text:
I'm getting tired of having to spoonfeed this to some of you people individually. As it turns out though, thankfully, I can edit the OP so at least read this. I am not arguing against love, relationships or commitment, or anything the like. Quite the opposite, I'm saying they're good enough on their own without the need for the legal paperwork, money-waste and label of marriage. I welcome any opinion whether I like it or not, but not when you're missing all of the actual points like a little boy splashing the rim and substitute your own. No one's forcing you to read the whole thread, but at least read the damn OP of the thread next time or don't bother. It's getting frustrating having to read through your condescending tones just to find out you just didn't pay attention.
Hey. I'm not sure if I made a thread before but I'd like to put some of my thoughts on marriage here and see what all of you guys think. I see many of you as much smarter than me, and I think I can learn some. This got a little long, and I don't know if I should post it as a blog instead, but since my objective is to get some sort of exchange/discussion going a thread is more fitting. This is my opinion only. I'm not going to talk about gay-marriage or things like that, we all already know enough about that. I want to talk about marriage itself.
My stance on marriage is not that everybody should be allowed to have one, including gays. My stance is that nobody should get married, including straight people. And I'm often confused as to why atheists, secular intelligent people, would want to engage in this antiquated, forcefully contrived and often religious social construct.
I've said this in one form or another before. People like to think about marriage as this magical bond between two people in love, but for the bigger part of its history marriage wasn't about love at all. We know that in the past ages marriage was only used as a form of sales-contract, a political relationship building tool between two parties, and a way for the rulers to keep tabs on their subjects, while making sure they don't run amok fucking and raping each other aimlessly. It was an easy social structure to introduce into a primitive society that would otherwise kill each other over women to rape (which they did, and still do regardless). As a religious construct, it has been solely used for the above mentioned purposes, plus turn women into property. We need only look at some religious men and their harem of wives, to see that in that marriage women have become nothing more than a commodity. In marriage, even today, women are often nothing more than merchandise. Why do you think religious men always emphasize the importance of staying pure and staying away from sex until marriage? Because some men have very small penises. And some men with small penises are willing to pay high prices for a certain commodity: virginity. They want sex with virgins, because the small-dicked man knows the virgin doesn't know any better, so he has a confidence boost. Same reason they marry old geezers to little children, under the ruse of "our prophet did it." It's all about keeping the business running. Tell girls not to fuck. Slut-shame them should they dare to have sex outside of marriage. Call them whores, sluts, whatever. Put peer-pressure on them. Because if they do, the market will run dry.
There are a some popular arguments for/about marriage that I'd like to take on.
- It's a public declaration of loyalty. / It shows commitment.
This is a common error. Marriage doesn't make someone any more loyal then s/he would've been anyway, and if it does it's either because of peer-pressure (look up countries with the lowest divorce rates) or simple disingenuity. If you are in a relationship (which is not open), then you should be able to stay loyal and make it clear you're committed all by yourself, without a ring on your finger to vouch for you. Saying marriage ads to the commitment and shows loyalty is really no different than, for example, saying the bible gives us strength and hope. We should be able to have those things by ourselves, and those who cling to it show only a lack of those traits in themselves; just as someone who can not be as loyal without marriage shows a lack of confidence in their loyalty to begin with.
Now there also many people who say that they want a marriage to make sure their partner is committed. To me, a person who says they cannot expect loyalty and commitment unless their partner agrees to marry them is a person who displays a severe lack of trust, confidence and faith in their partner. A crucial flaw which wouldn't work out too well for a relationship to begin with.
I'm quoting the next point from a post from another member, MikeLong, here. I originally wanted to answer you in that thread, but the lack of a reply button was getting on my nerves, sorry.
- If shit goes south, marriage makes us try harder to preserve the relationship, rather than simply cast it aside as just another failed relationship.
Again, I think this should go without having to be married. If the relationship is worth it you should put all effort in, but not because you think "Oh well, we're married now. And it's kinda too much work to get divorced anyway." If marriage is your only incentive to keep a relationship alive, it's not a relationship of love as it is a cold iron chain locking you together.
More importantly though, just because a relationship is over doesn't mean it's failed. We fall in love, and then often we get jaded, and it's over. But that doesn't mean it wasn't worthwhile, that it was a waste of time, or that it failed. We experience something nice, and then it's time to move on. What marriage does is hold you trapped, after you've had enough. And I believe that the idea of an ended relationship being a "failed" relationship is something, more often than not, pushed into our culture by clergy. They are mostly the ones we hear bitching about divorce rates in secular countries and how it's somehow directly related to the moral decline in that country. That's bullshit. The only thing a divorce means is that two people no longer want to be together. What does the reason matter? Clergy often pretend like it's because people turn gay and the men divorce their wives because they want to go to a gay bar and have wild gay sex out of wedlock (ironically the solution would be to allow same-sex marriage, but I digress). But even if it were so, so what? How would it make those two people any more happy if they were continuously trapped in a marriage? Even when, at first, only one of the two partners wants a divorce, to me it would be much more horrible to force the other person to stay married. I certainly wouldn't want to be in a relationship with someone who doesn't want me anymore. Platonic love doesn't end well for either party.
So what I'm rambling on about it that ending a relationship is not always a bad thing. Call me a cynic, but I believe that it's a good time even most of the time. Something sucks, you work at it. But at some point you have to stop and accept that it might just not be worth it to try and pick up all the pieces off of the floor so you can glue them together and hope it sticks for just a little while longer. At some point you just have to leave the pieces lie and move the fuck on.
- marriage is the sacred bond between a man and a woman
Obviously, this is an argument that comes from the theist camp. Now I'm not going to argue about how retarded it is to suggest that gays have any less of a right to a marriage, we already know that, but instead tell you why I think religion loves pairing different genders so much. It's because man + woman = baby. Baby = another unit in the army. That's it. Nothing profound to it. Sacred bond my ass. It's about growing numbers like a virus. Rulers in all ages understood that if you want to build a powerful nation, what you need are people. Many many people. As many as possible. Living conditions, quality of life - doesn't matter. If he can hold a weapon and become cannon-fodder he's good enough. Same reason religion values men more than women. They're physically stronger. Same reason clergy are against abortion, it kills potential units and dwindles their numbers. (It also kills off all the pussy in the age range they like.)
- We do it for the civil / legal / financial rights.
I actually don't know enough about this to be able to fairly comment, so I'd love some input. Obviously I still don't like it. I know people who have been together for years but have no intentions of getting married for any benefits, my own sister included, and they seem to lead happy lives. But are the benefits worth compromising your integrity?Is there no other way to achieve those rights? Would it be at all possible for us to change this? I'm aware that gays fight for marriage because they want the rights that come with it. Now I remember Strega saying in a different thread that if they made some other civil construct which would allow her, as a gay person, to have all the benefits of a usual marriage provides, she'd do it right away. Even if it wasn't called a marriage. Do you agree with this, or do you think that, if anything, both straight people and gays should get the exact same thing? In which case it cannot be a religious union, because all major religions are homophobic. And so...I'm tired.
That's it for now. I actually have much more to say, but I kinda already wrote more than usual and I'm getting bored and I'm sure I've bored most of you by now too. I might add some later. Cut me some slack!
Views: 3036
3. a combination of persons for a secret, unlawful, or evil purpose: He joined the conspiracy to overthrow the government.
There's nothing secret or unlawful about political social conservatism, and though I find it personaly hurtful, and ignorant, I try to see over top of concepts like "evil". It's mean, but not evil. Mass shooters are insane, not evil, etc. etc.
5. any concurrence in action; combination in bringing about a given result.
This could be any event involving more then one person. If me and my friend agree to go to make a snow man then we have entered into a conspiracy, by the standards of this definition. Law makers doing their jobs right out in public (which is what we're discussing, after all) is a conspiracy by the standards of this definition.
Marriage was changed to accomodate the evolution of race relations in America, it will, over time, change to accomodate the evolution of gay rights. The problem I see is not with marriage as a ceramony, of either commitment or love. It is with marriage as a carrot on a stick used to reward some and punish others with legal and tax incentives. Even as the institution grows with society, It still grabs people in a pretty personal place. Why do people have to go to court to argue for the validity of their relationships? I see it as devaluing the actual connection they share into a tawdry buisness contract.
And what about the Romans? they really did that, it wasn't a conspiracy or a theory, it was a law designed to stave of potential fifth columns from forming.
5. any concurrence in action; combination in bringing about a given result.
This could be any event involving more then one person.
But to me that seems to be the way you view it. Otherwise, it's hardly worth noting.
Yeah not really. nothing I said was even theory. The use of marriage to control social behaviors is overt and a matter of established fact. You seem to be arguing that because legislation is formed by more then one person, it is therefore conspiracy, and that ideas regarding your definition of conspiracy are all invalid. You called the idea that marriage is a tool used to prepetuate established social norms "Horseshit", when in fact it is totally acurate and neither law makers who dominate marriage in a legal sense, nor religious authoritys who attempt to dominate it in a social sense would suggest otherwise. Richard Nixon engaged in a conspiracy, was it horseshit? Because more then one person was involved that means it never happened? You can get as angry as you want at the idea I expressed but you seem to have nothing to offer of your own. Even if you think that marriage is a good tool to effect personal behavior, and does good for both the individual and society, it in no way invalidates my claim that marriage is a set of standards used by society to influence certain desired reactions.
5. any concurrence in action; combination in bringing about a given result.
You sound like they can foist a concept of marriage on us that we don't want.
They can't? If a man wants to marry another man, or one man wants to marry six women, or one woman wants to marry three men, and this is not allowed to happen then the people in question are being subjected to a concept of marriage that they don't want. They can still have these relationships, but because of the legal aspects of marriage that they can not attain, they have less rights then people who couple in a traditional way. If marriage was not a factor then peoples ability to adopt children would have to be based exclusively on things like their economic stability and the quality of life they can provide, rather than something as petty as how society measures the value of their love for one another.
Ultimately, it's up to the voters. Once the legislators have to face the fact that their attitude toward marriage may put them out of a job, they'll change their stance.
