text:
One doctor calls the flu vaccine "overpromoted and overhyped," although he hastens to point out that he and his family still get flu shots.
In good years, people ignore the flu vaccine because they think the illness is no big deal. In bad years like this one, they complain that it doesn't work well enough.
But the biggest problem, says Dr. Gregory Poland, a vaccine researcher, is that scientists are still trying to understand the flu virus and come up with a better alternative. That means that every flu season, officials confront the challenge they face this year as deaths and hospitalizations mount: pleading with people to rally behind their best line of defense.
"Like every single man-made product, influenza vaccine is imperfect," said Poland, head of the Vaccine Research Group at the Mayo Clinic. "But I liken it to seat belts. Who would want to be in a crash without a seat belt"
The truth is that the flu shot, with all its imperfections, is as vexing to scientists like Poland as it has been to the general public.
Most Read Nation & World Stories
- Luxury cars, MAGA flags and Facebook invites: How an unknown Idaho family organized the Portland rally that turned deadly
- Police officers not charged for killing Breonna Taylor VIEW
- N95 masks save lives. So why are they still hard to get this far into a pandemic?
- Sports on TV & radio: Local listings for Seattle games and events
- How to create a pandemic pod for safe social interaction
On Friday, federal officials estimated that this year's flu vaccine is only about 60 percent effective. That's better than nothing, said Dr. Edward Ehlinger, the Minnesota health commissioner. But, he admits, "I think we're all in agreement that we need a much better vaccine."
The flu vaccine, Ehlinger said, never has been "one of the star performers."
University of Minnesota scientist Michael Osterholm is even more blunt, calling the flu vaccine "overpromoted and overhyped."
Osterholm, a former Minnesota state epidemiologist, hastens to point out that he and his family still get flu shots. But his research suggests that, over time, the vaccine has worked on little more than half of adults under 65, and offered little if any protection to those most at risk — the elderly.
Osterholm said researchers need at least a billion dollars to develop a better way of protecting people from a disease that kills thousands of Americans, mostly the frail and elderly, every year.
Poland, who has studied vaccines for 25 years, says there are plenty of reasons a particular vaccine might not work.
"Not all people respond to all vaccines," he said. In his research, for example, he found that 10 percent of children have little or no response to the measles vaccine, apparently due to a genetic quirk.
Age makes a difference, too. Scientists have discovered that the older we get, the weaker our immune systems become. As a result, they don't respond as well to vaccines, which are designed to rev up the immune system to fight off disease.
It's even trickier when it comes to the flu, Poland said. Unlike measles, the flu virus changes constantly-so it becomes a moving target for vaccine designers.
When the flu vaccine goes into production, often early in the year, scientists have to guess which strains will be circulating among the general population six to nine months later. "It's why we have to give (a different) vaccine every year," Poland said.
Eventually, Poland says, that should change. Scientists are working on what some call the "Holy Grail" of flu shots: a universal vaccine that would have to be given only two or three times in a lifetime.
Those vaccines, which are in early testing, target microscopic bits of the influenza virus that don't change from year to year. But realistically, he said, it might take up to 10 years before a universal flu vaccine is ready.
In the meantime, Poland says, new flu vaccines have come on the market designed especially for older patients (with quadruple the regular dose) and the needle-averse (a micro-shot). And future flu vaccines might be available by patch.
But until they find a way to eliminate the annual flu shot, he said, they'll always encounter resistance.
"You hear people say, 'It's just the flu … I'm not going to get the vaccine unless I hear that it's a really bad year,' " Poland said.
"Every year, people have to die and be hospitalized before the population tends to take it seriously."
"It's not just about you getting protected, but the people around you," Ehlinger said.
Studies have shown, for example, that vaccinating children can lower the risk of disease for their grandparents.
"Our message is that we need to take flu seriously because it is a serious illness," Ehlinger said. "And the best protection that we do have, although it's not perfect, is flu vaccine."


text: John Lovett, Associate Dean and Daggett Distinguished Professor of Law, at Loyola Law School provided a discussion of negative servitudes under Louisiana and the common law, including recent caselaw at the Real Property Law Committee's monthly meeting on April 30, 2014. Group members discussed various problems that arise in practice under Louisiana's existing code articles. The Committee meets monthly to discuss the latest developments in real property law. In May, the Committee will welcome Scott Gallinghouse and John McCarthy, Counsel, First American Title Insurance Company, who will offer a CLE on "Title Endorsements in Louisiana: Recent Changes in Forms and Underwriting Requirements". For information, please contact NOBA at (504) 525-7453 or email Rebekah Burg.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
- Font:
- +
- -
Guests: Pat Buchanan, Eugene Robinson, Chris Cillizza, Howard Fineman, John Harris, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, David Boise, Chad Griffin
CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: Which way should he go?
Let's play HARDBALL.
Good evening. I'm Chris Matthews up in New York. Leading off tonight: Obama drama. What does President Obama do now? Does he try to appease the angry liberals in his party who believe he's given away the store to Republicans, or does he pull a Clinton and play the role of the moderate, hoping to win back voters in the middle? Right now, he's pleasing no one.
Also, the Republicans showed their hand this weekend, voting against limiting tax cuts to those making less than a million dollars a year. Well, the two questions facing Democrats are, can they make the Republicans pay politically for that stand for the rich? And are the Democrats' other priorities out there—like extending jobless benefits for people out of work, the new START treaty to stop the nuclear war from starting again, "Don't ask, don't tell"—are they worth giving up on the tax breaks and giving them to the rich?
Plus, has the word gone out among some Republicans it's OK now to bash Sarah Palin? Where once was heard a discouraging word, now—or seldom heard, now Palin is taking shots from the likes of Ed Rollins, our own Joe Scarborough, even Barbara Bush. Has someone sounded the dog whistle?
And a federal appeals court heard arguments this afternoon, in fact, on Proposition 8, the ban on same-sex marriage out in California. David Boies, who's fighting to overturn that ban, joins us here tonight.
Finally, another brilliant idea from the people who brought you Tea Party nation. Catch this. Voting rights should be limited to those people who own land. Wow! That's going back. Check out the "Sideshow."
We start with what President Obama should be doing now. John Harris is the brilliant managing editor of Politico, and Chris Cillizza, a young man, is managing editor of Postpolitics.com and an MSNBC contributor. Harris, you are so, so bleedin' smart, and that's why I'm starting the show off with you tonight.
JOHN HARRIS, POLITICO: Thank you, Chris.
MATTHEWS: Everybody is doing—it's all the Obama drama.
HARRIS: But not Cillizza, right?
MATTHEWS: ... I know, liberal and moderate and even some conservatives, are wondering what is President Obama going to do now. Is he going to throw in the towel, give the rich people their tax cuts just to get whatever he can, to salvage this session of Congress, or is he going to fight like Harry Truman, bring down the government, whatever it takes, fight through Christmas, tell the Republicans to take all the blame for not giving us our tax cuts, and just take it like a man, like some people are saying?
MATTHEWS: I'm serious. That's—it's almost getting to be almost about masculinity sometimes with the bloggers. So where are you—where are you on this?
HARRIS: Well, it's obviously not my job to give him advice, but it does seem clear to me that he feels the reason he does not want to play chicken is that he does not feel like that he's got the better end of the bargain. Look, that's why he's looking for a deal, even though Democrats in his own party don't like it, is that he fears the consequences of not...
MATTHEWS: OK, what's his worst fear if he says, I'm not going to give tax cuts to the rich?
HARRIS: His fear that everybody will get tax increase, and they won't look at the nuance of who's to blame for that. They'll just say, Don't like it, and they'll blame the president and say that he's killing jobs and raising taxes in the middle of a bad economy.
MATTHEWS: Well, can't he just come out and say, Well, that's not the truth? The truth is that the only reason you don't have your tax cut is the rich are holding us hostage—I mean, the Republicans are holding us hostage so the rich can get what they don't need, more of a tax break. Why doesn't he just say that and take the heat over Christmas, take the heat through New Year's until the Republicans say uncle?
