text:
TASER Tackles Distracted Driving Epidemic with Safety Solutions to Help Consumers Stay Focused While Driving
TASER unveils Protector™ safe driver system at CES 2011
Scottsdale, Ariz. and Las Vegas, Nev. – TASER International, Inc. (Nasdaq:TASR), a global provider of safety technologies that prevent conflict and protect life, announces the retail availability of a new safety solution for families, the Protector™ safe driver system. While TASER is widely known for providing less lethal capabilities to the law enforcement community, the company also provides solutions to everyday consumers who want effective options for self-defense and family protection. The Protector safe driver system extends TASER's family safety capabilities to cover the important issue of staying focused while driving. The product will be available for sale for the first time during the International Consumer Electronics Show (CES) that runs from January 6-10 in Las Vegas, NV.
In 2008, nearly 6,000 people were killed in more than 500,000 vehicle crashes related to distracted driving according to the U.S. Department of Transportation. Through the use of innovative technology, the Protector safe driver system enables families to prevent cell-phone related driving distractions, foster responsible driving behaviors, and have the information necessary to take action in emergency situations.
"There is no doubt that distracted driving is a problem that has now reached epidemic levels on our roads and highways," said Rick Smith, CEO and cofounder of TASER International. "We are in the business of protecting lives – and through the development of technologies like the Protector safe driver system, we want to empower families with the right tools to curb distracted driving."
How Does the Protector Safe Driver System Work?
The safe driver system consists of a hardware device in the car (the base unit), paired with a handset application on the phone (the distraction management software), and configuration of options, alerts and settings over the web (done through the console software). All three components have their own unique means of communication, allowing the Protector safe driver system to 'verify' that the full system is in place and functioning properly, and giving you peace of mind knowing that your family is safe behind the wheel.
• The base unit can be easily installed into a vehicle via the OBD II port, and whenever the vehicle is running, the base unit will emit a Bluetooth signal.
• The distraction management software gets installed onto the driver's smart-phone (the software is currently available for Android 2.2+ and BlackBerry 5.0+ phones.)
• When the distraction management software recognizes the signal from the Protector base unit, it locks down the phone, so that only approved functionality can be accessed.
• Parents or account administrators will have the ability to decide whether or not handset and/or hands free calling is permitted.
• Texting, emailing, web surfing, and all other functionality that requires eyes, hands, and attention are never permitted when locked mode is engaged.
In addition to preventing distracted driving behavior, the safe driver system provides safe driving reports, based on configurable rules, and real-time vehicle location and status information. With these functions, parents or administrator will be able to see where the car is whenever needed, so that if the driver ever has a problem, information on where they are and how to get to them is available immediately.
Available for retail today, the highly anticipated Protector safe driver system by TASER can be purchased online at www.Protector.com for $249.95 and a monthly service subscription.
To emphasize its commitment to providing technology solutions, TASER is also taking a proactive stance on the distracted driving issue by organizing national awareness efforts. In November 2010, TASER held the Arizona Distracted Driving Youth Summit (AZDDYS) on the campus of Arizona State University, where hundreds of high school and college students rallied around their experiences with distracted driving and discussed solutions to help curb the growing problem.
Come visit TASER at CES in the South Hall at Booth #36206. To schedule media interviews and requests for more information about Protector, please contact Audrey Craipain at email@example.com.
About TASER International, Inc.
TASER International, Inc., (NYSE: TASR) is a global provider of safety technologies that prevent conflict and protect life More than 15,500 public safety agencies in 40 countries rely on TASER electronic control devices (ECDs) to help protect and serve. TASER innovations benefit individuals and families too; providing personal protection and accountability while maintaining regard for life. Since 1994, more than 225,000 individuals have relied on TASER technology as a means for effective personal safety. Learn more about TASER International and its solutions at www.TASER.com or by calling (800) 978-2737. Be a part of the TASER community by joining us on Facebook, Twitter and YouTube.
Request more product info from Axon Enterprise
Thank You!


text:
When setting up a personal stock investment strategy, individual investors often set short-term and long-term goals. These goals may address the questions of specific objectives, how to start achieving these objectives, and the amount of risk that the individual is comfortable taking on. Once goals are in place, the investor can start to think about the overall strategy, and how they are going to start building the portfolio. A large number of investors will not reach their goals that they created at the outset. There may be many different reasons for this, but getting caught up in the excitement and chasing performance may be near the top of the list. Investors who figure out how to focus on the right information are typically more prepared for the numerous challenges that arise when dealing with the equity market.
Tracking some stock ratings, we can see that the stock's Moving Average Rating is currently pointing to a "Strong Sell" for ProShares UltraShort Russell2000 (:TWM). Traders may be monitoring many different indicators in order to get a grasp of where the stock may be moving in the near future. Taking a look at the Oscillators rating, we note that the reading is pointing to a "Buy".
Following trading action on shares of ProShares UltraShort Russell2000 (:TWM), we see that the stock has moved -0.0171 since the opening price of 14.13. So far, the stock has reached a high of 14.24 and dipped to a low of 13.93. The consensus rating on the stock is currently Sell, and today's volume has been measured around 943743.
Technical traders have many tools at their disposal when conducting stock research. One of those tools is the Exponential Moving Average or EMA. The EMA is similar to the simple moving average, but more weight is put on the newest data. Let's look at some different EMA levels:
10 day Exponential Moving Average: 14.68445294
20 day Exponential Moving Average: 15.12771065
30 day Exponential Moving Average: 15.34580268
50 day Exponential Moving Average: 15.49238919
100 day Exponential Moving Average: 15.4988207
200 day Exponential Moving Average: 15.50781723
Taking a look at the Donchian Channels indicator, we note that the 20 day lower band is 13.93. The 20 day upper band is 16.53. This indicator was created by Richard Donchian, and traders follow these channels to help identify potential trading signals.
Traders will take note of the 20 day Chaikin Money Flow indicator that is now at -0.15896864. The value of this indicator will fluctuate between 1 and -1. Traders may be watching when the CMF crosses zero. This cross might point to a bullish or bearish price reversal depending on which way it is moving crossing the zero line.
The Awesome Oscillator reading is currently -1.37044412. Technical traders will watch the AO especially when it crosses above or below the zero line. A move above the line may signal a bullish scenario. A move below the zero line may indicate a bearish selling opportunity. The AO may prove to be a valuable tool for many momentum traders.
There are a number of different pivot points that traders can use when conducting stock analysis. Pivot points can be useful for traders looking to establish trading entry and exit points. Focusing on some popular one month pivots for ProShares UltraShort Russell2000 (:TWM), we see that the Woodie pivot is currently at 15.7125. The Woodie support 1 pivot is 14.895, and the Woodie resistance 1 pivot is 16.165. The Camarilla one month pivot is presently 15.82. The one month Classic pivot is 15.82 and the Classic resistance 1 is 16.38 while the Classic support 1 pivot is measured at 15.11.
There are various types of investment philosophies that investors may choose to follow when approaching the stock market. Value investing involves searching for undervalued or bargain stocks that may eventually offer solid returns. Growth investors often buy companies that have highly promising growth potential. Some investors will choose to invest with a contrarian approach. This entails making investment decisions that are opposite of what the majority are doing, such as buying when everyone else is selling and vice-versa. Socially responsible investors may be searching for companies that subscribe to a high level of ethical or moral standards.
Receive News & Ratings Via Email - Enter your email address below to receive a concise daily summary of the latest news and analysts' ratings with MarketBeat.com's FREE daily email newsletter.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Not exactly but close enough. Second look at Romney?
Mitt Romney is mining the George W. Bush White House for legal talent to advise his presidential campaign — including a key person behind the controversial Justice Department memos authorizing waterboarding and other "enhanced interrogation techniques."
On Tuesday, Romney released a list of the 63 lawyers on his Justice Advisory Committee, designed to advise his presidential campaign on legal policy and in some cases provide legal counsel. Its most famous name: former Ronald Reagan Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork, whose nomination was voted down by the Senate…
Prime among [the others] is Steven Bradbury, one of 13 "prominent lawyers" singled out on the list by Romney's campaign. Bradbury led the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel from 2005 to 2009 and signed three 2005 memos reassuring the CIA and the DOJ that techniques like waterboarding were legal even when combined with another harsh technique.
I'm already looking forward to the first Obama/Romney debate, where The One will scold Mitt for using lawyers who have contempt for due process before trumpeting his own shoot-on-sight drone policy. As for Mitt, consider this part of his current stealth strategy, in which he spends most of his time fundraising and rolling out occasional big-name endorsements in lieu of stumping for media attention. Supposedly that's going to change soon, but it's working, sort of, so far: Rasmussen's latest still has him in front among likely voters with 22 percent to Perry's 18 and Bachmann's 17. What would happen in a three-way race between them? Romney wins that too — or does he?
In a three-way race between Romney, Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann and Texas Governor Rick Perry, Romney earns 34% of the vote, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of Likely Republican Primary Voters. Bachmann picks up 27% support, while Perry, the only one who has yet to formally declare he's a candidate, gets 26%. Five percent (5%) like some other candidate, and eight percent (8%) are undecided.
The race is a virtual tie, however, if it's a two-way race. In a showdown between just Romney and Bachmann, 44% of primary voters support Romney, while 42% favor Bachmann. The remaining 14% either like another candidate or are undecided.
Pit Romney against Perry alone, and the former Massachusetts governor earns 43% while the Texas governor gets 39%. Nine percent (9%) prefer another candidate, while another nine percent (9%) are undecided.
He does better against both Perry and Bachmann in a two-way race than I'd expect given that they're both tea-party favorites and combine for 61 percent in the three-way match-up. Three problems, though. One: Romney's better known than both of them thanks to his '08 run and the months of buzz he's gotten this year for being the default frontrunner. That has to be boosting his numbers a little. Two: No one's hit him yet. Plenty of primary voters who don't follow politics day to day are still blissfully unaware of RomneyCare. Perry's already promising that "There will be plenty of vinegar and whatever else needs to be in the recipe" once he gets in, and Bachmann's bound to start attacking more once she's done concentrating on Ames. What happens to Mitt's numbers then? Three: Given the make-up of the rest of the field, which way are those undecided and "other candidate" voters likely to break if forced to choose between Romney and a tea partier? True, you've got some Pawlenty fans mixed in there, but you've also got many more Palin and Cain and Paul fans. Who's a more natural fit for them, Perry/Bachmann or the architect of the individual mandate in Massachusetts?
Exit question: How come Romney took a beating for waffling on the debt negotiations but not Perry?