Love the Disclaimer, Great Post.
I do find it somewhat annoying in this thread that people do not seem to get what marriage is, and instead take all kinds of baggage into the discussion that has nothing to do with the OP.
There is a huge cultural element to this discussion, in my country love and commitment do not equal marriage, but apparently from some of the posts here it seems to be that some people cannot make that distinction.
And a mere verbal commitment rather than a contractual one (legal marriage) isn't really a commitment at all for the same reason that a guarantee really isn't a guarantee without a specification of what the guarantor is committing to.
There are other contractual commitments than just legal marriage. My girlfriend will become a mother soon, I will sign some paperwork making me the legal father of our daughter. I've signed a contract with my girlfriend for a house for 2 years.
But marriage? No, why would I? What would marriage add that I can't arrange in another manner?
It might not add anything to you, but marriage would protect the child by providing an added incentive to keep the marriage together. You can't walk away from your commitment to the child, but if you leave him/her in a single parent situation, more than one study has shown that unless the situation is exceptional (which is something you shouldn't bet on), the child's life will be diminished in a number of ways.
I wish my own marriage had stayed intact. From age 10 until she left for college, my daughter had two bedrooms. One in my home and one in her mothers, and she shuttled back and forth, back and forth. And ours was what they call "an amicable parting." In retrospect, I wish we had worked things out.
She has turned out more than okay, but it's hard not to wonder what might have been.
marriage would protect the child by providing an added incentive to keep the marriage together.
If 2 people want to leave each other, no piece of paper will keep them together. And just because statistically speaking married parents do better than single parents does not mean that the marriage paperwork has some magical powers that make people into loving, caring partners and parents.
It's the loving/caring part that determines the success as partners and parents not the marriage part.
You seem to confuse cause and effect with the statistical evidence about married and single parents.
I wish we had worked things out.
Are you saying that additional paperwork would've been an incentive for you to have put more effort into it? Not the benefit of your daughter, not the love that you have for your wife and daughter, but additional legal obligations would've made a difference? Somehow I don't think that you believe that, so why do you think that this applies to others?
I never said paperwork would keep people together who want to come apart. But let me remind you of two things: the marriage contract is just that: a contract, and it's a contract even when it's not on a piece of paper.
When partners are unmarried, it's as easy as waiting till the other one is gone, packing up one's things, and leaving.
When you're married, you go through something resembling probate. It's not pleasant. Also, the contract gets your lives intertwined in ways that make coming apart difficult and sometimes traumatic. Thus, getting married is more of a commitment and one you can't easily simply walk away from.
I do think that since we remain friends, something making it harder to come apart certainly might have had us working harder at working things out.


text:
- Home
- News
- Sports
- Opinion
- Obituaries
- Features
- Special Sections
- Classifieds
- Public Notices
Learn the history of the lighthouses, river pilots and the waters of the Lower Cape Fear in the annual Fall Into History event from
10 a.m.-3 p.m. Saturday, Sept. 15, at the North Carolina Maritime Museum at Southport. The program includes presentations, lunch and a tour of Southport's waterfront.
"Discover a history of people who have been here since the earliest beginnings, while enjoying lunch and great lectures," said Lori Duppstadt, museum educator.
If you currently subscribe or have subscribed in the past to the The Brunswick Beacon, then simply find your account number on your mailing label and enter it below.
Click the question mark below to see where your account ID appears on your mailing label.
|ZIP Code:

subset: commoncrawl


text:
i. Meeting called to order
ii. Roll Call
iii. Approval of minutes
iv. Presentations regarding SCR 57- Requesting Joint Committee on Government and Finance study implementation of highway signage program to direct visitors to tourist-oriented businesses, featuring the following individuals: • Carol Fulks, Hospitality and Travel; • Delegate Stan Shaver, 46th Delegate District; • Delegate Denise Campbell, 37th Delegate District; • Marvin Murphy and Cindy Kramer, West Virginia Division of Highways
v. Miscellaneous business
vi. Adjournment


text:
ST. PAUL, Minn. (AP) — Gov. Mark Dayton said Monday that Minnesota's Gambling Control Board should have revealed from the start that it consulted the gambling industry when compiling its projections for how much the state would make from expanding electronic gaming to help pay for the new Minnesota Vikings stadium.
The amount raised so far has fallen far short of the original projections. Dayton told The Associated Press that he wasn't aware of the input from an industry that stood to profit from the new games, until the Star Tribune reported it on Sunday.
"I think it should have been disclosed," Dayton said. "I think obviously in hindsight, given the serious overestimation that occurred, that those sources should have been disclosed very publicly in the very beginning and people could have exercised the caution that probably was due given those sources."
Gambling Control Board director Tom Barrett said it was never his intent to hide that the companies were consulted. He acknowledged he showed several vendors the projections, but he said the companies didn't drive the estimates.
"They didn't create this," Barrett said. "They were asked, do you see any problems with the methodology? And in defense of what was before the board and how we approached it, I still stand behind the methodology."
Last year, lawmakers authorized Minnesota charities that run gambling games in bars and clubs to begin offering electronic versions of pull-tab and bingo games. The additional tax revenue go toward paying the roughly $350 million the state has pledged toward the construction of the Vikings' new, $975 million stadium planned for downtown Minneapolis.
Originally, the state projected those new games would generate $35 million in taxes by the end of 2013. That projection was downgraded to $17 million in November and then reduced to just $1.7 million last month. Barrett said the process of approving the games for use has gone slower than expected, and that charities have lacked the resources to promote the games. Boosters of the games are still hopeful they will grow in popularity and eventually get closer to the original projections.
Barrett said preparing the projections was difficult because no other state had authorized the widespread use of the electronic pulltab and bingo games. Barrett said he drew from a myriad of sources when preparing the estimates, including models used by the Minnesota State Lottery to estimate sales of various games of chance, and said he didn't bounce the numbers off of gambling vendors until after they were prepared.
Some industry officials even suggested the estimates were too conservative, Barrett said.
Still, some Minnesota lawmakers and charitable game operators were critical of the initial projections when they were released.
Dayton said he saw no problem with running the revenue estimates past vendors, only suggesting the gambling board should have made it more widely known when the stadium bill was before state lawmakers. Dayton also said it's too early to revisit the stadium financing plan, as some lawmakers have suggested, saying the games could still grow in popularity.
An initial shortfall of $30 million could easily be covered as the games catch on, Dayton said, pointing out that the stadium plan has several backup funding sources in the form of a luxury seat tax and a Vikings-themed lottery game.
"It's a very manageable situation," Dayton said. "We're a long way from saying we have to do something different. I hope that's not necessary, and I think we have a good year before we'll know."
(© Copyright 2013 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.)
You must log in to post a comment.


text:
- Font:
- +
- -
MR. DAVID GREGORY: Our issues this Sunday: An unprecedented economic crisis grips the nation, and it's the states at a breaking point. Lost jobs, failing businesses, home foreclosures and record revenue shortfalls all confronting America's statehouses. The president says help is on the way.
PRES. BARACK OBAMA: This plan does more to lay a new foundation for our cities' growth and opportunity than anything Washington has done in generations. It'll bring real and lasting change for generations to come.
(End videotape)
MR. GREGORY: But does everyone want it? Some Republicans say maybe not, while others have openly supported the president's efforts. With us, two Republicans on opposite sides of this heated debate. First, the man who will deliver his party's response to President Obama's Tuesday night address to Congress and considered one of his party's likely contenders for the White House four years from now, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal. And the man who bucked his own party and stood with President Obama on the stimulus package, Florida Governor Charlie Crist.
Then, our political roundtable gets to the bottom of this week's highly charged debate over the housing crisis...
MR. RICK SANTELLI: How many of you people want to pay for your neighbor's mortgage that has an extra bathroom and can't pay their bills? Raise their hand? How about we all...
(Group boos)
MR. SANTELLI: President Obama, are you listening?
(End videotape)
MR. GREGORY: ...and offers insights into a busy political week: Al Hunt, executive editor for Washington of Bloomberg News; Michele Norris, host of NPR's "All Things Considered"; and Becky Quick, co-anchor of CNBC's "Squawk Box."
But first, the Republican governor of Louisiana, Bobby Jindal.
Welcome back to MEET THE PRESS.
GOV. BOBBY JINDAL (R-LA): Good morning.
MR. GREGORY: You have a budget shortfall in Louisiana of $2 billion. Now, under the stimulus plan by the Obama administration, you would get a cut of that. You'd get $4 billion in federal stimulus. But this is what you said on Monday about the stimulus plan: "We're going to have to review each program, each new dollar to make sure that we understand what are the conditions, what are the strings and see whether it's beneficial for Louisiana to use those dollars." And just Friday you made good on that pledge not necessarily to take the federal money, saying that you would reject almost $100 million in federal unemployment assistance. Why would you turn this money down?
GOV. JINDAL: Well, let's be clear. The best thing that Washington could do to help Louisiana and all of our states with our budgets is to get this economy moving again. I think we just have a fundamental disagreement here. I don't think the best way to do that is for the government to tax and borrow more money. I think the best thing they could've done, for example, was to cut taxes on things like capital gains, the lower tax brackets, to get the private sector spending again. I think they had a provision the net operating losses to help small businesses. Unfortunately, they slimmed that down. They could've done some things on a real energy policy. If all they do is borrow federal money and give it to the states, all we're really doing is delaying the inevitable. We're eventually going to have to make these hard choices anyway. In Louisiana we made midyear reductions, $241 million. We're going to have to do more with less. What would be more helpful from Washington is less unnecessary spending. How does $300 million for federal cars, $50 million for the National Endowment for the Arts, how is spending like that going to help our economy? How's that stimulus?
MR. GREGORY: All right, but let's focus on--because I want to get to some of those larger issues in just a moment. But let's focus on this. Why would you turn down $100 million for federal unemployment assistance for your state?
GOV. JINDAL: Well, let's look at the programs we turned down.
MR. GREGORY: Yeah.
GOV. JINDAL: You're talking about temporary federal money that would require a permanent change in state law.
