Tag Archives: players

Movie Review: ‘Wall Street’ Sequel Attacks Debt, ‘Cancer’ of the Financial System

“Greed, for lack of a better word, is good.” That was the defining line of Oliver Stone’s 1987 film “Wall Street,” and his attack on the financial system that the news media would use for decades to portray businessmen as villains. The theme Stone wants viewers to take away from his sequel, “Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps,” was tucked away in the credits of his film on a greenback. “In Greed We Trust,” the bill proclaimed where the words “In God We Trust” should have been. “Money Never Sleeps,” which opens in theaters Sept. 24, uses the financial crisis of 2008 as a backdrop for the comeback of Gordon Gekko, the iconic villain of the original. This time Gekko reinvents himself as a changed man, coming back bearish on housing and speculation. In a business school lecture Gekko warns, “The mother of all evils is speculation — leveraged debt.” He claims the economy is merely moving money around in circles and the business model itself is like a “cancer.” The 1987 Gekko is a shark, a killer, the viewer senses it from the outset and can anticipate the time when Gekko’s blade will rip into protégée Bud Fox’s back. This Gekko comes across as a different animal entirely, a snake that can charm you into believing he won’t sell you out to make a buck. But in the end Gekko’s still the shark, he’s just gotten better at hiding his sharp teeth. Stone’s movie weakly attempts to convince the audience that everyone is in the “game” now, and that the corruption (caused by greed and envy) has become “systemic.” From people taking out second mortgages to go shopping, to greedy real estate investors; the new evil is leverage itself. As proof it offers many characters including Josh Brolin’s Bretton James. In the film, James secretly creates a panic by spreading rumors about a competitor in order to tank its stock and acquire it. The fictional investment bank that collapses and is acquired is meant to resemble Bear Stearns that had two of its hedge funds collapse in July 2007. Liberal themes such as green energy is good and materialism is bad abound, but the story is less political than one might expect. There were no mentions of political parties or specific administrations (Bush or Obama). Stone’s movie criticizes the types of financial products that were in use and slams toxic subprime debt, but without delving into the government policies that helped create the devastating housing bubble and the financial crisis. It says nothing about the accounting rules that many economists and financial experts say helped cause the liquidity crisis. Economist and Business & Media Institute advisor Dr. Walter E. Williams explained in a Sept. 17, 2008, column that the “credit crunch and foreclosure problems are failures of government policy.” What “foolhardy government policy” was Williams referring to? The Community Reinvestment Act, which “intimidated lenders” into offering credit to more people and specifically “discourages them from restricting their credit services to low-risk markets, a practice sometimes called redlining.” A couple of scenes show closed door meetings with bankers, the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department, where bankers were asking for a bailout because they were “too big to fail.” But according to BB&T’s former CEO John Allison, that’s not the whole story. Allison and others have said “most of the banks didn’t need to be saved,” and that his bank (BB&T) and others were strong-armed by the Treasury into taking bailout (TARP) funds. Allison said in a 2009 speech, “I think the news media unfortunately has been quite willing to jump on the criticism of capitalism and not the [government].” Overall, Stone’s latest film does the same thing: attacking the capitalist system and its players, rather than examining the government’s culpability. But at least viewers know his movie is fiction. Like this article? Then sign up for our newsletter, The Balance Sheet .

Go here to read the rest:
Movie Review: ‘Wall Street’ Sequel Attacks Debt, ‘Cancer’ of the Financial System

Citing Wins by ‘Fringe Candidates,’ Couric Regurgitates Concern Moderate Republicans Becoming an ‘Endangered Species’