text:
State Codes and StatutesStatutes > West-virginia > 03 > 3-5-11
§3-5-11. Withdrawals; filling vacancies in candidacy; publication.
(a) A candidate who has filed a certificate of announcement and wishes to withdraw and decline to stand as a candidate for the office shall file a signed and notarized statement of withdrawal with the same officer with whom the certificate of announcement was filed. If the statement of withdrawal is received not later than the third Tuesday following the close of candidate filing, the name of a candidate who files that statement of withdrawal may not be printed on the ballot. No candidate who files a statement of withdrawal after that time may have his or her name removed from the ballot.
(b) Upon request of the candidate's family, the board of ballot commissioners may remove the name of a candidate who dies before the ballots are printed. If a candidate dies after the ballots are printed but before the election, the clerk of the county commission shall give a written notice which shall be posted with the sample ballot at each precinct with the county to the following effect: "To the voter: (name) of (residence), a candidate for (office) is deceased."
(c) If after the time is closed for announcing as a candidate there is a vacancy on the ballot caused by failure of any person of a party to file for each available seat of each available office, the executive committee of the party for the political division within which such candidate was to be voted for, or its chair if the committee fails to act, may fill the vacancy and certify the candidate named to the appropriate filing officer. Certification of the appointment by the executive committee or its chair, the candidate's certificate of announcement and the filing fee must be received by the appropriate filing officer as follows: For an appointment by an executive committee, no later than the second Friday following the close of filing, for an appointment by its chair, no later than the third Tuesday following the close of filing. A candidate appointed to fill a vacancy on the ballot under this subsection shall have his or her name printed on the primary ballot for that party.


text:
Here are the dates* for the 2012 races:
Jan-28 Orcas Island 25K
Feb-4 Orcas Island 50K
Mar-25* Gorge Waterfalls 50K
Apr-21* Yakima Skiyline Rim 50K/25K
May-20* Sun Mountain 50M/50K/25K
Jun-10* Winthrop 26.2/13.1
Jun-17* Beacon Rock 50K/25K
Aug-11* Angels Staircase 50M/50K/25K
Sep-8* North Cascades PCT 100K
Sep-15* Cle Elum 50K/25K
Oct-6* Mt. Spokane 50K/25K
Dec-8* Deception Pass 50K/25K
* Dates are tentative so don't book that flight just yet! I hope to firm up all the dates by the end of November and some of them will probably be firmed up much sooner. Stay tuned....
To make sure you get all the latest info you have a variety of options:


text:
- Font:
- +
- -
Guests: Amanda Drury, Michael Smerconish, Rep. Jim Moran, Michael Isikoff, Melinda Henneberger, Roger Simon, Sam Allis, Neil Swidey
CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: Bombshell. Let's play HARDBALL.
Good evening. I'm Chris Matthews in New York. Leading off tonight:
Suspicions confirmed. For a long time, critics of former president Bush suspected his that administration politicized our national security for political gain. Now they have what appears to be proof.
Tom Ridge, who served as Bush's first secretary of homeland security, says in a new book that he was pressured by top Bush administration officials, including Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and John Ashcroft, to raise the terror threat level from yellow to orange the weekend before the 2004 reelection election—reelection to the presidency for President Bush, that is. In other words, the Bush team tried to manipulate—hype, if you will—the terror alert level to incite panic and win votes right before his reelection Tuesday. We'll get all that in tonight.
Also tonight, has President Obama gone to orange alert in his health care reform push? Today's "Wall Street Journal" reports that the White House and Democrats are considering splitting the health care reform bill into two parts so they can ram through the public option part solely with Democratic votes. Michael Smerconish did his radio talk show today with the president in the White House. He joins us later.
A lot of President Obama's supporters are very unhappy with how he's handled the health care debate. Our own Roger Simon said instead of drawing a line in the sand, Mr. Obama has drawn a squiggle in the mud. We'll bring that up in the "Politics Fix."
And Senator Ted Kennedy, who we all know is battling brain cancer right now, is trying to make sure that health care reform efforts aren't hurt by his absence from the Senate. He sent a letter to the Massachusetts governor and state congressional leaders asking that his seat be temporarily filled, in the event that it's necessary, not by a special election but by appointment by the governor until that election is held. Why wouldn't the governor do this for him?
And finally, what separates John Ensign's affair from Bill Clinton's?
Ensign's got the answer for us. That's in the HARDBALL "Sideshow" tonight.
We begin with the revelation by former homeland security secretary Tom Ridge that top Bush administration officials pushed him to raise the terror threat level in the weekend just before the 2004 presidential election. Here was the scene that Friday before the election in 2004. Members of the Bush administration's national security team assembled to weigh the U.S. response to a new bin Laden videotape.
Here's how Ridge described the meeting. Quote, "A vigorous, some might say dramatic, discussion ensued. Ashcroft strongly urged an increase in the threat level and was supported by Rumsfeld. There was absolutely no support for that position within our department"—that's Homeland Security—"none. I wondered, Is this about security or politics? Post-election analysis had demonstrated that a significant increase in the president's approval rating occurred in the days after we raised the threat level before." Ridge wrote, quote, "It seemed possible to me and to others around the table that something could be afoot other than simple concern about the country's safety."
Well, the idea of raising the threat level was absolutely dropped ultimately, and Ridge said, quote, "I believe our strong interventions had pulled the 'go up' advocates back from the brink. But I consider that episode to be not only a dramatic moment in Washington's recent history, but another illustration of the intersection of politics, fear, credibility and security. After that episode, I knew I had to follow through on my plans to leave the federal government."
Wow! It's all in this new book that's coming out in two weeks. We got an advance copy. I'm looking at it right now.
Let's turn right now to Democratic congressman Jim Moran of Virginia and "Newsweek" investigative reporter Michael Isikoff. Congressman Moran, you first. What does this say to you, reading this new book by Tom Ridge?
REP. JIM MORAN (D), VIRGINIA: I continue to be proud that I consider myself a good friend of Tom Ridge's. He's a thoughtful, credible professional. I don't think the Bush administration deserved to have him among their ranks. And I do think that it was pretty obvious that they were politicizing these threat alert levels, as they were just about everything they did over the eight years. It wasn't a matter of making the country particularly safer, it was a matter of improving Bush's poll numbers. And eventually, they overreached and undid themselves.
MATTHEWS: Mike Isikoff, you're an expert on conspiracies in this administration just past. What do you make of these quotes? I mean, they're amazing quotes. And you know, when you write a book—as you know, you've written a best-seller—you take great care when you make accusations like this against your colleagues. Look at this. "Is this about security or politics," he asked himself, sitting around the table. "It seemed possible to me and to others at the table that something could be afoot other than simple concern for the country's safety."
He's accusing his colleagues, Rumsfeld and Ashcroft, et cetera, of trying to hype something to help the president get reelected and to keep their jobs.
MICHAEL ISIKOFF, "NEWSWEEK": Well, look, the question he's raising there, Was this about politics or security, was a question that everybody in the media and many people in government and politics were raising every time we went through the terror alerts during that period.
Just take a step back and you look at everything that was going on in 2004. I had a top Bush strategist who worked on that campaign who told—who said last year, You know, that was a campaign we never should have won, an election we never should have won.
Iraq was going south, escalating casualties, the revelations about Abu Ghraib, the revelations in the Senate Intelligence Committee about how the administration had stretched the intelligence in the run-up to the war in Iraq, the 9/11 commission hearings showing how so many people inside the White House were asleep at the switch at the time that the president got the PDB "Bin Laden prepared (SIC) to strike the U.S."
What saved the election for George W. Bush in 2004? It was the threat of another terrorist attack and the continuous threat alerts. Now, that is simply—that was the view of inside the Bush campaign itself. It doesn't mean that there weren't genuine security fears during this time. There were. But because of the highly politicized atmosphere, because of the track record the Bush administration had demonstrated, particularly in the run-up to the war in Iraq, there were widespread suspicions as to whether or not these constant terror threat alerts were, indeed, genuine or whether they were influenced by politics.
MATTHEWS: And as Secretary Ridge points out in this brand-new book—we've got the advance copy—every time they pushed that panic button and code orange went up, they knew they got more poll voltage out there.
Let's look at the exit polls coming out of 2004 presidential election that makes your point, Michael Isikoff. Nineteen percent of voters considered terrorism the most important issue. And of them, 86 percent—this was a wipeout, this was a shutout, basically, for the president -- 86 to 14 percent on that issue. So every time terror got into people's heads, it helped the president.
Congressman Moran, it seems to me—I even saw another poll, you probably saw it back then -- 49 percent of the country, just about half, said the only guy who could protect them was Bush. So every time that panic button went orange or red even, they gained.
MORAN: But doesn't it remind you of that old story, The boy who cried wolf? There's only so many times you can do that, and then you lose your credibility. And that was Tom's concern. He wanted to maintain the credibility of his agency and of the professionals who were working in his agency, and he understood that as the White House politicized what they were doing, then when they do have a real alert, when it is an orange or red alert, then people are less likely to take it seriously. The country is less likely to respond.
That was Tom's concern. And unfortunately, it clearly wasn't the White House's concern. Their concern was getting this guy reelected, regardless of the fact that they were undermining the credibility of the Department of Homeland Security and really threatening the real security of our nation.
MATTHEWS: OK, let's take a look at this. In August of 2004 -- that's several months earlier than the election—the terror threat level was raised for five financial institutions in New York, Washington, and Newark, New Jersey. Here's what Tom Ridge said at the time when asked about—by skeptic about those who suspected that the threat level was being politicized. Let's listen to Secretary Ridge back in August of 2004.
TOM RIDGE, SECRETARY OF HOMELAND SECURITY: I wish I could give them all top secret clearances and let them review the information that some of us have the responsibility to review. We don't do politics in the Department of Homeland Security.
MATTHEWS: Mike Isikoff, We don't do it, but others in that Cabinet Room did.
ISIKOFF: Well...
MATTHEWS: Here we have a new book out. I want you to give me a reading on this book. When you pick it up and you find these words and you read in it where he says, let's say—"Is this about security or politics?" Then he answers his own question, says, "I believe our strong intervention saved us from going ahead to this higher brink, but I consider this episode to be not only a dramatic moment in Washington's recent history but another illustration of the intersection of politics, fear, credibility and security. After this episode, I knew I had to follow through on my plans to leave the federal government."
ISIKOFF: Well...
MATTHEWS: Pretty strong language, I had to quit after I saw the games that were being played.
ISIKOFF: It is, although I'm glad you played that clip from August of '04 because I think a lot of us always thought that that orange terror alert, which Tom Ridge totally endorsed, actually did as much to change the momentum of the election as any other single event. That came within days after the end of the Democratic convention. It totally stopped John Kerry's bounce, crushed his bounce coming out of that convention and—you know, and turned an election that—Kerry at that point was ahead in the polls, was poised to win, and began the swing back towards Bush.
So Ridge, you know, doesn't—if you believe that these terror alerts were largely political or had too much politics in it, Ridge doesn't have clean hands here. He was a part of it. It's also worth, you know, pointing out in context that the threat alert that he says he resisted on the eve of the election came right after the release of a new Osama bin Laden tape and the release of another tape by Adam Gadahn, an American al Qaeda follower in—with al Qaeda in Afghanistan, who was warning about blood flowing in the streets.
So there was, in fact, stuff going on that had security people concerned during this time. So I don't think we should completely dismiss...
MATTHEWS: Yes, except in the book...
ISIKOFF: ... everything that was going on.
MATTHEWS: But in the book, Tom Ridge—and I talked to him this afternoon. He stands by this book. In the book, he says that those comments—the videotape by Osama bin Laden was the same old crap he'd been coming out with for years. There was nothing new in there. His hatred of the West and of President Bush was not news, nor was it increasingly threatening.
Congressman Moran, let me read you another quote from this that's
grabbed me. "It also seemed possible to me and to others around the table"
that was in the Situation Room when they were considering that tape—
"that something could be afoot other than simple concern about the country's safety." That's a very nice way of saying, I think politics...
MORAN: ... being diplomatic, isn't he?
MATTHEWS: Yes.
MORAN: Well, he's trying to be diplomatic. You know, I think he feels much the way that Colin Powell feels. They were—anyone that had real credibility they were willing to use and abuse to the point that those people lost their credibility. Colin Powell I think lost much of his, unfortunately. He was manipulated by the administration, and it's clear that Tom was, as well.
I'm sure Tom would wish that he had stood up, but if he had not said what he said, I don't think they would have included him. They would have had the White House spokesperson say something, and they would have let him go. You know, these guys were cutthroat. They had one objective in mind, get the president elected. Everything else was dispensable, including the most credible people in their administration.
MATTHEWS: Mike Isikoff, how many hours do you think will pass before Dick Cheney comes out and dumps on this book?
ISIKOFF: Well, I don't know. Dick Cheney may have other things to—
that he wants to dump on right now. We're getting on Monday the release of
the CIA inspector general report, which I'm told is going to be devastating
going to have some devastating revelations in it about the interrogation program. I think there's a lot that Dick Cheney is going to want to be rebutting over the next few days. You know, I don't know how much the Ridge thing will factor into that.
But let me just make one more point on the Ridge stuff. You know, just to underscore how heightened and politicized the atmosphere was during that period, I do remember there was actually even suggestions that—you know, because of the election year threats, there was a memo written that was forwarded to the Justice Department suggesting that the election—you know, there should be contingency plans for calling off the election in the event of a terrorist attack. And you know, that does give you some idea of some of the thinking that was going on at that time.
MATTHEWS: Well, sometimes I love it when things are what they look like. Congressman Moran, thank you for coming on the show and giving us your reaction to this blockbuster new book by Tom Ridge, the former secretary of homeland security, wherein he argues that his colleagues were ready to hype up the threat to this country on the weekend before the 2004 election, which President Bush won by Ohio. Congressman Jim Moran, thank you, sir. Thank you, Mike Isikoff, as always.
Coming up: As his party plummets in the polls, President Obama takes to the airwaves to fight for his struggling health care reform plan. He talked to Michael Smerconish's radio audience this afternoon. We're going to have Michael on in a moment to talk about what the president said today. Can he get back control of this debate? We've got Michael Smerconish coming up next.
You're watching HARDBALL, only on MSNBC.
BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I think early on, a decision was made by the Republican leadership that said, Look, let's not give them a victory. Maybe we can have a replay of 1993-'94, when Clinton came in. He failed on health care, and then we won in the mid-term elections and we got the majority. And I think there's some folks who are taking a page out of that playbook.
MATTHEWS: Welcome back to HARDBALL. That's President Obama today talking to syndicated radio host and MSNBC contributor Michael Smerconish. He joins us now.
Michael, we're going to look at some polls right now to show you how bad this thing is for the president right now. It's a new Pew poll. Among the two thirds of the country think that President Obama and Republican leaders are not working together—among those two thirds, 17 percent of them blame the president, that's compared to 7 percent back in February. So he's losing ground there. Republicans are holding it just under 30.
Now for party favorability. Look at this. The Democrats are down below 50 percent now for the first time, Republicans holding at 40 percent. In other words, their slash-and-burn attacks on the president haven't hurt them an inch. That would tell me, as a Republican—if I were a Republican activist, I'd say, Keep on the fire, keep the flame thrower aimed directly at the White House. We're not losing, he is.
MICHAEL SMERCONISH, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST, MSNBC CONTRIBUTOR: Well, and what's amazing to me...
MATTHEWS: Right?
SMERCONISH: Yes. What's amazing to me about those numbers, Chris, is that the Republicans are seeing that gain, or at least devaluing the president's numbers, without really offering an alternative.
MATTHEWS: Right.
SMERCONISH: In other words, it's not as if there's a GOP plan out there that's gaining favor. It's that his is being torn down.
MATTHEWS: So, Do only harm, is their oath. Do only harm, and it seems to be working.
Here's more of the president today on your show—must have been quite an honor. You and I are friends, and I know what an honor it is to meet with any president and to sit in the president's own presence there at the White House and spend that time with him. You're smiling because you ought to be. What a get it was for you.
But let's watch and listen to the president on your program today.
OBAMA: The press got a little excited and some folks on the left got a little excited about this. Our position hasn't changed. We think that the key is cost control, competition, making sure the people have good quality options. If we're able to achieve that, that's the end that we're seeking. And the means—you know, we can have some good arguments about what the best way to achieve it is, but we've got to change because the status quo is unsustainable.
MATTHEWS: Will that calm talk work now, Michael?
SMERCONISH: Well, that question—pardon me—that answer was in response, I think, Chris, to my first question, which was to say, Did Secretary Sebelius misspeak last weekend? Is there some change now afoot relative to the position on the public option? And that was the president explaining to me that he believes the media had made a mountain out of a molehill, that things that she said on Sunday were very consistent with what has been said and is still being said by the administration.
So he was very much trying to keep up at least the public posture that the public option is out there and alive.
MATTHEWS: What's the public make of this, that the president's waffling?
SMERCONISH: Well, I don't know that the public, respectfully, really understands the public option versus single payer versus a public co-op. I think the public just has this perception—many that I hear from, and what I really wanted to convey to him today is that there's a perception among many, at least many talk radio listeners, that the government under his watch wants everything, wants involvement in the automotive industry, wants involvement in the banks and wants involvement in health care.
And what he then responded to me—because I said it to him in those terms—was to say, look, you know, this didn't happen on my watch. The involvement with the banks started, the whole TARP program began on the watch of—of—of Bush 43.
So, he was trying to dissuade people from the view that he wants a piece of everything.
And, Chris, I don't think that it's the fringe element that has that concern. I think that there are some Republicans and some independents with whom he's lost ground who are concerned that, uh-oh, this spending is really now taking on a—a quantum leap.
MATTHEWS: Why is radio right?
SMERCONISH: Well, it's a long—I have a long answer, but the short version is because I—I believe that conservatives didn't feel as if they were wanted and had a home in traditional media outlets.
And that explains the rush—the rise, pardon me, a decade-plus ago of Rush Limbaugh. Today, you know, it's—it's hard, man. It's hard for a guy like me, because I get branded a conservative. You know I have never held myself out that way. I have plenty of conservative views and plenty of liberal views, but I constantly feel like I'm—I'm—I'm swimming upstream because the people who tune in, they expect that that's what they're going to get.
And—and, frankly, many of them are seeking that level of reassurance. I'm not there to offer you reassurance. I'm there to hopefully ask entertaining and probing questions...
MATTHEWS: Yes.
SMERCONISH: ... and—and—and not to browbeat.
MATTHEWS: Let's take a look at some more of the president today on your program. He's talking about misinformation. I wonder if that's his problem, or his problem that people really do have a sense of what he's doing, and a lot of the people in the center-right, as well as the right, don't want him to do it, which is to increase the federal role in taking responsibility for ensuring people's health.
I'm not sure the right and the center-right are comfortable with that basic idea of taking national responsibility for the people who are uninsured right now.
Here is the president talking about it.
BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: You mentioned illegal immigrants. This—this has been an example of just pure misinformation out there. None of the bills that have been voted on in Congress and none of the proposals coming out of the White House propose giving coverage to illegal immigrants, none of them. That has never been on the table; nobody has discussed it.
So everybody who's listening out there, when you start hearing that somehow this is all designed to provide health insurance to illegal immigrants, that is simply not true and has never been the case.
MATTHEWS: But here is the point, Michael. Why has it taken him until now to say that? Because he doesn't want to offend people who are on the side of—quote—"illegal immigrants" or undocumented workers, as you might call them.
SMERCONISH: Well...
MATTHEWS: He doesn't want to offend that constituency. There's no—no confusion here. They're—he's on their side generally. If he's not going to give them health care this time, well, that's the first time he hasn't been on the side of them.
SMERCONISH: Well, he, by the way, was responding to a radio caller, I think from Indiana, who raised that issue. That's another of those constants that you hear about.
Now, there's a shred of truth in this, though, Chris, because there's a 1986 law on the books—I don't know what becomes of that law—that says, if a person shows up in an E.R., they have got to be treated.
MATTHEWS: Well, that's all right, but that's not part of a health insurance program, going to an E.R.
SMERCONISH: No, it's not.
And I—and I raised that with the president. And the president—
the president said—and the tape will speak for itself—hey, look, what
are we going to do, turn away someone who is in a perilous condition? You
you can't have that.
But I think it's—it's healthy for him—let me say this. He came on my program. And he knows that, regardless of my views, the traditional caller is a conservative individual. There were no ground rules. The White House never said to me, keep him away from these questions.
Their—you know, their attitude was, open those phone lines and—and let's have at it. And I love the fact that he wants to be engaged in dialogue, get away from all that left-vs.-right shout-fest, which I think benefits no one.
So, you know, what am I going home on the train thinking about today? I'm going home thinking that it was a fabulous experience. I sat where FDR delivered fireside chats.
MATTHEWS: Yes.
SMERCONISH: And there were no rules as to what I could ask the president of the United States.
MATTHEWS: Are you taking that table cloth home with you?
SMERCONISH: No, I took a few tablets. And...
SMERCONISH: ... Robert—Robert Gibbs...
MATTHEWS: What is that tablecloth? What was that paisley tablecloth you put out there on the table?
SMERCONISH: That...
MATTHEWS: What is that thing?
SMERCONISH: That's not me, pal.
SMERCONISH: I—I told—I told Robert Gibbs I was taking home a...
SMERCONISH: I was taking home a robe. If I saw a White House robe, I was taking it back to Philly.
MATTHEWS: I just couldn't—let's take a look.
Here is some more of the president, seriously. This is a serious discussion. I can't resist. But here he is talking about trying to do something really historic and how difficult it is.
OBAMA: Passing a big bill like this is always messy. It's—FDR was called a socialist when he passed Social Security. JFK and Lyndon Johnson, they were both accused of a government takeover of health care when they passed Medicare.
This is the process that we go through, because, understandably, the American people have a long tradition of being suspicious of government, until the government actually does something that helps them, and then they don't want anybody messing with whatever gets set up.
MATTHEWS: Michael, you it seems—have got a lot of Republican listeners, I know that, and some middle-of-the-road people as well, and a few libs.
