text:
If California is going to issue IOUs instead of paychecks for employees, can the employees use the IOUs to offset their tax liabilities?
— Ruth D., Ohio
It would be a fitting use for this quasi-cash to send it right back to the government. But for most state workers, it likely won't get that far.
For starters, the law bars paying state workers with anything other than real money. But plenty of other people owed money will have to figure out how to get by for a bit without it.
To save cash, California will print up $3.6 billion in funny money this month to pay some of its other bills — mostly to vendors who sell goods and services to the state. These include both major corporations and mom-and-pop operations that can ill-afford the disruption in their cash flow. Some of these businesses may have to fold, generating more layoffs in a state where the official unemployment rate already stood at 11.5 percent in May.
In the short run, businesses or individuals could send the bogus bucks right back to Sacramento to pay taxes. But these IOUs will likely mature in 90 days, which means the state will convert them back into cash — with interest — before most people have to pay their taxes in April. In the meantime, the IRS will continue to require that employers withhold taxes from most workers' paychecks. So the IOUs can't be used to offset that federal tax liability.
It's also not clear whether banks will accept this funny money once it's issued. Most did so the last time this happened in 1992, but the financial problems of both the state and the banks are much worse than they were 17 years ago. If banks do accept IOUs, they'll probably pocket the interest paid when the IOUs convert back to cash. Or they may charge a fee to cover the risk that these faux dollars turn out to be worthless.
Given the sorry state of the state's financial and political affairs, that's not an unreasonable fear. State officials in Sacramento have been flailing for years as this budget nightmare has escalated. But they didn't create this mess by themselves. The people of California, having led the nation in a "property tax revolt," have now shot themselves in the foot with a government that spends $26.3 billion more on services than it takes in on taxes.
This is roughly equivalent to cash-strapped family members who can't agree on where to stop spending — so they just keep running up their credit cards and then ignore the bill. It worked for a few years. Now, after raiding the piggy bank and selling everything they can think of on eBay, there's no more cash. Friends and family have cut them off. But instead of cutting spending or looking for a second job, these folks go right on spending.
State officials insist they won't default on their bonds, a prospect that could have a catastrophic impact on the financial markets. Issuing IOUs may yet bring a round of defaults by local governments and state agencies that rely on the Sacramento to honor its financial commitments with real cash. By using IOUs, state officials are passing along the financial mess they created to local officials. If those local governments run out of cash, they may have to default payments to investors who bought their municipal bonds.
California may have started this trend of living beyond its means, but other states have picked up the same bad habit of winning favor with voters by offering popular services — without having the courage to explain to those voters how much it all costs. Now, with the collapse in property values and the slowdown in retail sales, tax revenues have plunged and budget gaps have widened. But in most statehouses, elected officials are still stuck at the finger-pointing stage.
Despite all the political theatrics, the solution is pretty simple. Taxpayers have to pay more to cover the cost of the services they don't want to give up. Or they have to expect a lot less from state government — including big cuts in basic services like education and road repair.
Just like the family that spent more than it could afford during the bubble, the party is over for state governments. We may be only beginning to feel the hangover.
You are a financial writer for MSNBC. The editorial staff appears to be in the hip pocket of President Obama. He can do no wrong. However, when I read the financial writers, like you, they are much more conservative and skeptical of the present economy and the present Congress and administration. Is my perception correct? Why?
— Harold N., Dayton, Ohio
I disagree with your perception that my colleagues at MSNBC are broadly uncritical of the Obama administration. In general, I think some readers are quick to see bias where none exists. (I will say that I think all cable television news channels have strayed too far in offering up political opinion as "news.")
To your broader question, I tend to agree that many financial writers are more skeptical about the economic outlook and forecasts offered up by Congress and the White House. This is not a partisan issue; politicians of all stripes are notorious for glossing over economic problems. (See: State budgets, California). Politicians can generally say whatever they want — as long as they can keep a straight face.
The financial markets, however, are a lot less forgiving. It's been my experience that people tend to stick closer to the facts when they decide where to save or invest than they do when formulating a political opinion. So the economy and financial markets represent a kind of popular referendum on government policies, one that's often a lot easier to read than opinion polls and usually much more reliable.
The markets also provide an important reality check. There's nothing particularly wrong with Obama's ambitious agenda: save the world from global economic collapse, defuse the ticking bomb of runaway medical spending, salvage what's left of the U.S. auto industry, etc. Other than a few misguided, hyperpartisan malcontents, I don't know why anyone would want to see any president fail.
But if, for example, Congress and the White House can't control federal spending and shrink the deficit, anxious Treasury bond buyers will demand a higher return, and interest rates will go up. You could argue that the market is wrong to demand those higher rates. Or you could disagree over which policy, exactly, was responsible for those deficits. But you can't argue about whether rates have gone up or down — or what the impact will be.
Lastly, we get a lot of mail from readers asking why we're so gloomy all the time. These readers seem to think that a frank discussion of economic risks and underlying problems hurts consumer confidence and, in turn, does further damage to the economy. We think they're wrong on several counts.
First, it's not our job to cheerlead the economy: There are more than enough politicians already doing so. Second, it serves no purpose to report only "good" economic news and ignore the warning signs. But most importantly, people are smart enough to make their own minds about how well or poorly the economy is doing. There's little we could write that would change that.
Not too long ago the big banks were begging for help and painting the doomsday scenario. Suddenly, when the executives found out that they will no longer be able to stuff their pockets with obscene salaries, the banks no longer needed the bailout money. Have I missed something?
— P.H.Tampa, Fla.
No. I think you've pretty much got it covered.


text:
Researchers from Carnegie Mellon, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Georgia Tech have issued a list of 9 tips for better tweeting based on a study of Twitter usefulness (see "Most tweets are useless, Twitter users say").
[RELATED: Nine Twitter Tips for Business | Twitter Tips: How to Get Retweeted]
Here's the list:
• Old news is no news: Twitter emphasizes real-time information, so information rapidly gets stale. Followers quickly get bored of even relatively fresh links seen multiple times.
• Contribute to the story: To keep people interested, add an opinion, a pertinent fact or otherwise add to the conversation before hitting "send" on a link or a retweet.
• Keep it short: Twitter limits tweets to 140 characters, but followers still appreciate conciseness. Using as few characters as possible also leaves room for longer, more satisfying comments on retweets.
• Limit Twitter-specific syntax: Overuse of #hashtags, @mentions and abbreviations makes tweets hard to read. But some syntax is helpful; if posing a question, adding a hashtag helps everyone follow along.
• Keep it to yourself: The clichéd "sandwich" tweets about pedestrian, personal details were largely disliked. Reviewers reserved a special hatred for Foursquare location check-ins.
• Provide context: Tweets that are too short leave readers unable to understand their meaning. Simply linking to a blog or photo, without giving readers a reason to click on it, was described as "lame."
• Don't whine: Negative sentiments and complaints were disliked.
• Be a tease: News or professional organizations that want readers to click on their links need to hook the reader, not give away all of the news in the tweet itself.
• For public figures: People often follow you to read professional insights and can be put off by personal gossip or everyday details.
Follow Bob on Twitter at www.twitter.com/alphadoggs
Read more about lans and routers in Network World's LANs & Routers section.
This story, "9 'University Researcher Approved' Tips for Awesome Tweeting" was originally published by Network World.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Besides chest-thumping fourth-quarter earnings, Goldman Sachs also announced its bonus pool on Thursday. At $16.2 billion, the total is 20 percent lower than the firm's 2007 level but still amounts to an average of just under $500,000 per employee.
If you're picky, it's only $498,000. Since it's an average, a few people will rake in a lot, lot more and most Goldman employees will make less than half a million. Federal taxes will whittle that down to about $324,000. So what does that get you these days?
Here are our Top 10 things to buy with an average Goldman's bonus:
10. 3,240 homes in Detroit
Homes are being auctioned off by the local section of Housing and Urban Development for as low as $50, but call it an even $100 per house. You'd buy some goodwill as well as a few real fixer-uppers through this purchase. Coupled with a potential tax incentive for refurbishing homes with green appliances and other energy-saving improvements, you could make a tidy profit – and be well on your way to your own private housing bubble.
9. Four years at Harvard Business School
You already know how business really works. Now spend a few years learning how it's supposed to work. Harvard currently pegs the total cost of attendance at $76,600 per year, you and a friend could each take a trip through with $18,000 left over for an awesome spring break adventure. [Editor's note: This section was adjusted to reflect the length of the MBA curriculum.]
8. Five trips around the world
An around-the-world plane ticket to 29 destinations would cost a high-end estimate of $10,000, according to AirTreks.com. Setting aside $50,000 or so to make sure you're not having to crash in youth hostels, you could outdo Magellan.
7. 40 cars
Forget Bentleys, Beamers and Benzs. It's the Tata Nano that's hot. The Indian company says it will introduce the car in the US and the European Union in the near future at around $8,000. Your bonus could have you driving a different one every day of the month, with a few spares in case you prefer driving to dinner in a brand-new car.
6. 16,200 stars
At only $20 a pop from StarNamer, you could name your own chunk of space. If all of Goldman's nearly 20,000 employees, pitched in, they could control 0.3 percent of the Milky Way. And that's before negotiating a group discount.
5. ... and one trip to visit
Virgin Galactic charges $200,000 for a trip to space. With a lifetime of VIP treatment from Sir Richard Branson to boot, this might be the easiest sell on the list.
4. Various Bernie Madoff memorabilia
While you couldn't bring home all the auctioned belongings of the Lord of the Pyramid Scheme (which went for $900,000 in total), you could pick up more than a few famous Madoff items like his Mets jacket or his wife's diamond earrings.
3. Three "kill bank reform" TV ads
With Thursday's Supreme Court decision obliterating limits on what corporations can spend on advocacy campaigns, you might consider buying ads to beat back the Obama administration's attempt to dismantle big banks (like yours). Your bonus won't buy you Super Bowl time (estimated at $3 million per 30 seconds last year), but it could get you roughly three advertisements during CBS' 60 Minutes, four ads during ABC's America's Funniest Home Videos, or, sadly, only one during Desperate Housewives.
2. One (Your Name Here) Bowl
Competitor Citigroup does have the naming rights to the Rose Bowl. Capital One has a bowl, too. But you, Goldman employee, could probably get the St. Petersburg Bowl all by your lonesome. The group auctioning the rights to name the upstart bowl game for a year hopes to bring in between $350,000 and $500,000, which is a touch out of your range. Try striking a joint deal with this year's sponsor, Beef O'Bradys.
1. 1,931 shares of Goldman stock
Invest in the company that made you a half-millionaire. You could buy 1,900 – no, scratch that. After President Obama's announcement on banking limitations pushed down bank stocks, you could buy 2,000 shares of Goldman, letting your money do the talking about your faith in American capitalism.