HARRIS: Because I think the Republicans feel like they're not going to say uncle. They feel they've got the better hand to play. And Obama, for all his—all his noises about wanting a deal must be making a similar calculation, Chris.
MATTHEWS: Well, that could be it. Let me go—let me go right to Chris Cillizza for another analysis. Neither one of you can take positions, of course, but you can give me the smart move if I ask for it, maybe. What's the smart move for him to do right now? Throw in the towel, have a nice Christmas with the rich getting their tax cuts and maybe some getting some bennies on the side, like extended unemployment benefits for the working people who are out of work, and maybe "Don't ask, don't tell," and maybe even new START, the nuclear treaty?
Chris, I think—you know, you mentioned Clinton in the opening, and I think that's the road Obama is headed. If you listened to him in Winston-Salem today, it seemed like he said, Look, we're going to get to a compromise. And the Clinton lesson there—live to fight another day. John knows this a lot better than me, but Bill Clinton survived by surviving, by sort of understanding the fights you could win and the fights you couldn't win.
I think—you raised a question, Why doesn't he just dare Republicans to keep fighting? Two reasons. One, I don't know that they have the Democratic votes. You saw four Democrats on the $250,000 or less cross and vote against them. You saw four Democrats on the million or less tax cuts vote against them. And number two, there's...
MATTHEWS: ... a majority.
CILLIZZA: But Chris—Chris, one quick thing. Politics—you know this better than me. Politics often is about what fits on bumper sticker. The Republicans message out of this is, Democrats raise taxes. The Democratic message out of this is, Well, we did raise taxes, but only on rich people. It's just a two-part argument versus a one-part argument. I hate to say it, but sometimes simple works better than even slightly more complicated in politics.
MATTHEWS: Well, let's take a look at Frank Rich this weekend. He's the brilliant columnist, liberal columnist from "The New York Times." Used to be theater critic. And he's offering some, I think, theatrical direction to the president. I'm not sure he's right. In fact, I wonder. But here he is. He says, "The real problem is that he"—the president—
"is so indistinct, no one across the entire political spectrum knows who he is. A chief executive who repeatedly presents himself as a conciliator forever searching for the good side of all adversaries and convening summits in the end comes across as weightless, if not AOL."
John Harris, do you think that's fair, that this president's weightless?
HARRIS: I think it's premature because nobody would have said that about Bill Clinton. He got a reputation as somebody who would be—could meet his adversaries in the middle, but also was willing to stand tough against them. But nobody was saying that about Bill Clinton in late 1994, the equivalent period for Obama now, or even early 1995. The climactic event didn't come from—until a year from now, with the government shutdown. That's when people said, Look, Clinton's got the reasonable position, but he's also got spine. So I think you're judging Obama too early...
MATTHEWS: Yes.
HARRIS: ... in what's really going to be a two-year-long...
MATTHEWS: You mean Frank Rich is.
HARRIS: Two years. And it sounds like maybe you're sympathetic...
MATTHEWS: No, no, no. I'm only...
HARRIS: ... to the idea that...
MATTHEWS: ... presenting it.
HARRIS: ... Obama's being wimpy.
MATTHEWS: You'll—you'll hear at the end...
HARRIS: OK. Yes, I do believe...
MATTHEWS: ... of the show where I'm at.
MATTHEWS: Let me go right now to Cillizza.
HARRIS: ... believe that Frank Rich is being...
MATTHEWS: So you don't believe...
HARRIS: ... premature.
MATTHEWS: You think Frank Rich is too tough. Let me go to—show Bill Maher, who's done it kind of in a really sarcastic way. Well, Bill's pretty smart, too, in his own way. Here he is, in a kind of a comedic way, sticking it to the president on CNN this weekend. Let's listen to Bill Maher.
BILL MAHER, "REAL TIME WITH BILL MAHER": But I'm so disappointed that he just seems to be another in a long line of Democrats that come across as wimpy and wussy and whatever word you want to ascribe to it, of not standing up for what they believe in enough.
MATTHEWS: You know, it's like this going wobbly—I don't know why Maher's doing it. Everybody's doing this masculine test, like, it could be the president is right...
MATTHEWS: ... Harris is suggesting he might be. He might be right in knowing he doesn't have enough marbles to beat the Republicans, that in the end, they'll beat him on the tax issue, which is their strength, and he's not going into the valley of death, as some people are arguing he should. But everybody's turning it into a test of machismo here. Is that fair?
CILLIZZA: Well, Chris, I would say that I think, you know, dating back to Jimmy Carter and somewhat through the Clinton era, and certainly now, Democrats always want a president who's going to fight for progressive policies. I think they thought that's what they were getting with Obama. Though, frankly, if you look back at his career before the presidency, it's largely as a conciliator and a bridge builder. That's where, I think, he views his expertise and his unique skill set, not as somebody...
MATTHEWS: Yes.
CILLIZZA: ... who sort of says, I'm going to—here's the line and we're not crossing it. I think the left wants him to fight more, clearly. The question is, is would him fighting more amount to anything? Would him fighting more—I keep coming back to something—John made this point. I think it's the right one. Do they have the votes? Do people like Ben Nelson in Nebraska and these sorts of people who represent these states that are clearly conservative...
CILLIZZA: ... went very strongly Republican in 2010, are up in 2012 -
do they want to take a series of tax votes? My guess is the answer to that is no.
MATTHEWS: OK. You know, the funny thing this weekend...
HARRIS: Chris...
MATTHEWS: ... John Harris, is that the theater—the former theater critic, Frank Rich, who everybody reads on Sunday in "The Times" is giving particular advice. He said this president should sort of act like Ralph Cramden, the guy who was always—the overheated Irish guy—I thought he was Irish anyway—in "The Honeymooners." My grandmother, in fact, was Irish as heck and she wouldn't watch it because she knew too many guys like him!
MATTHEWS: And the fact is, this guy was always, "Alice, to the moon!" He was going to punch his wife if she fought with him one more time. And my question here is, is that even close to the persona of our president, Ralph Cramden?
HARRIS: No. I mean, he would look ridiculous if he tried to do a Ralph Cramden impersonation, and that's not what people voted for in 2008. But yes, he needs to sharpen his definition, but he needs to do it on his terms. This is going to be disappointing to Democrats on Capitol Hill...
MATTHEWS: Yes.
HARRIS: ... because what's right for Obama, his imperatives, aren't necessarily what's right for them.
MATTHEWS: Well said.
HARRIS: I think people want to see the president being reasonable and getting things done but willing to fight for principle. Democrats on the Hill typically benefit through sharper lines, through more partisan divisions. That's not typically a winning strategy for presidents.
MATTHEWS: Because they all represent gerrymandered districts, and they can't lose a general election if they're—if they're imbecilical (ph) they can't lose a general election...
CILLIZZA: Chris, just very quickly, to John's point—you know, you can like or hate the way that Obama is carrying himself, but the only thing worse than what Democrats think he's doing right now is being phony. There's nothing worse in politics than trying to be someone you're not.
MATTHEWS: Yes, I agree.
CILLIZZA: Bill Clinton, to his—to his lasting credit, kind of understood, for good and bad, who he was. And I think Barack Obama got elected in 2008 largely because people felt like he was who he was. Hillary Clinton might say things—he stuck to who he was.
MATTHEWS: You guys are smart.
CILLIZZA: Going away from that to become a fighter, that sort of thing, I think, actually, carries more risk than going the route he's taking now, which is trying to be the person that he is and the person that got elected president. Remember, 2008, we were talking about a landmark election and that this guy was the next Lincoln. All of a sudden, two years later, he's not—you know, he should change. He needs to be something different. I don't know...
MATTHEWS: Wow.
CILLIZZA: ... if that politically makes sense.