But let me ask you this. Doesn't it seem clear to you that the Republican strategy now is scorched earth, destroy this guy's chances? If he wins, they lose. Therefore, they want him to lose. If he doesn't get a health care bill through this year, the Republicans will have a good Christmas.
SMERCONISH: I don't know that the Republicans have a strategy. I don't know that what's going on out there is necessarily being directed by the Republicans, as much as it's being stirred by folks who do what I do for a living.
And, you know, what's a shame is that there—there are folks out there who are not birthers. They're not on the fringe. They are middle-of-the-road folks like me who have legitimate concerns. And, you know, they get shouted down in this whole process or are cast with aspersions because of those who are on the fringe.
I guess what I'm trying to say is, there's—there's reason here for a good, healthy discussion and debate. And I hope that we can have it free of some of the climate that's been going on, which I think is counterproductive for everybody.
MATTHEWS: Remember the French and Indian War, Michael? If I were an Englishman fighting that war against the French and the Indians, I would blame the French if I get scalped by one of the Indians. So, you can't deny your allies, buddy.
If they're on your side, you have got to be—be responsible for them. And there are a lot of crazies out there on the right right now, the birthers or the people carrying guns, and you can't act like they're not part of your allegiance or part of your coalition, Michael. If they're on your side politically, they're your fault.
SMERCONISH: Well, listen, Chris, I remember, during the campaign, where you would—you would get these individuals who would make reference to president, now president, by referencing his middle name. And I always knew that was a cheap shot. And I always said the GOP should cut loose whoever that person was who thought they were going to stir up the crowd with that.
SMERCONISH: It's counterproductive.
And, in this case, you know, it may come back to haunt some folks as well.
MATTHEWS: Well, when they're running around waving scalps in the air saying that they defeated the president, a lot of Republicans who make money being Republicans are going to be cheering, I will bet you.
Anyway, Michael Smerconish, buddy, thank you. Congratulations on the scoop today. You got the president.
SMERCONISH: Thank you.
MATTHEWS: Up next: Senator John Ensign says his affair is different from Bill Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky. Talk about splitting hairs. Well, his—we're going to give you his reasons in the "Sideshow," where it belongs.
You're watching HARDBALL. There's always plenty of stuff in the "Sideshow"—coming up in a minute.
MATTHEWS: Back to HARDBALL. Time for the "Sideshow."
First: It was legal. Senator John Ensign, the Republican from Nevada, says that his extramarital affair with a staffer's wife was on a higher plane than the one President Clinton had with his staffer in the White House.
Here is the senator's case. He didn't lie under oath about the matter. President Clinton did—quote—"President Clinton stood right before the American people, and he lied to the American people. You remember that famous day he lied to the American people, plus, the fact I thought he suborned perjury—suborned perjury. That's why I voted for the articles of impeachment."
Isn't it nice to have a standard you can always rise above? It lends you a bit of moral authority in the clinch.
And check this out. Karl Rove has just been named to the
Scandinavian-American Hall of Fame. Wow, is that the Nordic version of the
Ancient Order of Hibernians
Time now for tonight's "Big Number."
I got that award.
Yesterday afternoon, President Obama invited 17 current and retired NASCAR drivers to the White House to honor NASCAR champ Jimmie Johnson. But, according to the Politico, this isn't the first time the drivers have dipped their toes in political waters.
Since the '80s, those NASCAR invitees have given $113,000 to Republican candidates or campaign committees of the Republican Party. How much do you think the NASCAR crowd gave to Democrats over those many years, 29 years. Zero, zip, nada.
When it comes to the Democrats, NASCAR don't have a nickel, nothing, to give the Democrats.
That's tonight's "Big Number."
And be sure to stay up tonight. I will be a guest on—I can't wait
"The Colbert Report," pronounced C-O-L-B-E-R-silent T.
Up next: Senator Ted Kennedy wants Massachusetts lawmakers to change the law to allow the governor of the state of the commonwealth to appoint his successor.
You're watching HARDBALL, only on MSNBC.
AMANDA DRURY, CNBC CORRESPONDENT: I'm Amanda Drury with your CNBC "Market Wrap."
Stock rose again today on a flood of economic data and a strong rebound in the Chinese markets. The Dow Jones industrials added almost 71 points, the S&P 500 up nearly 11, and the Nasdaq gaining 20 points.
Stocks opened lower on a surprise bump in new jobless claims. And more people unemployed means more late payments. Mortgage delinquencies hit a new record high in the second quarter.
But investors liked the report from the Philadelphia Fed. It said regional manufacturing activity jumped more than 11 points in July.
And cash for clunkers is calling it quits. The Department of Transportation says it will end the popular trade-in program at 8:00 p.m. Eastern time Monday night. Auto dealers have already made rebate deals worth almost $2 billion. That leaves only about $1 billion more in funding in the tank.
That's it from CNBC, first in business worldwide—now back to
MATTHEWS: Welcome back to HARDBALL.
Here—here is "The Boston Globe"'s banner headline this morning—quote—"Kennedy, Looking Ahead, Urges That Senate Seat Be Filled Quickly."
Well, the senator wants Massachusetts to have two votes in the Senate if he's unable to be one of the votes. He sent a letter to the Massachusetts governor, to Governor Patrick—Deval Patrick, rather, and other state leaders urging them to—quote—"provide for a temporary gubernatorial appointment until the special election occurs."
In a statement today, the governor responded: "It's typical of Ted Kennedy to be thinking ahead and about the people of Massachusetts, when the rest of us are thinking about him."
Well, with us now is columnist Sam Allis and reporter Neil Swidey of "The Boston Globe," both of whom helped write "The Last Lion: The Fall and Rise of Ted Kennedy."
Sam, my friend, I have to ask you this question. What is it about Massachusetts law that's so strange that you don't have a simple appointment to fill the spot, like there was back in the 1960s when Jack Kennedy was elected president, followed by a—the election at the regular time in November of the next cycle?
Why not just do it the regular way?
SAM ALLIS, "THE BOSTON GLOBE": Why would you expect something simple out of Massachusetts politics...
ALLIS: ... this yeasty world of politics?
I mean, in order to protect the two votes, what Senator Kennedy is essentially doing, with some desperation, is an attempted end-run around the law that was passed in 2004, rammed through by the Democrats here, that would have—that changed precisely what he wants now, to a governor to appoint somebody, and make it a five-month-later election, special election.
And, so, this is coming around to bite the Democrats. He is haunted by what happened last time. And he's trying to change it. And most Democrats, I think, are hiding under their beds. They don't want to touch this one. It's already got a gamey history. And—and you hear these anodyne comments, and none of them have touched the substance of what Senator Kennedy is asking for.
MATTHEWS: Well, Neil, you get in this. What happens if Senator Kennedy has to resign or he passes away—he's in bad health—something happens, and that seat is vacant? Does that mean that the Democrats in Washington will be with 59 votes, instead of 60, right through the entire debate and final discussion and voting on health care?
Looks like it.
NEIL SWIDEY, "THE BOSTON GLOBE": Well, that law—that law that Sam referred to provides that, within five months, there has to be a new election called. So, there would be no one in place, unless that's changed.
MATTHEWS: So, what do they—what are the Democrats actually saying when you go out and report this story? How can they justify not fixing this baby?
SWIDEY: Well, I think they're...
MATTHEWS: Why don't they just fix it and say, we made a mistake? It was because Mitt Romney was in office, and we didn't him making the appointment. Now we have got a Democratic governor, and we want him to make the appointment. Just admit you're political.
MATTHEWS: Sam, you take this one on.
SWIDEY: They can't...
MATTHEWS: You can handle this. You're a columnist. Why don't they just admit, hey, we're politicians, OK?
ALLIS: Because they looked so gamey last time, Chris, that they don't want to look even worse today.
MATTHEWS: Well, won't they look worse if something happens to Ted Kennedy, and you find yourself with Massachusetts with one vote, instead of two? Won't that look worse? Nobody even knows about this thing now. Now they are all going to know about it, if you blow it.
ALLIS: Yes, but I—no matter how much they love Ted Kennedy—and they do adore him—I think people are drawing a line at once again helping—passing legislation to help one individual.
I think that sits badly right now, no matter how much they would like to do it.
MATTHEWS: Let me ask you about—what is the word on the—the senator's health? It's not too good, is it?
ALLIS: No.
MATTHEWS: Sam.
ALLIS: No, but it varies hugely.
One day, we hear he's on a morphine drip and slipping fast. The next day, we see he's being taken out for a sail. He's in horrible shape. We all know that. And, beyond that, I don't think anybody knows the details, except the family.
MATTHEWS: OK. Your report—any reporting on that, Neil, that's going to come out? Nothing new, right? They've been just very protective. By the way, I'm impressed by the Kennedy family's ability to protect him from us, from press coverage. He has had a measure of privacy, I think, these last couple months.
SWIDEY: He has. As Sam said, there are conflicting reports. But it is—the inner circle is really tight right now, and they're keeping that message tight.
I just want to get back to one thing you had said before about the 1960s, because this temporary appointment, a seat warmer appointment that Ted Kennedy is asking for, is really kind of what paved the way for his entry into the Senate, as you know, back in the '60s.
MATTHEWS: I know. Gentlemen, thanks for coming on. Sam Allis, my friend, thank you for this. It's always great to hear from Massachusetts and how bad the politicians are up there. By the way, isn't it ironic, gentlemen, that the greatest senator of our time, in fact the greatest senator in 30 or 40 years, can't vote on the most important legislative issue since the Civil Rights Bill? It's pretty sad. It's pretty sad. Thank you. That's a bipartisan assessment, by the way.
Well, you have seen the advertisements on this network for next Thursday' premiere of our documentary on the Kennedy brothers. It's an hour I want you all watching right now to watch. It's history. It's taken us a good deal of time, research, and study to produce what I think is a stunning look at those historic brothers, Joseph Kennedy, Jr., John F. Kennedy, Robert F. Kennedy, and Ted Kennedy, all of whom, at one point in their lives, sought the American presidency.
Here is a look at the role of the youngest of the Kennedy brothers.
This will be in the documentary next Thursday night.
MATTHEWS: Of the four Kennedy brothers, Ted, the youngest, was the most connected to the others. In 1946, the family gathered in Hyannisport to celebrate Jack's 29th birthday. When Teddy rose to speak, the 14-year-old raised his glass and said, I'd like to drink a toast to the brother who isn't here. He stunned the room into silence.
ROBERT SHRUM, TED KENNEDY ADVISER: I think the three of them were not only a kind of band of brothers all their own in mythology, but in reality.
MATTHEWS: Whatever your politics, I think it's unimaginable to have lived in this country the last 40 years without the Kennedys. They made their impact. They were tough and they made an difference. In fact, they took our breath away. We're going to talk about the Kennedys next Thursday night here on MSNBC. I hope you'll watch it next Thursday and Friday night at 7:00 Eastern.
Up next, Tom Ridge's disclosure that he was pushed to raise the terror threat, you know, from yellow to orange on the very weekend of the 2004 re-election of President Bush. Who in that White House was pushing for that? Which cabinet members? We'll talk about that. Well, they certainly include Rumsfeld and Ashcroft. No surprise there. They were pushing for the code red rise, apparently, according to Tom Ridge, to get the guy reelected.
We have the politics fix coming up right now. This is HARDBALL, only on MSNBC.
MATTHEWS: Welcome back to HARDBALL. Time for the politics fix. Joining us now, "Politico's" Roger Simon and PoliticsDaily.com's Melinda Henneberger, back by popular demand, I must say. Melinda, you were quite a hit the last time you were on.
Here is the question for you, of course starting with Roger, the old hand here. Roger, this Ridge book, when you actually look at it in the book, not reading it on some press release, and you figure the guy, the former secretary of Homeland Security, a member of the Bush team right up through the election, the re-election 2004, actually put his hand to this, and basically said it was politics at work as they were deciding what code to put the country on alert at right the weekend before the election, with that Osama bin Laden tape facing us in the face. It's pretty stunning.
ROGER SIMON, "POLITICO": It is stunning, in that it confirms what
many of us believed at the time, that the one theme that Bush had for his
re-election was vote for me or die. That was his message—
MATTHEWS: Yes.
SIMON: -- the convention on. You know, John Kerry is not a bad man. He's just a naive man. He can't deal with the terrorists, you know. A vote for him and you're going to wake up and you'll be killed. The terrorists will invade. And it was carried out even to the extent of apparently seriously discussing raising the national threat level.
MATTHEWS: And they're reaching for the joy buzzer every two seconds, it looks like, in this crowd. You know, something to zing you with. You know, nice to meet you, zing. We're going up to code red tonight. Melinda, it's amazing. He said—listen to this quote in here—I've underlined it, obviously. I always do that. "It seemed possible to me and others around the table" -- this is in the situation room at the White House, going over what to do to save the country from Osama bin Laden—
"that something could be afoot other than simple concern for the country's safety."
And this showed that there was an intersection of politics in all this business. It's right in the book. It's coming out in two weeks. Melinda?
MELINDA HENNEBERGER, POLITICSDAILY.COM: This is what a lot of people, of course, said at the time was going on. So it confirm what a lot of us did think. But I don't think he really covers himself with glory in saying this now. It is very much like Colin Powell, you know. If he felt like maybe he should have stepped down at the time, maybe that would have been the right decision. I don't know how interested people are at this point in Tom Ridge's dark night of the soul.
And I don't know that there's political fallout because what he's talking about happened five years ago, even though you certainly could argue, well, they were playing politics of fear then, and they're doing it again now with health care. But I'm not sure those dots will be connected.
MATTHEWS: Isn't this going to add to the American people's general
cynicism about politics, Roger? My own uncle, who is a plumber, uncle Joe
no matter what happened that went bad, somebody left their wife or something, or somebody stole some money—he always said the same thing. It's like everything else. It's like everything else. It seemed to cover all the bases back then, Roger. And the people are going to hear this and say, Ridge says they were playing games with national security on that alert system, and somebody is probably going to say somewhere, it's like everything else. These guys.
SIMON: If you can add to the level of cynicism about politics, this will add to it. I also have to say, as bad as this was, I think Tom Ridge was the only person in America who actually cared about the alert system. I mean, we never knew what to do when it was yellow. We never knew what to do when it was orange. Then you would turn on the radio and hear there was an amber alert. You would be confused even more.
MATTHEWS: There it is. We're looking at it. Melinda, how did you change your weekend lifestyle when told it was going to be yellow instead of orange that weekend before the election? I mean, do you wear brown? What do do you? Do you wear less flashy colors that day?
HENNEBERGER: The plan was duck tape and bottled water, as I recall, wasn't it? Remember the duck tape?
MATTHEWS: I love the duck tape. When they said, if it succeeded, you suffocated. I like that one. If you actually got a successful duck tape in your house, there would be no air coming in, and you would die.
HENNEBERGER: It's like if the witch was guilty, she sank. Right.
MATTHEWS: I always liked that one. Anyway, we'll be right back to talk about health care, which also seems to be in code red right now, with Roger Simon and Melinda Henneberger, again back by popular demand on the politics fix. You're watching only on MSNBC.
MATTHEWS: I'm back with Roger and Melinda. We just got this report in from Charlie Cook, who is about the best political reporter around town. He's the guy that studies elections and how they're going to come out. He's predicting now a big loss by the Democrats come the next election because of the way things are going this summer. He said things are completely out of control for both the president and the Congressional Democrats.
Melinda, is that your—do you see it this way, this bad right now?
HENNEBERGER: It's pretty amazing how quickly things have changed, when only recently we thought, you know, this was going to be a really great year for the Democrats. But I am just so astonished most of all that this health care debate has gotten away from Obama the way it has. I mean, this should be his greatest moment. This should be a no brainer.
I mean, as a cancer survivor, I can tell you that people in waiting rooms do not sit around bragging about their health care coverage and saying, boy, that's something they sure don't have to worry about. I mean, it's nothing but complaints about coverage being dropped or, you know, something that's not covered at all, or they'll allow 75 dollars for your radiation.
And so he hasn't made the moral argument. He didn't start to make that until yesterday on this call with some on the religious left. And that's the argument he really ought to have been making, I think, from the beginning, what a moral imperative this is. It certainly is a vindication for Hillary Clinton, when we said she could have sold it if only she had consulted with people a little more, if only she'd been a little more flexible. Now it looks like the same thing is happening all over again.
MATTHEWS: Isn't the problem, Roger, that the president wants to extend health care coverage to people that don't have it, and that's his main reason for doing this? It may not be reform like we'd like to think it is, like Melinda is saying, fix up what's broken. It's to try to give it to people that don't have it. And he can't say that because it doesn't work with the polling.
SIMON: I think the problem is he's doing a lot of things all at one time. He's not explaining any of it very clearly. He wants to extend it to everyone, while at the same time he has to make the whole process cheaper. That's difficult. I mean, he could just say, I want to extend it to everyone. It's going to cost 1.1 trillion dollars, which is about the cost of the Iraq war. And nobody cared how much we spent on that. And I'd much rather spend your tax dollars in the future on health care than on F-22s. But instead, he's got to make the argument that it's actually going to bring costs down.
The other side is very clear in what it's saying. You know, he's Hitler. It's death panels. You know, it's socialism. He, on the other hand, has got to make a case where—first of all, he has to tell us what he wants. Is it co-ops? Is it a public option? Is he willing to trade both of those for the rest of the package?
Second, he has to tell us how he's going to pay for it. Is he going to be like Max Baucus and want to tax benefits? Is he going to be like Nancy Pelosi and only tax people making over a million dollars a year? Is it going to be over 250,000 dollars a year?
Thirdly, he's going to have to tell us how far is he willing to go?
Is he going to go with just 50 votes to get it through the Senate? Is he
going to hold out for 60 votes? I mean, he's really got to clarify what he
wants. This should not be difficult. He's one of the best communicators -
political communicators of modern times. He can do it. He's just unwilling to do it so far, because he doesn't want to close off the options of the members of Congress. I think that's a mistake.
MATTHEWS: Melinda, the polling still shows that the majority of the American people want what he says he wants to give us, which is a system which will protect us with preexisting conditions, allow us to change jobs or lose jobs and still have health care, which will allow people that don't have health care now to get some kind of break in getting it, which will get young people involved in the system, and not just hoping they'll stay young and healthy forever.
It sounds good, but he seems to be losing the battle.
HENNEBERGER: Well, he still has some time. And, you know, I have every confidence that he'll close the deal, because at bottom that is what people want. And yet he does need to do what Roger said. He can't go out there with this vague, diffuse message, when the other side really does, once again, have just a few words: government takeover, death panels. We know what that is. And you listen to Obama for an hour, and you're still not sure exactly what the take away is, exactly what the bottom line is.
MATTHEWS: Could this be the choice he has to make in the next couple weeks? Go with something about reform, in other words do something on preexisting conditions; do something on the system we have right now; and hold off on extending health care to the poor people and the working people later. Roger, does he have to decide to cut bait right now, or go for whole hog and maybe jam it through the Senate?
SIMON: That's a non-starter with the Democratic party. Universal health care is one of the pillars of what the Democratic party stands for. A large part of the party, you know, just isn't going to allow it.
MATTHEWS: OK, Roger Simon, Melinda Henneberger, thank you. Right now it's time for "THE ED SHOW" with Ed Schultz.
ED SCHULTZ, MSNBC ANCHOR: I'm Ed Schultz. This is "THE ED SHOW."
Good evening, Americans. Live from 30 Rock in New York, it's "THE ED SHOW" on MSNBC.
Wow. Democrats are starting to get it. They're finally figuring out they can do this thing alone on health care reform. They need to cut ties with these bipartisan phonies and pretenders and get this thing done. Congresswoman Maxine Waters, she'll give us some straight talk tonight.
She's on that page.
Mr. President, don't mean to be rude, but, buddy, you need to snap out of it, and stop allowing the political terrorists to hijack the debate and reform. I think the president knows he's on thin ice with the grass roots. That's why he made a plea to the base today. The founder of the "Huffington Post" will join me at the bottom of the hour.
Transcription Copyright 2009 CQ Transcriptions, LLC ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. No license is granted to the user of this material other than for research. User may not reproduce or redistribute the material except for user's personal or internal use and, in such case, only one copy may be printed, nor shall user use any material for commercial purposes or in any fashion that may infringe upon MSNBC and CQ Transcriptions, LLC's copyright or other proprietary rights or interests in the material. This is not a legal transcript for purposes of litigation.> transcript
Watch Hardball each weeknight
at 5 & 7 p.m. ET
Transcription Copyright 2009 CQ Transcriptions, LLC ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
No license is granted to the user of this material other than for research.
User may not reproduce or redistribute the material except for user's
personal or internal use and, in such case, only one copy may be printed,
nor shall user use any material for commercial purposes or in any fashion
that may infringe upon MSNBC and CQ Transcriptions, LLC's copyright or
other proprietary rights or interests in the material. This is not a legal
transcript for purposes of litigation.>
Watch Hardball each weeknight at 5 & 7 p.m. ET


