for last year`s
dinner and he has a hand in this year`s as well. He`s now worked as a
comedy writer now.
Congratulations. You got a lot of nerve to be doing that.
We have to look at a couple of them, let`s look at some of the
president`s jokes from last year, without saying exactly who wrote them.
Just days before last year`s White House correspondent dinner, of course,
President Obama released his long form birth certificate, putting a lid on
the birther movement for most and providing fodder for the following
Saturday`s speech.
Here`s some birther humor. Let`s watch.
OBAMA: My fellow, Americans.
Tonight, for the first time, I am releasing my official birth video.
Call Disney if you don`t believe me, they have the original long form
MATTHEWS: And, now, this is the richest thing I have ever seen in
White House correspondents. Here he is sticking it to the guy who was the
leader birther at the time, because one tried to ride the discredit birther
movement or harder than Donald Trump.
Here, President Obama didn`t get mad at last year`s dinner. He did
better. He got even. You get to watch this whole thing and watch the
reaction now from the Donald.
OBAMA: No one is happier. No one is prouder to put this birth
certificate matter to rest than the Donald. And that`s because he can
finally get back to focusing on the issues that matter.
Seriously, just recently, in an episode of "Celebrity Apprentice," at
the steak house, the men`s cooking team did not impress the judges from
Omaha Steaks. And there was a lot of blame to go around. But you, Mr.
Trump, recognized the problem was a lack of leadership, and so, ultimately
you didn`t blame Lil Jon or Meat Loaf, you fired Gary Busey. And these are
the kinds of decisions that would keep me up at night.
MATTHEWS: I`m watching Trump. He can`t stand it. He`s basically
being shown up here with a slow build up to -- you`re a horse`s ass, which
is basically for raising this issue.
JON LOVETT, FORMER OBAMA SPEECHWRITER: That`s what you said. That`s
your characterization of what we said, but --
MATTHEWS: Right. What was your characterization?
LOVETT: I think we got him pretty well.
MATTHEWS: Tell me about the jokes and how you work these things up?
How you go after, put something a little like that.
LOVETT: Well, we meet, and there`s a few of us, Jon Favreau,
director of speechwriting, David Axelrod, one of the president`s advisors,
and a few others, and we get together and we start talking about topics.
The president sometimes will have ideas about the kind of things he wants
to talk about. And we get a list of all of the things we want to make fun
of and all things we want to make fun of about ourselves, because there`s a
great chance to, you know, the president is not afraid to poke fun of
himself, and I think you have to do that if you`re going to make fun of a
lot of other people, too.
MATTHEWS: How important is it that he has a good night? Does he
get the stakes if he has a flat night?
LOVETT: You know, I don`t know what the stakes are. You know, I
don`t know how much things like this matter on a night in the sense that,
you know, presidents have good nights at these things and bad nights at
these things, I don`t know how much they matter. But what really matter is
if you do a great job or if you make some points that are important and not
just at a night like this.
I mean, I think that there`s always room for a good joke that makes a
substantive argument that will breakthrough in a way that, you know, a dry
policy speech, not that the president gives those, would ever breakthrough.
So --
MATTHEWS: The thing is, Jon, that great presidents like Roosevelt
and Kennedy and Reagan, were always really good at this, and they used it,
like the president did there with Trump, to really win the fight with their
LOVETT: Yes, I mean, I think this president does that, too. He`s
often used humor on the trail and in the White House to make a point here.
MATTHEWS: Well, I respect you a lot for what you`ve done as a White
House speechwriter. But most importantly, trying to make it in Hollywood
as a writer.
LOVETT: Yes.
MATTHEWS: Good for you.
Anyway, I want to send my wishes to my good friend, Rick Hertzberg,
who was a top speechwriter when I work for President Carter. He`s
recovering right now from some surgery. Go, Rick. I told you I`d do this.
When we return, "Let Me Finish," with why the subversive influence of
angry, right wing money in this election is just bad for the country.
You`re watching HARDBALL.
MATTHEWS: "Let Me Finish" tonight with this:
I fear, I really do, the evil influence of big bad money in politics.
Democracy isn`t a joke, it shouldn`t be anyway. And when a few guys with
billions of dollars or influence with big money people can throw enormous
amounts of money into a political race, they can destroy democracy. Yes,
they can.
Just think about what a million dollars in TV advertising really
nasty stuff can do to a race for Congress somewhere. All of a sudden, the
airwaves are saturated with negative TV ads. They`re all over the place on
entertainment tonight, on sports, wherever you go, you can`t escape the
relentless, nasty assault on some candidates.
Well, you think this doesn`t matter, good luck.
We saw what Willie Horton did, the one Democratic candidate for
president, so was swift boating did to another. Just imagine someone out
there saying what a bad person you are, telling everyone you know what a
bad person you are.
OK, imagine someone spending tens of millions of dollars buying TV
time to say what an evil SOB you are. Don`t think that will change some
opinions about you? Think again.
Not everybody pays attention to politics like the people who watch
this show, some hardworking people just have time to check in around
election time. And what do they see on TV? Endless streams of bad news
about some guy they once thought was OK, but now can`t hear a good word
about him or her, just this endless spew of negativity.
I don`t know how we`re going to live with this stuff. We`re still
calling ourselves a democracy out there. I don`t know when the Supreme
Court is going to look again at that monster they created in Citizens
United and kill it before it destroys the very democracy on which the
Congress, and presidency, and yes, the courts now precariously rest.
And that`s HARDBALL for now. Thanks for being with us.
"POLITICS NATION" with Al Sharpton starts right now.
United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed,
transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written
permission of CQ-Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark,
copyright or other notice from copies of the content.>