MATTHEWS: ... two to one, two to nothing. Gentlemen, we have to go right now in this segment. Two-to-nothing, I just heard the two smarter guys, you two, basically say let Obama be Obama and not be Ralph Cramden. And now we've got to let Mr. Cool be Mr. Cool because that's who he is.
Anyway, thank you, John Harris, sir.
HARRIS: Thank you, Chris.
MATTHEWS: And thank you—your book, by the way, is called "Survivor." It's a great book on Bill Clinton. And of course, Cillizza, you're brilliant every Sunday especially.
Coming up, the battle for tax cuts. Can the Democrats make Republicans pay politically for voting against limiting tax cuts to those making less than a million dollars a year? By the way, Cillizza's on Monday morning, actually.
You're watching HARDBALL, only on MSNBC.
MATTHEWS: We learned this afternoon that Elizabeth Edwards, wife of former presidential candidate John Edwards, is gravely ill. Edwards family sources tell NBC News her condition has taken a turn for the worse, with doctors telling her that aggressive treatment for her cancer is no longer advisable.
Elizabeth's receiving care now at home in North Carolina, at Chapel Hill. She's said to be not in pain right now and is surrounded by family and friends. Doesn't look good.
We'll be right back.
SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL (R-KY), MINORITY LEADER: Look, this argument's over, David. You and I can continue to engage in it, but it's over. The Senate voted yesterday, and every Republican and five Democrats said, We're not raising taxes on anybody.
MATTHEWS: This argument's over. Welcome back to HARDBALL. That's the top Republican in the Senate, Mitch McConnell, sounding certain that the deal is done and Bush-era tax cuts will be extended for everyone, including the rich.
And today, President Obama and Vice President Biden met the House Democratic leaders in the state—on the state of negotiations. The idea of extending tax cuts for the wealthy is making a lot of Democrats unhappy.
The Huffington Post's Howard Fineman is an NBC political analyst and Democratic congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida also joins us. Let me start with Howard, who has the news. Where does this stand late today?
HOWARD FINEMAN, HUFFINGTONPOST.COM, MSNBC POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, Chris, my understand is that they're real close, and it could be announced as soon as tonight. And you put your finger on where the concern is, to wrap it up, which is House Democrats, ostensibly President Obama's base.
But the White House, I think, is thinking that they're going to get enough out of this deal to complete the task that they began on Saturday night, which is try to pacify House Democrats, to make sure they're all on board—Nancy Pelosi and her people are on board with what the Senate basically already agreed to.
And what that's going to be is a two-year extension of all the tax cuts, including those for the wealthy. And what that would mean is that they would be getting ready to expire again right as we're heading into the last innings of the 2012 presidential campaign. So remember everything you've heard this time around because you're going to hear it again in two years.
MATTHEWS: Let me go to Congresswoman Wasserman Schultz. Your view on this? Because I—the problem is that the Democratic Congresspeople who have been reelected are from relatively safe districts, from Democratic districts. All the moderates from swing districts were wiped out in the last election. So everybody's getting very ideological, it seems to me, in saying no tax breaks for the wealthy. But maybe there's another argument besides ideology here.
REP. DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ (D), FLORIDA: Well, I mean, the bottom line here is no matter how this turns out, shame on the Republicans for getting the priorities backwards. I mean, the gall that they have to insist that every other proposal, any legislation be halted and held back until we make sure that we cover tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires is just unbelievable. And if they think that's not going to come back to haunt them, then they're really living on another planet.
You know, you made a reference earlier to the president not really being like Ralph Cramden in any way, shape or form, but what I think he should be doing—and this is through watching repeats and reruns, rather than living in the moment, but he should be more like the dad on "Father Knows Best"...
MATTHEWS: Right.
WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: ... or "Leave It to Beaver," where he shames the Republicans into doing the right thing because, you know, to say that we are going to hold unemployment benefits hostage going into the holiday season to make tax cuts for wealthy people a priority is really, I think, not going bode well for the Republicans over the long-term.
MATTHEWS: Let me go to Howard. You know, there's a...
FINEMAN: Well, Chris, I think...
MATTHEWS: ... lot of tough talk out there. That wasn't tough. That was smart. But there's been tough talk. Look at Weiner—I mean, Congressman Weiner. He did a memo to the president, a tweet this afternoon. "Why are we always punting on third down? Let's get our offense on the field."
FINEMAN: Well, I think...
MATTHEWS: I mean, that's again one of these emasculating comments you're getting from men and women both, right and left, directed—tell, and this time against the president.
FINEMAN: Yes. Well, what the White House is going to argue is that they have gotten out of these negotiations more than anybody would have expected a while ago. There will be the extension of unemployment benefits. There will be, apparently, a payroll tax credit on the employer side, not the employee side. There will be—there will be a reimposition of the estate tax for families—or for inheritances over $5 million, which in its own way is a kind of wealth tax.
MATTHEWS: Yes.
FINEMAN: And there are going to be some other things there to spur the economy that are going to allow the president to at least go to the House Democratic caucus, at least go to the liberals in the Senate, and say, Look, I got more out of this negotiation than you think. I'm not the bad negotiator than you thought. I have more spine that you think. And he's the deal. At least, that's what they're arguing behind the scenes.
Now, that's what they've been arguing for the last few days. Whether they can make that sale with all the Democrats in Congress, I doubt. Whether they can make it with rank-and-file Democrats all over the country, I'm questioning. But that's going to be the administration argument for the next hours.
WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: At the end of the day—Chris, at the end of the day, we need to make sure that Democrats continue to be the champions for the middle class, fighting to create jobs, turn the economy around. And you know, if we don't end up with a deal that is going to demonstrate that that's what we're doing and that's what we've accomplished, then—then shame on us. I mean, I'm confident that President Obama is in there swinging. I think both Democrats in the House and Democrats across the country want to see a little bit more fight and a little bit intensity going forward. Hopefully, we're going to be able to get a little bit more out of the president than we've seen. But you know...
MATTHEWS: Tell me—tell me what you mean, though, Congresswoman, because I've got great respect for you and I probably agree with you on a lot of things, but I don't know what—I keep hearing that word "fight."
My colleague Ed Schultz uses it. A lot of people on this network use it. What exactly does it mean? Does it mean get red-faced and yell, pound the table?
WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: No, no.
MATTHEWS: Does it mean hold the government up? Because, basically, the only leverage this president, the man we're looking at, has right now, the only leverage he has now is not to sign something. That's the only fight he has in him: I'm not going to sign it.
So, you send me a bill that...
WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: Well, that's not the...
WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: No, no, no.
MATTHEWS: What other—what other fight does he have?
WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: I disagree that's the only fight.
MATTHEWS: What can he do?
WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: The president has the bully pulpit for leverage.
And I think the—the fight that people are talking about—and, like I said, it's more "Father Knows Best" than Ralph Kramden—but using the bully pulpit more strategically and effectively. And I think...
MATTHEWS: OK. Give me an example. Script him right now. What would he do? What would he say you would like him to do?
WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: What I would like him to do?
I mean, he could go on national television and—and make an address to the United States citizens, talk about the importance of making sure that we don't blow up our deficit with tax cuts for—for the wealthiest Americans.
I mean, what was I think probably the best focus was that they could have made a case—this is my opinion—they could have made a case to say, well, we're not going to allow the tax cuts to be extended for people above a million dollars.
You know, fighting for that provision before it was—a vote was taken Saturday night in the Senate, raising the profile of it, using the bully pulpit, like I said, more strategically effectively, you could make your case to the American people across the country. You could do it in an Oval Office address. You could do it through some well-placed—well-placed high-profile speeches.
MATTHEWS: And then what? And then what?
WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: And shame—and shame the Republicans. Make it politically untenable for them to be able to insist on this unbelievably outrageous line in the sand that Mitch McConnell drew.
You can call it that. You can call it that.
Howard, I want to ask you a political assessment. If the Democratic president went out and did that, would that in any way endanger Republican senators in their seats? Or would they just say, nice try?