text:
Welcome to the Arctic Science Portal
This portal is a broad collection of Arctic science websites that are distributed
among the five categories listed above. A list of abbreviations and an organizational
chart are also included. The entry for each website includes a name, the link (URL),
and a brief description. The purpose of this site is to provide information to broad
cross-sections of users.
Please send feedback on the Arctic Science Portal to email@example.com.
CURRENT CONTENT DISCLAIMER: The content of the Arctic Science Portal is provided as a
public service and will evolve over time.
EXTERNAL LINKS DISCLAIMER: This site provides external links as a convenience to our users.
The appearance of external hyperlinks on the United States Artic Research Commission (USARC)
Arctic Science Portal does not constitute endorsement by the USARC of the linked websites, or the
information, products or services contained therein. The USARC does not exercise any editorial
control over the information you may find at these locations.


text:
Video: LeBron James dunks on child camper
HoopsVibe's Very Quick Call: This, as they say, is not a good look.
Clearly, LeBron James got a little carried away while playing what was supposed to be a friendly game of bump with children at a basketball camp.
Rather than shoot a jumper, James, of course, opts to dunk the ball and accidentally knocks a pre-teen to the ground.
Give the little guy credit: he took a body check from a 6-8, 280-pound man-child and got up smiling. Unlike Derek Fisher or Manu Ginobili, there was no flopping or exaggerating the blow.
Give the big guy credit, too: James apologized and gave the camper a free pair of sneakers. Thankfully, there was no attempt by Nike to hide the video.
Perhaps James has grown a bit, after all.
–Oly Sandor.
Got thoughts? Well, get at HoopsVibe News in the comment box below.


text:
Hetepu (Peace) Family. The other day I was talking to my former supervisor who is very religious and she was just telling me all about the Holy Spirit. I thought it was interesting for one because even though she knows I don't believe everything she believes. She still identified me according to the way I live my life as being "Born Again," which is why I titled this post this way. But, all while she was talking I was just wondering if she even knew where this came from. Then I got to thinking about how churches are so different now.
Let me explain real quick. Remember the music of the Motown era, Staxx and so on? Remember when those singers like Sam Cooke, Marvin Gaye, The Supremes, Aretha Franklin, the Staple Singers, Isaac Hayes (sorry to all music purist, I know I am jumping around…I WAS NOT born during that era, please forgive me 🙂 ) and all of them talked about their beginning or how they developed their musical talents? Do you remember what they all would say? That's right the Church. They all gave the same answer, that they honed their singing, musical, and oratory skills in the Church. Now, if we skip to contemporary times people will not say the same thing. The response is somewhat so-so but you will hear most comment on how they came from the "secular" world and brought their talent to the Church. Interesting isn't it?
I mean when did the Church start getting its inspiration from the Streets? It was when they loss their Anointing or the Spirit of God, and once they loss this connection, the ability to be Spirit-led wasn't far behind.
You see, the whole Spirit-led phenomenon that most Churches talk about today was supposed to be due to following the Holy Ghost or Holy Spirit. The evidence that one is filled with the Holy Ghost is by speaking-in-tongues based upon the Day of Pentecost. If you ask most churchgoers where this movement began, they will tell you that it all started at the Azusa Street Revival, which was started by William J. Seymour.
What they don't tell you is that Seymour was a student of Charles Parham and when he came upon the revival he denied it and denounced the movement as being taken over by hypnotists, spiritualists and fortunetellers. (see A Catechism of Christian Doctrine…No. 3, Supplemented by Rev. Thomas L. Kinkead. Bezinger Brother, 1921 pg. 261-262). In fact, Parham's racial views about African Americans and Mexican Americans involvement in the Pentecostal Movement is what led to the development of separate Pentecostal organizations in the United States.
Obviously, the reason most Black scholars and theologians, as well as non-Black theologians refuse to say anything about this is because they don't want anyone to know about their African shamanistic roots and spiritualistic origins. But, the failure to acknowledge and address the African element is the reason so many people in the church are experiencing such a disconnect from the Spirit of God. It is all because the practice of speaking-in-tongues as evidence that one has the gift of the Holy Ghost is a form of spirit possession, particularly African trance possession.
This practiced survived in the Untied States because Spiritualism encouraged it by proving that there is life after death and how one could speak to spirits, thus verifying Native American and African beliefs in the otherworld. If it had not been for Spiritualism – particularly Kardec Spiritualism – most of the indigenous practices of Native Americans and Africans throughout the Americas (Caribbean and Latin America) would have become extinct.
So, the practice of speaking in tongues or possession survived, along with other African practices such as prophesizing and shouting, which are all Spirit-led because of Spiritualism. What does this have to do with losing connection to the Spirit of God, you ask? It means that the original beliefs and practices go beyond the Azusa Street Revival. The actual theology comes from Africa.
Being led by the Spirit, as any African Traditional and African Diaspora practitioner will tell you is great, but you have to verify what the Spirit is saying is true, and this is why the loss has occurred. There is no verification process, which means any spirit can come in and tell a person to do something. The older people in the church had ways of discerning if what the spirit was telling them was true or not (called divination), but for reasons "unknown". Their ways were regarded as being superstitious and backwards practices from Africa, which is the reason it was not taught.
As is the case all throughout the world, when two cultures encounters each other, the dominant culture takes from the other elements, which it sees as being beneficial and profitable to its own, while discarding the rest. So, now when you turn on the radio or watch TV you see all sorts of preachers talking about the Holy Ghost and being led by the Holy Spirit. You will hear all sorts of singers talking about how great the Holy Spirit is and how it is the most beautiful thing in the world. All while these peoples' lives are in shambles, they have poor nutrition, they have low self-esteem, poor relationships, and impoverished communities but yet the Holy Spirit is wonderful.
Clearly, something is missing and that something is the African element, which the "powers that be" deemed as being superstitious and backwards. It is because most churches do not have this element, which is the basis of the Azusa Street Revival. The reason so many people in the church have simply sold out. With no anointing or no-Spirit you got to find ways to entertain the masses. While it seems a little barbaric to create great coliseums and see gladiators physically kill each other. If you look at most mega churches, they do resemble coliseums and they get on stage and allow their egos to have a slugfest instead. I am not here to judge anyone but really. If all of these people really had the Spirit of God within them some of the issues that exist in our society would cease, so why haven't they? Clearly, something is wrong.
Please understand my post is not to ridicule the church. I have become a very objective individual, so I can and will listen to anyone because Absolute Truth is Absolute Truth regardless of whose mouth it comes out of. I enjoy listening to some preachers when it is the Spirit sermonizing and not the speaker's ego. The purpose of this post is get you to understand that the original idea of what it means to be saved and filled with the Holy Ghost. Didn't come from Azusa Street but from Africans and early African Americans who wanted to be "saved" and delivered from slavery. American Churches watered down the original purpose and in a minute we will see why.
You see, the Africans and early African Americans relying upon remnants from Africa combined with Christianity created the Spirit-led tradition that people are so happy to talk about today. They also created a coded language that allowed them discern if what the Spirit was telling them was true or not, unlike people nowadays who just want to experience the Spirit or feel good and do nothing with it. Therefore, if you want to be truly reborn, you need to understand that it is not about listening to the Spirit. You have to learn to trust the Spirit and follow the Spirit's guidance. Once you do this, you will realize after you have verified that what the Spirit is telling is true. That the reason you speak-in-tongues is because all of those tongues are the ancestors who reside in the unseen spirit world.
But not every dead person is an ancestor. Some of the dead were bad people in life and they continue to be bad people in the afterlife. This is why the elders had to find a way to discern what the Spirit was saying is true. Most of our elders did this through bibliomancy, the art of divining with a book. Although any book can be used, the book most of our elders used was the Christian bible. Are you beginning to see why it was regarded as superstitious?
Unfortunately, most of the original theology that the elders relied upon was lost because Jesus from the African and early African American perspective was seen as being a patriarchal ancestor. Fortunately, this early African American concept was not new. It was practiced in Kamit/Kemet (Ancient Egypt) some 3,000 years ago and the patriarchal ancestor was Osar (Asar, Ausar or Osiris in Greek).
This is the whole reason behind the heroic Hru (Hrw, Heru or Horus in Greek) fighting his evil uncle in order to reclaim his ancestor's crown, the white crown of Kamit called the Hedjet or Crown of Osar.
So, how do you know when you have been reborn. You will know when you are truly reborn because your Osar (the patriarch of your lineage) gives you self-pride. When you have pride in yourself, you will live a better life because your Osar will help you not to do it. Your Osar will tell you that certain things are harmful to you. You can "try the Spirit" and it will help you in everyway. It will not cause you to humiliate yourself by altering your looks just to be accepted by the public. Most importantly, the Spirit will get you to stand up and fight in whatever way possible against injustice. It will truly liberate you of your fears because as Jesus said, the Spirit is a Comforter. So the question that remains is why would the "powers that be" take the African element out, besides trying to disassociate itself with spiritualism? Well, remember this historical event?
Ok, maybe not. How about these historical events?
Do you get the picture? King was transformed by the Holy Spirit, which transcended all sorts of cultural and racial boundaries. This is why he was able to mobilize people to march on Washington, D.C. Mind you, when I say they marched, they didn't take buses and drive to D.C. then walked the rest of the way, like these contemporary marches. The people marched from all over the country to D.C. Regardless of what you believe about King, the fact is that he led the most powerful march in the history of the country, which is why his influence is still felt. I believe clearly you can see it wasn't ego driving these people who marched during the Civil Rights era…it was the Spirit. This is the reason the religion has been watered down, because they don't want any of us, YOU included, to be the next Martin L. King Jr.
This is why to be reborn the right way means to learn how to connect first to your Osar and this is the true purpose of Kamta.
So, with all of these spiritual people in our society, it is time to change the world.
Hope this helps.