text:
So I have no deals. I have no deals because I didn't bother looking last night because I was so tired and full after a wonderful meal at my grandparents that I promptly fell halfway asleep while watching So You Think You Can Dance and forgot that it was even Thursday today.
Sorry to disappoint. Instead, in this wonderful week of losing my mind, I decided to give you, what I think is an entertaining rant on dentists and why I loathe them. You see, I was born without any wisdom teeth in my head, which one of my best friends once called me a freak for, and I like to think of it as a more evolved species, since you get them ripped out anyways. I also don't have a twelve year molar. Remember these facts, they will come into play later on.
Now, according to my 'How Well Do You Know Me" quiz via the lovely creeping site, Facebook, my most favorite feature of myself are my teeth. Believe me, teeth are super important to me, for whatever reason. I brush twice a day, if not more, whiten with crest white strips on occasion and did the whole braces for 6 months thing plus retainers for a year.
When I was little I LOVED the dentist. They always told me what a good job I was doing and that I had such nice teeth. Then you get a sweet prize out of the chest at the front of the office. There were fish in a tank to look at (think finding nemo and it kind of makes me sad now), everyone was very nice, and I got shiny clean teeth.
Then in college, I had a blood blister form behind one of my front teeth. It was incredibly painful and I had to have emergency dental work to pop the sucker. I went to a new dentist since it was about time that I stopped going to the children's dentist. I went on recommendation of a friend and LOVED the doctor I met with. He was so kind, complementary of my teeth and super gentle, which was nice because shoving a needle in that blister hurt pretty bad.
I decided to make an appointment to go back to the dentist for my cleaning. I got a different dentist in the office. This is where my hatred began.
She was rude, told me I wasn't brushing properly, that I had gingivitis and wasn't taking good care of my teeth at all. Um, I was shocked, to say the least. I hadn't changed anything about my brushing habits and I always get complements on my teeth. I never returned after that trip and that is where the disliking of dentists began.
Finally I found a new dentist close to my house that my mom really liked. I trusted her judgement and also fell for the koi pond outside the treatment rooms. He seemed nice, until he started pushing me. Remember how I didn't have the 12 year molars and wisdom teeth. Well this was the dentist who recommended that I needed to get an implant to make up for the extra space in the back of my mouth. An implant includes drilling a screw into your jawbone, and four months later getting a tooth that screws on top of that screw in your jaw after your jawbone has 'accepted' the screw.
I held out for a long time, but his persistence made me think that my whole entire mouth would fall apart if I didn't get the surgery he recommended. I finally scheduled the consultation and the doctors and staff members told me, oh it's not a big deal, you'll be back to normal life, normal eating in no time.
LIES I TELL YOU. I couldn't eat on that side of my mouth for a good two months. I was so sick after the surgery I couldn't eat for 3 days, and I was throwing up and couldn't go to work. Now that I have the tooth, a year later, I still feel like the process was worthless. Insurance didn't really cover much of it and I still think they should have just ripped out the top tooth and be done with it, since they were worried it would just 'keep growing downward' since it had nothing to 'hit' to stop its growing.
This leads me to recent occurrences. I went to the dentist back in February, and they insisted I needed x-rays. I told them that I didn't think it was necessary and I had just gotten them with the follow up of the implant surgery. Then the hygienist brought in the doctor to consult me on why I needed these x-rays. The last x-rays showed that the tooth was in place and the screw was good and everything was kosher in the implant department. He told me he needed to make sure. If he needed to make sure then he should pay for these $75 dollar x-rays and the pain of the 'bite wings' shoved into his mouth.
I repeatedly told him that I didn't need x-rays but they kept insisting. I almost, almost made a scene, but finally just rolled my eyes and gave in. Who gets the bill for $175 dentist appointment now? ME. Who would much rather
save their money spend their money on shoes, food, running gear, and clothes? The best part of it all?
He and the hygienist tell me how great my teeth look and how great I am at flossing.
I haven't flossed a day in my life. Bad, I know, but funny how they complement me on my flossing.
This all was because the account payable called me this morning requested her $175 dollar check and gave me a sad "ahhh ohhhhh" when I said I didn't have dental insurance. I told her I didn't want the x-rays and she said "Yeaaaaaa wellllllll we hadddddddddd to take them." Where are those x-rays now? Sitting in the filing cabinet.
Dentist, our relationship is strained and I'm over you and your surgeries and your x-rays.
This morning I went for a slow 3 miler. I can't find Claude's charging station and I'm starting to freak out that I may have to use someone else's down in SD this weekend.
On another horribly sad note, My 1st gen. iPhone has lived a long wonderful life and now is very sick. You know how some of you have pets and kids. Well this is my 1st born. Of course, I think Apple put a spell on it because there are rumors that in two months a new iPhone will be released. Hang in there little buddy! I don't really get calls or texts, and when I do it's like 4-10 at a time. I can still call people though, but it won't hold a charge at all, so he's just resting on the charger all day long. I am hoping to keep him going for as long as possible because 2 months of me without a phone could cause some havoc.
Tomorrow is a new day. Tomorrow is one more day until San Diego, and also Foto Friday!