FINEMAN: Probably not, but it might have been worth a try.
MATTHEWS: Yes.
WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: Yes, make them uncomfortable.
FINEMAN: Yes. What Obama is doing here is what he does, which is, he's going to say, look, I got some results. Read these pieces of paper. Read points A, B, C, and D. I got this on payroll tax. I got this on the inheritance tax.
MATTHEWS: Yes.
FINEMAN: I got this. I got that. I got that. Read the memo.
And what—and he may be right. But what—what—one of the things that's missing—and it may sound trivial, but it's not—is the music here, is the marching music. And that's what the Democrats don't hear.
And that's one of the things they're upset about, as well as the fact that he sort of gave in on the tax question from the beginning.
MATTHEWS: Yes.
FINEMAN: Now, they're going to argue that they got all these things, but mostly what they got are other kinds of tax cuts. So, in a sense...
MATTHEWS: You're right.
FINEMAN: Other than the inheritance tax.
MATTHEWS: You're right. You're right, because they gave up—I thought they gave up election night, guys.
FINEMAN: Yes. Yes. Yes.
WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: We're not going to give up, though.
MATTHEWS: Congresswoman, don't you think the president basically gave up—the president did—on election night? He came out of that election, having lost all those seats, with the idea, well, we're not going to be able to control the tax fight now.
Here's my question to you, Congresswoman, last question. If he goes to midnight on this, right through this New Year's, through the holidays, and says, I'm going to fight this thing, this is my fight, this tax equity question, but doesn't get don't ask, don't tell because of it, won't the progressive base be angry with him on that, that he failed on that question?
WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: I think the president absolutely needs to engage in aggressive negotiations, but he needs to use all the tools available to him. And they need to make sure that they're operating on all those cylinders that they have.
And I think that they probably could have done that a little bit more
effectively and used the more progressive members that are left in the—
that are still in the House caucus. We have the ability to help leverage -
give him leverage.
FINEMAN: Chris...
WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: ... and play that against the Senate and the senators, who have a little bit tougher time.
MATTHEWS: Got to go. Got to go.
Thank you so much...
WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: Thank you.
MATTHEWS: ... U.S. Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Have a nice holiday, when it comes.
WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: Thank you.
MATTHEWS: And, thank you, Howard Fineman.
MATTHEWS: Up next: the latest zany idea from the Tea Party. Wait until you hear this. The head of the Tea Party Nation wants you to own property or not be allowed to vote. Doesn't this sound like the Federalists back around 200 years ago?
You're watching HARDBALL, only on MSNBC.
MATTHEWS: Back to HARDBALL. It's "Sideshow" time.
Live from New York, it's Julian Assange. "SNL" imagined what the WikiLeaks founder would do as head of celebrity gossip site TMZ.
UNIDENTIFIED ACTOR: Tonight, I present a new WikiLeaks, where the leaks are even more embarrassing and the details are even more sordid.
Welcome to:
UNIDENTIFIED ACTOR: WikiLeaks: TMZ.
UNIDENTIFIED ACTOR: So, where we at today, guys? Looking for world leaders behaving badly. Come on.
UNIDENTIFIED ACTOR: Well, our guys caught up with President Hamid Karzai leaving (INAUDIBLE) last night, and I think it kind of speaks for itself.
UNIDENTIFIED ACTOR: So, your boy Obama was in Afghanistan. Did you get to see him?
UNIDENTIFIED ACTOR: I did.
UNIDENTIFIED ACTOR: Did he ask you about all the bribery in your administration?
UNIDENTIFIED ACTOR: Sir, you forgot your briefcase.
UNIDENTIFIED ACTOR: I do not take bribes.
MATTHEWS: Anyway, Assange will be the one soon ducking cameras. Great Britain, where Assange is believed to be hiding, has just received a European warrant for his arrest.
Next: Those were the days, my friend. The head of Tea Party Nation, Judson Phillips, said on radio last month that restricting voting to just property owners makes a lot of sense.
JUDSON PHILLIPS, FOUNDER, TEA PARTY NATION: The founding fathers originally said they put certain restrictions on who got the right to vote. It wasn't just you were just a citizen and you automatically got to vote.
Now, some of their restrictions were—you know, you obviously would not think about today. But one of them was, you had to be a property owner. And that makes a lot of sense, because, if you're—if you're a property owner, you actually have a vested stake in the community. And if you're not a property owner, you know, I'm sorry, but they—property owners have a little bit more of a vested stake in the community than non-property owners.
MATTHEWS: Hmm. Let's get this straight. You live in an apartment today, for example, forget it. You're in college living in a dorm, forget it. You're in a senior citizens residence, forget it. Tea, anyone?
Now to tonight's "Big Number."
Treasury unveiled these new high-tech $100 bills in April of this year. The problem? Production of these notes is so complicated that some ended up with a design defect that renders them unusable. Making matters worse, there's no easy way to separate the correctly printed $100 notes from the duds, which means there's a whole lot of bills now sitting in government quarantine.
That's what they call it. How much are they worth? Well, according to CNBC, $110 billion. That value represents 10 percent of the total U.S. currency supply -- $110 billion in bills are worth the paper they are printed on, tonight's "it would be a lot funnier if it weren't true" "Big Number."
Up next: Republicans against Sarah Palin. Well, the establishment of the Republican Party apparently fears, if they don't stop her now, she will cruise to the presidential nomination come 2012, only to get blown away in the general election by President Obama. And now some of her potential 2012 rivals are making some noise. That's ahead.
Wait until you hear. They're scared of her. They're talking it.
You're watching HARDBALL right now, only on MSNBC.
HAMPTON PEARSON, CNBC CORRESPONDENT: I'm Hampton Pearson with your CNBC "Market Wrap."
Stocks ending mixed, as investors regroup after some strong gains last week, the Dow Jones industrials sliding nearly 20 points, the S&P 500 losing 1.5, and the Nasdaq adding 3.5 points.
Investors taking a bit of a breather today. Stocks were moving in a narrow range on light volume for most of the session, but precious metals were sparkling on the notions the Federal Reserve could extend quantitative easing. Gold settling above $1,415 an ounce, silver prices hitting a 30-year high.
Meanwhile, Sprint Nextel shares jumping more than 6 percent after getting a thumbs-up from hedge fund president David Einhorn. International GameTech surging nearly 5 percent on bets Nevada Senator Harry Reid will pass a bill regulating and taxing online poker sites, but Dollar General tumbling 7 percent on a drop in same-store sales growth, that despite solid quarterly profits and an upbeat forecast.
That's it from CNBC, first in business worldwide—now back to
MATTHEWS: Welcome back to HARDBALL.
Are Republicans putting out the word that it's time to stop Sarah Palin?
Just before the midterm election, Karl Rove told "The London Telegraph"—quote—""With all due candor, appearing on your own reality show on the Discovery Channel, I am not certain how that fits into the American calculus of what keeps me—or helps me see a person in the Oval Office."
A few days later, Politico ran this headline: "Next For GOP Leaders:
Stopping Palin."
A few weeks after that, some Bushes weighed in. Listen to this.
LARRY KING, HOST, "LARRY KING LIVE": What's your read about Sarah Palin?
BARBARA BUSH, FORMER FIRST LADY: Well, I sat next to her once, thought she was beautiful. And I think she's very happy in Alaska, and I hope she will stay there.
JEB BUSH ®, FORMER FLORIDA GOVERNOR: If it's between my mom and Governor Palin, I got to go with my mom just in general, because she's my mother.
MATTHEWS: Well, that was Jeb Bush, of course.
And then rising Republican star New Jersey Governor Chris Christie chimed in.
JIMMY FALLON, HOST, "LATE NIGHT WITH JIMMY FALLON": Do you think Sarah Palin could do it?
GOV. CHRIS CHRISTIE ®, NEW JERSEY: Be vice president?