MR. GREGORY: But it is--it's a tax break.
GOV. JINDAL: Well, it, it's--no. The $100 million we turned down was temporary federal dollars that would require us to change our unemployment laws. That would've actually raised taxes on Louisiana businesses. We as a state would've been responsible for paying for those benefits after the federal money disappeared.
MR. GREGORY: All right, but the Democratic senator from Louisiana, Mary Landrieu, says you're wrong. This is how it was reported in The Times-Picayune Saturday: "Senator Landrieu disputed the governor's interpretation and said the new unemployment benefits are designed to be temporary. `The bill is an emergency measure designed to provide extra help during these extraordinarily tough times,' Landrieu said. `To characterize this provision as a "tax increase on Louisiana businesses" is inaccurate.'" Her point being, you could insert a sunset clause when this has to go away, but it would certainly be beneficial at a time when you're in economic stress.
GOV. JINDAL: That's great, except the federal law, if you actually read the bill--and I know it was 1,000 pages, and I know they got it, you know, at midnight, or hours before they voted on it--if you actually read the bill, there's one problem with that. The word permanent is in the bill. It requires the state to make a permanent change in our law. Law B--our employer group agrees with me. They say, "Yes, this will result an increase in taxes on our businesses, this will result in a permanent obligation on the state of Louisiana." It would be like spending $1 to get a dime. Why would we take temporary federal dollars if we're going to end up having a permanent program?
And here's the problem. So many of these things that are called temporary programs end up being permanent government programs. But this one's crystal clear, black and white letter law. The federal stimulus bill says it has to be a permanent change in state law if you take this state money. And so within three years the federal money's gone, we've got now a permanent change in our laws, we have to pay for it, our businesses pay for it. I don't think it makes sense to be raising taxes on Louisiana businesses during these economically challenging times. And what it shows is what we're going to do in the stimulus is we're going to look at every program, every dollar. If it makes sense for Louisiana, makes sense for our taxpayers, we'll use those programs and dollars. If it doesn't, like on Friday we said, "This doesn't make sense for us. This is not a good deal for us." It makes--my job is to represent Louisiana's taxpayers. Makes no sense for us to take temporary federal dollars and create permanent state obligations.
MR. GREGORY: Are there other parts of this stimulus money that would go to Louisiana that you will reject?
GOV. JINDAL: Well, we're going to continue to do our process. On Friday we said, for example, we are going to take--we are going to recommend the legislature that we take the road money. These are dollars the federal government was going to spend on roads anyway. In my view they're going to spend it a little more quickly than they would have otherwise. Louisiana's still a donor state. We pay more in federal gasoline taxes than we get back. So on the same day we said we're not taking the $100 million in the unemployment, we said we will take the road money. We're going to look at every provision, see what's good for the state, see what's not, see what strings are attached. But the reality is the bigger philosophical point is this, I just have a fundamental disagreement with this package. When it was originally proposed, it was talked about as--the president originally talked about tax--targeted tax cuts...
MR. GREGORY: Right.
GOV. JINDAL: ...as well as infrastructure investment.
MR. GREGORY: But a third of this package is made up of tax cuts.
GOV. JINDAL: Well, but you look at the provisions that would get our economy moving--for example, they--both the House and the Senate had more generous versions for the small businesses, the net operating losses, the carryforwards. They get into conference and it ends up smaller than where both houses started.
MR. GREGORY: Mm-hmm.
GOV. JINDAL: Other spending started out, like the, the magnetic-lev train subsidy started out smaller and ended up larger than what both chambers passed in conference, $8 billion. You know, now they're talking about spending billions of that to build a train from Disneyland to Las Vegas. There was so much wasteful spending here. I think the president had a chance, if he had worked with the Republicans--instead of allowing Speaker Pelosi to write this bill, if he had worked with the Republicans to say, "Let's really invest in infrastructure, let's do targeted temporary spending, let's do some tax cuts, let's get the economy moving." I don't think we're going to solve our economic challenges through government spending.
MR. GREGORY: But Democrats would, would argue, with regard to a call for greater tax cuts, that over the course of the Bush presidency you only had a--three million new jobs through aggressive tax cutting, that the change in median income did not appreciably go up at all. And yet there is this emphasis on tax cuts as the best way to cure what ails the economy.
GOV. JINDAL: Well, I think there's just a--I think this is--shows the fundamental disagreement...
MR. GREGORY: Is that wrong? Is that--are those facts wrong?
GOV. JINDAL: Well, I--a couple of things about those facts. You look in our country's history, when President Kennedy, when President Reagan and, yes, when President Bush cut taxes, you know what, they created jobs for our country. It caused some of the best economic times and prosperity for our country. But I think it goes to the fundamental difference about our approaches to this stimulus bill. On one hand, you have this idea that the way we're going to solve this--and you heard even the president say that government may be, at one point--I'll paraphrase--may be the only entity that can help us solve this. You've got another view that says this is all--this spending is temporary, it's creating debt my children, my grandchildren are going to have to pay.
MR. GREGORY: Right.
GOV. JINDAL: What I think is the only way we grow this economy is to get the private sector hiring again, expanding, creating jobs. It's the only way you're going to solve the foreclosure crisis, the only way you're going to have the credit freeze resolved is by the private sector expanding.
MR. GREGORY: All right, but wait a minute. But let me just stop you on that point...
GOV. JINDAL: We can't quit.
MR. GREGORY: ...Governor, because this is a really important point.
GOV. JINDAL: Well, well, all right, but one, one last point.
MR. GREGORY: Yeah.
GOV. JINDAL: We can't print enough money to move this economy. Let's be clear. This isn't free money...
MR. GREGORY: Right.
GOV. JINDAL: ...just because they spent nearly $1 trillion. That's debt that will cause inflation and interest rates.
MR. GREGORY: But you would concede that most economists are worried about deflation right now, not inflation.
GOV. JINDAL: Sure. But if you look at CBO, even, even the...
MR. GREGORY: Congressional Budget Office.
GOV. JINDAL: Even the congressional's own budget office said that this stimulus will actually has the potential of reducing GDP growth because of inflation.
MR. GREGORY: But let me ask you this as a philosophical point. We are in the midst of an unprecedented global process of de-leveraging, which means people are not spending money, they are paying down debt, they are saving money. Businesses are not expanding, they are contracting. So why is it wrong for government to try to, try to create demand for goods and services in the economy when the private sector is too weak?
GOV. JINDAL: Well, I think--again, I think you could have had a bipartisan stimulus package that it was truly what the president outlined: targeted, temporary. If he had come and said, "Here's infrastructure that is real infrastructure, that really will grow our economy," investing in ports and roads can help grow our economy, "Combined with tax cuts that help small businesses and others to employ and stay in business"...
MR. GREGORY: But you don't dispute that federal stimulus money is necessary when the economy is not being stimulated through the private sector.
GOV. JINDAL: I think if it's targeted, temporary and there is a real commitment that this is not creating permanent new government programs, not adding to the deficit, that we understand what temporary means. There's a commitment that we reduce spending. Now we hear tomorrow the president's going to be talking about reducing the debt and the deficit.
MR. GREGORY: Right.
GOV. JINDAL: You know, it's great that, that we're going to close the barn door after the horse is gone, but there has to be real attention--when you look at the spending that was in this stimulus, I think a lot of people are skeptical. A lot of economists, by the way, are skeptical...
MR. GREGORY: Right. By the way, Governor...
GOV. JINDAL: ...this will grow our economy.
MR. GREGORY: There is a lot of Republicans who complain about the deficit now, didn't have a problem with deficit spending when it came to funding the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. And you've had among those--among the likes of Warren Buffett who said, "This is like Pearl Harbor for our economy."
GOV. JINDAL: Well...
MR. GREGORY: Isn't it worth the deficit spending?
GOV. JINDAL: Well, a couple of things. Both Republicans and Democrats are guilty when it comes to spending. Make no mistake about it, Republicans defended incredible growth in spending that we shouldn't have these last several years. This is an order of magnitude different. Let's be clear, because sometimes it's hard to get our minds around these numbers. When people are talking about trillions of dollars, when you're talking about permanent deficits as far as people are predicting out...
MR. GREGORY: Mm-hmm.
GOV. JINDAL: ...when you're talking about the effect this'll have on our currency, on interest rates, when you're talking about China being our largest foreign holder of U.S. debt, we're talking about real changes in our economy. That's not free. You've seen the comparisons that this is more than we spent--this one bill was the largest spending bill that Congress has passed; more than we spent in, in Vietnam, more than--and you can look--more than the Louisiana Purchase.
MR. GREGORY: Mm-hmm.
GOV. JINDAL: To, to use a, a local, a, a relevant example. But the point is this. It was rushed through the process. There were many--I think many would agree there were many aspects of this bill--how's a billion dollars for the census? How's new computers for the federal government, $300 million for new federal cars, how's that stimulus? Why did that have to be done without the proper committee hearings? Why didn't the, the members of Congress get a chance to read and debate this bill? Why didn't taxpayers get to see it online...
MR. GREGORY: Mm-hmm.
GOV. JINDAL: ...like we were promised we would? Why the rush through the process? Why not do this in pieces? Why not start with what was truly--what was originally described as temporary, targeted stimulus?
MR. GREGORY: All right.
GOV. JINDAL: And again, it comes down to we believe put people to work, let small businesses hire.
MR. GREGORY: I want to have you react to a couple of reactions this week to your position on the stimulus. The first one was an accusation by a top Democrat in the House of hypocrisy. Jim Clyburn. This is how--the statement he made on Friday: "House Majority Whip [Representative James Clyburn] argued that many of the federal funds are specifically targeted towards low-income minority communities. He also accused GOP governors who have resisted the stimulus of hypocrisy." Quoting him, "`Let's take, for instance, Louisiana Governor Jindal has been in my office a number of times asking for billions of dollars in assistance to stand communities back up as a result of Hurricane Katrina and Rita. ... Yet he says there is something wrong with this money for the stimulus that comes from the same pot, that he sees nothing wrong when he's trying to stand back up after Katrina."