text:
Guests: Andrea Mitchell, David Corn, Shushannah Walshe, Brian Levin, Errol Louis, Rob Woodall, Robert Andrews, Ron Reagan
CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: Sticking to her guns.
Let's play HARDBALL.
Good evening. I'm Chris Matthews in Washington. Leading off tonight:
Bloodless. In her first interview since that FaceBook video, Sarah Palin went to the comfy confines of Fox News and offered nothing, no apology for inflammatory rhetoric and no regrets for the use of that term "blood libel." Speaking for her posse of Rush, Mark and Sean, she said, "They can't make us sit down and shut up"—"they" being that off-stage posse she touts around with her for rebuke.
Also, you heard it here first on HARDBALL. Long before Tucson, we warned about all the loose talk about guns and hatred directed toward public officials. We, like Gabby Giffords herself, were being preemptive. We'll show you what we said, what was said here on HARDBALL, and remind all if Jared Loughner didn't connect the dots between hateful rhetoric and a politician, who's so sure someone else won't?
Plus, second chances. After attacking Democrats for fixating on health care, guess what? House Republicans are fixated on health care and not jobs. They're devoting (ph) control of the House, which they now have, with a symbolic vote to repeal health care that has no chance of becoming law. This gives the Democrats a second chance to sell health care reform themselves. Can they sell it better this time?
And Ron Reagan is debuting tonight the book he's written on his father. Can't wait for that.
And we remember tonight—he just died—Sargent Shriver, who died today at the age of 95. I've got lots to say about this amazing, wonderful man.
Let's start with Sarah Palin. Shushannah Walshe is a political reporter for The DailyBeast and co-author of "Sarah From Alaska." Shushannah, thank you for joining us. And MSNBC political analyst David Corn writes about (SIC) "Mother Jones" and politics today.
Shushannah, you know—you cover—you understand better than I do from this distance, all the way from Alaska—sometimes she's hard to fathom. She can see Alaska. We can't always see her—I'm sorry—she can see Russia. We can't see her that clearly. What is this use of a term "blood libel"? It's strange use for—of a language. She chose to use it, hid for a week, popped up on the comfortable Fox News, where she works, last night, and sort of explained it. But I don't know what to make of her. Why does she use phrases she's not apparently familiar with, and then a week later, say she's familiar with them and only talk about it with someone who's basically her colleague?
Right. Well, I mean, she did go on Fox News. It was—Sean is one of her colleagues. And as you say, it was a safe confine (ph). But I thought what was interesting and what you just pointed out when talking about blood libel, is in that interview, she said that nobody asked her if she knew what it meant and I...
MATTHEWS: Well, who would have asked her? She's in an igloo up there somewhere. She's not answering any questions.
WALSHE: Right...
MATTHEWS: Who would have asked her? She's done no interviews, and she says, Nobody's asked me. What does it mean to say, Nobody's asked me, if you don't let anybody near you who could ask you?
WALSHE: It was really hard to figure it out. And she said it in a way that she was quite incredulous that nobody had asked her. But really, I mean, at this point, it's—everyone wanted to know what she meant by that and why should would...
MATTHEWS: Everything from her...
WALSHE: ... use such an inflammatory term.
MATTHEWS: ... is a rebuke of someone else. You ask her a question, she attacks people, these off-stage people she keeps referring to, these "they," as somebody who didn't get around to asking her, as if she was being interviewed at length and the question never came up.
Here she is, David.
WALSHE: Exactly.
MATTHEWS: You respond to this. Here's Sarah Palin—I can't call it an interview—in a meeting among colleagues on Fox News.
MATTHEWS: Here she is on Sean last night, responding to the broad criticism of her for the use of that term. Let's listen.
SARAH PALIN (R-AK), FMR. GOV., FOX CONTRIBUTOR: I don't know how the heck they would know whether I did or didn't know the term "blood libel." Nobody's ever asked me. And "blood libel," obviously, means being falsely accused of having blood on your hands. And in this case, that's exactly what was going on.
MATTHEWS: You know, they used to say about Barry Goldwater, I don't have to wait until—I shouldn't have to wait until Friday to know what he meant on Tuesday. I mean, why didn't she tweet—that seems to be her way of talking today...
DAVID CORN, "MOTHER JONES," MSNBC POLITICAL ANALYST: Yes.
MATTHEWS: Why didn't she tweet an explanation of the term when it came into question?
CORN: Or Sean Hannity last night could have said, OK, Governor, did you know at the time what it meant? What did you think it meant? He didn't take the opportunity. It was wide open.
You know, Sarah Palin had a great opportunity yet again to speak beyond her base and say, You know, Sean, I used the term. I think it fit, but I understand why some people think it's over the top. And as John McCain wrote in that wonderful op-ed piece about dialing back the rhetoric, I'm happy to do my part. And I hope the people who attack me are happy to do theirs.
She can never seem to rise above this self-victimization, you know, that she's always—pardon the pun—the target of everything. And even if she's right...
MATTHEWS: Well, grievances are numbered.
CORN: Exactly. Even if she is right, I think she's trying to mirror the resentment...
CORN: ... that her base feels.
MATTHEWS: Shushannah, I want you to get back at this. You're the expert. Let's talk about this. Here she is last night using the phrase she would be comfortable with, sticking to her guns, in that interview, if you will, with Sean Hannity last night.
PALIN: I will continue to speak out. They're not going shut me up. They're not going to shut you up or Rush or Mark Levin or Tea Party patriots or those who, as I say, respectfully and patriotically petition their government for change. They can't make us sit down and shut up, and if they ever were to succeed in doing that, then our republic will be destroyed.
MATTHEWS: Well, there she gets into that weird kind of staccato, "our republic will be destroyed." And then she's talking about "destroyed." In other words, if we don't hear from Mark Levin—excuse me—Sean Hannity and her, the republic will be destroyed.
And by the way, nobody's told them to, quote, unquote, "shut up." People have said, Stop talking about guns and raising the heat level about guns and your hatred of elected officials because somebody's going connect those two issues, guns and how much they hate a politician. We know one guy did. No evidence he was politically inspired, but we know he shot a politician. We know he shot a lot of other people at a political event. And we know what else? He used a gun. I'm sorry, it's related.
Does she see the connection between guns, political hatred and targeting politicians, like she did in her TV thing with the crosshairs on it and talking about reloading and bullseyes? Does she see the connection between that and reality?
WALSHE: Well, I mean, I think that everything that's happened since Tucson and people at first going after her and saying that she was connected to it, she has felt so under attack. And that's why you see these series of really mistakes where, as David said, she had the opportunity to say, Hey, you know, I have nothing to do with this. The right wing has nothing to do with this. This is a crazy person that's attached (ph) to this. But it's a good time for us as a country to come together and say, Hey, this language doesn't work, and I'm sorry for that crosshairs map. I'm sorry for using language that I have in the past.
But that didn't happen. And this is another opportunity where if she had—she could have really appealed to more people...
WALSHE: ... and she's not done that. And I'm somebody who's always thought that she's going to be—that she wants to run for president, that she's planning to run for president. But more of these moves, I'm just not sure at this point. And I've always said that.
MATTHEWS: Do you think it's possible that she's given up on being a legitimate candidate—legitimate—I mean, obviously, she would be legitimate, but a mainstream possibility, instead decides she's going to be something like Buffalo Bill in a Wild West show, she's going to be the country lady, the mama grizzly, put on kind of a national show which could be very lucrative for her and very successful and be somewhat entertaining and perhaps on occasion useful, but never really try to get 51 percent of the country? Do you think she might say, I'd rather have my slug, my 10 percent that loves me? If the other 90 doesn't like me—do you think she might be going that way (INAUDIBLE) just your thought on that.
WALSHE: You know, Chris, I've always said, no, I thought that she wanted to run for president, but the moves in the last few days make me question that, made me think she does just want to be a talking head and she just wants to play to her fervent, passionate supporters, where she—no matter what she says, they love her and they'll support her. She has had opportunities to—including this one, to talk to more Americans, to appeal to more Americans, and she has decided against that. So I...
CORN: This tragedy was ready made for her to take a step, even if just inches, beyond her base, right, Chris?
WALSHE: Right.
CORN: She could have said anything that Shushannah or I suggested, or anything of her own. I tend to think—you know, we—we—we think, What's her strategy? What's her game? What's her aim?
MATTHEWS: Guns.
CORN: Maybe she's...
MATTHEWS: She has to keep talking about guns.
CORN: Maybe she's just speaking from the heart. Maybe the most important thing to Sarah Palin is the fact that she feels under attack and she just has to express herself, which is not necessarily...
CORN: ... a good way to reach out or win the presidency, but it does...
CORN: ... you know—it does...
MATTHEWS: To make both of your points, you notice she didn't include herself with elected officials or John McCain or people that ran for president before. She included in her tong, her group...
WALSHE: Right.
CORN: Yes.
MATTHEWS: ... Rush Limbaugh, who's is pretty far to the right, Mark Levin, who's further to the right, Sean it's hard to tell, somewhere in the middle there. She's identifying with the most far right, in some cases—in fact, I think all those cases...
CORN: These are the...
MATTHEWS: ... except for Sean, who...
MATTHEWS: ... personality, she's identified with the most right-wing people on the air.
CORN: These are the leaders...
MATTHEWS: As her people.
CORN: ... of the Republican or conservative movement.
MATTHEWS: "We're not going shut up."
CORN: Well, and she said they're not—we're not going to—more important, We're not going to let them shut us up, which, of course, is...
MATTHEWS: Well, who's this "us" now? She's now the—last thought, Shushannah. Is she the circled wagon? Is she the mama grizzly with the wagon train circled now, and in the wagon train circle are Mark Levin, her new friend, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and her, not the Republican Party?
WALSHE: Well, that's what you're seeing in that interview yesterday. Before that, I would have—would have said that she's running for president. I still believe that. But she is ignoring ways for her to appeal to the rest of the country. I thought her TV show made her more appealing to the rest of the country. But in these moves and these decisions that she's behind—I mean, it's not like people are pulling the wires. She's making the decisions here. She's just not appealing to a broader part of the country, a broader part of the electorate.
Her supporters will say she should defend herself, that she was being linked to this crime where she has absolutely no link. She has to defend herself. But she could have gone about it in a different way that would have made her more appealing to the rest of the country.
CORN: It seems all she cares about is planet Palin...
MATTHEWS: Well, patriots.
CORN: ... which is a large, you know, sized asteroid body.
MATTHEWS: I hate the word "patriot" used exclusively.
CORN: But—but...
MATTHEWS: It means that other people aren't—well -- (INAUDIBLE)
CORN: No, I was just saying she is not thinking beyond her own horizons, which is not good for any politician.
MATTHEWS: Well...
CORN: But it works well if you're trying to raise a lot of money...
CORN: ... from a small group.
MATTHEWS: ... this strategy of going on Sean Hannity and talking to her colleague under obviously comfortable conditions and taking a whole week to respond to a firestorm she started, is not the usual kind of campaigning we're used to. I'm with you, Shushannah. I don't think she's running for president. I think she's running for mama grizzly, and she's getting there.
Thank you, David...
WALSHE: And that's hard for me to say that. I didn't believe that before.
MATTHEWS: Yes, I think she wants to be mama grizzly. She wants to be Buffalo Bill with a Wild West show, 21st century version.
Thank you, David Corn. Nothing wrong with that, by the way...
CORN: Oh, no. It's fine.
MATTHEWS: ... except for the gun talk. Thank you, Shushannah, again, Shushannah Walshe...
WALSHE: Thank you, Chris.
MATTHEWS: ... for joining us from DailyBeast.
Coming up: Just because there's no evidence that the gunman in the Tucson shooting was motivated by violent anti-government rhetoric—although who knows—it's hardly a go-ahead to keep talking that way for some people because there is a very real fear that someone will act on the words he or she hears. We're going to go back before last weekend's massacre with you folks watching to a lot of the people who said way before the Tucson horror that it was coming, that this extreme talk was dangerous, and sooner or later would ignite a problem. We don't know any connections here. But by the way, we haven't stopped talking like this, a lot of people, this dangerous talk, and we haven't stopped talking about guns, and there are a lot of them out there.
You're watching HARDBALL, only on MSNBC.
MATTHEWS: Former vice president Dick Cheney says that Barack Obama will be one-term president. He's sticking to that belief. Here he is with NBC's Jamie Gangel.
RICHARD CHENEY, FORMER VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: His overall approach to expanding the size of government, expanding the deficit, giving more and more authority and power to the government over the private sector, his lack of sort of a feel for the role of the private sector in creating jobs and creating wealth and getting our economy back on track—those are all weaknesses, as I look at Barack Obama. And I think he'll be a one-term president.
MATTHEWS: Well, Cheney's also saying that President Obama is, quote, "learning from experience" that the Bush policies on terrorism were good.
CHENEY: I think he's found it necessary to be more sympathetic to the kinds of things we did. They've gotten active, for example, with the drone program, using the Predator and the Reaper to launch strikes against identified terrorist targets in various places in the world.
MATTHEWS: Well, "getting active" may not be the right phrase. The Obama administration's been using those drones to knock out terror targets ever since his first very few weeks in office.
We'll be right back.
MATTHEWS: ... language and gun talk dominated the last couple years in politics. And well before that rampage in Tucson, we'd been warning here about the consequences of such incendiary rhetoric. Here's just a sampling of how we sounded the alarm bells on HARDBALL way before Tucson. Let's listen.
RON REAGAN, POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: And they're using violence-tinged language. They are speaking to the lowest common denominator.
DOUG BRINKLEY, PRESIDENTIAL HISTORIAN: We don't want the rhetoric to get out of control.
JOAN WALSH, SALON.COM: I think it's very—very dangerous, very sobering, and people should be denouncing this.
MATTHEWS: They are justifying violence.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What disturbs me a little bit about watching Sharron Angle is what I would describe, her careless rhetoric.
ALEXI GIANNOULIAS (D), ILLINOIS SENATE CANDIDATE: People like Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck, their rhetoric I think is dangerous.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That is very incendiary kind of language.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: They just say whatever's on their mind, a careless use of language, very dangerous language.
REAGAN: They're not speaking to the, you know, reasonable Tea Partier.
BRINKLEY: We're on a bit of a red alert.
WALSH: ... discrediting our great American system and threatening, if they don't get their way, that we might need "2nd Amendment remedies" and we might need a revolution.