FALLON: Be president.
CHRISTIE: Well, you know, who knows, Jimmy.
FALLON: Yes. Yes. Yes.
CHRISTIE: It's an amazing world.
FALLON: Crazier things have happened, I guess?
CHRISTIE: I don't know, but it's an amazing world.
MATTHEWS: You have got to like a guy who rolls his eyes when he's asked a political question.
And then just yesterday, veteran Republican strategist Mike Murphy was on "Meet the Press."
MIKE MURPHY, REPUBLICAN MEDIA STRATEGIST: I have been a critic all along, started on this show at the Republican Convention saying I thought she was a bad strategic choice, because she's a poison pill in the general election, wipe us out, I believe.
But in the Republican primaries, particularly in the movement conservative silo, which generally will win the Iowa Caucus, and therefore get a lot of momentum, she's very, very powerful, if she runs. So I think she will have a half-life, but she is going to be a terrifically powerful force, in some ways, for good. She's kind of a polemicist and everything. But, as a candidate, she'd be a disaster.
And we will see if other Republicans start to take that position.
Quietly, a lot of them do.
MATTHEWS: "As a candidate, she'd be a disaster."
So, is the word out?
Pat Buchanan and "The Washington Post"'s Eugene Robinson are here.
They're both MSNBC political analysts.
Gene, I want to start with you, because you're not, I don't think, a member of the active Republican Party right now.
MATTHEWS: I have got to get your views on this, because there is—there does seem to be a pattern of, not a whispering campaign, a "right out in the open" campaign, of clearing the deck of Sarah Palin. I'm not sure it works, but it's certainly trying to work.
EUGENE ROBINSON, MSNBC POLITICAL ANALYST: Yes.
I mean, Chris, it will come as a shock to you that I'm not on the Republican star chamber mail—e-mail list, so I don't get those e-mails, but maybe one went out. I mean, clearly, there are people who are getting very nervous about Palin and her—and her what I would call preeminent position in the Republican field right now.
There's nobody who has got her charisma. There's nobody who has got her Twitter following.
MATTHEWS: Yes.
ROBINSON: There's nobody who has got a reality show like she's got.
She's Sarah Palin.
And it's not just Iowa, as Murphy said, where she could do well. When she gets to my home state of South Carolina, they're going to love her there, too. So, if I were a Republican thinking about running for president, I would be really worried about Sarah Palin, too.
MATTHEWS: Pat, is there a real differential between popularity in the evangelical wing of the Republican Party and general election prospects? Or is that unfair? Is that a left-wing assessment?
PAT BUCHANAN, MSNBC POLITICAL ANALYST: It's a left-wing assessment, but it's also not unfair in this sense, Chris.
Let me take Mike Huckabee, who ran a very strong primary race back in 2008. But I think he bumped his head at a point because he is so strongly identified with the evangelical Christian South, if you will.
MATTHEWS: Yes.
BUCHANAN: I think he would have a tough time in a general. There's no question about it, that that alone gives you enormous strength and power in a nominating process. It does not necessarily translate in the general.
MATTHEWS: You mean the Republican Party wouldn't be advised to run Marjoe for president?
BUCHANAN: I don't know who Marjoe is and what...
MATTHEWS: Oh, come on. Remember, he was the young preacher. Come on. You...
MATTHEWS: If I get outside the narrow focus of politics, I lose you, Pat.
MATTHEWS: Let me ask you this. I'm just talking about you—he had a preacher's background.
BUCHANAN: Right.
MATTHEWS: Does that preacher's sort of Jesus on the radio religion—type of religion turn off the suburban Republican voter?
BUCHANAN: There's no doubt, Chris, it turns off some.
But let's take Sarah Palin now. She has the—the Tea Party, the Christian right, the right-to-lifers, many of these folks come out of the Democratic Party that you grew up in. And their children do.
MATTHEWS: Well, I grew up in the Republican Party.
BUCHANAN: And so that's real reach across there.
But the suburban Republicans can be overrated, you know?
MATTHEWS: Yes.
BUCHANAN: There's no doubt that, say, Reagan, to get those folks with him and then go after the Reagan Democrats, he did a very smart thing in putting George H.W. Bush of Walker's Point on his ticket with him to close the party...
MATTHEWS: Yes.
BUCHANAN: ... and then go after basically the conservative Democrats and independents.
MATTHEWS: Do you think, Gene, that the Democrats are hoping that they can get a break and get a weak opponent coming around? Because it's going to be a very tough time for anybody running for re-election in America, especially trying to carry the whole country and getting 270 electoral votes next time as an incumbent.
Do you think the White House people can get towed? Are they just rooting for her? Or rooting for Huckabee or somebody on the evangelical right who would just have no chance in the Philadelphia suburbs, the New York suburbs, the Cleveland suburbs, the kinds of places they need to win?
EUGENE ROBINSON, MSNBC POLITICAL ANALYST: Sure. I think they are rooting for that. I think it's a mistake though if that's their electoral strategy for 2012, to root for a defeatable Republican opponent. In fact, what I think they have to do is build an affirmative case and then if, on top of that, if on top of having built your affirmative case for reelection, then you get—you also will happen to get Sarah Palin as your opponent with her high negatives. Then I think you feel a lot better going into 2012 than otherwise you might.
MATTHEWS: Let's take a look at Sarah Palin. And, Pat, I'm sorry to interrupt. But we have a great picture of Sarah Palin coming up. Here she is—a scene from last night's episode of her reality show. What do you catch in this? This is almost hard for people like me to grow up in the sort of burbs and the cities to appreciate, but listen to it.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It's coming right here. Just wait. Wait. OK.
Go ahead.
SARAH PALIN ®, FORMER ALASKA GOVERNOR: Good.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: There you go, baby. There you go. There you go.
PALIN: OK, good.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That's just perfect.
MATTHEWS: So, what do you make of that, Pat? I mean, this is unusual. That wasn't John Kerry in camo. That was the real thing.
BUCHANAN: That wasn't John Kerry. What is it? What is it, that thing off the shores of Nantucket or wherever?
ROBINSON: It's windsurfing.
BUCHANAN: Windsurfing.
MATTHEWS: Pat, I mean, probably the deer hunter country in Pennsylvania, I would bet.
BUCHANAN: This is where she has real strength. I mean, hunters and sportsmen and outdoor folks and men will really say, you know, this is really a terrific gal.
And, Chris, let me say this. She is getting picked at, but they're not by major, I think, with—you know, with some exceptions, major figure figures. Look at how Mitt Romney is handling this. And Bobby Jindal is handling this. Mitt Romney is praising her. Jindal said, of course, she can be elected.
This is what the Republican Party's got to do. With regard to Republican establishment, they tried—they wanted Rockefeller instead of Goldwater; Rockefeller instead of Nixon in '68; George H.W. Bush instead of Reagan.
And the Democrat Party wanted Goldwater and they wanted Reagan. They were wrong about Reagan and right about Goldwater. So, I would not, if I were the Democrat Party, automatically start celebrating because this woman has an enormous amount of reach outside of politics and culture.
MATTHEWS: OK. She's a dead shot, too.
Anyway, thank you, Pat Buchanan and Eugene Robinson.
MATTHEWS: Up next, the fight for gay marriage—talking about different subjects. California's controversial gay marriage ban is back in the courts today. It may well go down. This could be a big change in American history.
Attorney David Boise joins us. He's the one fighting that ban in California of Prop 8. If he wins, same-sex marriage wins as well.
This is HARDBALL, only on MSNBC.
MATTHEWS: Republicans have long pushed states rights and now, they're offering legislation to essentially would have proved of a nullification of federal laws at the state level. Mississippi Senator Roger Wicker is planning to introduce a bill this week that would allow state officials to challenge the constitutionality of federal laws before they go into effect, prior review. The so-called states rights bill is in large part a reaction to health care reform, of course. But Wickers said it could be used for other regulation, such as those from the Environmental Protection Agency. We'll be right back.