And this was New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin, who was at the White House on Friday meeting with the mayors, who suggested that your position on the stimulus and this federal money is political posturing. Listen to him.
(Videotape, Friday)
MAYOR RAY NAGIN: I think the governor of the state of Louisiana is a Republican. I think he's been tapped as the up-and-coming Republican to potentially run for president the next time it goes around. So he has a certain vernacular and a certain way he needs to talk right now. I told the governor personally any dollars he does not want, we will take them gladly.
(End videotape)
MR. GREGORY: Reaction to both those statements?
GOV. JINDAL: Well, it's not the first time I've disagreed with the good mayor of New Orleans. But going back to Representative Clyburn's comments, a couple of things. Let's be clear. Everybody knows the federal levees that were designed and built by the Corps didn't do what they were supposed to do in 2005. We absolutely have worked with Representative Clyburn and other members of the Congress in both this administration and previous administration to--and as governor of Louisiana, I will continue to work to make sure that the federal government repairs and builds the levees the way they should have been built in the first place, repairs our coast to prevent against future storms and also, by the way, helps to repair some of the damage that was caused by the breaking of those federal levees. That's important for Louisiana, it's important for our country.
Our, our state, by the way, 9 to $10 billion comes off of our coast in terms of federal oil and gas royalties. If that was federal lands within our state, we'd get 50 percent. We get virtually none of that. You look at 30 percent of the nation's oil and gas in some form comes off of our coast. It's important for the country that America rebuilds those levees, that America helps those communities get back on their feet. Absolutely, as the governor of Louisiana, I'm going to say--because the federally built and designed levees didn't do what they were supposed to, absolutely I'm going to advocate that they get--be rebuilt properly, absolutely I'm going to be willing to put up my own share, and absolutely I'm going to push the federal government to cut through the red tape. In this stimulus bill, for example, there wasn't new money for Katrina, there wasn't new money for Rita, there was no money targeted after the storms. One provision we did ask for--and I want to thank Senator Landrieu, who actually got this provision in. We said there are 4,000 projects, $1.4 billion already funded, already approved that are been caught in red tape in the federal government. We said just give us an adjudication process, tell us yes or no. So absolutely, as the governor of Louisiana, it's my job to represent the taxpayers of our state.
GOV. JINDAL: Federal levees didn't do what they were supposed to. Yeah, we want them to build properly.
MR. GREGORY: Let me spend our last couple of minutes talking about politics. What is the state of the Republican Party?
GOV. JINDAL: Look, our Republican Party got fired with cause these last two election cycles. We became the party that defended spending, corruption that we never should've tolerated, and we stopped offering relevant solutions to the problems that Americans care about. I think now is the time and it's a great opportunity for Republican governors and other leaders to offer conservative-based solutions to the problems. For example, whether it's the mortgage crisis, how we can help people keep their homes, whether it's the banking crisis. We haven't--we won't have time to talk about, you know, mark to market and some of the other reforms that could be done. Whether it's the stimulus package, the Republican Party has got to offer conservative alternative solutions. I think our obligation is to work with the president every chance we can, to be bipartisan. We've done that in Louisiana. We've cut taxes six times, reformed ethics. We need to work with the president every chance we can. But on principle--when we disagree with him, we should be unafraid to stand up on principle and to point out our alternative solutions.
MR. GREGORY: Will that be your message Tuesday night in response to President Obama?
GOV. JINDAL: That will be a part of it. We can't just be the party of no, we have to offer real solutions. We stand ready to work with our president. I think he, he has a chance to, to work and lead our country in a bipartisan way. Unfortunately, with the stimulus he allowed Congressional leaders to write this bill. A lot of them put 10 years worth of spending in this bill they've been waiting to do. I think he's got a real chance. We want to work with him going forward.
MR. GREGORY: You talk about core conservative principles. There are some in the party who say the only way the Republican Party is really going to get back on track is if it seeks to broaden the party. If it can broaden the party geographically, would that only happen if there is a change on some core positions on issues like climate change, social issues, stem cell research?
GOV. JINDAL: I think on each of the issues that Americans care about, if we'll offer relevant solutions, if we're authentic and honest with the people--and I think governors have an opportunity to demonstrate proven track records. We have to balance our budgets and build roads and schools and other things, and grow our economies. I think if we can offer authentic, honest solutions, we will build a large coalition. There'll be people that don't agree with us on everything. Ronald Reagan did it. And to his credit, President Obama did it.
MR. GREGORY: But the party has to expand, you believe that, if it's going to be successful.
GOV. JINDAL: Oh, absolutely. Look, we lost both elections because we got less than 51 percent of the votes. Obviously we've got to expand. But I don't think we expand by becoming an imitation of the other party. I think we expand by standing on principle for what we believe in. I think that attracts voters, I think that attracts supporters. They may not agree with us on everything.
MR. GREGORY: Mm-hmm.
GOV. JINDAL: But they'll respect our honest. Most importantly, they'll respect the results.
MR. GREGORY: Before you go, your political future is something that's been speculated about. Here you were in November in Iowa, traveling there to raise some money all the way from Louisiana. And this is how the economists reported some of your recent activities: "Mr. Jindal's recent fundraising forays to other states--including Iowa, which every four years holds the crucial first presidential caucus--have raised some eyebrows at home. His ambition is well known, and most people think he is laying the groundwork for a run at the presidency in 2012." Do you want to be president?
GOV. JINDAL: I want to run for re-election to be governor of Louisiana in 2011. I told the people of our state we have a once in a lifetime chance to change our state.
MR. GREGORY: Hm.
GOV. JINDAL: We just finished the longest presidential election in America's history. I don't think our country needs another election. I think we need this president to be successful. We need to work with him. We need to, when we disagree with him, stand on principle.
MR. GREGORY: So if, if you're re-elected in 2011, will you serve out your term as governor in Louisiana?
GOV. JINDAL: It's my--if the people of Louisiana will have me, I absolutely want to be governor for the next seven years. Now, that's up to the voters of Louisiana. We've got a lot of work to do at home. We've cut taxes, we've grown the economy, we've reformed ethics laws. We still have a lot of work to do.
MR. GREGORY: So if you win, you will serve out your term.
GOV. JINDAL: I want the people--yeah, it's my intent to, to run for re-election. If they elect me to serve as governor, I will...
MR. GREGORY: You're not ruling out a run for the presidency?
GOV. JINDAL: What I'm saying is I'm running for re-election. I have no, no plans beyond that.
MR. GREGORY: So your, your position, essentially, is that you're focused on doing the job that the people of Louisiana have sent you there to do.
GOV. JINDAL: Absolutely.
MR. GREGORY: All right. So just to show you, we save our tapes around here. There was another prominent politician who had something similar to say when he was on the program back in 2006. Watch this.
(Videotape, January 22, 2006):
PRES. OBAMA: I'm not focused on running for higher office, I'm focused on doing the job that the people of Illinois just sent me to do.
MR. TIM RUSSERT: So you will not run for president or vice president in 2008?
PRES. OBAMA: I will not.
(End videotape)
MR. GREGORY: We'll be checking this tape closely.
GOV. JINDAL: Keep it in your archives.
MR. GREGORY: Governor Jindal, thank you very much.
GOV. JINDAL: Thank you. And happy Mardi Gras.
MR. GREGORY: Thank you.
Coming next, the other side of this heated debate over the stimulus. A GOP supporter of Obama's stimulus package, Governor Charlie Crist of Florida. Plus our political and economic roundtable, all here only on MEET THE PRESS.
MR. GREGORY: Republican governor of Florida, Charlie Crist, a supporter of President Obama's stimulus package. We'll ask him why after this brief station break.
MR. GREGORY: We're back with Republican governor of Florida, Charlie Crist.
Welcome, Governor.
GOV. CHARLIE CRIST (R-FL): Good to see you, David.
MR. GREGORY: So there you were down in Florida, in Fort Myers with President Obama just a couple of weeks ago, talking about the stimulus plan, very supportive of the stimulus plan. Why would you buck your own party, which did not vote for this plan in Congress, as you know, to support the stimulus?
GOV. CRIST: It's not a matter of bucking the party, it's a matter of helping the people. I mean, I really view it as an issue of what can I do that's best for the people of Florida? We've got almost 20 million people that live in the Sunshine State now. I think my obligation is in essence the CEO of the state, to do everything I can to help us get through this tough economy. Certainly this stimulus package, about $12.2 billion to Florida, will help Florida an awful lot.
MR. GREGORY: You heard Governor Jindal on the program just a couple of minutes ago. Much different view, thinks they got the plan all wrong. You disagree with the government role that's being exercised here in trying to fix the economy?
GOV. CRIST: I do. I think that, you know, there are times when you're in a crisis and we all need to work together in order to get through those crises. And I think that this is one of those times. It is fundamental to be able to make sure that we help our children in school. This is going to help us in our education in Florida by about $3.5 billion. It's going to help us with Medicaid, the most vulnerable among us who really need help and need it now. That'll be in excess of $5 billion for Florida. It also helps us in road construction and producing jobs. That's almost $1.5 billion for the Sunshine State. It's fundamentally important that we help the people, we reach out to them, we understand they're in a time of need. In the past five weeks, I've visited six unemployment offices throughout Florida. I look into the eyes of these people and I understand that the challenges are serious that they're having to deal with, and I want to do everything I can to help them.
MR. GREGORY: There's no Republican from Florida in Congress who supported the stimulus. One prominent Republican consultant said this about you and your support for it: "I don't think he's helped any national Republican ambitions he may have had by stepping up to the plate and batting for the other team. ... There's a difference between working in a bipartisan way for the common good and switching sides and putting on the other team's jersey. At the one moment when we finally found our voice and remember who we are as Republicans, Charlie Crist forgets. It is stunning." Governor of South Carolina, Mark Sanford, also said nobody thinks you're a fiscal conservative. Are you an Obama Republican?