text:
Over the Holidays Earth Kitt died of colon cancer at the age of 81. She was known cat like features and signature purr. Miss Kitt was also known for being the original Catwoman and singer of "Santa Baby." She also starred in Harriet the Spy and Boomerang. She was a legend and will truly be missed. R.I.P EARTHA KITT.
Friday, December 26, 2008
R.I.P. Eartha Kitt
Posted by Doe Cheese at 11:29 AM 2 comments
Labels: r.i.p.
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)


text:
MONTREAL – The UFC might not be able to hold up the bantamweight division much longer for injured champ Dominick Cruz (19-1 MMA, 2-0 UFC).
"He's our champ, he's our guy, and he needs time," UFC President Dana White on Thursday told MMAjunkie.com (www.mmajunkie.com). "But we're getting to the point now where we really need to make a decision."
White, who spoke to reporters following a pre-event news conference in support of UFC 158, wants to schedule a meeting with Cruz in Las Vegas to talk about the champ's future. Cruz hasn't fought since October 2011, when he made his second title defense against now-flyweight champ Demetrious Johnson.
In the meantime, the UFC has crowned an interim bantamweight champion, Renan Barao, who defended his title this past month against Michael McDonald.
The promotion could strip Cruz of his undisputed title and give it to Barao. Whatever is decided, though, White said it needs to be done soon, as much for Barao's sake as for Cruz.
"We've seen in the past, you can't sit around and wait for guys to come back or you will make no money and you'll be out too long, yourself," he said of the interim champ. "So he's got to get out there and stay active. Every time this kid fights and wins, it benefits him financially and physically. You have to stay active as a fighter."
A torn ACL scratched Cruz's return at UFC 148, and complications from corrective surgery further delayed his recovery. This past month,
"Everybody wants a timeline as much as I do," he said. "I would like to say, 'In six months, starting today, I will be back.' I can't do that. It's up to my doctors. It's up to my physical therapists."
That uncertainty is the cause of White's concern. Although the UFC president expressed great respect for Cruz, he admitted that no champ had ever been sidelined so long.
"This poor kid … I've never seen anybody with more bad luck than Cruz, man," White said. "And for him, coming back into this division, you know the way the sport is to have been off for over two years."
White, however, wouldn't commit to a cutoff date for possibly stripping Cruz of the title. That decision will be made behind closed doors, if at all.
"This is stuff that needs to be talked about with him, and even if I had a decision about him, I wouldn't say it here," White said. "He deserves the respect to come out to Vegas and sit down and talk about it."
In the meantime, Barao will defend the interim title for a second time when he meets Eddie Wineland in the main event of UFC 161 this June in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada.
For the latest on UFC 161, as well as the rest of the UFC's upcoming schedule, stay tuned to the UFC Rumors section of the site.
(Pictured: Dominick Cruz)