MATTHEWS: We're back.
The legal battle over gay marriage is now one step closer to going before the Supreme Court. Supporters of Proposition 8, which bans same-sex marriage out in California, brought their case before a federal appeals court today.
And David Boies and Ted Olson were once at odds in the Bush versus Gore case joined to argue against the ban on gay marriage.
David Boies joins us now. He's an attorney for American Foundation for Equal Rights. He's also chairman of the firm Boies, Schiller & Flexner.
And Chad Griffin is the board president of the American Foundation for Equal Rights.
Gentlemen—let me start with David Boies.
Could you give me, David, a layman's case for striking down Prop 8?
DAVID BOISE, PRO GAY-MARRIAGE ATTORNEY: Sure. Marriage has been ruled to be a fundamental right by the United States Supreme Court 14 times over the last hundred years. And the question is: should that fundamental right be available to gays and lesbians? What we proved in court was that depriving gays and lesbians of the right to marry harmed them in very significant ways and harmed the hundreds of thousands of children that gay and lesbian couples are raising today.
We also proved that preventing gays and lesbians from marrying had no social benefit to anybody else. It didn't help heterosexual marriages, obviously. It didn't help anybody else in our society. So, there was no rational basis for depriving these people of this fundamental right.
MATTHEWS: Let's go to Chad Griffin for a response to what we just heard.
CHAD GRIFFIN, AMERICAN FOUNDATION FOR EQUAL RIGHTS: Yes, Chris, thank you. The legal arguments and political arguments are so important. But also in this case, there are four plaintiffs. And those four plaintiffs and their families were seated in that courtroom today. And every single day we continue to have state-sanctioned discrimination is doing grave harm to those plaintiffs, to their children and to their families and to the millions of other young people across this country, whether they're from Fresno, California or Little Rock, Arkansas, or Washington, D.C.
And as long as we have state-sanctioned discrimination in this country against a class of people, it gives license to others to discriminate.
MATHTEWS: Let me ask you, Chad—let me go back to actually David on this.
Does your argument hold if you were to say it would be equally valid to make this argument in the early days of our republic? Had this argument been made in the late 18th century, would it have seemed credible or how would it be different? What's changed in terms of your understanding of the Constitution or what would have been the understanding of the Constitution since you're arguing is a fundamental right to equal marriage rights?
BOISE: I think there are two aspects of that. First, I think one aspect of that is that the bias that we see against gays and lesbians, today, is really a product of the last 100 years. People talk about this going back generations and centuries. In fact, there was much more tolerance of this in past periods than there has been—
MATTHEWS: When did we have same-sex marriage in this country?
BOISE: You've never had same-sex marriage in this country. You've had same-sex marriage in other ancient societies and we demonstrated that at trial. But you've never had same-sex marriage in this country.
The question is whether recognizing, as we do now, the equality of all people in our country, not just the words but the reality of it, should we extend this fundamental right to them? Remember, when this country was founded, we the people was essentially we white male property owners. It's been an expansion of what it means to be equal from the beginning.
MATTHEWS: Let me go to Chad.
Should the American people get to vote on this or should it be a court decision?
GRIFFIN: Chris, one's fundamental constitutional rights should never be put up for the vote of the people. Political campaigns are decided upon who has the most money, who has the best political rhetoric, who can put the best ads on television. And one's fundamental constitutional rights should never be put for a vote of the people.
And I am one who believes in the ballot initiative process and there are certainly things across this country that are voted on by the people. But a fundamental constitutional right, particularly that of a minority, should never be put up for a vote of the people and decided by a political campaign, and who has the best advertising and the most money.
MATTHEWS: What are the chances, David, of getting Scalia on this, some of the more conservative judges on the argument that it is a—it is a fundamental right and that they might just jump the fence and join you guys?
BOISE: Right. We're not—we're not giving up on any of the justices because—I mean, if you look at Ted and myself, it's hard to find two lawyers farther apart on the political spectrum.
MATTHEWS: Right.
BOISE: And we've always believed from the beginning this was not a conservative or liberal, Republican or Democratic issue. This was an issue of constitutional rights. And conservatives, at least as much as liberals, want to keep the government out of people's private lives.
So, I think that this is something that we could win. No one ever likes that prediction, we're going to win 9-0, but we could win every justice on this.
MATTHEWS: Let me go to Chad on this.
Does this have to do with gay orientation or is this about equality? I'm just trying to figure the marriage issue here. A lot of people argue marriage isn't necessarily about procreation. It's not necessarily about boy/girl. It's only about an association between two people.
Give me your philosophy on it.
GRIFFIN: Sure. There's no question. I mean, look, many of these facts came out in our trial with a tremendous amount of evidence and with two brilliant bipartisan lawyers on our side of this case. And marriage is clearly a bond between two loving people. There was a time in this country that when one said marriage, in many states, it did not mean a marriage between a black man and a white woman. And then—
MATTHEWS: Yes. OK. Well said. We're moving on. We're with you.
Chad Griffin, thank you, sir, for joining us. David Boise, good luck with the odd's couple case out there in the ninth circuit. It's one of the great stories in history.
When we return, let me finish with what I think people are looking for when they say they want President Obama to fight. Is it a metaphor? Do they mean it, fight with his fists?
You're watching HARDBALL, only on MSNBC.
MATTHEWS: Let me finish tonight with a man everyone's talking about, President Obama. I've never seen anything quite like this. Everybody talks—everybody I talk to has advice for the guy. Everybody knows what he ought to do and is to varying degrees angry that this man is not doing it.
Well, the most obvious advice is for him to fight. That's the favorite word these days. No, they don't mean that literally, invite Republican senators up to the White House and start punching them. They don't mean grabbing them around the neck and squeezing them so they agree to cut taxes for people who making under $250,000 a year and not cutting those taxes for people who make more.
Or they mean to fight constitutionally? Do they mean telling the Republicans who are now holding up this tax-cutting proposal the he, the president, won't sign any other version and is willing to let the Congress adjourn this month for Christmas and New Year to come and go and let those tax cuts evaporate for everybody if necessary? Is this what they mean? Taking the risk of letting the economy take an additional beating in the first months of 2011, risk having the country turn on him as the one man standing between them and not just their tax cuts but an improving economy? Is willing to have half the country or more seeing him as the country's number one economic problem?
Hmm, I think a lot of people want something in the middle. They want President Obama to fight verbally. They want him to go on TV and blast away at the Republicans as protectors of the wealthy.
But didn't we think we were electing a hot-headed as president? Didn't we think we were picking a guy who shouted off his mouth and yelled bad things about those who disagree with him, deriding their motives any way he could?
The problem with us getting mad on television is simply not in this president's nature. If we're honest with ourselves, we know he wouldn't be president if he was.
Look, it's hard being a smart liberal. The right can bellow from the gut. They hate government, even though it's taxes necessary to pay for it. They don't even have to think about it.
The left can also bellow from the gut. They don't like big business. They love activist government. They can call for more government, higher taxes to pay for it without shame.
It's not so easy when you're a liberal president trying to lead a centrist country in a difficult time. It's not so easy following your gut when your brain warns you this is precisely what everybody else in the country is doing, yelling from their gut and calling people names.
That's HARDBALL for now. Thanks for being with us.
Right now, it's time for "THE ED SHOW" with Ed Schultz.
Copyright 2010 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of CQ-Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.> PASTE THE TRANSCRIPT HERE
Copyright 2010 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All materials herein are protected by
United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed,
transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written
permission of CQ-Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark,
copyright or other notice from copies of the content.>


text:
Copper Glass Julip
Product Code : CG-J
Brand Name : TERA
Price And Quantity
- Minimum Order Quantity
- 100 Piece
- Price Range
- 250.00 - 700.00 INR/Piece
Product Specifications
- Product Type
- Copper Glass Julip
- Material
- Metal
- Metal Type
- Copper
- Color
- Rose Gold
- Function
- Drinking
Product Description
We are regarded as one of the noted traders, suppliers and exporters of an extensive range of Copper Julip Glass Luxury These utensils are procured from reliable vendors after stringent quality inspection to offer defect-free range to clients. At vendor premises, they are manufactured using advanced machinery and raw material of the best quality under supervision of expert professionals. Our offered products are used to serve cold-drink, water and other allied liquid. Besides, we provide these Copper Julip Glass Luxury at nominal prices to clients.