text:
I am considering small "artsy" project. I would like to create sundial by placing gnomon on the window and painting hour lines on the window facing wall.
Since this is to be placed in bedroom I am constrained by my geographic location, wall, window placement and orientation. The esthetic and size (I have one wall only) of the project is gating factor (otherwise known as "the wife" factor).
Due to above I am perfectly OK with the fact that this sundial will "work" by limited time of the day and even limited time of the year. However whenever it will work (that is the shadow of the gnomon will be cast on the "said" wall) I would like it to be as accurate as possible.
Also all of the above make the calculations for creating hour lines quite challenging (at least for me) and to be honest I do not know where to start.
Could you point me the resources that would help in calculating hour lines (software, tutorials, books, math equations)?
Could you describe how would you approach the task of calculating hour lines?
(Resources that are little heavy on math side are OK for me. I am also capable of wring software on my own.)


text:
Wanted - Working Holiday Candidates - Accounting & Finance
$25.00 - $40.00 / hour
Melbourne CBD
Date posted:
16 September 2019
Employment type:
Job reference:
Finance and accounting
The Company
Robert Half is currently recruiting Working Holiday Visa candidates for exciting finance/accounting roles in and around Melbourne CBD. This is an excellent opportunity to work in various industries and environments where assignments could be for 1 to 6 months in length.
The Role
Experience in one of the following roles is essential:
- Accounts Payable
- Accounts Receivable
- Payroll
- Credit Control
- Collections
- Accounts Officer
- Assistant Accountant
- Accountant
Your Profile
To be successful, you will be experienced in one of the above listed roles and be able to commit to work for the duration of the contract if offered. You will have excellent communication and interpersonal skills and have a 'can do' attitude.
Previous experience using large ERP systems would be a major advantage!
Apply Today
Please send your resume by clicking on the apply button.
Job Reference: 06810-0010665880RB
MelbourneLevel 39
140 William Street
Melbourne VIC 3000
au 03 9691 3631


