Tag Archives: business

Chord Overstreet on Glee photo

“I#39;m playing high school,” the actor Chord Overstreet told E! Online, addressing a rumor that he turned down Playgirl. “I#39;m not one to flash my business. It#39;s a little racy.” Though he appears shirtless in locker room scenes and stripped down to tight gold shorts for the Rocky Horror episode, that#39;s as far as Glee#39;s Chord Overstreet will go when it comes to showing off his ripped physique. Asked about costars Lea Michele and Dianna Agron#39;s own racy photo shoot for GQ, Overstr

More:
Chord Overstreet on Glee photo

Jay-Z’s ‘Decoded’: The Reviews Are In!

Hov ‘deserves the same level of respect as any of those great scribes,’ one reviewer writes, comparing the MC to iconic poets. By Gil Kaufman Jay-Z Photo: MTV News Jay-Z said he put together his book “Decoded” to give fans a chance to “really understand” his story and the origin of his rhymes. The book, which came out on Tuesday (November 16), is equal parts memoir and lyrical deconstruction as well as an argument for rap to be considered as a form of modern poetry. So, what’s the public reaction to “Decoded”? “Despite the career he has made out of rapping in the first person, Jay-Z is known for prizing privacy. His new book ‘Decoded’ may not erase that reputation — look elsewhere for gossip — but it is nonetheless Shawn Carter’s most honest airing of the experiences he drew on to create the mythic figure of Jay-Z,” Simon Vozick-Levinson writes in Entertainment Weekly. EW breaks the book down along three criteria, giving Jay props for portraying the “desperation that drove him to crime and the paranoia and shame that followed” in describing his time as a crack dealer and additional props for not lingering on his rise to the top. Instead, Jay offers interesting glimpses at the drug life that reveal a complex businessman and friend. “The memoir’s chief theme is Jay-Z’s obsession with words,” Vozick-Levinson writes. “Annotated lyric sheets unpack allusions that even the most attentive listeners might have missed. He situates his work in the English canon, comparing his chosen form to the sonnet and crediting favorite authors (”Shout-out to Alfred, Lord Tennyson”). After reading ‘Decoded,’ you won’t doubt for a second that he deserves the same level of respect as any of those great scribes. The Barnes & Noble review noted the irony of the title, given what it called the MC’s “decidedly plain spoken and confessional” lyrics compared to such knotty contemporaries as the Wu-Tang Clan. It also notes that while we know Jay the performer, aside from the well-trod arc of his life as project kid to hustler and then world-renowned hip-hip icon, he is generally a private man. “Though he’s released a staggering 11 albums in 14 years, the man behind the business still remains a mystery — often seen, but rarely heard,” writes Adam Bradley, the author of “Book of Rhymes: The Poetics of Hip-Hop.” “That is what makes ‘Decoded’ such an unexpected and welcome gift. At over 300 pages, it is a multimedia, multi-genre extravaganza: part memoir, part coffee table book, part annotated compendium of lyrics, part polemic in the defense of hip hop’s poesy.” Bradley commends Jay and co-author dream hampton for interspersing “personal anecdotes, rhetorical broadsides and deep reflections with rich images and typography. From Andy Warhol’s striking ‘Rorschach’ on the book’s front cover to the interior art, which ranges from Michelangelo’s ‘Piet

Why Sustainable Agriculture is Important to Walmart

Photo credit: Walmart This guest post was written by Beth Keck, senior director of sustainability at Walmart. Walmart customers—whether they live in Chicago or Tokyo—want locally grown fresh produce. Yet, while grocery sales make up more than half our business, we haven’t focused enough of our sustainability efforts toward the food we sell. We’ve set dozens of sustainability goals for the company during the past five years, but only four of our 39 public sustainability goals addressed food…A year ago, we realized we … Read the full story on TreeHugger

Read the original:
Why Sustainable Agriculture is Important to Walmart

Watch The Office Season 7 Episode 5 – The Sting

Watch The Office S7E5: The Sting After finding out that one of his friend from Cornell is having a successful music business, Andy now tries to imitate it and tries to form a band. Meanwhile, Dwight, Jim and Michael goes out of their way to try and find out how a competing salesman is doing so well in the business. The latest installment of the new season of our office mates of The Office, which is entitled “The Sting” is the hit comedy TV series’ 5th episode of the 7th season that aired last 10/21/2010 Thursday 9:00 PM on NBC. Watch The Office 7×5(0705) Free Online Streaming Full HDTV Episodes Replay of the Latest Season and Video Clip Download Link: HERE