- Seamless finish
- Sturdy construction
- Light in weight
- Greater longevity
Trade Information
- Payment Terms
- Cheque, Cash in Advance (CID), Cash Advance (CA)
- Supply Ability
- 1000 Piece Per Week
- Delivery Time
- 1 Days
- Main Domestic Market
- All India
Other Products in 'Copper Jug & Glasses' category


text:
Douglas Harrison Neill emailed over a few photos from Mr. Brainwash's short run show (through Dec 29th) happening in a 80,000 on La Brea Avenue in Hollywood. We're not fans of his work or the whole goofy thing, but hey, it's the holidays and a slow news day.
Last Thursday I shot Mr Brainwash's preview in LA. Love him or hate him the fact that what he does seems to work (to it's own degree) raises many interesting discussions. -Douglas Harrison Neill
|< Prev
|Next >


text:
We are using cookies for a better user experience.
Emotionally rousing – the Audi TT and Audi TTS
A modern classic is starting afresh: Audi presents the latest-generation
TT and TTS. The compact sports car mesmerizes thanks to its completely unique character - with emotive design, fantastically dynamic qualities and innovative technologies.
"The Audi TT is synonymous with being a genuine design icon and top-performance machine," said Prof. Dr. Ulrich Hackenberg, Technical Development Director at AUDI AG. "This new generation is enabling us to bring the technology even more to life for drivers – just as they would expect from a real sports car."
The Exterior
Streamlined and muscular, athletic and poised ready to jump – the new TT is mesmerizing at the first glance. The designers of the compact sports car have reinterpreted the typical lines of the original TT from 1998 and enriched it by adding an array of dynamic elements. At a length of 4.18 meters (13.71 feet), the Coupé has a wheelbase of 2.51 meters (8.23 feet) meaning that the overhangs are very short.
At the front, the horizontal lines dominate. The single-frame grille is wide and flat, and running from its top corners are the two contours across the hood, which bears the four Audi rings. Webs structure the air intakes. The headlights are also designed with separating bars; they radiate the daytime running lights. LED technology headlights are available as an option or – shortly after launch – the new Matrix LED technology, which generates the main beam lights with controllable individual LEDs. The top-of-the-range headlights also provide indicator lights with a dynamic display – in the case of the Matrix LED headlights, this also includes the tail light cluster. These run in the direction the driver is turning and provide other road users with an additional means of orientation.
Many details in the profile of the new Coupé are reminiscent the first-generation design classic. The sill contour forms a strong line, the wide wheel arches form their own geometric body. The front arch breaks through the line of the hood, which continues above the door as a tornado line and runs to the tail. The flat glass housing acts like a body in its own right, while a slight bend in the rear side window emphasizes the powerful C-pillar. The fuel tank flap features a traditional circular shape and opens by touch. However, what is new is that there is no fuel tank cap beneath the flap, meaning that it is not necessary to unscrew anything. Instead, the filler nozzle fits directly into the tank filler pipe.
Again, at the tail, horizontal lines emphasize the solid road holding of the TT. The webs in the tail light clusters invoke the motif from the front headlights; they are permanently on – another innovation from Audi. The third brake light, in the form of a flat strip, connects the two units.
The Interior
With its light, almost floating lines, the sports car character of the new Audi TT flows through to the interior. The console in the center tunnel and the door trims maintain these flowing forms. The slender instrument panel looks like the wing panel of an aircraft, when viewed from above; the round air vents, a classic feature of the TT, remind you of jet engines.
The newly developed sports seats are mounted low and together weigh 5 kg (11.02 lb) less than the seats in the predecessor – proof of Audi's consequential light construction concept. The S sports seats with strongly contoured, pneumatically adjustable sides and integrated head supports are available on request (they come as standard in the TTS). As a 2+2 seater, the new TT is a sports car that is highly suited to everyday use. The luggage compartment has a volume of 305 liters (10.77 cubic feet), which is 13 liters (0.46 cubic feet) more than the previous model.
The colors and materials used in the interior also underline the sporty nature of the new TT: Rock Gray and Palomino Brown provide an alternative to Black. Apart from the standard materials, it is also possible to choose Milano leather and a leather/Alcantara combination. In the case of the S sports seats, the covers have a diamond quilting pattern and the leather is fine Nappa. The shoulder area of the S line sports package is upholstered in velvet leather.
Many operational controls in the new Audi TT and in the TTS gleam with their aluminum look. On the S sports seat buckles, the flanks of the center tunnel console and the door trims, accents are set by decorative inserts and – depending on the interior trim – colored elements. One aluminum package, three leather packages and the Audi design selection Murillo Brown round off the range.
The body
With its mixed material concept, the Audi TT body represents a new stage in the evolution of the Audi Space Frame (ASF) based on the MQB. The front section and the floor of the passenger compartment comprise numerous hot-stamped and high-strength steel components. The structure of the body and all the body shell parts and attachments are produced in the classic aluminum semi-finished processes of die cast nodes, press-drawn profiles and sheet metal.
As a result, the new TT is slightly lighter than its predecessor. With the 2.0 TFSI engine and manual transmission, the unladen weight of the Coupé (without driver) is just 1230 kilograms (2711.69 lb) – 50 kilograms (110.23 lb) lighter than before. For the second time in succession, Audi has reduced the weight of the TT.
The engines and transmissions (provisional figures)
To start with, the new TT will be available with one TFSI and one TDI engine. At 135 kW (184 bhp) and 169 kW (310 bhp), both four-cylinder engines offer solid power, but their consumption figures been reduced compared with the second-generation TT. This also applies to the 228 kW (310 bhp) 2.0 TFSI, which powers the new TTS. A start/stop system is available as standard in all power units, while a sound actuator (part of Audi drive select) provides a sonorous sound.
The TT 2.0 TDI ultra, which will be available at launch with manual transmission and front-wheel drive, consumes on average only 4.2 liters of fuel over 100 km (56 US mpg) – equating to CO2 emissions of 110 grams per km (177.03 g/mile) and creating a new best value in the segment. As with all the engines in the new TT, the two-liter diesel, which delivers 135 kW (184 bhp) and 380 Nm (280.27 lb-ft) torque, fulfills the limits of the Euro 6 standard.
The 2.0 TFSI is available in two versions – in the TT with 169 kW (230 bhp) and 370 Nm (272.90 lb-ft) and in the TTS with 228 kW (310 bhp) and 380 Nm (280.27 lb-ft), in conjunction with an even sportier sound. The Audi TTS advances in the top performance range – it takes 4.7 seconds to accelerate from 0 to 100 km/h (62.14 mph), while the top speed, which is limited to 250 km/h (155.34 mph), is just a formality.
As standard, the 2.0 TFSI in the TT, as well as in the TTS, works with a manual six-speed transmission, or optionally with the six-speed S tronic. The dual clutch transmission changes gears at lightning speed and without any noticeable break in traction. In manual mode, the transmission can be controlled as required either by rocker switches on the steering wheel (a standard feature on the TTS) or using the selector lever. In efficiency mode in the Audi drive select dynamic driving system (another standard feature on the TTS), the S tronic engages freewheeling when the driver takes his foot of the accelerator pedal.