GOV. CRIST: I'm a Florida Republican. And in the Florida way, we work together in a bipartisan fashion to do what's right for the people. That's really what it's all about. You know, people run for office in order to try to help their constituents, the people of their state or their district or their country. In my case it's Florida, and that's all I care about. And in Florida we work across the aisle. My friends in the House and the Senate that are of the Democratic Party, I reached out to them. People like Robert Wexler. He wanted to have a paper trail for our elections. We had some embarrassing elections in the past in my state. I didn't want my state to be embarrassed anymore. So I'll take ideas from anybody. It really doesn't matter if they're a Republican, a Democrat or an independent; if they're a Floridian and they care about the people of our state, I want to work with them to make sure that we have a better future and a brighter future.
MR. GREGORY: Do you think it's a mistake for the Republican Party to define itself by opposition to the stimulus?
GOV. CRIST: Well, it may be. All I know is I have to do what I think is in the best interest of the people of Florida. And from my perspective, it's to try and help them. Help them every single day in every way that I can in education, in infrastructure, in health care; do the kinds of things that keep us from having to raise taxes. You know, another part that people don't talk about in the stimulus bill is that it cuts taxes. About a third of it cuts taxes. That's an important thing for people to remember, I think, because people need a break. We've been able to cut taxes in Florida. We have reduced our property taxes. It's the largest single tax cut in the history of my state. I'm very proud of that. At the same time, because of the stimulus we'll be able to pay our teachers more next year than we were this past year. So I think it works, it works well, it helps people, it does what's right.
MR. GREGORY: Do you think the president has the right prescription to ease this recession?
GOV. CRIST: I think he's on the right track. I don't think anybody says this is a perfect bill. I don't. I don't think even President Obama says that. But we've got to do something. We are at a time of need, and to do nothing certainly is not acceptable. This is not perfect, but we've got to do something to try to get our country back on track for the benefit of our people.
MR. GREGORY: I want to talk a couple of minutes about housing. Florida, of course, second highest rate of foreclosures in the country in 2008. You also benefited from an incredible housing boom and a speculative boom that preceded the fall of the housing market. Now, the Obama administration's plan essentially boils down to this: more available refinancing for about five million homeowners, and help with payments--modification of payments, reduction in payments--for three to four million homeowners. Is this the right plan?
GOV. CRIST: It may be a good start. I think some of the details still have to be rolled out in early March, as I understand it, and we're going to watch it very closely. But we need to do something to help the housing market. Certainly it's huge in Florida, as you know and you, and you alluded to. One thing that's happening in Florida that's encouraging, in December of '08 we had a 27 percent increase in housing sales over December of '07. I think that's mostly a matter of people getting reasonable about the prices they expect for the value of their home.
MR. GREGORY: But this housing plan, can you describe how it will stop the slide of housing prices?
GOV. CRIST: Well, I'm not sure that it will. I don't think we know that yet. I think it's too early to tell.
MR. GREGORY: Can it be called a success if it doesn't do that?
GOV. CRIST: Well, probably not. But you know, none of us have a crystal ball.
MR. GREGORY: Mm-hmm.
GOV. CRIST: So we have to try something, we have to do something to make this economy move forward. I think it was Warren Buffett who said--and maybe it was quoted earlier--that this is like the Pearl Harbor of the economy. I mean, we are in a crisis. I think everybody understands that and appreciates it, whether it's housing or whatever sector.
MR. GREGORY: Right.
GOV. CRIST: We've got to do something to get it going again.
MR. GREGORY: But there are critics of the plan, and here's one criticism that appeared in Bloomberg: "The Obama administration?s mortgage-modification plan offers the most aid to homeowners who `really stretched to buy their house and lied the most about their income,' Amherst Securities Group LP analysts said."
I want to go back to Florida. Again, biggest beneficiary of the housing boom. The rest of the country did not share in the upside that Florida shared of the housing boom, a huge speculative boom. Why should taxpayers have to subsidize the poor decisions of so many Floridians who misrepresented their income, got in over their heads when it came to paying their mortgages, when people around the country played by the rules, didn't get in over their heads, bought what they could afford?
GOV. CRIST: Well, we all have to play by the rules. You know, we all have to strive to do what's right. Some people speculated beyond their means and, and there shouldn't be a bailout for that. That would be inappropriate.
MR. GREGORY: But that's a big part of this plan.
GOV. CRIST: Well, I didn't say the plan...
MR. GREGORY: Three to four million people should get modifications on their mortgages.
GOV. CRIST: I didn't say the plan is something that I've adopted. We're looking into details.
MR. GREGORY: But you--do you support it or don't you?
GOV. CRIST: Well, I think we might. It all depends on what the details are once they're finally laid forward.
MR. GREGORY: But you're not sure yet. I mean, that's a significant point, that the Florida governor doesn't support the plan yet.
GOV. CRIST: Well, we have--we don't support it yet. You know, we have to look over it, we have to review it and we have to be practical and pragmatic. I'm not going to lurch forward because we're on the show today.
MR. GREGORY: Mm-hmm.
GOV. CRIST: I appreciate the opportunity. But I want to be prudent and I want to be cautious.
MR. GREGORY: Do you think modifying payments, modifying mortgages works?
GOV. CRIST: It can. It can. And you know, to renegotiate, we've encouraged that in Florida, David, and we think it's important that banks work with people. We understand that this is a tough time when it's difficult for people to make those monthly payments, and so we got the Florida Banker's Association together and we said, "Look, you know, number one, can you suspend your foreclosures during the holiday season?" They did, voluntarily. Another things we said is, "You know, wouldn't it be better, instead of foreclosing on the home--you don't want to beat a bunch of homeowners around the state of Florida--wouldn't it be better to renegotiate with those homeowners, maybe lower the amount that they have to pay during a month so that they can get through it, that the homeowner still has a place to have their family, still has a place to raise their children, and you don't have to take over the debt that would be on the house?"
MR. GREGORY: Let me ask you about your political future. Would you like to run for the Senate in 2010?
GOV. CRIST: I don't know. I'm focused on Florida. And I think it's important in my case--we've got a session that begins the first week in March. I've got to get through what's happening in the Florida economy. I'm focused on that and that's where my, my focus has been and will stay.
MR. GREGORY: Let me ask you about the Republican Party generally. Who's the leader of the party, would you say, right now?
GOV. CRIST: The people. The people are the leader of the party. And...
MR. GREGORY: But the, the, the people have to represent someone, have to actually elect someone to head the party.
GOV. CRIST: Well, they've elected a lot of people, a lot of Republicans around the country.
MR. GREGORY: Is there no one national leader right now?
GOV. CRIST: I don't know if there is or is not at this time. And I think--well, there is a national leader, his name is President Obama. And, and the people elected him. And, and I'm willing to give him a good shot and, and try to help make this work. We're in a tough time, as we talked about before. I think we do need to be bipartisan. We need to be, in fact, nonpartisan. We're all Americans. Our country is at a dire point, and we need to do everything we can to work together to get America through this, and I know that she will.
MR. GREGORY: You have disagreements with your party right now nationally with regard to the stimulus plan. In your view, what is the key to the road back to power for Republicans?
GOV. CRIST: I think the key is doing what's right for the people. It, it's by having a compassionate approach, it's by being fiscally conservative and it's by utilizing common sense. The people of our country want people in office who will put common sense in their decision-making process. Many times government and common sense don't meet. We're trying to introduce them a lot more in Florida.
MR. GREGORY: Is it your view that the, the, the party in Washington, the Republican Party should not be the party of no?
GOV. CRIST: Well, you shouldn't be the party of no. I think you have to--well, there's a time to say no. But I think you need to be a party that works across the aisle, that you participate. Both of them have to do that. And I think it's important for both Democrats and Republicans to work together for Americans.
MR. GREGORY: We will leave it there. Governor Crist, thank you very much.
GOV. CRIST: Thank you, David.
MR. GREGORY: We'll continue our discussion online and ask Governor Crist some questions that our viewers have submitted via e-mail and Twitter. You can watch our MEET THE PRESS Take Two Web extra. It's up this afternoon on our Web site at mtp.msnbc.com.
And coming next, a closer look at this week's housing debate and insights on a very busy week for Washington and the Obama administration. Our roundtable weighs in--Al Hunt, Michelle Norris and Becky Quick--only on MEET THE PRESS.
MR. GREGORY: We're back with our political roundtable: Becky Quick of CNBC, Al Hunt of Bloomberg News and Michele Norris of NPR.
Welcome, all.
Becky, first time on the program.
MS. BECKY QUICK: Thank you, friend.
MR. GREGORY: Glad to have a new voice here.
MS. QUICK: It's great to be here.
MR. GREGORY: Thank you very much.
I want to start on this issue of housing, because the debate has been so fast and furious this week. And, Al Hunt, I have to say, I was struck--Governor of Crist, governor of Florida, second highest foreclosure rate, he is still not necessarily on board with this plan to up the refinancing, lowering the standards for refinancing, and offering a reduction in payments for people who have real dangers now of foreclosing. That, to me, is striking.
MR. AL HUNT: Yeah, it is, David. He, he rather equivocated. I think he left open the fact he may come back and Tuesday suddenly find wisdom in the plan. Look, it's really tough stuff. Three million people have lost their homes, six million are threatened. There are some people who say, "Well, why should we reward bad behavior?" On the other hand, my house may be fine because I, I financed it 20 years ago; but if the house next door is in trouble, that means my property values are going down. Not to mention the six million people that lose their jobs. So it's really tough. Does Obama--has he come up with a perfect plan? I suspect not. Few plans are. But I am struck by the range of experts who think it's a workable and a good plan, ranging from CEOs like...
MR. GREGORY: Mm-hmm.
MR. HUNT: ...Jamie Dimon, all the way to the consumer advocates on the housing side. So I would say most people would give him a pretty good grade for a good start at this.
MR. GREGORY: And, and I think we should frame this correctly, which is that the White House view here is that additional foreclosures is terrible for the housing market because it pulls down that market, pulls down prices further. And they believe that majority of people here would be refinanced if they are at risk of foreclosure, and that it's important to do that, again, for the, for the general health of the housing market. But there is some significant disagreement on the merits. Rick Santelli was on Becky's program "Squawk Box" this week.