Following a story on how “big primary victories by fringe candidates open a rift in the GOP,” in which Jeff Greenfield warned “moderate Republicans worry that if the Tea Party movement drives the GOP too far to the right, it could jeopardize their prospects in November and in 2012,” CBS Evening News anchor Katie Couric fretted: “Does this mean moderate Republicans are becoming an endangered species?” Hardly an original thought, however, from Couric. From a quick perusal of the MRC’s archive, I discovered that on NBC’s Today show back in 2005 she worried about whether “the religious right has too much influence on the Republican Party” and, after listing some non-conservative positions held by “moderate Republican” Senator Arlen Specter, empathized with him: “Do you feel like an endangered species these days?” (Specter, of course, a few years later fled the GOP for the Democratic Party where he was promptly defeated in their primary.)   Couric teased Thursday’s newscast by characterizing conservative Republican winners as “fringe” players: “The party crashers. Big primary victories by fringe candidates open a rift in the GOP.” She set up the September 16 story on how the Tea Party is supposedly hurting the Republican Party: Our latest poll found 78 percent of registered voters believe the incumbents in the Democratic-controlled Congress should be tossed out. So you would think this would be a golden opportunity for Republicans. But as Jeff Greenfield reports, after big victories this week by candidates of the Tea Party, the Grand Old Party is in turmoil. Greenfield concluded his piece: Moderate Republicans worry that if the Tea Party movement drives the GOP too far to the right, it could jeopardize their prospects in November and in 2012. Tea Party supporters note that, except in Delaware, every one of their Senate candidates is even or ahead in the polls. Couric then queried: “And does this mean moderate Republicans are becoming an endangered species, Jeff?” Greenfield replied: “Well, you have Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe in Maine, Dick Lugar fro Indiana, Scott Brown from Massachusetts, but certainly compared to the Congress of 15 or 20 years ago, there are far fewer, and in contrast, the Democrats went out and recruited a lot of moderates four years ago in the so-called blue dogs. The Tea Party is driving the Republicans, I think, the other way.” Rewind to the Friday, May 13, 2005 Today show, as reported in a MRC CyberAlert item by Rich Noyes, “ Couric Fawns Over Specter, Blames GOP for ‘Disgusted’ Public ,” which recounted: …NBC then switched to the taped piece that Couric narrated: “Feisty, firm, with the razor sharp mind of a former prosecutor, Arlen Specter, 75, has never been afraid of a fight. Recently diagnosed with stage four Hodgkin’s lymphoma, Specter is now undergoing chemotherapy.” Referring to how Specter has lost most of his hair, Couric proclaimed: “His look may be different, his drive is not.” After a few questions about his health, she outlined the liberal views that have helped make Specter a media favorite: “Specter’s a Republican who favors abortion rights, is against a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, and is a vocal supporter of embryonic stem cell research.” Sitting across from Specter in an interview, she asked him: “Do you feel like an endangered species these days?” He replied: “No, I think that the small band of moderates are very, very important in the Senate. We frequently hold the balance of power.” She later inquired of Specter: “Do you believe the religious right has too much influence on the Republican Party at this point?”

Visit link:
Citing Wins by ‘Fringe Candidates,’ Couric Regurgitates Concern Moderate Republicans Becoming an ‘Endangered Species’