text:
Contact Us
Please do not submit financial data through this form. If you wish to update your credit card for your membership, please call 216-916-6100.
If you experience trouble submitting this form, please send your comments to firstname.lastname@example.com.
Or, you can call or write to us:
1375 Euclid Avenue
Cleveland, Ohio 44115-1835
Phone: 216-916-6100
Toll Free: 877-399-3307
Audience Services: 216-916-6301
You can reach individual reporters and producers via email and phone as well.


text:
Summer should be a time of fun in the sun -- not accidents, injury, and illness. Use these tips and easy home remedies to ward off common health hazards.
Natural remedies like clay, baking soda, lavender oil, plantain, and tobacco contain properties that fight against pesky summer insects. To treat bee stings and mosquito bites, apply a paste made from baking soda and water to neutralize the bug's venom. Take five pellets of homeopathic apis (at 30C strength) three times daily until the itchiness subsides. And a drop of lavender essential oil applied to the bite can take out the itch and sting.
Seek out a natural antihistamine such as quercetin, a type of antioxidant found in onions and citrus fruits. Available in supplement form, 1,000 milligrams of quercetin taken three times daily throughout the season should help you stay symptom-free, says naturopath Mark Stengler, coauthor of "Prescription for Natural Cures."
Other ideas: Pack a thermos of nettle tea (another natural antihistamine). Cutting back on dairy may also help reduce congestion and sinus-pressure headaches.
Campers, backpackers, and other outdoorsy types can steer clear of poison ivy, oak, and sumac by knowing how to identify each plant: Poison ivy typically has a woody, ropelike vine and three leaflets that turn green in the summer; poison oak shows off clusters of yellow berries and oaklike leaves (usually in clusters of three); and poison sumac is a rangy shrub that grows up to 15 feet tall, with seven to 13 smooth-edge leaflets.
The sap of all three plants contains urushiol, a chemical that triggers rashes, blisters, and itching. If you do brush up against one of these plants, try a cool or lukewarm bath in oatmeal-powder-infused water. Taking two pellets of homeopathic rhus toxicodendron (at 30C strength) daily can also alleviate symptoms.
The garden and farm stands provide a bounty of antioxidant-rich ingredients that will keep your immune system strong: strawberries, tomatoes, corn, cucumbers, peppers, and more. To prepare, keep it simple. Grilling, poaching, steaming, and light flavoring will ensure the seasonal foods shine.
Essential oils that have pungent, spicy, or woodsy odors repel insects by masking our natural scent; cedarwood, citronella, eucalyptus, lavender, rosemary, and tea tree oils are among the most effective. Because of their potency and concentration, essential oils should always be diluted when used in a spray.
Make your own DEET-free repellent by blending five drops of patchouli essential oil, 2 ounces of which hazel, and eight to 10 drops of cedarwood essential oil in a spray bottle, says essential-oil educator Andrea Butje. Apply frequently.
Don't skimp on sunscreen. "Use an SPF of 30 or over on your entire body and face, including your lips," says naturopath Koren Barrett. Slather on enough lotion to fill a shot glass, reapplying every couple of hours that you spend outside.
When purchasing sunscreen, check the ingredients list for zinc oxide, a shield against both UVA an UVB rays. Once you're out of the sun, rub in some borage oil, a rich source of gamma-linoeic fatty acid, to help protect against sun-related aging.
Although many lip balms soothe and soften, balms that contain sunscreen (SPF 15 or higher) are a must if you spend time outdoors. Sun exposure can exacerbate dryness and chapping, and lips are especially vulnerable to UV-induced skin damage.
With its anti-inflammatory effects, aloe vera is your best salve for sunburn pain. Squeeze the amino-acid-rich gel directly from the plant, or apply a product containing 95 percent to 100 percent pure aloe vera, says Stengler. For a skin-cooling soak, combine a cup of powdered milk with 10 drops of lavender essential oil, says aromatherapist Constance Hart. Shake the ingredients in a jar and let sit for a day before pouring into lukewarm bath water.
Eucalyptus is "all powerful" in breaking up the congestion that accompanies summer colds, says Butje. Three times a day, fill a bowl with steamy-hot water and add one drop of essential oil of Eucalyptus globulus. Cover your head with a towel, lean in, and breathe deeply for one minute. Keep your eyes closed for the whole treatment.
For cold relief, try the immune-boosting herb andrographis. "A few 300-milligram capsules at the first sign of a cold can usually knock it out," Butje says.
On especially sweltering days, prevent heatstroke by staying hydrated, avoiding diuretics such as alcohol and caffeine, and spending most of your time in the shade or the water, or in a cool indoor space. Although heatstroke must be treated with medical attention, you can stimulate recovery by taking two 30C-strength pellets of the homeopathic remedy natrum muriaticum (shown here) four times daily.
Eating juicy foods like mango and watermelon can up your dehydration defense. Try to drink eight glasses of water daily, especially if you're active. And if you're on a major hiking trek or biking excursion, don't skip the salt: Since sweating can disturb your sodium-water balance, replenish by snacking on salty foods like tamari almonds.
To speed recovery if you do feel dehydrated, Stengler recommends taking two pellets of homeopathic china officinalis (at 30C strength).
Whether it's the result of an all-out workout or a long day of play, muscle soreness will subside sooner with the right rubs and balms. Choose natural muscle rubs that contain menthol and eucalyptus, shown to possess anti-inflammatory and analgesic properties in a 2003 study.
Homeopathic arnica can speed healing as well, says Barrett. Take five pellets of arnica (at 30C strength) three times a day to reduce pain, swelling, and bruising.
For starters, go easy on the blender. Frosty concoctions like daiquiris and margaritas may make for the perfect summer cocktail, but it's those sugary drinks that do a number on you.
If you've partied too hard, replace the lost nutrients and restore your energy by taking 100 milligrams of a B-complex vitamin and drinking plenty of water.
A class of herbal remedies called adaptogens can increase mental performance and physical energy, found a 2005 study. Try a daily dose of rhodiola rosea standardized to 3 percent rosavin in tincture, tablet, or capsule form (follow package directions).
Another fatigue fighter is the mineral-rich Peruvian vegetable maca. Add the powdered form to smoothies, juice, or frozen yogurt -- or try the herb in tincture or capsule form.
Of course, nothing beats exhaustion as effectively as rest. Take regular timeouts from the heat, stay hydrated, exercise during the cooler parts of the day, and start each morning with a multivitamin and B12 supplement.
As you're wandering the globe this season, steer clear of food-borne illness by getting your daily fill of garlic (in food or capsule form) and probiotics (through yogurt or acidophilus supplements). Garlic provides antibacterial action, and probiotics build up your gut's beneficial bugs to counter harmful bacteria. If you do end up with a queasy stomach, taking an activated-charcoal supplement can help absorb the toxins and restore your digestive health.