MS. QUICK: Right.
MR. GREGORY: He's a trader in Chicago--excuse me, an online--on air editor for CNBC. And this is what he said about this effort to modify payments, reduce payments this week. Watch.
(Videotape, Thursday)
MR. SANTELLI: How about this, president and new administration? Why don't you put up a Web site to have people vote on the Internet as a referendum to see if we really want to subsidize the losers' mortgages, or would we like to or least buy cars and buy houses in foreclose and give them to people that might have chance to actually prosper down the road, and reward people that could carry the water instead of drink the water.
How many of you people want to pay for your neighbor's mortgage that has an extra bathroom and can't pay their bills. Raise their hand. How about we all...
(Group boos)
MR. SANTELLI: President Obama, are you listening?
(End videotape)
MR. GREGORY: One person who was listening was the White House Press Secretary Roberts Gibbs, who had--took on Santelli by name from the podium.
(Videotape, Friday)
MR. ROBERT GIBBS: I would encourage him to read the president's plan and understand that it will help millions of people, many of whom he knows. I'd be more than happy to have him come here and read it. I'd be happy to buy him a cup of coffee. Decaf. Let me do this, too. This is a copy of the president's home affordability plan. It's available on the White House Web site. And I would encourage him, download it, hit print and begin to read it.
(End videotape)
MR. GREGORY: Well, I have read the plan from top to bottom.
MS. QUICK: Yeah.
MR. GREGORY: And the reality, Becky, is that Mr. Santelli's criticism is shared by a lot of people who think that it, A, is fundamentally unfair to subsidize people who may have misrepresented their income, gotten in over their heads, they owe what they owe. There's also real questions about whether modifications work. Fifty to 60 percent of modifications end up in a re-default.
MS. QUICK: Right.
MR. GREGORY: That's a fact.
MS. QUICK: It is. And we, we spoke with Jim Lockhart this week. He is the head of OFHEO, which oversees Fannie and Freddie. He said that they're hoping, they're hoping that 40 percent of these people that they help out won't fall into foreclosure anyway. That's just what they're hoping at this point. When Rick was talking, I mean, if you watch him on a daily basis, he does stuff like this all the time. He yells about Wall Street getting a bailout. He yells about 10-year Treasury prices on a regular basis. But the reason this probably picked up steam is he touched on something, touched a nerve that lots and lots of people around the country are feeling. They, they, they feel like the ants who are now being asked to take care of the grasshoppers. Now, there were probably some ants that were out there working all summer, too, and you feel bad if they got stuck out in the rain, but there are people who are just angry about the idea that people lied on their mortgage applications and that they're going to get bailed out.
MR. GREGORY: You hear about subprime loans, Alt-A loans, which are known as liar's loans.
Michele, the White House position is what's wrong with Santelli's argument is doing nothing is not a good option.
MS. MICHELE NORRIS: And, and it goes to what Al was saying earlier. If my--if I've paid my mortgage on time, made great sacrifices to do so, took on an extra job, sold a car, I played by the rules, why does this person down the street get this federal funding?
MR. GREGORY: Right.
MS. NORRIS: Well, if their house goes into foreclosure, it affects the value of my house and every other house on the block. That's the argument that they make. The, the, the reality is, though, when the economy turns sour, usually we turn to jobs and that's the sort of indicator of the strength or the weakness of the economy. Right now the housing market is the beating heart of the economy. And if they don't fix the housing market, everything else will just continue to tumble south. I mean, you know, in talking about the people who maybe misrepresented themselves on the loan, the other big question is the lenders.
MS. QUICK: Right.
MS. NORRIS: You know, they will be receiving federal money also. Will lenders who wrote bad loans, knowingly wrote loans to people that they knew would be unable to make these payments once the balloon hit two, three years out, will they get federal funding?
MR. GREGORY: Mm-hmm.
MS. NORRIS: The--Gibbs' reaction this week was an indicator of just how sensitive they are right now to the fact that they have got to make a major sales job right now.
MR. GREGORY: Right.
MS. NORRIS: The fact that the spent so much time at that briefing...
MR. GREGORY: And it's...
MS. NORRIS: ...talking about this rant on cable television shows.
MR. GREGORY: Right.
MS. NORRIS: That they know that they're...
MR. GREGORY: And it's not just housing, it is saving the banking industry generally.
But, Mr. Hunt, you made some news this week in your interview with the chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, Chris Dodd. This was a portion of your interview.
(Videotape, Friday)
MR. HUNT: Mr. Chairman, as you know, Alan Greenspan and Lindsey Graham have recently said that it may be necessary to nationalize some banks. Do you think as a short-term measure that some nationalization of a few banks may be very likely?
SEN. CHRIS DODD (D-CT): I don't welcome that at all, but I can see how it's, it's possible it may happen. I'm concerned that we may end up having to do that, at least for a short time.
(End videotape)
MR. GREGORY: And here's how the markets reacted as captured by this headline in The Washington Post: "Bank Shares Topple on Talk Of Possible U.S. Takeover." Our banking industry is so fragile as it is, and the government has been a bit opaque about whether it's going to go in and nationalize the banks.
MR. HUNT: David, I think what this story really suggests--I'd love to say it suggests my brilliant question, which really is able to...
MR. GREGORY: That's what I thought it indicated.
MR. HUNT: Exactly, yeah. My wife disabused me of that notion.
I think what it suggests is the fear and the fragility in market, that pervades markets. What Chris Dodd said was relatively benign. It's what Ben Bernanke, what Alan Greenspan...
MS. QUICK: Mm-hmm.
MR. HUNT: ...what Lindsey Graham had said before. And it's quite simple. If we, if we decide, as I think there's a consensus, that some banks are too big to fail, that it would be far more injurious, far more cascading than the Lehman effect last September; and if we're going to get a stress test, a solvency test--and most experts say a number of them can't pass it--what are the options? Well, one of the options is some kind of government temporary takeover. Now, if they want to consider that option, David, I think what we've learned is they better come up with another word. Nationalization is a word that just scares people.
MR. GREGORY: It's about--well, and Becky, there's a larger point here, which is, first of all, the more these--the, the shares of these bank, these banks gets talked down...
MS. QUICK: Hm.
MR. GREGORY: ...the closer you get to wiping out the shareholder completely. And it's, it's not clear to me that everybody understands that the investor in this country, who is not just a fat cat, the investor is us.
MS. QUICK: Yeah.
MR. GREGORY: It is the taxpayer, it's the teacher, it's someone who's invested in a 401(k). The investors on the sidelines, scared to death about taking any risk. And unless that changes, this economy really can't turn around.
MS. QUICK: And what you hear from investors is they don't necessarily hate everything or fear everything. What they fear is not knowing the, the rules of the game. They're getting changed all the time. Which is why, when you asked Dodd about that and he says, "Maybe we'll nationalize," and then you hear from the White House saying, "Well, we're still going to have a private banking system," OK, but that doesn't really answer the question. Are you nationalizing some banks, are you taking over some banks? What does it mean if you nationalize a bank? There's just a lot of confusion.
MR. GREGORY: Right. And what does it mean?
MS. QUICK: Well, if the, if they take over--I think you can look at AIG right now and say that AIG is nationalized.
MR. HUNT: Yeah.
MS. QUICK: They own the majority of that company. They own the voting rights.
MR. GREGORY: Got $160 billion from the government.
MS. QUICK: They're going to have to do anything the company tells them. You could also look at somebody like a Citigroup or a Bank of America, though, and say, "Hey, they're going to be basically--the government may not actually own those banks outright, but you can bet they're not going to be doing anything, the management there, that they don't run past the government." If the government doesn't like it, they're not going to be doing it anyway.
MR. GREGORY: And, Michele, does the government want to be in the business of running the major banks?
MS. NORRIS: Well, that's, that's the question is we know what the government--I mean, Barack Obama has assembled a whip-smart team of economic advisers. But if they take over there are so many questions, detailed questions about liquidity in the markets, what kind of loans they could make. I mean, it goes well beyond these big questions about CEO salaries if they're actually taking over and running the hearts and the guts of the national banking system.
MR. HUNT: Can I pick up with something Michele said a minute ago?
MR. GREGORY: Yeah.
MR. HUNT: Because I think she's absolutely right. This--you know, right now we have a, a incredible fear, a psychological fear. I think the economy is going to--and most experts, more importantly, say that the economy's going to be lousy for the next year. You're not going to see any effects of the stimulus bill for, you know, at least a year. And you're not going to see it until jobs and housing start to rebound. Which is why I think, in all due respect, Mr. Santelli's comments were so sophomoric. Until you address that, you're not going to address the question of confidence, you're not going to get credit flowing again and you're not going to resolve the banks. I don't know when that's going to happen, but I know it's not going to happen till jobs and housing get up.
MS. QUICK: But do you believe it's got to be done in terms of writing down the principle on mortgages? Do you think that that has to be a part of it? And where does it stop?
MR. HUNT: I haven't heard, I haven't heard a better plan. There may be one.
MS. QUICK: Yeah.
MR. HUNT: But I think the idea of ranting about, you know, some people are going to--who, who made mistakes--a lot of these people made very innocent mistakes. They were duped. And, and I think to say that they shouldn't be helped is really quite unfair.
MR. GREGORY: Let, let, let me just move on to the budget, which'll be a big issue this week. The, the first federal budget under the Obama administration. In a really difficult economic environment and a huge deficit environment, the president will aim to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term. He's also going to allow the Bush tax cuts to expire in 2010 for those making over $250,000. There was a thought that he would do that immediately, now they're just going to--he doesn't want to raise taxes in, in the course of--in this economic environment. It'll have to expire first.
MS. NORRIS: He wants to keep that campaign promise.
MR. GREGORY: Right.
MS. NORRIS: But they can obviously argue that the parameters have changed, that the economy has gone south and that changes things.