Read the original here:
Watch The Office Season 7 Episode 5 – The Sting

Matthews: Businesses Sitting on Trillions of Dollars to ‘Screw’ Economy and Obama

Chris Matthews thinks American businesses are refusing to spend money in order to intentionally harm the economy as part of a long-term plot to “screw” President Obama. Such political paranoia was actually uttered on Monday’s “Hardball” as the host chatted with Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post and Charles Mahtesian of Politico. Readers are strongly advised to prepare themselves for the kind of conspiracy theory normally reserved for the likes of Michael Moore, Oliver Stone, and members of the far-left who actually believe George W. Bush and Dick Cheney had a hand in the 9/11 attacks (video follows with partial transcript and commentary):  CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: You know, a great question, Charles, that wasn’t on my list to ask but I’m going to ask you because you seem like a sophisticated guy of many parts. You think business can sit on those billions and trillions of dollars for two more years after they screw Obama this time? Are they going to keep sitting on their money so they don’t invest and help the economy for two long years to get Mr. Excitement Mitt Romney elected president? Will they do that to the country? Yeah, Chris, business owners and corporate executives across the fruited plain are intentionally undermining their companies and their personal fortunes in order to impact an election that is 25 months away. Certainly, they’re not keeping stockpiles of cash out of fear of: rising taxes, increased healthcare costs, the creation of carbon emissions targets, a double-dip recession, or the next regulatory shoe to drop from the current administration. No. They’re just remaining uncharacteristically liquid to harm the man that gives you a thrill up your leg.  Now that we’ve settled that Mr. Matthews, could I interest you in some waterfront property in southern Florida? 

Originally posted here:
Matthews: Businesses Sitting on Trillions of Dollars to ‘Screw’ Economy and Obama

Beckel to Geller: You’re a Woman, You Better Be Careful

Eric Bolling’s new show on the Fox Business Channel, Money Rocks , saw a significant display of fireworks this evening.  During a discussion of some already controversial statements made by Democratic strategist, Bob Beckel, a very heated exchange developed involving Beckel and Atlas Shrugs publisher, Pamela Geller. The controversy started when Bolling played a clip of Beckel’s previous appearance on the show in which he stated: “Look, at some point, I know it’s sensitive here in New York and probably New Jersey, but we have to get over 9/11.” What did he mean by ‘we have to get over 9/11′?  According to Beckel, this was simply an expression of frustration for a variety of things, such as extra security at airports and a few other minor inconveniences designed to catch “a bunch of non-existent terrorists.”  The short list of ‘non-existent terrorists’ since 9/11 that Mr. Beckel must be referring to, include the Madrid train bombers, Russian train bombers, Shoe Bomber, the Lackawanna Six, Fort Hood assassin, the Virginia ‘Jihad’ Network, Christmas Day bomber, Fort Dix plotters, and the Times Square bomber. Beckel might have been feeling the stress of trying to defend such a blatantly insensitive statement, by providing a blatantly inaccurate defense, as he experienced a misogynistic meltdown directed at Geller in the middle of the segment in which he said: “You’re a woman, you better be careful about saying who I carry water for.” Clip and partial transcript below… Over at Atlas Shrugs , Geller asserts that Beckel’s sexist rants were not limited to the on-air conversation.  Prior to the show, she claims: “I was the only female on the panel and as we were prepping (getting mic’ed etc) for the show, Beckel was regaling his victims (Bob Hemmer, David Webb and Bolling) with sordid tales of pole dancers and the like.  Grotesque and deliberate.” Geller states that the confrontation continued after the break: “When we cut to break, Beckel chided Bolling for not bringing ‘Jewish slumlords’ on the show (referring to Bolling’s segment on Imam Rauf’s status as a New Jersey slumlord, so named in a lawsuit against Rauf by Union City.)  When I heard Beckel’s Jew hating belch, I said ‘and you’re an anti-Semite.’  He told me to ‘kiss his ass’ to which I responded that he would never get anyone anywhere in the world to get with that.” Beckel’s appearances on FNC have been infuriating at times, but mostly for ideological reasons.  He is, after all, a liberal.  But he clearly crossed a line tonight with his uncharacteristically aggressive attacks on Geller.  Even Arlen Specter knows that you don’t start any argumentative statement with the words ‘you’re a woman.’ For your added nauseating pleasure, please watch the lead-in 11 minutes to this incident, in which the ever-bigoted Ahmad Rehab defends radical Islam by calling everybody else (particularly Geller) a bigot.  That’s what racists do though; they refer to everybody else as the racist. Racists, and bigots, and radicals.  Oh my! Enjoy… Relevant clip at (11:00 – 11:45) Geller:  I would like to address Mr. Beckel’s point.  I don’t know why you’re carrying water for the most radical, intolerant ideology in the world today.  There have been 20,000 documented radical Islamic attacks since 9/11.  Each one with the imprimatur of a Muslim cleric… Beckel:  You better be very careful.  You’re a woman, you better be very careful about who you say I carry water for, because you have no idea what you’re talking about.  (Points emphatically at Geller).  And don’t start putting me in the middle of your crap! Geller:  Don’t you point to me! Beckel:  I’ll point to you all I want! Geller:  Don’t you point to me.  You’re a misogynist. Beckel:  You’re getting yourself fifteen minutes, you get yourself fifteen minutes of fame because you’re (Bolling) picking on a bunch of Muslims. Geller:  You’re picking on a bunch of women.  You’re a woman hater. Beckel:  A woman hater?  A woman hater? Geller:  Look how you’re talking to me.  It’s outrageous. Beckel:  You are nuts. Geller:  Yea, I’m nuts. Please contact Rusty at The Mental Recession , or on Twitter @rustyweiss74