MATTHEWS: So this isn't new, nor are the warnings new. As NBC's own Joe Scarborough wrote in Politico, quote, "Just because the dots between violent rhetoric and violent actions don't connect in the Tucson case doesn't mean you can afford to ignore the possibility, or as many fear, the inevitability that someone else will soon draw the line between the rhetoric and the action."
Why won't Republican leaders call out this inflammatory gun and hate talk? Brian Levin is with—is director, in fact, of the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism at Cal State San Bernardino, and Errol Louis is host, of course, at New York 1.
Gentlemen, this violent language from the right, this constant
reference to guns, this hatred of elected officials—now, Michael
Kinsley, the brilliant writer said the other day, No—well, he just challenged those who say there is no connection to Tucson. He's pretty tough. He says constantly saying "gold standard," constantly attacking government officials, constantly saying they're the other, the enemy, constantly talking about guns—OK, this guy may certainly have mental problems—you can tell that, I suppose—but in this environment, are we safe to not see a possible connection in someone else's mind between the words and the possible violent action, Brian?
BRIAN LEVIN, CTR. FOR STUDY OF HATE AND EXTREMISM, CSU: Look, I think that we shouldn't hang our argument on whether one particular deranged person responded to this plethora of violent calls. We had this guy Poplawski in Pittsburgh who murdered three police officers. We had numerous plots revolving around President Obama. We know that this kind of rhetoric, whether it affected Loughner, is not healthy.
There are three things that are going on here. One, we have a real demonization now of political rivals, democratic institutions and processes. We have exhortations, subtle and not so subtle, to violence, and we have the embrace of bizarre conspiracy theories.
And what I'm saying to you is while the odds of it affecting this particular guy are pretty low—probably naught because he had contact with the congresswoman in 2007 and found her to be a phony, kind of like a Mark David Chapman thing—that doesn't mean that we should necessarily say that this is just, you know, a green light because there are a multitude of unstable people who are fanatic, who this will set a validating foundation for.
And one of the things we know about hatred and prejudice and aggression is that they are printed circuits of stereotypes in the ether, in the atmospheric society. And this kind of language defines who is an appropriate target for aggression. It might not have done it in this case, but it certainly has done it in others.
MATTHEWS: Errol, why do you think that all the talk that we have done on this program, and not that we're that powerful, empowered, but certainly we showed an example in that montage of—of all times that people on this program, regular guests, have pointed out the danger of violent talk, connecting guns to action, of connecting guns to politics, perhaps, the hatred level, the whole thing we're all used to now as part of this sort of bandwagon of the new kind of politics?
Why does the right defend it? Every day, every hour since the horror in Tucson, they have defended rhetoric. Why don't they just say, yes, both sides are guilty and we should stop talking like this?
ERROL LOUIS, COLUMNIST, "THE NEW YORK DAILY NEWS": Well, apparently, it works for them. The talk show hosts that you referred to earlier in this—this show, I mean, these are people who have multimillion-dollar contracts. They have enormous audiences.
They—they—they profit by giving speeches, you know? They—they build power this way. I mean, if you could—if you had your choice, the average listener, not somebody who is crazy, but really just an average listener who is sort of committed to a particular point of view, somebody who says, well, the other side is not so good, the other side needs beaten at the election, well, that's pretty good.
Somebody who says they need to be destroyed, they need to be defeated and finds all of these flowery ways of—of saying how evil the other side is, it's much better, it's much more compelling radio, it's much more compelling television, and it—and it works.
LOUIS: And that's the real irresponsibility, because the folks who take the paychecks and cash them and walk away and then say, oh, I had no idea anything like this could possibly happen, don't blame me for it...
MATTHEWS: Yes.
LOUIS: ... they're—they are really being disingenuous, I think.
MATTHEWS: You know, I don't want to say down-and-outer, but sometimes it's appropriate, Brian. And you're the expert on this.
It seems to me, I listened to Savage for a while. I used to go home at that hour he was on. And he was so angry, I became sort of enthralled by him. How can anybody be this angry every night? His hatred level of people who—who are—who—anybody who is guilty of disagreeing with him or anybody who is a victim of something like AIDS, he would just trash them as victims. The people with the wrong ethnic background, he would trash them. Even if his own ethnic background, he would trash them.
The self-hatred, everything else involved, I was so enthralled by it. But after a while, I said, I feel miserable. I would rather listen to '60s music. Turn on some kind of my favorite station on, you know, Sirius, listen to the '60s, because I'm tired of feeling miserable.
Is it true that people who are really down and out, who are really miserable and really angry do want to hear somebody who is miserable, that misery does love company, and that's why they listen to Mark Levin and Savage and those guys, because they are really down and out and they love a really miserable character to share their time with? Is that what's going on here?
LEVIN: Savage is a miserable character. And what's irresponsible about what he does is he points out particular ethnic groups and immigrants and he frames everything as if it's a war.
Look at your show. You don't call it a war. You call it HARDBALL.
MATTHEWS: Well, I see it as a sport sometimes, because it is.
LEVIN: It's a sport. That's right. It's a sport.
And one of the things that from your experience—and I think this is important—and the people who read your book, like I did, you served as a cop at the Capitol. And you knew about respect for the institution and processes of democracy.
And one of the things that I think is so loathsome about what's going on here is it's not that there's a substantive side or a position. What we're talking about here are characters who are the merchants of hate who make their living not on looking for solutions, but who make it on destruction and demonizing folks.
MATTHEWS: Yes.
LEVIN: And, by the way, we see this on the left.
There were horrible pictures of John McCain and there was Sarah Palin hung in effigy in West Hollywood. So we're not going to excuse that. But I think when it becomes an industry, a divisive industry that focuses on demonization, violence, and the exploitation of bizarre conspiracy theories, what do you expect with certain unstable people that are out there and already angry?
LEVIN: This validates how they feel and directs where their aggression should go.
MATTHEWS: Thanks for the opportunity to say the Capitol Police are wonderful. A lot of those men and women up there are second—they have already served their country in the military as M.P.s, many of them military veterans. They come back and they work for the Capitol. They will die for that building. They totally are patriotic people. They are the real patriots who want to defend our institutions, not attack them.
Thank you, Brian Levin.
And thank you, Errol Louis, as always.
Up next: Republicans blasted Democrats for focusing on health care and not jobs. Guess what? They are focusing on health care and how to destroy the bill. They will never get rid of it, but I guess it's apparently fun pushing a phony repeal of health care that's not going anywhere, but they're going to pass time doing it. A little bit of the French Revolution going on up on Capitol Hill tomorrow.
That's giving Democrats a chance, by the way, a good opportunity to make a better sale than they did when they pushed the thing through.
You're watching HARDBALL, only on MSNBC.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: If you like the efficiency of the post office, the confidence of FEMA, and the compassion of the IRS, we will love the nationalized health care bill.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: On January 2 of this year, because we passed the affordable health care act, Tucker's (ph) father, Brett (ph), was able to change jobs because he no longer had to worry about the stigma of preexisting conditions.
MATTHEWS: Welcome back to HARDBALL.
Today, the House members you are just watching there began debate on the repeal of the health care bill that was passed this year. Democrats get a second chance to sell the virtues of the bill, if you will. And the Republicans get to try to, at least emotionally, to kill it. The question is, what are they gaining from all this effort to repeal?
Freshman Georgia Congressman Bob Woodall wants health care repealed. And Congressman Robert Edwards—Andrews, rather, of New Jersey supports the bill.
I'm going to give Mr. Woodall the first chance, since he came to the studio. And I always like people to come to the studio.
MATTHEWS: Mr. Woodall, what will you gain if you kill this bill in the House, knowing it's going to stay on the law books?
REP. ROB WOODALL ®, GEORGIA: For me, it's about promises made and promises kept, Chris.
The big surprise to me is that we're actually keeping this promise. This was something I talked about this for nine months on the campaign trail.
MATTHEWS: To vote on it. But you can't get rid of it.
WOODALL: We will bring it to a vote. We can't get rid of it because we don't have enough votes in the Senate and we don't have the White House. But you need to keep your promises. And we made this...
MATTHEWS: How is America going to be better for this debate?
WOODALL: They're actually because we're actually having the debate.
MATTHEWS: Why is that better for America?
WOODALL: I sat through 12 hours of Rules Committee hearings on this last week.
Time after time, folks came before the committee and said, we will repeal it all, except for this one stand-alone provision or this one stand-alone provision.
MATTHEWS: Yes.
WOODALL: We should have brought this entire bill to the floor last year one stand-alone provision at the time. And if they had done that, Chris, if we had been able have a real debate on each provision, we wouldn't be able to repeal it today.
MATTHEWS: Is it possible, Mr. Andrews, to improve this bill?
In other words, Republicans say they can get—they can deal with the preexisting conditions issue, they can allow people to be carried on their parents' insurance policies through their early 20s, they can achieve many of the goals of the Democratic bill that was passed and signed by the president without all the bureaucracy and all the costs.
Is that possible, or do you lose it all if you kill parts of it?
REP. ROBERT ANDREWS (D), NEW JERSEY: You know, they say they want to do all those things. They're going to repeal them tomorrow.
I would ask my new friend from Georgia, how do you avoid a massive premium increase on insured people if you cover preexisting conditions and don't add a lot of new people to the insurance pool? How do you do that?
WOODALL: Well, you're exactly right, Rob. I mean...
MATTHEWS: Well, how do you do it?
ANDREWS: How do you do it?
WOODALL: You're exactly right that it requires the unconstitutional mandate for this whole house of cards...
MATTHEWS: So, how do you do what you want to do? Answer the question.
ANDREWS: Yes, I know the speech. How do you do it? How do you do it?
WOODALL: No. It's not the speech, though, Rob. Let's be honest.
Republicans get a bad rap for not doing this on Republicans' watch.
But, Chris, you know, Republicans did exactly this in 1996. With the HIPAA bill, we tackled preexisting conditions. Now, we were principled enough to...
MATTHEWS: How do you get insurance companies to cover people who are bad risks, without getting a lot of good risks, young, healthy people, to join insurance programs?
WOODALL: We did exactly that.
MATTHEWS: How do you do it?
ANDREWS: How do you do it?
WOODALL: We did it.
MATTHEWS: Tell me how.
WOODALL: At the federal level, what we said is, you will need to go through a waiting period and you will need have skin in the game. But if you sign up in any ERISA-covered plan and you never let that plan drop, you will never be excluded based on preexisting conditions.
WOODALL: And, Rob, Republicans did this.
ANDREWS: Did it work? Do people in Georgia tell you that when they have cancer or diabetes, it works just fine and they don't get discriminated against because they have a preexisting condition? Did it work?
WOODALL: Rob, that's exactly right.
What you're talking about—and I understand what you're...
ANDREWS: Did it work?
WOODALL: It worked perfectly for those ERISA plans.
WOODALL: Absolutely it did.
ANDREWS: It was great.
WOODALL: Rob, you got to give us credit for that...
MATTHEWS: Just to follow up here, can a Georgian watching television right now get insured if they have cancer? Can they get insured if they got have diabetes? Can they get a decent policy at a decent price if they have those problems?
WOODALL: Not just...
MATTHEWS: Can they in Georgia?
WOODALL: But any American on an ERISA plan is completely eliminated from any preexisting conditions statutes, as long as they have been covered in the past, as long as they didn't let their coverage lapse, because, as Rob said, you have to have skin in the game. You have to have that coverage.
MATTHEWS: Well, that's what a preexisting condition is, by definition. You don't have a policy and you have to go buy one.
MATTHEWS: Congressman, your turn. Go ahead.
ANDREWS: Well, can I ask my friend this?
If this all worked so well in 1996, this is news to most Americans. But if did it, why did your side bring a substitute to the floor in 2009 that tried to do more then? Why did they have to do that?
WOODALL: Rob, I asked that question too.
In 1996, we did just those things that were federal responsibilities.
ANDREWS: Did they work?
WOODALL: What the Obama package does is it completely preempts state law and takes away all of those opportunities.
ANDREWS: Did they work?
ANDREWS: If somebody has asthma or diabetes or breast cancer, can they get insurance today in this country at the same price someone without it can? Can they do that?
WOODALL: Rob, in any ERISA plan in the country. Hear me.
MATTHEWS: Forget the ERISA.
MATTHEWS: Can you walk into a company, insurance company, and buy it?
WOODALL: But you can't forget it.
MATTHEWS: You're saying if they're already insured, they can be insured.
WOODALL: No, I'm saying that we have two kind of regulators in this country. We have state regulators and we have federal regulators.
Now, I want to leave the state regulatory questions to the state regulators. But if you're in a federally regulated plan...
MATTHEWS: Let me ask a HARDBALL question.
ANDREWS: I think the answer is a no.
MATTHEWS: Mitt Romney is running for president. Mitt Romney believes in an individual mandate at the state level. Do you believe in an individual mandate at the state level?
WOODALL: I believe...
MATTHEWS: No. Do you believe in an individual mandate? Do you believe they were right in Massachusetts to require young people who are healthy to buy insurance to help cover the costs of older, unhealthy people?
WOODALL: I don't believe in any mandate at all, but I respect the rights of the states to make those decisions one by one.
MATTHEWS: Yes, Congressman Andrews? Yes, sir?
ANDREWS: I just want to ask my friend from Georgia, are there death panels in this bill?
WOODALL: Rob, if what you're asking is, does this bill lead to rationed care, somebody has to make these tough decisions.
WOODALL: Rob, why don't you even want to go down that...
WOODALL: ... past?
MATTHEWS: Well, why don't you just say no?
ANDREWS: Why don't you just say no?
MATTHEWS: Mama grizzly says death panels. Is she right?
WOODALL: She's right that care will be rationed. And if she wants to put a death panel label on it...
MATTHEWS: Will there be people coming around and telling you you're going to die?
WOODALL: Is there a federal agency, Mr. Woodall, that...
ANDREWS: This is a real easy one.
MATTHEWS: Congressman, there's a larger question here.
ANDREWS: This is a real easy one. It's yes or no.
MATTHEWS: Don't ask a member of the Republican Party to question the wisdom of Sarah Palin.
WOODALL: It's not—it's that, why can't we talk about policies, instead of all the silly labels?
MATTHEWS: Because she is a front-runner for president.
WOODALL: How much time have we spent debating the name of this bill?
MATTHEWS: You guys called it—you called it the job-killing bill.