The thing that is surprising, actually astonishing to me, is their talk about deficit reduction. I mean, in reducing the deficit, you know, by that amount, I mean, it would be difficult if you take--if you just separate the troubles in the economy. It would have been difficult because of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, it would have been difficult because the baby boomers that are now marching into their sunset years and the stress on Social Security. And so to talk about this kind of deficit reduction in a short period of time, wow. I mean, that's the kind of thing that could really boomerang and come back to haunt him, come back to bite him...
MR. GREGORY: Hm.
MS. QUICK: Especially when you're doing it without cheating...
MS. NORRIS: ...in 2012.
MS. QUICK: ...when you're counting in the cost of the war...
MR. HUNT: Exactly.
MS. QUICK: ...a bunch of other things that have been taken out before.
MR. GREGORY: Is this overly ambitious to think you can cut it in half?
MR. HUNT: It's certainly ambitious, David, and I think the key here is health care. The key here is what, what you can do to both reform health care, to get more health insurance to people and try to save some money at the same time. That is a very, very dicey trick to pull off.
MR. GREGORY: Let me...
MR. HUNT: But that's essential, I think, to all these arguments.
MR. GREGORY: Let me move on to one of the spicier topics of this year, and that is Illinois politics. The president might have thought filling his vacant Senate seat would have been a little bit easier than this, but now Senator Roland Burris is caught up in changing stories about whether or not he tried to raise funds for Governor Blagojevich before he was appointed by Blagojevich, who is of course under investigation and has been charged with corruption for trying to sell, allegedly, Obama's Senate seat. All of this happening, Senator Burris indicating he may make a decision in the near future to step down; and again, Press Secretary Gibbs at the White House appeared to be nudging him a little bit on Friday. Let's listen.
(Videotape, Friday)
MR. GIBBS: The appointment of Senator Burris was--and his taking the Senate seat was based largely on the representations that he'd made. Some of those stories seem to be at variance with what's happened, that the president is supportive of an investigation that would get some full story out. And I think it might be important for Senator Burris to take some time this weekend to either correct what has been said and, and certainly think of what lays in his future.
(End videotape)
MR. GREGORY: You get the impression that every word of that statement was thought through very, very carefully. Of course, Governor Blagojevich has been impeached. Governor Quinn now in Illinois has called on Senator Burris to resign.
Michele, what's going on here?
MS. NORRIS: Well, Senator Burris spent part of his weekend speaking to FBI agents and, you know, perhaps thinking about this. What was interesting is Robert Gibbs said, "stories at variance with what happened." That was a very artful way...
MR. GREGORY: Right.
MS. NORRIS: ...to suggest that he may not have been telling the truth. One key person who has not called for Senator Burris to step down at this point is Mayor Daley. At this point he said he's not willing to do that. Because of the, the way the Chicago political machinery works, if that were to happen, I think that would really spell bad news for Roland Burris. That has not happened yet.
MR. GREGORY: And yet, Al, for Senate Democrats this would come full circle to where they wanted to start anyway, which was to have a freer hand in choosing who they wanted.
MR. HUNT: Mm-hmm. What they now think is the position they should have kept. They--Harry Reid caved on this. Robert Gibbs' message was, "Adios, Roland." I mean, out, gone. And he is a dead man walking. The only question is when does he do it, sooner or does he wait, does he wait longer? But certainly both the Obama administration and the Senate Democratic leadership would like this long nightmare to be over.
MS. NORRIS: Can I just say one thing? You know, I--this is so interesting, because this was suppose to be Illinois' moment in the sun. And they sent a son of Illinois to the White House and then, you know, this trail follows it, so.
MR. GREGORY: In our remaining moments, I want to spend a couple minutes talking about Eric Holder, the attorney general, first African-American attorney general. And he gave a speech about the national dialogue about race in this country, or lack of thereof, and he used some charged language. And this is what he said.
(Videotape, Wednesday):
MR. ERIC HOLDER: Though this nation has proudly thought of itself as a ethnic melting pot, in things racial we have always been and we, I believe, continue to be, in too many ways, essentially a nation of cowards.
(End videotape)
MR. GREGORY: And, Al, his point is that the dialogue about race in this country is too stilted and it doesn't happen, and that people are still afraid to have it. Was that the right way to invite people to have that conversation more freely?
MR. HUNT: Michele and I were talking about this beforehand.
MS. NORRIS: Mm-hmm. We did.
MR. HUNT: I think that he--his--he's absolutely right on the history. I think he makes a very valid point. I think the attorney general should not be making that point. I think it weakens him in some, some of the tough actions he's going to have to take to deal with race.
MR. GREGORY: Right.
MR. HUNT: So I think it was a poor choice of words, even though it's hard to quarrel with his history.
MS. NORRIS: You know, that, that almost--what you just said, though, seems to confirm the argument that he's making, that if he talks openly about race that he can't deal with race. He seems to be saying that we need to talk openly about race. I think if he had said Americans are uncomfortable talking about race...
MR. GREGORY: Right.
MS. NORRIS: ...that Americans are skittish of talking about race, we probably wouldn't be talking about it at this table right now.
MR. GREGORY: So, Michele, what happens now? Is, is President Obama, the first African-American president, is he or should he be a catalyst for this conversation? Or rather, does this conversation, in a more open way, have to happen around our dinner tables and in other more casual settings amongst all of us?
MS. NORRIS: Well, you know, I was speaking to--we did a segment on the radio about this this week, and one of the things that was said that I thought was so striking is when someone calls for a conversation like this, people like us sit at tables like this...
MR. GREGORY: Right.
MS. NORRIS: ...and we have this conversation. But the places where the conversation really needs to happen is where that conversation generally doesn't happen, because it's really difficult to talk about this. It's fraught with landmines.
MR. GREGORY: Right.
MS. NORRIS: People are afraid of saying the wrong thing or the right thing, so sometimes they don't say anything. It's fraught with anger and resentment and guilt and the need for apologies...
MR. GREGORY: And in, and in truth...
MS. NORRIS: ...and the need for...(unintelligible).
MR. GREGORY: ...unless there's a spark like this, the use of words--coward, sometimes the conversation won't happen at all.
MS. QUICK: Yeah. I think Rick Santelli would use the same argument for getting people to talk about what's happening in the mortgage argument. It does--by saying these words it does--and using these terms, it does make us talk about these things.
MS. NORRIS: Can I say one thing, though? I think that what, what you see here is perhaps a slightly different view of the need for dialogue.
MR. GREGORY: Mm-hmm.
MS. NORRIS: And I hear two very different conversations. And in some ways they're coming from two different camps, from people of color and from Caucasian Americans. And when you talk about the need for, or the move toward a more post-racial society, you don't hear that so much from people of color. And it's almost like that, that ship is heading toward an iceberg, because from people of color what you're hearing more often is let's now have a more open dialogue about race.
MR. GREGORY: Right.
MS. NORRIS: Let's not--you can't...
MR. GREGORY: Let's not shut the dialogue off because...
MS. NORRIS: ...you can't go over it, you can't go under it.
MR. GREGORY: Right.
MS. NORRIS: You got to go through it.
MS. QUICK: Mm-hmm.
MS. NORRIS: And going through it can be tough, but you need to go through it in order to get to the other side.
MR. GREGORY: And that's the point, Al, is that there is an opening here, but it's just the opening, with an African-American president. That may be a starting point, but it doesn't mean that that shuts off the conversation and that everything is OK.
MR. HUNT: Well, that's right. And I agree with--I actually agree with everything Michele said, and I still think it was a poor choice of words. For instance, I believe last March that Barack Obama help open a dialogue. He was forced into it because of the Reverend Wright controversy. He helped open a dialogue. His words were chosen more carefully...
MR. GREGORY: Hm.
MR. HUNT: ...which I think made it for a more constructive, if very limited dialogue on some points.
MR. GREGORY: All right, we're going to have to leave it there. We'll be right back.
MR. GREGORY: Watch a special broadcast of MSNBC's "Morning Joe" on Tuesday morning, live from the White House on the morning of the president's address to Congress. Among their guests, senior adviser to President Obama, David Axelrod, and White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs. I'll join them as well. That's "Morning Joe," live from the White House Tuesday morning. And of course, Tuesday night, complete coverage of President Obama's address on NBC and MSNBC. Also, look for updates from me this week on the president's speech, the budget battle and more. It's all on our Web site at mtp.msnbc.com.
That's all for today. We'll be back next week. If it's Sunday, it's MEET THE PRESS.


text:
|Here's your braids to stare at.
That's me at the TX Ranger
museum putting together
a Colt Peacemaker.
I spent a number of years in college earning a degree in Computing Science. (And before you ask, no computers do not rank as my favoritest thing in the world. I'm just not afraid to use them. ;) ) One thing I learned is consistency counts, especially when it comes to designing stuff for users. Oh, and making stuff idiot-proof, but that's whole 'nother lesson all on its own. :)
I figured I'd take a few key things I've learned to make an acronym that might help y'all in Branding, especially when it comes to web design (or blogging if that is your cup of tea--or coffee if you're Linda Yezak. :) )
- U - YoU
- Be you! When someone lands on your home page, they should automatically know what your site is about and what you write at just a glance. Don't be afraid to show that part of you that makes you different/unique.
- N - Nice
- Be nice to your users/followers. Make links, tabs, and newsletter sign-ups easy to find. Be consistent on where you place items from page to page. The more time someone has to take to search for something, the more likely they are to give up and move on to something else. (Sorry, but such is the state of our microwave society.) Make the page easy on the eyes---in other words, don't be afraid of white space. :)
- I - Interface
- This is another place where consistency really counts! This is how you build your brand. Use the same banner images on your website and newsletter and blog and even Facebook. Give them a feel that transcends wherever they find you online. And let it reflect what you write! Me, I write Inspirational Western Romances. You'll notice a lot of my stuff has a country feel or wood background (yep, even my book covers now have this). I've got a Wanted poster design (with my picture) that stays at the top of my website and has taken up residence on my newsletter. Extract you and put it in everything you do. :)
- Q - Quiet
- This is more a trend of the past, but I'll say it just in case the thought crosses your mind. Don't add music or sound that starts the moment your page loads. This girl will mute or close your page quicker than you can blink, and I doubt I'm the only one. Videos are great, but let us decide when to play them. :)
- U - User-focused
- Remember this site might be about you, but it's not about you! LOL. Yes, I know that's the biggest contrapositive statement ever. Nevertheless, it's about your user (follower). Ask yourself, "Why would someone visit my site? What do I offer?" Books? Great! But, honey, they can find that on Amazon. Do you blog tidbits, offer recipes, bonus features, behind the scenes looks at your stories? Be creative in what you offer. Me, I love taking pictures on my research trips, so I've opted to share those and I'm only getting started. Karen Witemeyer has a great website and makes an awesome example of a reader-focused author page.