text:
The FA sent letters to City boss Mancini and Rangers counterpart Redknapp requesting their observations on their post-match comments in the wake of their sides' respective matches against Sunderland and West Brom.
Mancini and Redknapp could both find themselves charged by the FA if their words are found to have amounted to improper conduct.
Mancini hit out at referee Kevin Friend following City's 1-0 defeat at the Stadium of Light, saying: "Maybe the referee ate too much for Christmas."
The Italian was particularly angry with what he felt was a foul on Pablo Zabaleta in the build-up to Adam Johnson's winner, saying it was "impossible two men couldn't see it" in reference to Friend and his assistant.
Redknapp, meanwhile, was furious with what he claimed were two "scandalous" decisions in QPR's 2-1 home defeat to West Brom.
The Rangers boss felt West Brom's second goal should have been disallowed for a push on goalkeeper Robert Green and bemoaned the decision not to award his side a penalty when Liam Ridgewell appeared to handle the ball late on.
Redknapp said: "I asked the linesman how he didn't see that penalty - it was the most blatant handball you could wish to see but he said it was murky down there in that corner and he couldn't make it out.
"Maybe he should go to Specsavers. I thought they were both awful decisions. Scandalous decisions."
Mancini and Redknapp would usually be given three working days to respond upon receipt of an FA letter, but they could be granted a small extension due to the Christmas and new year period.
The FA have taken tough action in the past when managers have called the capability of officials into question.
Manchester United boss Sir Alex Ferguson was handed a four-match touchline ban, two matches of which were suspended, and a £20,000 fine for criticising Alan Wiley's fitness three years ago, despite later apologising.
Ferguson was also caught up in a referee row on Boxing Day, but the FA controversially decided to take no action over his angry exchanges with the officials in United's 4-3 win over Newcastle, his words being deemed rational and reasonable.


text:
There's some good news, bad news brewing in the Windows Phone Store as some app fragmentation is now becoming a little more evident. Such is the case with the updated official Vimeo app, which was bumped to version 1.3 this morning, joining the list of updated Windows Phone 8 apps. The bad news is it's no longer available for Windows Phone 7.
We're unsure if this is yet-another-Store error, meaning in the next few days Phone 7 owners will be able to download the app again, but for right now, it's exclusive for those with the latest and greatest handsets on the market...
Version 1.3 is stunning, to say the least. Videos play in HD resolution and look fantastic on the HTC 8x's 720P display and the Lumia 920's PureMotion HD+ screen. In addition, you can use the NFC ability to tap-to-share with other Vimeo users, which should be fun and seems to work well from our tests. The full feature and change log is quite impressive:
- Watch and manage all your existing Vimeo videos
- Watch videos from your Vimeo inbox, Watch Later queue, or videos you have liked
- Use NFC Tap-to-Share to share Vimeo videos between phones
- Create live tiles from your videos or featured channels
- Easily like, comment on, and add videos to your Watch Later queue
- Discover new and fascinating featured videos
- Quickly search for videos on Vimeo
- Easily upload your footage in HD
- Pause and resume uploads
- Replace existing videos
- Share via Facebook, Twitter, email, or SMS
- Add videos to your Groups, Channels, and Albums
What can we say besides it's a great app that works wonderfully on Windows Phone 8? Unfortunately though for now, Windows Phone 7 users are left holding the bag with this update, which hopefully is more oversight than shafting.
We'll keep an eye out to see if any of this changes in the coming days. But for now, if you're on Windows Phone 8, treat yourself to some stunning video-streaming with the official Vimeo app found here on the Windows Phone Store.


text:
Let $V$ be the set of prime together with the symbol $\infty$. For a prime $v=p$, denote the $p$-adic numbers by $\mathbb{Q}_p$ and the real numbers by $\mathbb{Q}_\infty$. For $v\in V$ the Hilbert symbol is defined for $a,b\in\mathbb{Q}^*_v$ as
\begin{align*} (a,b)_v=\begin{cases}+1,&\text{ if }ax^2+by^2=z^2\text{ has a non-zero solution }(x,y,z)\in \mathbb{Q}_v^3;\\-1,&\text{ else.}\end{cases} \end{align*}
Furthermore for $v\in V, a,b\in\mathbb{Q}^*$ we denote by $(a,b)_v$ the Hilbert symbol of $(\bar a,\bar b)_v$ where $\bar a,\bar b$ are the images of $a,b$ in $\mathbb{Q}_v$.
Now a theorem by Hilbert says that $(a,b)_v=1$ for almost all $v\in V$ (and that furthermore $\prod_{v\in V}(a,b)_v=1$, but I'm not interested in this at the moment). The theorem can be found in "A course in Arithmetic" by Jean-Pierre Serre for example.
It basically says that there is a finite set $E\subseteq V$ such that \begin{align*} (a,b)_v=\begin{cases}+1,&\text{ if }v\notin E\\-1,&\text{ if }v\in E\end{cases} \end{align*}
My question is if this set $E$ has a common name in the literature. Something like $E_{a,b}$ would make sense to me (since it depends on $a$ and $b$). If there is no widely used name, what are your suggestions?


text:
Happy Thanksgivukkah, Hanukkah, Thanksgiving and Black Friday Too
Happy Hanukkah, Thanksgiving, Thanksgivukkah, Black Friday, and, while we're on the subject, Christmas and New Year's too. The holidays are a time to spend precious moments with loved ones, and to wolf down holiday meals as quickly as possible so you can head off to the stores and grab the best bargains at the seasonal sales. Or should there be more to it? Here's our latest "SFW" cartoon. Please leave your thoughts in the comments. And enjoy CyberMonday!


text:
Should Companies Monitor Their Employees' Social Media?
Social networks offer a window into how people live their lives.
But should employers be looking into that window?
It's becoming an increasingly important question. The number of people fired over social-media posts is rising, and many employers look closely at a job candidate's online presence before making a decision....


text: Four months after unveiling the relatively bare bones W8, Sony Ericsson has now taken the wraps off yet another Walkman phone, known as the Live with Walkman. Powered by a 1GHz processor, this Android handset features a 3.2 inch, capacitive touchscreen (with somewhat disappointing HVGA resolution), a five megapixel AF shooter with 8x digital zoom, and a front-facing VGA camera capable of capturing HD video in 720p. The petite, Gingerbread-equipped device also packs a lackluster 320MB of RAM, provides up to 32GB of microSD storage, and offers either tri-band 3G support (HSPA+) at 850, 1900 and 2100MHZ, or dual-band 3G at 900 and 2100MHz, depending on the model. And, as you'd expect, Sony Ericsson has placed a special emphasis on the music phone's media capabilities, beefing it up with enhanced audio and Qriocity integration. The specs may not sound earth shattering, but we'll wait until we get pricing information before casting judgment. The Live with Walkman is slated to hit "selected markets" by Q4 of this year, but you can find more information in the full PR, after the break.