Go here to read the rest:
Beckel to Geller: You’re a Woman, You Better Be Careful

Disgraced Governor-Turned CNN Host Spitzer Credits Liberals for Health Insurance Across State Lines Initiative

A governor forced to resign for patronizing call girls will probably have a hard time landing a job making pronouncements on politics, right? But there, on CNN, is former New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer.  Spitzer will co-host a show with pseudo-conservative Kathleen Parker called “Parker Spitzer,” which is set to debut on Oct. 4. But in the meantime, Spitzer has been making regular appearances on CNN programming to offer the liberal perspective on issues. On CNN’s Sept. 20 “Anderson Cooper 360,” that’s what he did, carrying water for the Democratic Party – even though his argument was factually leaky. In the wake of the GOP’s nomination of Christine O’Donnell as the Delaware candidate for U.S. Senate, Spitzer took on conservative talker and blogger Dana Loesch over what issues the Tea Party movement was really interested in taking a stand on – fiscal or social. Loesch argued that the movement isn’t just about opposing this Congress’ policy endeavors, but is also offering solutions, as was the case with ObamaCare. The Tea Party supporters may differ on some issues, leading to some vague positions, but, “I think that means for the amounts of issues, perhaps, when you get into social issues,” Loesch said. “But, for things like health care, the movement has been incredibly clear. Some of the things that they have put out are – let’s be able to buy insurance across state lines. Let’s – have health insurance companies compete. We’ve taken on everything from health care, to education, to foreign policy, and not just general.” And according to Loesch, the Democrats have offered a series of platitudes on these policy issues, which she claims they could have offered some more specifics. “I mean, we have isolated specific issues within the realm of each of these topics and we have gone at it,” Loesch continued. “When you talk about people being general, where we have seen people be general is from the Congress currently in Washington, D.C. We’ve seen broad generalizations on a number of different policies. We would actually like to see congressional Democrats be a little bit more – just be a little bit more precise with things.” Spitzer was in agreement over a policy point, but he wanted to credit the Democratic Party, which controls both chambers of Congress and the White House with an idea that it hasn’t been noted for championing, and that it was unable to implement. “Well, you know, because I’m always looking for points of agreement, I agree with you about the ability to purchase across state lines, competition across state lines,” Spitzer said. “Those have been perspectives taken primarily by the liberal wing of the Democratic Party and opposed by the Republican Party. So, if you want to ask, why…” However, it was the Republican Party that fought for the ability for consumers to purchase insurance across state lines. This had long been a policy point offered by the GOP, even at the height of the ObamaCare debate, as shown in a Feb. 25 post on the GOP House Conference blog . Spitzer’s erroneous assertion led to this back-and-forth with Loesch: LOESCH: That came out in the Patients’ Choice Act. SPITZER: … why that – why that has not been permitted… LOESCH: No. SPITZER: What do you mean? You can’t say no. Facts are facts. The reality is … LOESCH: Patients’ Choice Act – the fact is the Republicans came out with a Patients’ Choice Act. I have to correct you on that point. SPITZER: Talking over somebody isn’t going to change the facts. The reality is… LOESCH: Well, I had to point out the facts. SPITZER: … the opposition to interstate competition has come from the Republican Party. And that remains to be the case. A 2009 study showed that health insurance premiums would be reduced by 61 percent for Massachusetts residents if they were allowed to purchase insurance in North Carolina,  which, as the GOP conference blog pointed out, is something that could have easily been put into the Democrat’s health care reform legislation. And as Loesch explained, it was House Minority Whip Eric Cantor, R-Va., who was at the forefront of this push – not the “liberal wing of the Democratic Party,” as Spitzer claimed. “No. That is – that’s – that’s an error. That’s a factual error – Patients’ Choice Act. It came out. Eric Cantor, a number of congressional Republicans came out,” Loesch said. “And that was one of the main talking points, the patients’ bill of rights.”