The quattro all-wheel drive
The TT represents a new development stage for Audi in the quattro permanent all-wheel drive. Its electro-hydraulic multi-plate clutch, which is fitted on the rear axle for reasons of weight distribution, is compact and light. In regular driving, it sends power to the front wheels, and if required it can divert it at lightning speed to the rear axle. The electronic control system unites a new level of driving pleasure and safety: If the gears are shifted in a sporty fashion, the power tends to be directed to the rear axle; doing so really pushes the TT into the curve, while on a road with low friction, it permits controlled drifts.
Clutch management – another innovation – is incorporated into the Audi drive select control, which provides the comfort, auto, dynamic, efficiency and individual modes. The system controls the way the accelerator pedal and steering support works and also incorporates several optional modules. These include the S tronic and the adaptive suspension control Audi magnetic ride (standard on the TTS), which holds the compact sports car even closer to the road at the touch of a button.
The chassis
The front suspension on the new Audi TT and TTS follows the McPherson principle; aluminum components reduce the weight of the unsprung masses. The four-link rear suspension can process the longitudinal and transverse forces separately. Progressive steering is standard, with its gear rack being designed to allow the transmission ratio to become more direct as the steering angle increases.
Thanks to its elaborate running gear and streamlined tuning, the new Audi TT offers dynamic and extremely precise handling. On the TTS, on the S line sports package and on the Audi magnetic ride system, the body is positioned ten millimeters (0.39 inches) lower. The TT 2.0 TFSI and the TT 2.0 TDI feature 17-inch wheels, which weigh a mere 8.7 kilograms (19.18 lb), while the tire size is 225/50. On the TTS, the format is 18 inch and tire size 245/50, while the range of options goes up to the 20-inch format.
The brakes on the new TT can be dispensed precisely, the pedal feeling is spontaneous and streamlined. The front discs are ventilated and, depending on engine, have a diameter of between 312 millimeters (12.28 inches) and 338 millimeters (13.31 inches). The new electromechanical parking brake forms part of the rear brake system. The TTS brakes on the front axle using newly developed aluminum fixed-caliper brakes, which save 5 kg (11.02 lb) in weight compared with the previous model – just one more example of Audi's expertise in lightweight construction.
The electronic stability control ESC, which can be partially or fully deactivated, is the perfect way to underline the sporty handling features. When driving through curves, the wheel-selective torque control comes into play. To meet the driving requirements, the drive torque is distributed from the front wheel on the inside of the curve to the front wheel on the outside of the curve (front wheel drive) or on the quattro, to the rear wheel as well. Thanks to the difference in propulsion forces, the car turns quite easily into the curve.
This means that curves can be driven through more precisely and in a more neutral way. As a result, the TT also scores a major plus in terms of dynamics and stability. "Sport" mode supports a particularly sporty style of driving, making it much easier to steer and control the car when drifting. The interplay and the coordination between all the components increases the agile handling and hence the driving pleasure in the Audi TT, as you would expect from a sports car.
The Audi virtual cockpit and the MMI
The Audi virtual cockpit, which replaces the analog instruments and the MMI monitor in the new TT, is a digital instrument cluster with versatile graphics and highly detailed displays. The driver can switch between two levels on the 12.3-inch monitor. In the classic view, the tachometer and the rev counter take pride of place, while in "Infotainment" mode, items like the navigation map are given center stage. The TTS also boasts a third display, which is dominated by the rev counter.
Newly developed from scratch, the whole operation concept is totally focused on the driver – corresponding to the sports car character of the Audi TT. Two variants of the multifunction steering wheel are available. In the top-of-the-range version, drivers can use it to control all functions, without having to take their eyes from the road.
The MMI terminal, which is also new, has six physical buttons. Using the touch pad on the top of the turn and press controller (optional), the driver can scroll through lists and maps, zoom and enter symbols. The menu structure is like that found on a smartphone, including free text search. All the major functions can be reached with just a few clicks, while the buttons on the side can be used to open up intelligently linked functions and options.
The air vents also play a special role in the new operating concept – the air conditioning system or the optional automatic air conditioning system (a standard feature on the TTS) is operated from within them. Within their shafts can be found the controllers for seat heating, ambient air, temperature, distribution and strength of the air flow; in the case of the automatic air conditioning system, small displays show the selected settings.
The air vents are just one example of the high demands Audi places on the function, design and processing quality of all the interior components. The highlights also include the newly designed gear lever knob or gear selector lever, the extremely precisely locking MMI turn and press controller including optical monitoring and the finely shaped loudspeaker trims in the optional sound system from Bang & Olufsen. On the TTS, the upper area of the instrument cluster has an innovative, extremely precise geometric grain.
Audi will send out the new TT with a generous amount of standard equipment from launch. Special equipment, such as the convenience key, the main beam assist or the LED interior lighting package, is available as optional extras. The range of driver assistance systems include the "take a break" recommendation as standard, the Audi side assist, the Audi active lane assist, traffic sign recognition and park assist with surroundings display.
The Infotainment program is conceived as a modular system, headed by MMI navigation plus with MMI touch. The additional Audi connect module brings the brand's tailor-made Internet services into the car via the fast LTE standard; the Audi phone box is an extremely convenient way of connecting a cell phone. The Bang & Olufsen sound system plays through 12 loudspeakers.
The equipment and data specified in this document refer to the model range offered in Germany. Subject to change without notice; errors and omissions excepted.


text:
Courtney Love to Lana Del Rey: You Can Cover 'Heart-Shaped Box' — As Long As You Think About My Vagina
Lana Del Rey recently added a cover of Nirvana's "Heart-Shaped Box" to her on-tour repertoire — a song which holds special meaning for the Born to Die chanteuse.
"When I was 11, I saw Kurt Cobain singing 'Heart-Shaped Box' on MTV and it really stopped me dead in my tracks," Del Rey said in a Sirius FM interview last year. "I thought he was the most beautiful person I had ever seen. Even at a young age, I really related to his sadness."
Not one to let sentiment get in the way of a good vagina story, Courtney Love chimed in on Twitter with some priceless advice for Del Rey.
"You do know the song is about my Vagina right? 'Throw down your umbilical noose so i can climb right back,' umm…" Love twatted. "On top of which some of the lyrics about my vagina I contributed. So umm next time you sing it, think about my vagina will you?"
No response yet from Camp Del Rey.


text:
As everyone probably knows, the big news last week was that Pope Benedict resigned in order to spend more time with his family. I believe he will wind up as a commentator for Fox. Here's some other predictions as to what will happen next:
"Big news coming out of the Vatican. Pope Benedict resigned. And they're busy looking for replacements. The smart money is on Tim Tebow." –David Letterman
"With the Pope retiring, more than 100 cardinals will sequester themselves in the Sistine Chapel to choose the next Pope. They'll send out white smoke if they've chosen somebody, black smoke if they haven't chosen somebody, and a text message when they find out that it's 2013." –Jimmy Fallon
"Pope Benedict is resigning. And you know what that means: Hillary in 2013?" –Jimmy Fallon


text:
Effluent is the outflow of water from a natural body of water or from a man-made structure.
Effluent in the man-made sense is generally considered to be pollution. This could entail outflow from a sewage treatment facility, the wastewater discharge from industrial facilities or water from a detention or process tank. The water can be of varying quality – ranging from heavily polluted to completely clean.
As an example, an effluent sump pump pumps waste from toilets installed below a main sewage line. In the context of wastewater treatment plants, effluent that has been treated is sometimes called secondary effluent or treated effluent. This cleaner effluent can then be directed to other processes or to the recipient depending on the step in the wastewater treatment plant.


text:
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Programs for Teachers
Newberry Teachers' Consortium
In this seminar, participants will look at the two different existing texts of /King Lear/ (the Quarto and the Folio), trying to see what makes each of them unique. The idea will not be to decide which one of them is "better," but rather to see what Shakespeare may have been doing in revising the one version into the other (if that is what he did). One of the assumptions of the seminar will be that comparison between the two texts can be used to enliven classroom discussion of the play, and that students can get involved in these kinds of textual issues.
Seminar led by Richard Strier, University of Chicago