text:
DIY: advent calendar
Other Stories
24 comments:
Such a fab idea, Jen! Love it!ReplyDelete
This is just a wonderful Advent Calendar. Great Idea.ReplyDelete
Wow, that's lovely! great inspiration :-)ReplyDelete
What a fab and environmentally friendly idea.xReplyDelete
I'm so curious about what's inside!ReplyDelete
Love it! Thanks for sharing :) AnnieReplyDelete
Love it! Seems simple and easy but still looks classy :)ReplyDelete
ok this i can do! thanks! :)ReplyDelete
Great idea! Love that you used metal for the tags instead of just paper :)ReplyDelete
LOVE your advent calendar!ReplyDelete
this is the prettiest calendar ive seen yet!ReplyDelete
Most fun advent calendar ever! What made you decide on the name 'Israel'?ReplyDelete
simple AND beautiful.... I really have to hurry up now with my christmas calendars - only two more days to go, help!!!ReplyDelete
- SandyNovember 27, 2012
Such a lovely idea! Tkx for sharing. I should make one for my lil galReplyDelete
i love this, and love the blog girl. keep it up! can't wait to read more!ReplyDelete
love, rach.
It's so amazing Jennifer, what a great spin!ReplyDelete
The best advent calendar yet!ReplyDelete
i am quoting ann when i say this is the best advent calendar yet! haha. she took the words right out of my mouth. i've never seen anything like this before!ReplyDelete
love it!!!ReplyDelete
Nice and fresh idea!ReplyDelete
What a great idea for an advent calendar! I am so going to have to try that! I really like your blog name.ReplyDelete
How clever!ReplyDelete
I LOVE this idea! Very sophisticated, but still simple and inexpensive. The paper bags give you a little more room for including some larger treats and gifts, too. I just made and advent calendar from old watchmaker tins, but only because I had them already (used them for scrapbooking storage at one time).ReplyDelete
Thank you for your comments, I love hearing from you!
Questions, comments or sponsorship inquires, please contact me via the 'contact' link.


text:
If you want a thriving Career or Boost in your job, then MCSA-SQL 2016 BI Development is the best way. When you approach the Microsoft MCSA-SQL 2016 BI Development then a world of opportunities is waiting for you. We make this achievement easier for you by offering braindumps at Examsvce.com. It is an authentic and verified exam content that helps you in achieving good scores in the exam. The braindumps PDF is always helpful for our customers.
The whole content is direct, simple and clear for all the students. Microsoft MCSA-SQL 2016 BI Development IT certification learning is becoming very popular with the passage of time.
- Minimum effort and optimum reward
- Easy and to the point content
- Verified and relevant content
- 100% money back guarantee
- Live chat and online demo
There are VCE Files available at examsvce.com facilitating the customers with the IT certification exam preparation.
Signup now to our newsletter to get the latest updates of our products, news and many more. We do not spam.
A fabulous work!
The first and the foremost impressive thing of Examsvce's PCNSA content is that it boosts up the exam candidates' confidence. The easy content packed in questions and answers encouraged me that I could easily prepare the content and ace the exam. I did the same and passed PCNSA exam with a wonderful score!
Examsvce professional created really an exam oriented study material!
We offer you 30 days money back guarantee. Students, who got failed, even after struggling hard to pass the exams by using our preparation material, are advised to claim our money back guarantee.
Your purchase with ExamsVCE is safe and fast. Your products will be available for immediate download after your payment has been received.
The ExamsVCE website is protected by 256-bit SSL from McAfee, the leader in online security.


text:
Market Explorer gives you deep market insight, showing you the real-time rates of 200+ instruments available for you to trade.
Already on board or new, our promotions and introductory offers ensure there's a good deal available for everyone.
Our commitment to safety assures integrity, so you can concentrate on what's important - trading the markets.
An online cashier to make account funding easy, straight forward and without complicated procedures.
Join one of many award winning partnership schemes. Your ideal program is waiting for you.
Our award-winning, intuitive platforms are equipped with a suite of powerful tools to support your tradingLearn more
International Awards


text:
Really Bad Country Song Titles
"I Gave Her My Heart and a Diamond, and She Clubbed Me With a Spade"
"How Did You Get so Ugly Overnight?"
"Mama Get the Hammer, There's a Fly on Papa's Head"
"I'd Rather Pass a Kidney Stone than Another Night With You"
"I Would've Wrote You a Letter, But I Couldn't Spell "Yuck!"
"My Phone Ain't Been Ringin' So I Guess It Wasn't You"
"They May Put Me In Prison, But They Can't Stop My Face From Breakin' Out"
For the complete list, see http://www.downstream.ca/country1.htm
Received via Greg Galer
Courtesy of George Hupka