WOODALL: What about the substance of the bill?
ANDREWS: I didn't get an answer to my policy question.
Is there a federal agency in this law that has the power to deny someone care who is ill? Is there such an agency?
WOODALL: Rob, my reading of the bill is, you actually expand the entitlements...
ANDREWS: That's nice.
ANDREWS: Is there such an agency?
WOODALL: ... so large, that it's a completely unlimited entitlement.
And you will spend dollars that we don't have.
MATTHEWS: For the further debate, go watch C-SPAN. There's more of this going on, on the floor right now.
ANDREWS: I think it was no. I think that was a long way of saying no.
MATTHEWS: Thanks, Congressman Andrews.
Thank you, Congressman Woodall.
ANDREWS: Take care.
MATTHEWS: A lively debate.
Up next: Ron Reagan has written a new book about his father, President Reagan, who would be 100 years old this year. It's making a lot of noise. We're going to have him here right now to view the book.
This is HARDBALL, only on MSNBC.
TYLER MATHISEN, CNBC CORRESPONDENT: I'm Tyler Mathisen with your CNBC "Market Wrap."
Stocks pushing modestly higher on some mixed earnings this day, the Dow climbing 50 points. The S&P 500 was up nearly two and the Nasdaq added 10.
Let's talk about tech titans. Apple and IBM releasing earnings just after the closing bell, Apple of course announcing another medical leave for the CEO, Steve Jobs, but as we have seen in the past, his health issues not having a major impact on the share price. Meanwhile, his company blowing earnings estimates right out of the water, blockbuster holiday sales of anything with an I. in the name, pads, phones, pods.
And IBM trouncing estimates with record earnings boosted by strong growth in service contracts. Boeing surging more than 3 percent after it announced a first-quarter delivery date for its new 797 Dreamliner. Delta Air Lines shares under pressure. It missed profit expectations—higher fuel prices and repair costs the culprit there.
And Citigroup also delivering disappointing net on slumping revenues from its trading units.
And that is it from CNBC, first in business worldwide—now back to
MATTHEWS: We're back.
The year 2011 marks the 100th anniversary, the 100th birthday, if you will, of Ronald Reagan.
His son Ron has a new book out causing a lot of stir, "My Father at 100: A Memoir."
Ron, our friend, joins us right now from New York.
Ron, it's great to have you on.
RON REAGAN, AUTHOR, "MY FATHER AT 100": Great to be here, Chris.
MATTHEWS: I really think you're a great guy.
I'm not going to ask you the 50 different questions we've been talking about asking you all the day because I'm going to give you a couple of minutes here.
MATTHEWS: We don't know Ronald Reagan. I met him a few times. The American people were, like millions of other people, I saw him on TV. I watched him to be president. I want him on "G.E. Theater."
REAGAN: Sure.
MATTHEWS: What don't we know about him that we should have known?
REAGAN: Well, you probably don't know what a solitary character he actually was. The paradox, or one of the paradoxes of his character was that this consonant public man was actually a very private, solitary kind of guy and that solitude he cultivated from his earliest childhood, I think, as an undersized little boy, picked on by bullies, picked last for games and spend a lot of time by himself building internally his own story, his own narrative. He was a storyteller and his opus was himself.
MATTHEWS: How did he get through those years of hell in Hollywood, rejection after rejection like all movie stars do? I heard stories he had a very tough career getting—you know, in the early '50s almost at the top of the business, didn't quite make the top, got very close and then made it in television. But in that period, he had to survive a bad first marriage.
REAGAN: Yes.
MATTHEWS: How did he get—what made Ronald Reagan keep steaming ahead when times really were lousy?
REAGAN: Well, that solitary man, that 10 percent that I call him metaphorically in the book was where his ambition lay. He was not a guy who thought that public ambition was something that was worthwhile. He didn't want to come off as somebody who was ambitious for yourself.
MATTHEWS: Sure.
REAGAN: But, of course, he had ambition. He couldn't have been a movie star. He couldn't have been president of the United States if it wasn't there. But he kept it very closely held. And, you know—but it burned. It burned in him. It was able to see him through.
MATTHEWS: OK. Is that how he got back after he got knocked down by Jerry Ford in '76, when everybody thought, here's 70, a guy pushing 70, he's finished.
REAGAN: Yes.
MATTHEWS: He's got all his hair, but he's old. He can't possibly come back. And he came back and beat Jimmy Carter. I know, I was working for Carter.
REAGAN: Yes.
MATTHEWS: He'd beat our brains in.
REAGAN: Yes.
MATTHEWS: Is that what you're talking about, that—what do you call that?
REAGAN: Well, it's confidence. He was always very confident in himself. I never saw my father walk into a room and kowtow to anybody. By the same token, I never saw him walk into a room and talk down to anybody. He treated everybody like he wanted to be treated. And—
MATTHEWS: -- kicked down like some people in our business, too.
REAGAN: No, never.
MATTHEWS: Good for him.
REAGAN: Yes.
MATTHEWS: Now, to the down side. You write in the book how he was like an inverse iceberg. You saw most of him. What do you mean by that?
REAGAN: Well, the 90 percent of him, the public man, was above water, if you will. And the 10 percent of him, the solitary man, where he harbored his ambition and his private feelings, that was below the water. And it was tough to see that even when you knew him very well and spent a lot of time with him. Even his wife, even my mother, you know, would admit that she didn't always get to that last 10 percent, you know?
MATTHEWS: Was there anybody at night that he could call-up when he was feeling bad?
REAGAN: No, really, my mother, his wife, Nancy, was the one.
MATTHEWS: Only person he tries to go at night.
REAGAN: Ultimately, by the end, yes. I think in his earlier life, of course, he had—you know, he had friends, you know, actors and things that he associated with. But, by the end of his life, certainly by the presidency, she was really his best friend always and she was the one whose advice he counted on.
MATTHEWS: OK. You wrote in the book, I think it's beautifully
written by the way. You write, and I see where your mom likes it and
probably disconcerted by some of it. But let me ask you about—I guess -
let me ask you about this: is it a different kind of strange, a whole new kind of strange. Look, that is something people who are right-wingers, people far to the right which isn't hard to be, are wondering what do you mean by that, a new kind of strange?
REAGAN: It wasn't—you know, when you say the word 'strange," people naturally go to the kind of dark creepy side. But that—it was the opposite of that. It was like—as I said, he was too good in a way. It was like he was from another planet.
I never heard him—you rarely would hear him swear, usually telling a joke. That was—I never heard him gossip about anybody, for instance. I mean, who doesn't gossip about, you know, people at work or whatever. Not him. He just wouldn't do it. I never heard him gossip.
MATTHEWS: But what was going on when he's in the room alone? What was Ronald Reagan like in the room alone? Who was this solitary guy? Who was he?
REAGAN: He was guy who, I think, who was creating his narrative constantly, his own personal narrative. He was creating, particularly in his younger life, of course, the template for who he would become I think from a very early age and I think his mother had a lot to do with this because she was his biggest fan and his earliest fan. He was cut out for big things. That he could be a hero. And he wanted to be a hero. Not just to be seen as a hero, but to actually be a hero.
MATTHEWS: OK. When did you personally recognize—we all saw a problem in that first debate with Mondale in '84, that in your book—and I remember "The Wall Street Journal" front page talked about it. What is to me—did you see something besides what we all saw in terms of failure?
REAGAN: Not in that debate. I saw whatever—
MATTHEWS: No, at home.
REAGAN: No.
MATTHEWS: Did you see something at home that we didn't see on television or in public life?
REAGAN: Oh, well, I must have because I know him much better than everybody else. When I say while he was president, I occasionally would get a little shivers of concern that something maybe not quite right.
MATTHEWS: Yes.
REAGAN: He might be slightly under the weather. I didn't know what this was. I mean, by that time, he was, you know, approaching his mid-70s. He's getting a little older. And he'd been shot and nearly killed at that point. I don't think—
MATTHEWS: Do you think he was incapacitated? Bottom line, as a guy
REAGAN: Oh, no.
MATTHEWS: Do you think he was capable of being a solid president?
REAGAN: Oh, sure. Sure. And I say that in the book, but I never saw anything that amounted to, you know, dementia or anything. There were just these little things that only somebody who knew him very well.
MATTHEWS: OK. Last word. Last word—aren't you proud of the fact he helped end the Cold War?
REAGAN: Yes.
MATTHEWS: Aren't you proud of the fact that he recognized Mikhail Gorbachev as a different kind of communist?
REAGAN: Yes, absolutely.
MATTHEWS: That he could cut a deal with an end of that hell that we all grew up with?
REAGAN: Absolutely. Yes, very proud. And that was motivating pulse behind his later years, was to approach (ph) the Soviet Union, get rid of nuclear weapons. Absolutely.
MATTHEWS: That ain't a bad legacy.
REAGAN: Not bad at all. No, no.
MATTHEWS: OK. Ron, I think everybody should read this book because
it's so well-written and you know more than anybody, any Reagan nut out
there who is pro-Reagan ought to read this book. And I'm telling you
MATTHEWS: -- if you don't like Reagan, you still should read.
Anyway, thank you and good luck to you. Say hello to your mom.
REAGAN: Thank you, Chris. Appreciate it.
MATTHEWS: "My Father at 100." By the way, it's not some book, once you pick it up, you can't put it down. So, once you put it down, you can't pick it up, you can actually finish this baby.
Ron, thank you. Thank you, Ron Reagan.
REAGAN: Thank you, Chris.
MATTHEWS: Up next, let's pay tribute to a great man, Sargent Shriver, died of Alzheimer's today. We're just talking about Alzheimer's. He died—there's his handsome age there, died at 95.
You're watching HARDBALL, only on MSNBC.
MATTHEWS: Republicans hoping to pick up Democratic seats in the U.S. Senate just got handed a golden opportunity. Senator Kent Conrad of North Dakota says he won't run for his sixth term next year. One year ago, fellow North Dakota Democrat Byron Dorgan decided not to seek reelection. And that seat easily went Republican. So, maybe the other one will, too.
Senator Conrad's decision today makes tough sledding for the Democrats even tougher. They'll be defending 23 of 33 U.S. Senate seats on the ballot in 2012.
HARDBALL back after this.
MATTHEWS: Welcome back to HARDBALL.
Sargent Shriver, we told you, died late this afternoon. He was the brother-in-law, of course, of John F. Kennedy. He's as the first director of the U.S. Peace Corps. He died at 95 of Alzheimer's disease. It was a long, slow decline.
And we have Andrea Mitchell who's reporting on it tonight for NBC News.
ANDREA MITCHELL, NBC NEWS: The sadness of this is also the glorious legacy for Sarge Shiver. I covered him, would you believe, back when he ran in 1972. He was the second choice, of course, of George McGovern, the second choice for vice president, then four years later, tried himself briefly to try to run.
But the real legacy is the Peace Corps and the war on poverty. And when you think about the Peace Corps and he was a founding director, this is still a thriving.
Well, you were a Peace Corps volunteer.
MATTHEWS: I know. Well, you don't have to tell me anything.
MITCHELL: So, I don't have to tell you anything.
MATTHEWS: It changed my life.
MITCHELL: And you and Kathleen about the Peace Corps.
But when you think about the war on poverty, about the Job Corps, Head Start—
MATTHEWS: I'm looking at these pictures, Andrea. This guy was a young, good-looking guy for a long time -- 95 was not a bad life to live. And number two, I was thinking that he personified the best part of the early '60s, not the druggy '60s, not the long hair and the problems and the gurus and all that, but the positive, optimistic volunteerism of the early '60s.
MITCHELL: The level of service that he embodied and still embodies, and lives on in his children. His five children, what family has done more for public service than Special Olympics, Best Buddies, Save the Children, everything that Maria Shriver has done for the Alzheimer's association/Alzheimer's research. Her testimony back in 2006, '07, '08 and '09 after her father was finally diagnosed—her testimony about the long goodbye.
MATTHEWS: Yes.
MITCHELL: And he still remembered his Hail Marys. He went to mass every day, but couldn't recognize her, and the pain that that caused her. I watched him coming out of the church. I was standing right across the street, we were broadcasting live after Eunice Shriver's funeral service in the summer of 2009, and watched as he was leaning on his children, he came out of that church, obviously frail, and then he stood up and waved goodbye at the hearse, his wife of 56 years—could there have been any more poignant.
And then I think the last time we saw him in public was at the funeral of Teddy Kennedy.
MATTHEWS: You know, he once said to me. By the way, he's the greatest guy in the world to have lunch with before he got sick.
MITCHELL: Lunch, dinner, or anytime.
MATTHEWS: He's the greatest guy in the world. He said to me, you want to know what Jack Kennedy was like? Meet my wife, Eunice, they're the same person. They're just this gung-ho, just as political, just as positive, upbeat.
MITCHELL: Ambassador of France. I mean, the life and legend of Sarge Shriver, and the legacy lives on in those five extraordinary children and grandchildren. He was surrounded by his children and grandchildren.
MATTHEWS: Well, you're known by your children, and I think Maria Shriver and the rest of them, and Tim and Mark—what a great family.
Anyway, thank you, Andrea, for that.
I miss him. I'm going to say something about him in a moment. I'll tell you, nobody said changed my life and public life more than this guy. I'll be back right back with a comment about someone who was a positive, great American, with no problems.
We'll be right back.
MATTHEWS: Sargent Shriver died this afternoon. He died of Alzheimer's disease, the same thing that killed my mother.
In a way, Sarge Shriver was also a parent, so powerfully that he'd direct my life.
Sarge Shriver started the Peace Corps. Yes, Jack Kennedy imagined it, declared it as a chance for well-rounded, young men and women to go overseas, do some economic good, let people know about America, come back and let us know about them.
But I spent two years in Swaziland in Africa and I'd like to think I did a decent job working with those small business guys over there, but I know this—they could not have been nicer than me, those African guys, in their 50s, working with me, a young Americans trying to speak the language, Zulu, and get around in a different, remote land.
There are 200,000 of us who had this added to our lives by this great man, this great American, Sarge Shriver.
He had two great ideas: that the Peace Corps be volunteer-driven—yes, staff are great back in Washington, but it's the person out there all alone in that developing world, way away from their friends and family here, who cuts the job, who either does it or doesn't do it.
Second, he said that no one could be in the Peace Corps for more than five years. He wanted to keep it fresh, and new and excited, and not get old and bureaucratic and insider. He had the Kennedy family working for him, of course, the magic, the new frontier and all the '60s going for him, the optimism of that period, the dreams, the fun, I owe much to Sarge Shriver, so do hundreds of thousands of others—and so does America and so do millions of people who you'll never get to, who got to know to us through the Peace Corps, got to learn from us, and got to teach us.
The Peace Corps is one of those magical wondrous inventions that we Americans do best, because it relies on being creative and getting out there with very little instruction, hardly any rules, and figure out what to do. What a great man we lost today. God take him, for all of us who loved him.
Copyright 2011 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All materials herein are protected by
United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed,
transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written
permission of CQ-Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark,
copyright or other notice from copies of the content.>