- E - Engaging
- Be engaging. Keep your site fresh with new content so folks will keep wanting to come back and hang around your porch.
Well, that about covers my two-cents worth for the day. When it comes to your websites be---UNIQUE---U (yoU) N (Nice) I (Interface) Q (Quiet) U (User-focused) E (Engaging)
Y'all have questions I didn't cover? (Now, I ain't guaranteeing I have the answers, but I'm willing to give it a shot.)
Do you have any tips or tricks you've found helpful that you could share?
Crystal L Barnes is an award-winning author, who also happens to be a born-n-raised Texan. She is an active member of American Christian Fiction Writers (ACFW), her local ACFW chapter, 19th Century Writers, and her local church. She has a degree in Computing Science because she loves putting things into their proper place, and she enjoys writing because she gets to share her love of old-fashioned things and the Lord. When she's not writing or reading, Crystal enjoys knitting, sewing, or crocheting while watching old movies/sitcoms. Find out more about Crystal at crystal-barnes.com or connect with her on Facebook, Google+, or Pinterest.
Her debut novel Win, Love, or Draw releases Nov. 14, 2015
Catherine McGarrett is a strong woman. Life in Texas demands such. For five years, she has built a growing horse ranch while praying for the return of the one man who stole her heart and shattered it in a million pieces when he left.
Now he's back.
Samuel McGarrett rides into Cater Springs, Texas toting two six-shooters and too many scars. The trouble and pain from the past erupts around the couple. And not just in their marriage. Can Sam win Catherine's trust? Will their love survive? Or will his final draw be his last?


text:
21st April 2017
Elliott Suthers picks apart the jargon-heavy language of enterprise tech, in search of the truth.
In enterprise technology, you could be easily forgiven for thinking that companies go out of their way to make their messaging complicated. Just this week, cloud analytics company, Cloudera, announced the pricing for its upcoming IPO as well as publicly releasing their S1 filing document. The S1 is supposed to give investors a good overview of the company, what it does and where its opportunities lie. But in less than a paragraph, Cloudera managed to tie together so much jargon that even the most seasoned enterprise analyst's head would have hurt. Hybrid open source software. Information-centric strategies. Proprietary data architecture. Dynamic data management system. I could go on, but my point is that after reading the document, I doubt anyone had a better idea of what the company actually does.
This week's AWS Summit in San Francisco couldn't have been more different. Every year, Amazon does a series of summits to evangelize its web services offering which include cloud storage, web hosting and managed databases - pretty dry stuff. But every year their summits sell out (I've been to three myself). But what's more impressive is the crowd they attract. Whereas DockerCon and even Google I/O are almost exclusively developer focused, AWS goes out of its way to make their technology accessible to people without computer science degrees.
In its presentations, media interviews and customer stories, AWS makes its product relevant and relatable. Instead of discussing the technical specifics of database migration, it talks about the business value and the new markets the transition could open us. Likewise, with the rollout of updates to its Redshift data warehousing platform. To hear AWS CTO Werner Vogels talk about it, you'd think it was as easy as "ripping petabytes of apart," "pooling them all together" and "running a query," to suddenly have a product that would have taken "five years and hundreds of thousands of dollars in the past" in just 155 seconds. No mention of Sql or non-relational databases to be found.
As communicators, our number-one priority is to communicate - to tell a story clearly and articulately. But all too often we forget what our audience wants to hear and instead tell that what we want to say. These two examples offer a stark contrast to one another – one was obviously written with little thought to the end audience: the investment community. While the other understands that its core stakeholders (developers) can only be successful with executive support and has tailored its messaging accordingly.
With this in mind, ask yourself – who does my company's language speak to? If it takes you more than a few seconds to answer this, then it might be time for a chat.
For more information about Grayling's capabilities, download the free PDF.
Grayling Team
15th November 2016
Will Kunkel, Executive Vice President for Creative and Content in Grayling New York, on the final of our #7for17 trends, Live and Uncut'Timing is everything' has been a favorite line to many but...Read More
8th November 2016
Danica Ross, Grayling San Francisco US Executive Vice President, on how brands can guide themselves through the 'the new space race' – part of our #7for17 trends series.In an era where brands...Read More
3rd November 2016
Russell Patten, Chair of Grayling's European Public Affairs practice, looks at one of the major political trends as part of our #7for17 series. It's been a turbulent year in politics, with the...Read More


text:
Source: Gripping Video Shows U.S. Coast Guard Stopping A Vessel Carrying Cocaine : NPR
NOAA Weather
Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara Municipal Airport, CA
Last Updated on Jul 18 2019, 8:53 pm PDT
Weather by NOAA
Current Conditions: Fair
Temp: 61°F
Wind: West at 6mph
Humidity: 90%
Windchill: 60°F
Recent Posts
Harbor News Twitter Feeds
Don't miss out on all these pictures of their K-9 unit!! You'll regret it4
Lots to do at the @sb_waterfront #SeeSB https://t.co/A6ZxbCjpYd
Wild video shows Coast Guard crew jump on top of suspected drug smuggling vessel in Pacific Ocean https://t.co/PhsXWaNnBS via @ABC10
.@uscgmidatlantic medevaced a 7-year-old girl, her parent and a nurse from the Cruise Ship Celebrity Summit yesterday while they were over 200 miles off shore! The girl was suffering from abdominal pain and was transferred to a Children's Hospital in Norfolk.
Santa Barbara County Ready to Burst Fourth with Independence Day Activities @sb_waterfront https://t.co/XHePWB08jM


text:
It's rare the TV is off in our house, especially once we brought home our new baby — a fancy 47″ flat screen, HD, Netflix-equipped, monster of a TV. But, on the off chance we turn the TV off for an hour, the house is still rarely quiet.
There's the tick-tock of the cute Motown/Detroit clock I bought for DD for our first dating anniversary.
There's the rumble and crash of ice in the ice-maker.
There's the ding of the elevator in our apartment building, usually followed by the slam of a neighbor's door as they arrive home.
There's the muted tones of people talking on the street 2 floors below my window.
Every few minutes, there's the smooth humming of the People Mover, Detroit's "mass transit" — an elevated train that runs in a loop of downtown.
Many days, there's the swish of our washing machine, that can only be slightly muffled by closing the closet door.
If I'm REALLY quiet in bed, I can hear the thump thump of the treadmill in the fitness center that butts up to our bedroom wall.
If it's a weekend or a Tigers game night, I can hear the honking horns, throbbing bass, and excited yelling of people out on the town.
If a certain neighbor is in a foul mood, I can hear her arguing with her boyfriend, sometimes followed by shattered glass and always followed by slammed doors.
See, when you live in a 2 bedroom loft that also has a combined living/kitchen/dining area and faces a burgeoning downtown district, there's really no such thing as silence. Even though Detroit is a relatively quiet city, with a density nowhere near its big sisters Chicago and New York, it still has its own soundtrack. And when you couple that with living in a building with thin walls, many of your neighbors' every day sounds are heard too.
For many people, my soundtrack probably sounds like more of a screeching nuisance than a pleasant melody. For me, it's the latter. Sure, the thumping treadmill isn't so awesome when it wakes me up at 5 a.m., but overall, it's home to me. It's vibrancy and activity and even security. Knowing there's someone else close by, even when I'm completely alone, is a comfort that I'm not fully prepared to give up someday when we move to our own home on a nice, quiet, suburban block.
This blog post was inspired by Mama Kat's Weekly Writing Prompt. Perfect for when I'm just getting back into things and need a little help.


text:
Grey Zip Through Plus Fit Pinafore 2 Pack - 7 yearstuc128776262
- £11.00
Colour: Grey
3 Colours available
- Black
- Grey
- Navy
Size: 7 YearsSize Guide
Fitted 54% of customers 'as expected'
Check stock
Tell us where you are to check stock:
Delivery & Returns
Next day collection - Order before 2pmFree
Home delivery - 1 to 2 days£3.95
Free returns to store30 days
Design details
Your little one will look smart in these sleeveless pinafores with a pleated skirt. In classic grey and a plus fit, these pinafores are finished with a patch pocket and zip fastener. Pair with a buttoned white shirt and buckled shoes for a classic look.
- Grey zip through plus fit pinafore
- Plus fit - wider cut through the waist and body
- Sleeveless
- Round neckline
- Patch pocket
- Pleated skirt
- Teflon Ecoelite stain resistant finish
- Dropped waist
- Keep away from fire
- Body: 65% Polyester
- 35% Viscose
- Binding: 65% Polyester
- 35% Cotton
- Machine Washable
The small print
*Prices correct as displayed but are subject to change.
The customer and brand answers you'll see above are submitted independently. As we don't review these answers, we can't take responsibility for anything they may say. The responses from Argos colleagues are accurate at the time of publishing. For the latest info, you should check the product page.


text:
Xbox 360
Connecting to the UNC Wired Network
Description: Connecting your computer or device to the University network involves three steps: Finding your network card(s) hardware address. Registering your network card(s) hardware address. Configuring your system for the University wired or wireless network (Some Game Systems).
» Subjects: Connecting to the Network, Game Systems, Networking, PS3, PS4, Wii, WiiU, Xbox 360, Xbox One » Tags: Mac OS X, Microsoft, Microsoft Windows, Network, Nintendo, PS3, PS4, Sony, Wii, Xbox 360, Xbox One