Visit link:
Disgraced Governor-Turned CNN Host Spitzer Credits Liberals for Health Insurance Across State Lines Initiative

BMI’s Seymour Tells Fox Biz Media Manipulating Tax Debate Terms

In the current federal tax debate, the media are “really helping out the liberals” just by choosing certain words over others, according to the Business & Media Institute. In an appearance on Fox Business Network Sept. 21, BMI’s Julia Seymour told host Charles Payne that the mainstream media – “particularly the cable primetime shows that we looked at,” had been framing “the debate as tax cuts, rather than tax increases.” Seymour was referring to BMI research showing that the media was using the language of the left and the Obama administration when reporting on the tax issue. MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann said on Sept. 13 that “Democrats want to cut everybody’s taxes,” despite the president’s stated intent to raise taxes on the rich. “It was 27 tax cut-framed stories, versus two tax increase stories,” Seymour told Payne. The media were thus 13 times more likely to put a positive spin on the Democrats’ intentions than to characterize the move as a tax increase. “Is it the case really that the media perhaps – the mainstream media – has been trying to shape it in a way that makes it, ah, seem better for the Democrats rather than the Republicans,” asked Payne. “Certainly,” Seymour responded. “The Obama administration has made it clear they want to increase taxes on the people they deem wealthy. But that’s not the way you hear the stories – you hear that Obama wants to keep middle class tax cuts.” She cited the “complete distortion” of MSNBC host Keith Olbermann’s tax assertions, and included CNN among the outlets spinning tax increases into a question of tax cuts.

See the original post:
BMI’s Seymour Tells Fox Biz Media Manipulating Tax Debate Terms

Most Economists Want All Tax Cuts Extended; CNN’s Roberts Sees Need to ‘Bump Up’ Govt’s ‘Revenue Stream’