text:
City puts hold on using Rio Grande for drinking water
Severe drought conditions are forcing water officials to supply drinking water without using the Rio Grande.
There is no doubt that the water level is low in the Rio Grande, with sand bars popping up in the middle of the river.
"(We had to) curtail withdrawing water from the river for drinking water purposes. We've switched over to groundwater exclusively," Water Authority Public Affairs Manager David Morris said.
In 2008, the water utility started supplementing drinking water from the aquifer with water from the Rio Grande as part of the San Juan-Chama Drinking Water Project.
"We also knew that there would be times of drought and we would have to curtail our diversion from the river. This is one of those times," Morris said.
Morris said some may also feel the effects at home.
"Some people may notice a different taste," Morris said.
The Rio Grande plays a much bigger role than supplying drinking water.
"To make sure there's enough water in the river to maintain the riparian habitat and keep enough water in the river for the Silvery Minnow," Morris said.


text:
Phillips drives in 3, Reds beat Pirates 5-3
Brandon Phillips drove in three runs with a bases-loaded double on Friday night, and Mike Leake got the better of left-hander Francisco Liriano for the third time this season, leading the Cincinnati Reds to a 5-3 victory over the Pittsburgh Pirates that tightened the NL Central.
The third-place Reds moved to within three games of second-place Pittsburgh. The Pirates lead their season series 6-5.
The Reds sent nine batters to the plate for four runs in the fifth off Liriano (9-4), who had his shortest outing of the season. Chris Heisey's infield single drove in the first run, and Phillips' double off Justin Wilson made it 5-0.
Heisey also had a solo homer off Liriano.
Leake (9-4) gave up solo homers to Starling Marte, Andrew McCutchen and Russell Martin in the sixth inning. Manny Parra fanned Pedro Alvarez with runners on second and third to end the seventh.
Aroldis Chapman struck out two in the ninth while getting his 22nd save in 25 chances.