What Republicans Don’t Want Voters To Know About Jobs, Jobs, Jobs

When Bush pushed CAFTA through Congress, it was a very close win for the GOP's Big Business allies. The final vote was 217-215( http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2005/roll443.xml ). Although 187 Democrats voted against it– only 15 joining the Republicans in favor– Boehner, Blunt, Cantor, Ryan delivered for their corporate masters once again. For the last month Boehner has been running around the country like a bright orange chicken without a head squawking, “Where are the jobs, Mr. President?” It's an ironic question coming from one of the engineers responsible for passing trade policies that have systematically decimated the basis of America's manufacturing base. Boehner and his cronies– their wallets fat with gargantuan payoffs from outsourcers– have voted for every single bad trade bill that has ever promised to ship American jobs overseas. For Boehner to publicly ask where the jobs are is a slap in the face to every American worker and an insult to the intelligence of every Ohio voter. In the Senate, Obama looked at the exact same CAFTA bill Boehner and the Republicans did. Then-Senator Obama voted against it. ( http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?con… ) Several conservative Senate Republicans voted NO as well (John Thune, Lindsey Graham, David Vitter, Mike Enzi, Richard Shelby…) but voting to send American jobs to slave wage economies: Jim DeMint, Richard Burr, Mike DeWine, Chuck Grassley, Blanche Lincoln, John McCain, Ben Nelson and, of course Miss McConnell. All the Democrats voted against it with the exception of a small handful of corporate whores who habitually vote with the GOP against working families. But let's go back to the House for a moment, where every member has to face the voters in November. Why are Ohio voters thinking of reelecting John Boehner, who has screwed them on WTO, screwed them on CAFTA, screwed them on NAFTA and has the temerity to be boosting plans for more unbalanced trade legislation with a handful of more low-wage countries. I know he wants to destroy the standard of living of American workers and make them into serfs but who does he think will be buying American goods and services to keep our consumer-driven economy afloat if there are no decent jobs? Not everyone can be a caddy or bartender! Instead of asking Justin Coussoule for another quote about Boehner's record on jobs and how it has devastated businesses and the economy from Butler County up through Darke, Miami and Mercer, we took a look at a perfectly framed ad by Rob Miller, the former marine running against Joe “You Lie” Wilson. Although South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham warned that CAFTA would be disastrous for South Carolina's textile industry and small businesses (and voted NO), at the last minute Wilson was persuaded by Boehner's slick blandishments and voted YES, along with Gresham Barrett and Bob Inglis, both of whom have been disposed of by tea party activists. Miller's TV ad should leave Wilson reeling: ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUWs7IlR020 ) We caught up with Rob this morning and asked him if Wilson, just one Member of Congress, really hurt South Carolina with his vote. We knew the answer but we wanted to see how Rob would put it. He put it well: > When Joe Wilson went to Congress in December 2001, South Carolina’s > unemployment rate was 5.7 percent. Today, 10.8 percent of > South Carolinians are without jobs, including 112,500 people who > have lost their manufacturing jobs. > Manufacturing was the backbone of South Carolina’s economy, until > unfair trade deals like CAFTA went into effect. CAFTA sent thousands > of our jobs overseas, and people all across the state knew that > would happen before the first vote was cast. > But that didn’t stop Joe Wilson. Joe Wilson voted for CAFTA and broke > his promise to protect South Carolina’s workers, sending their jobs to > Central America. The real insult is that Joe Wilson cast the deciding > vote for CAFTA. If Wilson voted “No” CAFTA would not have passed. > It was that simple, and Joe Wilson didn’t have the courage to do what’s > right. South Carolina towns are dying– people are struggling to put > food on the table– and it all comes down to Joe Wilson turning his back > on South Carolina’s workers by voting “Yes” for CAFTA. I hope lots of Democrats watch Rob's ad. Similar ones would be especially effective against Roy Blunt (R-MO), Mike Castle (R-DE), Mark Kirk (R-IL), and John Boozman (R-AR) four particularly corrupt Wall Street darlings who are all trying to upgrade from the House to the Senate. It may also be useful for Democrats in New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and New Mexico to keep in mind as Charlie Bass, Mike Fitzpatrick and Steve Pearce try to slip back into office without letting voters know they were major players in the battles to pass CAFTA and similarly toxic trade bills. added by: toyotabedzrock

Helping Abandoned Soccer Players

Mariana van Zeller talks with the Drogba family about Foot Solidaire, an organization helping young players who have been abandoned by agents. WEDNESDAY 10/9c

More:
Helping Abandoned Soccer Players

Does Medal of Honor Deserve to be Banned by the U.S. Military?

So the U.S. military has officially banned sales of the newest Medal of Honor game on military bases globally. Even Britain’s Defense Secretary requested that UK game retailers ban the game. Why, you may ask? Well, the game allows players to take on the role of the Taliban, but only during multiplayer. It’s not like the “No Russian” level from Modern Warfare 2, where you’re gunning down civilians in an airport. I would definitely understand if you play as the Taliban in single player and are killing U.S. and Coalition forces, but in this case, you’re not. I ask this: “What is the real reason why people are angered over having the Taliban as a playable option?” As history shows, there have been many games allowing players to take on the roles of some not so popular factions. I believe a major cause of the controversy is from it being time-sensitive related. What I mean by that is that there hasn’t been time for the dust to settle on the constant war against the Taliban. With that said, is it more acceptable to play as a German in a World War II game than as a Taliban in a modern combat game because the war is still ongoing? http://nerdreactor.com/2010/09/07/does-medal-of-honor-deserve-to-be-banned-by-th… added by: NerdReactorTV

Young Lions Vs Beijing Guoan fight video

Beijing Guoan players are wearing green jerseys while the Young Lions are in dark blue. As we can see from the above clip, the Beijing Guoan players started the fracas at 0:24 min when one of them shoved a Singapore player to the ground. Video: At 1:53 min, a Beijing Guoan player threw in a sliding tackle which caused the Singapore players to confront him. Another PRC player rushed to his aid and pushed a Singapore player to the ground at 1:58 min, sparking a fight between the two teams: [1:52

View original post here:
Young Lions Vs Beijing Guoan fight video

Watch Players Season 1 Episode 10 – Mr. Meat Snak Stix

Watch Players S1E10: Mr. Meat Snak Stix The new installment of our favorite new comedy show, Players which is entitled “Mr. Meat Stix” is the new TV series’ 10th episode of the 1st season that aired last 09/04/2010 Saturday at 10:30 PM on SpikeTV. Watch Players 1×19(01010) Free Online Streaming Full Episodes Replay of the Latest Season and Video Clip Download Link:

Read this article:
Watch Players Season 1 Episode 10 – Mr. Meat Snak Stix

No rush to commit to split innings, insists Cricket Australia

• Format review ‘still a work in progress’ • ‘We need to ensure that ideas are practical and acceptable’ Cricket Australia will not rush into finalising its proposed revamp of the domestic one-day game. CA last week announced it would trial a split innings format in the Ford Ranger Cup with the long-term view of introducing it to one-day internationals. But players, including Mike Hussey and Ricky Ponting, said they would rather have the 50-over format retained. The CA chief executive, James Sutherland, said Australian and state players would be given a chance to provide their feedback on split-innings one-day cricket. “We will show players, including those now on the tour of England, the public research,” he said. “Cricket-lovers say that ODI cricket captures the broadest interest of the three formats, and it is supported with strong passion, but it is a game that needs better positioning and a format review if it is to remain popular in the long-term. “There has been a lot of public discussion since the CA board last week approved we go ahead with a format review, but this is still a work in progress. “The idea of split innings was popular with fans and we are keen at this stage to look at a 10 wickets-a-side, split-innings concept to see if it is feasible from public, player, broadcaster and commercial partners’ points of view. “We accept that we need to listen to what the public wants but we also need to be sure that ideas are practical, and most important, are acceptable to world cricket and capable in the long-term of being considered for international cricket.” Ponting, the Australia one-day captain, said he was against moving away from the traditional 50-overs-each match. “Personally, I wouldn’t like to see it go that way. I would like to see it remain as a traditional game of cricket,” he said. Forty wickets in the game, it almost goes away from the game of cricket. “I know Cricket Australia will be talking to the players and all the stakeholders involved in Australian cricket to come up with what they think is going to be the best set of playing conditions for the revamped competition that is going to start in Australia. “That’s where it is at the moment. There’s been a little bit of discussion around our team about that and what are the best playing conditions for the new format, and all that will come out in the wash over the next couple of weeks. As long as the players are well informed and involved in that decision-making then I’m sure the best result will be achieved.” Australia Cricket Team Cricket guardian.co.uk

Original post:
No rush to commit to split innings, insists Cricket Australia

Britain’s men need to take more responsibility, says Tim Henman

• Success or failure is ultimately down to player’s desire • Alex Bogdanovic should not receive any more funding Tim Henman has called on British players to start taking more responsibility for themselves. The retired player is frustrated that there are no English men in the singles draw at Wimbledon next week and is peeved in particular at Alex Bogdanovic, who has complained he has not had enough support from the Lawn Tennis Association. “When are players going to take more responsibility for themselves?” asked the former British No1. “You’re always hearing complaints about lack of funding, demanding to have a new coach or the parents complaining about something. “Ultimately it comes down to the player himself. I know Boggo, he’s a nice lad and has lots of talent but he really needs to look at himself in the mirror and ask if he deserves more funding. He’s 26 and after all he’s had he really shouldn’t be getting any more. “The LTA get a lot things wrong but too often they get blamed for everything,” he added “I have a problem with a lot of the players,” said Henman, who believes that they must learn to wean themselves off the LTA’s golden teat. “All I ever hear from the players is, ‘I didn’t get this, I didn’t get that, my funding has been cut from X to Y.’ It’s ridiculous. There’s too much of this sense of entitlement. “Part of the problem is that the players get given too much and I find that disappointing. It’s got to be about the individuals; they’ve got to go out and make this happen and do it themselves,” “The Argentines and the Spaniards, do you think they get that sort of funding from their federation? No, they get nothing. The responsibility falls on the individual. So how much do you want it? How badly do you want to be getting to these tournaments, to be paying your own air fares and for your own hotel rooms. I see those Argentines and Spaniards and they have a different desire. You’ve got to have that hunger.” Tennis Everton Gayle guardian.co.uk

Read more:
Britain’s men need to take more responsibility, says Tim Henman

Cesc Fábregas ‘certain’ to join Barcelona says next president

• Sandro Rosell confident Barcelona will sign Cesc Fábregas • Spanish champions will continue pursuit of Arsenal midfielder Barcelona’s president-elect says he is certain that Cesc Fábregas will sign for the club this summer. Sandro Rosell, who replaces Joan Laporta as president on 1

Read more:
Cesc Fábregas ‘certain’ to join Barcelona says next president