text:
It looks like your browser is out of date.
To use all features of KLM.com safely, we recommend that you update your browser, or that you choose a different one. Continuing with this version may result in parts of the website not being displayed properly, if at all. Also, the security of your personal information is better safeguarded with an updated browser.
Enrol in BlueBiz by Air France and KLM and earn free flights for your company. With every flight your company makes you earn Blue Credits, which can be redeemed for free flights to any destination in our global network. It's easy and free.BlueBiz by Air France and KLM
The more you fly, the better the deal for your company with tailor-made Corporate Travel Contracting. The win-win way to optimize your travel budget.Read all about the benefits
Today, many organisations are rising to the challenge of globalisation by centralising their global travel management process under a single commercial agreement. In a nutshell, Air France KLM and Delta offer a centralized travel management solution with a single point of contact, greater control of the global travel requirements, improved efficiency and ultimately cost savings.Read more about our global solutions
Delta SkyBonus rewards your company with the power of the world's best corporate loyalty programme. In North America, Air France team-up with joint-venture partners KLM and Delta and officially become members of SkyBonus. The extensive worldwide networks of all four carriers offers small to mid-sized companies (SMEs) increased earning opportunities and expanded award options.Read more about SkyBonus


text:
Caught in the act: Andromeda Galaxy and neighbouring Triangulum Galaxy hook up
3 September 2009
Caught on film for the first time ever, paparazzi to the stars - astronomers - have captured images of our nearest large galaxy, Andromeda, hooking up with its neighbour, the Triangulum Galaxy. Just like any good star gossip, the liaison was suspected previously, but these images are the first to reveal the connection between the two.
Published in the journal Nature on 3 September 2009, the research shows how large galaxies grow by incorporating stars from surrounding smaller galaxies. This popular model of galaxy evolution, called the 'hierarchical model', predicts that large galaxies such as Andromeda, which can be seen with the naked eye from the northern hemisphere, should be surrounded by relics of smaller galaxies it has connected with.
Now astronomers have the images to go with the hierarchical model - a close liaison between the Andromeda and Triangulum galaxies.
The discovery was made by a team of international astronomers, including Professor Geraint Lewis from the University of Sydney's School of Physics. The team was led by Dr Alan McConnachie, from the National Research Council of Canada's Herzberg Institute of Astrophysics, and included astronomers from universities in Canada, Australia, France, Germany, the UK and the USA.
"The Andromeda Galaxy is our closest giant neighbour, located more than 2.5 million light years from the Milky Way. Our new survey charts an area with a diameter of nearly a million light years, centred around Andromeda - it's the broadest and deepest image of a galaxy ever made," said Professor Geraint Lewis.
"We mapped Andromeda's unexplored outskirts for the first time and found stars and giant structures that are remnants of smaller galaxies, which have been incorporated into Andromeda as part of its ongoing growth," explained Professor Lewis.
"The big surprise in the data was finding that Andromeda is interacting with its neighbour, the Triangulum Galaxy, a galaxy which is also visible in the Northern Hemisphere using a small telescope. Millions of Triangulum's stars have been pulled in by Andromeda as part of the encounter."
Just like any good star pairing, the paparazzi are predicting a more solid union between the two will result.
"The two galaxies may eventually merge together entirely," explained Professor Lewis.
In addition to the affair between the two galaxies, the new survey has shown that galaxies may be much larger than previously thought, with their gravitational influence stretching well beyond stars near the centre of the galaxy.
"We've found coherent structures and star formations over the entire survey area, showing that galaxies are much bigger than we originally thought. Andromeda is considered by astronomers to be a typical galaxy, so it's surprising to see how vast it really is. We found loosely bound stars at distances up to a hundred times the radius of the large galaxy's central disk."
The team used the Canada-France-Hawaii Telescope, located on the summit of Mauna Kea on the island of Hawaii, to probe the faint outer reaches of Andromeda with unprecedented sensitivity. Their surprising results, reported in Nature, set the stage for a more detailed reconstruction of the formation of Andromeda, a process that appears to be continuing to this day.
Watch a movie of the Andromeda and Triangulum Galaxy affair at: www.nature.com/nature/journal/v461/n7260/extref/nature08327-s2.mov
Read the journal article in Nature at: www.nature.com/nature/journal/v461/n7260/full/nature08327.html
Contact: Katynna Gill
Phone: 02 9351 6997


text:
Dwyane Wade said the Bulls' aggressive defense
in the second half of Game 1 made sure "we weren't comfortable in offensive sets," and I'm wondering, the Heat have "sets''?
Wait, isolation plays are considered "sets''? I mean, the Heat's idea of a half-court offense is never be forced to run a half-court offense. The Heat are built around running the open court. But the Bulls pounded the boards and didn't turn over the ball, so the Heat couldn't run.
Truth is, nobody runs on the Bulls. Nobody runs on a Tom Thibodeau team. Not for two weeks, anyway.
It seems like LeBron James forgot that little detail while celebrating his quest of beating the Celtics. The guy who designed Boston's Buddy Ryan-like defense was waiting for James in Chicago. Oops.
You play these Bulls, you get no easy run-outs. The Heat managed 10 points on the fast break. The whole game, I'm talking. They had four points on the first two baskets of the game. That leaves six points in the final 47 minutes or so. I can't do math, but that sounds like a good ratio.
If you do get a couple easy run-outs, Thibodeau calls timeout and yells at everybody, and then the Bulls play defense more relentlessly than Thibodeau yells. Point is, if you want to beat a Thibodeau defense, you're going to have to make shots.
Chris Bosh made shots. Someone in that group was going to. Bosh went for 30 on 12-of-18 shooting in Game 1, but the Bulls will take that deal. All series, the Bulls will take that deal, believe me. Chris Bosh, come on down. Play the "Showcase Showdown.'' Just leave Wade and James in the audience like Game 1.
Bosh whined before last summer that he believed he was a free-agent centerpiece, which is as funny as it is unrealistic. Look, the Raptors made him the centerpiece, and how'd that work out for everybody? I'm sure the Bulls are all for making Bosh the king right now. Go ahead, pal, show everybody how you win something as a centerpiece. The Bulls would love to say that, but they can't. I can say it. I just did. The Bulls, though, are too respectful. So respectful, in fact, that you're waiting for the Bulls to offer the Heat a box of tissues.
Whatever, the Heat know they have to make some major adjustments. They won't call them "major,'' of course. That would sound desperate and panicky. Losing one game, a road game, at that, isn't a desperate thing. The Heat simply might have Wade and James drive more, get fouled, go to the line --- basically force the officials to choose two superstars over the Bulls' one, or whatever the NBA's conspiracy du jour is to get this thing to seven games.
But most of the other changes the Heat have talked about in finding a way to beat the Bulls for the first time all season appear to be pretty big.
James said he'd do "whatever it takes'' to win Game 2,
which is an interesting offer from someone who decided not to play Game 1. James' point was he would even guard Derrick Rose the entire game. Rose has seen big defensive covers this postseason, but nobody as good as James. Lesser long-armed defenders have poked the ball loose and ruined passing lanes, which made Rose a turnover machine early in the postseason and could lead to the kind of open-court baskets the Heat considers a set offense.
James, however, ought to ask Wade about guarding Rose. Wade tried that in Game 1 and left the court looking like he needed oxygen or an IV. I mean, the guy never took a shot in the fourth quarter. If James wants to kill himself checking Rose and perhaps have no legs to help Miami's offense, hallelujah.
Speaking of Miami's offense, Heat players, starting with Wade and James, say they need to move the ball more and move it quicker. That always sounds like a good strategy against the Bulls' defense. That also sounds like a strategy the Bulls would favor against this opponent.
The Bulls load up one side and dare opponents to move the ball to the weak side, figuring that their sound positional play and quickness will lead to a steal, a deflection or a contested chance, sometimes a shot-clock violation, something before the opponent finds the open man. The Bulls are going to play opponents hard all over the court, seemingly double-teaming everyone, but the ball moves faster than even Bulls defenders' feet, so teams stress ball movement against Thibodeau's overcommitting defense.
That's the game the Heat say they want to play. Perfect. Great. Yes, bring that strategy to the floor for Game 2 and all the other games. Wade and James can move the ball to Mike Bibby and Joel Anthony. The Bulls are all for that. Ballgame. Series. Kleenex.


text:
Graphic Jams
[NOTE: Today's final wreck is slightly NSFW, although I did my best with the censor bars. Honest.]
Last night I was talking with friends about how my job here at CW is a little harder these days - not because bakers are making less wrecks, but because they're making them so graphic now that I can't post the worst offenders anymore.
Used to be I'd get all giddy when some colossally disgusting monstrosity came in. Now, I look at the photo-realistic bloody entrails or crowning viscera of a C-section, sculpted in painstaking anatomical correctness, and I'm all, "Welp. CAN'T POST THAT."
It's disheartening, let me tell ya.
(And don't get me started on erotic cakes. That entire market is one big wreck-fest, but can I post the fountains of phalluses? NoooOOooo. Not that I'd really want to, of course. Seeing that much fondant pubic hair does things to a person. Bad things.)
I ask you, bakers, whatever happened to good old fashioned screaming baby dolls jammed on top of sheet cakes?
Isn't this traumatizing enough?
Or how about questioning the mother's identity while insinuating her "baby" is really just a good BM?
I bet "Maggy" and "Little Crapper" will cherish this memory always.
If you really want to startle your clients, bakers, why not just throw a maternity shirt - a real one - over an edible sonogram? I mean, have you SEEN how scary those things are?
Though I must admit, the urge to stick a bloody Alien head under that top would be pretty overwhelming. [evil grin]
Oooh, and hey, bakers, never underestimate the power of the fugly side:
("Oh. I can feel it.")
Hang on, you're not even listening to me, are you, bakers? You're over there giggling madly while shaking chocolate sprinkles all over your pastry hoo-haws, aren't you? AREN'T YOU?
I knew it.
Well, can you at least stop dismembering baby dolls and jamming their arms and heads inside? Please?
*sigh* Ok. Fine. But THIS MEANS WAR.
One with lots and lots of censor bars.
(In my defense: how would YOU censor that second cake? Just pretend it's a... um... peanut. With a baby head. And lady bits. [If you really want to see the uncensored version, click here.])
(Btw, that's the least graphic example of the hoo-haw trend I could find. And believe me, it IS a trend. I'm being inundated! Eek!)
Thanks to Debbie M., Magdalena E., Lisa, Melissa A., & Kellie W. for not asking why a baby shower needs a hoo-haw smash cake. Because, srsly, NO ONE HERE WANTS TO KNOW.