text:
"Apple has lost a visionary and creative genius, and the world has lost an amazing human being. Those of us who have been fortunate enough to know and work with Steve have lost a dear friend and an inspiring mentor. Steve leaves behind a company that only he could have built, and his spirit will forever be the foundation of Apple" Apple
Steve Jobs leaves behind a lasting legacy. His contributions have transformed and shaped how we interact not only with computers, but with one another.
On behalf of the entire Pixologic staff, our warmest and most heartfelt sympathies are extended to his family and loved ones. May he rest in peace.


text:
Hemp ointment - 125 ml
|Product code:
|Kód výrobce:
|7,99 €
6,60 € without VAT
|In stock on e-shop: 10+
|In stock
Product variants
Product description
Hemp ointment
This unique Hemp ointment contains 30 % high-quality hemp oil and a balanced mixture of 17 herbal extracts. This ointment is suitable for intense treatment of dry, sensitive and irritated areas.
- it has beneficial effects on problematic, aging and sensitive skin, and on various skin problems
- it soothes the skin, maintains it in good condition, reduces irritation and reactivity
- it reduces the occurrence of dry, rough and scaly areas on the skin
Hemp Oil (Cannabis Sativa Seed Oil) - Traditionally used for atopic care and treatment of psoriasis. It provides care for itching and problematic skin. The oil is rich in unsaturated fatty acids (linoleic acid, alpha-linolenic acid and gamma-linolenic acid). It hydrates and regenerates skin.
A natural-based product that can be used long term
- Hemp oil
- Rose hip oil
- Shea butter
- Almond oil
- Jojoba oil
- Macadamia oil
- Rose hip oil
- Avocado oil
- Calendula oil
- Pomegranate
- Evening primrose oil
- Violet scented
- Tri-violet
- Arctium lappa
- Rosemary extract
- Balm mint oil
- Sea buckthorn oil
- Juniper essential oil
METHOD OF APPLICATION: Apply a sufficient quantity of the product and rub thoroughly. For maximum effect the procedure should be repeated several times a day.
CAUTION: For external use. Avoid contact with eyes, mucous membranes and damaged skin. Intensely greases. Store in a dry place at room temperature, and keep out of the reach of children. An allergic reaction to the bio-active ingredients can occur in rare cases.