A new CNN/Money survey of 31 top economists found a majority of them say the top priority — given the weak state of the economy — is for Congress to extend the Bush tax cuts for all income groups. But talking about this policy recommendation with CNN/Money’s Paul La Monica on Monday’s American Morning, co-anchor John Roberts rued the conundrum of needing to keep tax rates low for economic reasons — putting “more money in the pockets of people” — while at the same time, because of the “frightening” trillion-dollar deficits, “you’ve got to bump up your [the government’s] revenue stream.” Roberts fretted: You want to put more money in the pockets of people, particularly when you look at unemployment over 9 percent. But then at the same time you have these deficits that are running at an absolutely frightening rate of a trillion-plus dollars a year. So, you’ve got to bump up your revenue stream but at the same time you want to keep your money coming into the economy. So how do you reconcile that calculation? It seems not to have occurred to Roberts that the way to avoid either monstrous deficits or suffocating tax increases is to reduce government to a more affordable size. Looking at the details of CNN’s survey of economists, it’s understandable why they would want the tax cuts extended. Their average forecast is for unemployment to be just below 9% at the end of next year, a full fifteen months from now, with a quarter of those surveyed seeing the unemployment rate still at 9.5% or higher in December 2011. As for the consequences of letting the tax cuts expire, just today, the Heritage Foundation released a comprehensive study showing that the tax hikes envisioned by President Obama would lead to slower economic growth, lower family income, higher interest rates and a loss of an average of 600,000 private sector jobs each year from 2011 through 2020, or 6 million fewer jobs total. Liberals are already trying to frame the deficit debate as one of making sure government has the money it needs to pay for the vast expansion President Obama and congressional Democrats achieved over the past 19 months. A fair and balanced news media would put much of the onus on liberals to backtrack on their massive spending commitments before requiring the beleaguered private sector to kick in an even greater share. Here’s the exchange during the 8am ET hour of CNN’s American Morning, September 20: JOHN ROBERTS: Seventeen minutes now after the hour. We have 110 days until the Bush tax cuts are set to expire and the debate over whether to extend them has absolutely consumed Capitol Hill. The strongest impact will most certainly be felt in the bank accounts of millions of Americans. CANDY CROWLEY: Minding your business this morning, CNN/Money’s Paul La Monica. President Obama is suggesting that the tax cuts should expire only for the richest 3 percent of taxpayers but there are economist who say that may not be the best idea. [turns to La Monica] So, is it? PAUL LA MONICA: Yeah, we surveyed 31 leading economists and a majority, 18 of them, said that their top priority if they were a Washington policymaker would be to extend the tax cuts for everyone. ROBERTS: So in terms of extending the tax cuts and what that does for the economy, run the numbers for us. You have got an example here. LA MONICA: Yeah. You have a middle class family, $75,000, you know, two children, you would have about $2600 in higher taxes if the cuts are not extended. ROBERTS: So — for the average family that’s a lot of money, but particularly in these hard economic times, when you know you are worried about, ‘Am I going to keep my job,’ ‘Should I buy that,’ — to not to get hit with an extra bill of $2600, that’s substantial. LA MONICA: Definitely, that’s why I think there is such urgency in Washington to get something done. It does seems that the main issue is, obviously, just trying — whether or not to extend them for everyone or to exclude the wealthiest top percent of the country. I mean a lot of people both Democrats and Republicans think that extending it for the middle class is obviously the right thing that has to be done, particularly in these tough times. CROWLEY: You know those tax cuts are already in place, so I’m going to assume that keeping them doesn’t really change the job market, it simply — the argument is [if they expire] things will get worse for America. LA MONICA: Exactly. It’s similar to two years ago when the financial crisis was really first starting to take hold, a lot of things that Washington or you know, was hoping to do right now is preventing the economy from deteriorating any further. I mean we’ve had obviously hopes of a recovery earlier in the year that have started to fade this summer. And that’s worrying a lot of people on obviously, you know, in Washington and on Wall Street. ROBERTS: So when you look at the calculation, Paul, you’ve got your rock and you’ve got your hard place. The rock being you want more money coming in to the economy itself so you want to put more money in the pockets of people, particularly when you look at unemployment over 9 percent. But then at the same time you have these deficits that are running at an absolutely  frightening rate of a trillion-plus dollars a year. So, you’ve got to bump up your revenue stream but at the same time you want to keep your money coming into the economy. So how do you reconcile that calculation? LA MONICA: Yeah, that’s very difficult. It’s the classic short-term versus long-term solution right now that people are trying to weigh. What is more important? A lot of people that we have spoken to at CNN/Money say that really Washington has to do everything in their power to help the middle class extending these tax cuts is likely something that can do that even though it could add to the deficit in the short-term. The hope, and admittedly it is something that could bear out over time but you know, you don’t know for certain is that if the economy starts to finally pick up some steam and consumers spend more, primarily because maybe they aren’t getting this bigger tax hit, the deficit could help take care of itself, because a stronger economy leads to higher tax revenue from not just individuals but businesses over the long haul. CROWLEY: Paul, thanks so much for breaking it down. Appreciate it.

View original post here:
Most Economists Want All Tax Cuts Extended; CNN’s Roberts Sees Need to ‘Bump Up’ Govt’s ‘Revenue Stream’

Top Bush Aide Denounces Mark Levin, Malkin, Others as ‘Unhinged…Bolshevik’ Party-Line Enforcers

Former top Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson is a Washington Post columnist, and there is never a better time for right-leaning columnists to lean left than in the last weeks of an election season. (See George Will trashing Sen. George Allen in the last weeks of 2006.) His rant also may have granted Gerson a seat on CBS’s Face the Nation on Sunday. Gerson not only denounced Christine O’Donnell as a wacky candidate like Alan Keyes, he denounced “the childish political thought of the Tea Party.” He insisted conservatives were like Bolsheviks. Bloggers like Michelle Malkin and talk show hosts like Mark Levin were “unhinged” against Karl Rove: While Rove’s critique was tough, the reaction in parts of the conservative blogosphere has been unhinged. Michelle Malkin wrote that it “might as well have been Olbermann on MSNBC.” Mark Levin pronounced Rove at “war against the Tea Party movement and conservatives.” “In terms of the conservative movement,” wrote Dan Riehl, “we should not simply ignore him, but proactively work to undermine Rove in whatever ways we can, given his obvious willingness to undermine us.” Gerson didn’t explain in this short blog how it was “unhinged” to see Karl Rove’s fierce attack on O’Donnell as like an Olbermann moment. (In fact, it was: Olbermann reran large chunks of it on MSNBC.) He didn’t explain how it was “unhinged” to say Rove was at war with the Tea Party when they won a surprise victory, and he denounced the winner in the strongest terms. But the attacks were just getting started: This reaction is revealing — and disturbing — for a number of reasons. First, it shows how some conservatives view the business of political commentary. Rove obviously has strong views on O’Donnell, based on personal experience with the candidate. But deviations from the party line are not permitted . It is not enough to dispute Rove’s critique; Rove himself must be punished. The message is clear: The facts do not matter. Politics is war carried on by other means. Anyone who doesn’t consistently take one side is a traitor. Gerson doesn’t consider that the anger on the Mike Castle side of this election — the losing side — is based on the view that  the Tea Party deviated from the party line that Castle should march to the general election undisturbed. They implied only traitors would throw a “slam dunk” election in doubt. This attitude can be found on right and left. But a serious commentator cannot think this way. He owes his readers or viewers his best judgment — which means he cannot simply be a tool of someone else’s ideological agenda. Some conservatives have adopted the Bolshevik approach to information and the media : Every personal feeling, every independent thought, every inconvenient fact, must be subordinated to the party line — the Tea Party line. Gerson wants to suggest that the Tea Party people are unhinged in their rhetoric, and then he compares them to murderous Russian communists. Remember this the next time Gerson agrees with a liberal that Obama shouldn’t be smeared with foreign associations. 60,000 is Delaware does not make the Tea Party movement predominant in the Republican Party, or even in the conservative movement. If Tea Party activists believe they can win in a political coalition so pure that it doesn’t include strong, mainstream conservatives such as Karl Rove, they are delusional. And they are hurting their own cause. Third, some conservatives seem to display special venom for those who are “compromised” by the experience of actually winning and governing . Rove, according to Malkin, is an “establishment Beltway strategist.” Actually, he is a former high-level policy aid to the president of the United States and the primary author of two presidential victories. This does not make him always right. But it means he has had responsibilities bigger than running a Web site. This is an advantage for a commentator, not a drawback. Here is Gerson’s arrogance on display, for it’s very easy to remind the Bush people that “winning” wasn’t what happened in 2006 and 2008. Rove and Gerson and their team drove the GOP into a deep hole. This is the spot where the liberals secretly point fingers and laugh — before they invite these Bushies in front of the cameras to denounce the conservatives. The ending was just as petulant: In Tea Party theory, inexperience is itself seen as a kind of qualification. People like O’Donnell are actually preferable to people like Rove, because they haven’t been tainted by public trust or actual achievement. This is the attitude of the adolescent — the belief that the world began on their thirteenth birthday. It is also a sign of childish political thought.

Read more here:
Top Bush Aide Denounces Mark Levin, Malkin, Others as ‘Unhinged…Bolshevik’ Party-Line Enforcers