text:
State Senate approves genetic labeling
HARTFORD -- Speaker of the House J. Brendan Sharkey wants to support legislation that would require the labeling of products that contain genetically modified organisms.
But he's not sure whether the House will approve the version approved in the state Senate late Tuesday night that would depend on three nearby states to approve similar legislation by July of 2015.
Sharkey, in an interview near the House podium around the time the Senate was approving the bill, said his majority caucus met behind closed doors earlier in the day to discuss the controversial measure.
"The caucus confirmed my own sense that obviously we want to do something," Sharkey said. "My concern all along has been the question of whether Connecticut should put itself out on its own, requiring this labeling and whether that puts us at an economic disadvantage being the first and only state to do this."
The Senate bill approved Tuesday night in a 35-1 vote would require food products to include labels telling consumers of any genetically modified organisms. If three nearby states did not approve the measure by July of 2015, the state law would go into effect, on July 1, 2016.
Sharkey said he's worried about isolating Connecticut if no other states went along with the pro-consumer requirement. "That's something I'm very concerned about," he said. "If we can't get a critical mass of other states to be involved with this I think it puts Connecticut at some risk, economically, to do this."
The speaker said "there were no conversations" with Senate leaders on the issue before the bill was debated and voted there. "We're kind of polling the caucus now to see whether they support the Senate version or if we want to see some different elements of the trigger," Sharkey said. If the Senate bill were amended and approved in the House, the bill would be sent back to the Senate. The legislative session ends at midnight on Wednesday, June 5.
The lone dissenting Senate vote Tuesday was Sen. Rob Kane, R-Watertown, whose district includes Seymour and Oxford.
The Connecticut Food Association warned that labeling could become an unacceptable expense for grocers and supermarkets. And advocates for the chemical industry said that science has not proven that GMOs are harmful.
About 500 people gathered outside the Capitol for a rally in support of the legislation, featuring Senate President Pro Tempore Donald E. Williams and Senate Minority Leader John McKinney.
"Those who oppose labeling don't want to be truthful or honest, nor do they want us to be enlightened," said Tara Cook-Littman, of GMO Free Connecticut, who led the rally. "If the bio-tech and food industry is so convinced that GMOs are safe, let's just agree to label them and let the public make their own decisions."
"What we're embarking on is nothing less than the most-important fight of our generation when it comes to food," said Williams, D-Brooklyn. "These genetically modified foods are engineered so we can increasingly pour increasing amounts of pesticide and herbicides on our farmland."
He said that the Senate took up the bill, which was offered on an amendment about state egg laws, because it seemed to be bogging down in the House.
McKinney said that co-sponsors of the legislation cross party lines. "One of the basic obligations of government is to protect its people and that goes beyond just fire and police officers," he said. "That means public safety and protecting what you're eating. We're saying let moms and dads know what's in the food we're buying for their young kids."\
Plants and animals that are engineered to contain the genes of other plants and animals fit the definition of GMOs. Agricultural and chemical companies have done the engineering to increase crop yields and resistance to insects.
Advocates of the bill cite a number of studies that found animals that ate GMO corn and soy had liver, kidney and bone marrow damage. The bill would also require GMO seeds to be labeled.
Majority House Democrats caucused over the issue Tuesday afternoon, and Speaker of the House J. Brendan Sharkey said a few hours later that the bill might be amended in the House over the issue of effective dates.
Stan Sorkin, executive director of the Connecticut Food Association, said Tuesday that the state's grocers and supermarkets are worried about higher costs.
"The concerns are that specific labeling legislation could put a burden on supermarkets to be watchdog on products coming into the store," he said in a phone interview. "We would incur additional expenses, as would the manufacturers and those costs could go up for consumers."
Paul Pescatello, a board member of Connecticut United for Research Excellence, an industry-supported group, said not enough of the science has been absorbed by those critical of GMOs.
"I think there's a lot of emotion surrounding this bill right now," said Pescatello, who also said the bill could violate constitutional rights for free commercial speech.
"You can only require labeling and make a business say something if there's a compelling state interest," he said. "There's an implication that there's something wrong with GMO food. It would be unfortunate for people not to use GMO foods out of an unfounded fear."
email@example.com; 860-549-4670; twitter.com/KenDixonCT; facebook.com/kendixonct.hearst; blog.ctnews.com/dixon


text:
Comic books browse by: Shop category:
Artist Stephane DouayAvailable series in store category "Comic books"
Stéphane Douay in the COMICLOPEDIA
"Stéphane Douay was born in Le Havre. He has worked in varying fields, including radio operator and actor-juggler in a theatre group from Normandy/Brittony. He eventually also turned to comics, and published 'Ririri' at Éditions L'Oeuf, 'Don Quichotte dans la Manche' at Vents d'Ouest,..." [ Read more ]


text:
Pink Bunny Ears Seriously?
- Discontinued
- Published By: eXtasy Books
- Author: Jackie Nacht
- Page: 20
- Word Count: 4817
- Publication Date: February 18, 2013
- Heat Level:
- Available Formats: Adobe Acrobat, Epub, Hiebook, Microsoft Reader, Mobipocket, Mobipocket (.mobi), Palm DOC/iSolo, Rocket, Sony PDF
- Categories: Contemporary, Erotic Romance , FREE STORIES, Gay, GLBTQIA
Only for the man he loves would Merrick ever wear pink bunny ears and a floppy tail.
Three and half years ago, Merrick moved across the country to go to the small college in Washington where, in his first week, he met fellow student and local, Darren. They immediately hit it off and began dating. Now in their senior year, both have just aced their midterms and plan on going out to celebrate until Darren's mom calls. Merrick finds himself being asked to help Darren work at one of his mom's card shops working as none other than…the Easter bunny. Now, all Merrick has to do is suck it up and get through one day so he can have his special night with the man he loves. But little does Darren know that Merrick has more than just a date planned…


text:
Microsoft has promised it will release a fix "in the next few days" to address the recently-identified flaw in Internet Explorer. At the time of writing, it is only possible to work around the bug, or stop using Internet Explorer, if one wishes to avoid the potential effects of attacks exploiting the vulnerability.
In a new TechNet post, Microsoft's Director of Trustworthy Computing Yunsun Wee writes that Redmond will issue a fix he describes as "an easy-to-use, one-click, full-strength solution any Internet Explorer user can install."
But the fix Redmond issues won't be the end of the matter, as Wee goes on to say "it will provide full protection against this issue until an update is available."
Which sounds an awful lot like an interim patch, rather than the final and definitive fix.
The sole piece of good news is Wee's statement that the wound in IE isn't being poked at by many attackers. He insists "we have only seen a few attempts to exploit the issue, impacting an extremely limited number of people". ®


text:
Peer-Reviewed Publications
Found 3 results[ Title]
Filters: Author is Baker, S P [Clear All Filters]
Biomechanical epidemiology: a new approach to injury control research." J Trauma. 1996;40(5):820-4."
The carnage wrought by major economic change: ecological study of traffic related mortality and the reunification of Germany." BMJ. 1999;318(7199):1647-50."
Clothing drawstring entrapment in playground slides and school buses. Contributing factors and potential interventions." Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 1997;151(1):72-7."


text:
Cooperative Extension Weed Science Field Day 2012
Cliff Blessing has been coming to Weed Science Field Days since 1989, back when they were a component of the larger Farm Home Field Day held on the University of Delaware's Carvel Research and Education Center in Georgetown. Blessing joined the Delaware Department of Agriculture that same year "when they drafted me to work two days a week," he recalls. Blessing's farm in Harrington grows corn, soybean, lima beans, peas, sweet corn, wheat and barley. Since working for the DDA, Blessing has left the general operation of the 2500 acre family farm to his grandson Dale while he works with DDA's noxious weed program.
"This is the coolest day I can remember," said Blessing, who recalls a tradition of much hotter field tours. Blessing was one of more than 60 growers, pesticide applicators, crop advisers and agricultural professionals from Maryland and Delaware who attended the June 27 session to obtain new information on various trial results and best practices in crop and weed management.In addition, attendees could receive continuing education credits for Delaware and Maryland for pesticide applicators and Certified Crop Advisers. are conveyed to those who attend the day's tours. The weather cooperated with a perfect day to examine trial results, take resource photographs and exchange information with others in the ag community.
Weed Science Field Day is organized by Mark VanGessel, University of Delaware extension specialist and professor in the Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, and his team of weed science researchers, Barbara Scott and Quintin Johnson and summer students and interns.
Throughout the year UD Extension and research staff conducts unbiased studies on more than 70 trials (which amount to more than 700 comparisons) most are devoted to key agronomic crops, and evaluate their effectiveness of weed management. Chemical, mechanical and cultural practices are evaluated. Their findings are published in an annual guide of trial results that is made available to attendees and the results serve as the basis for educational programs throughout the year and provide the experience to answer questions from farmers and the agricultural industry.
This year, two new weeds, Palmer Amaranth, Amaranthus palmeri and Texas panicum, Panicum texanum, have been added to Delaware's noxious weed list along with johnsongrass, Sorghum halepense, Canada thistle, Cirsium arvense, bucurmber, Sicyos angulatus and giant ragweed, Ambrosia trifida.
The goal of Weed Science Field Day is to deliver the latest research to the agricultural community. Communication to the industry is a key component in Delaware's continued agronomic success and is part of Cooperative Extension's outreach mission. Many of the plots are identified by signage indicating the particular study and methodology.
At the Thurman G. Adams Research Farm, trials are conducted with the preemergence and post emergence herbicides to carefully evaluate their effectiveness and their usefulness in Delaware crops. "We have to determine if it has a fit for us in Delaware," says VanGessel on the application of new products.
Timing of applications is crucial. VanGessel toured no-till soybean trials and introduced system trials using reduced tillage organic grain production with a three- year rotation of field corn, soybeans & winter wheat. Tilling only once a year, the trials relies on cover crops with high- residue cultivation for weed control. It is a joint project with Penn State , USDA, and NC State.
Also featured was a processing vegetable trial with a range of management strategies including conventional tillage growing many- on one extreme placing reliance on legume crops such as, lima beans, snap beans, soybeans in the rotation and in the other extreme using little or no tillage with range of grain crops. Soil health, crop growth and weed control is evaluated in this trial. The tour then moved onto corn trials.
Blessing enjoyed the information and the camaraderie of Weed Field Day. As the self-described oldest employee at DDA, Blessing, age 87, plans to retire this year from government service, but not from farming. He intends to return to the family business, Water Way Farms and keep an eye on things from an air conditioned office. No doubt, future participation at events like Weed Science Field Day will be on his active calendar. " Cooperative Extension does a lot to help keep us in the know. They show us what to do." Blessing says. "It gives us a lot to go by."
Additional photos of the 2012 Weed Science Field Day can be found below.