Arnold Schwarzenegger The Governator Trailer 2012 The Governator – Trailer Arnold Schwarzenegger es Governator Arnold Schwarzenegger is 'The Governator' In This Apparently Real … I don’t want to believe this is real. I thought for sure that it had to be a joke but the more I looked into. Arnold Schwarzenegger is 'The Governator' in new animated series … Well if you’re Arnold Schwarzenegger you join forces with the former president and chairman of Marvel Comics Stan Lee and create an animated series called The Governator. In an recent interview with EW Arnold said; “The word Governator … Arnold Schwarzenegger announces Governator film without a trace of … In a move that has surprised absolutely no-one at all, Arnold Schwarzenegger has announced his return to film after becoming sick of all that pussy-boy politics rah-bish. Now he certainly doesn’t have time to come round your house and … Arnold Schwarzenegger Is Back | Indian Life Style Blog Stan Lee Comics Joins Forces With Worldwide Icon Arnold Schwarzenegger To Introduce An Epic New Animated Action-Comedy Superhero Series Lending His. Arnold Schwarzenegger as The Governator | Gerard Spinks … The Governator” challenges the status quo by packing current topics with action and humor into a worldwide, multiplatform entertainment property, which includes a television series, 3D movie, comic book series and consumer products … ralhosani says: Arnold Schwarzenegger 's new cartoon show !!! http://t.co/eNveLag
Continue reading …
Japan for the first time has set a radiation safety level for seafood, as its stricken nuclear plant continues to spew contaminated water into the ocean. (April 5)
Continue reading …
Republicans controlling the House have fashioned plans to slash the budget deficit by about $5 trillion over the upcoming decade, blending unprecedented spending cuts with a fundamental restructuring of taxpayer-financed health care. (April 5)
Continue reading …
Covering the budget debate on Capitol Hill and the conflict in Libya, Andrea Mitchell spun two serious policy issues as examples of race-baiting. On the April 5 edition of “Andrea Mitchell Reports,” the MSNBC anchor lamented that Rep. Paul Ryan’s (R-Wis.) proposed 2012 budget would ravage black and Hispanic communities. “Representative Paul Ryan’s 2012 budget, released today, includes reforms, what they call reforms, and also big cuts in housing assistance, job training, and food stamps,” warned Mitchell. “All of which would have a very big impact on particularly poor and minority communities, some say.” Mitchell was mum as Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.) bandied ludicrous assertions about the 2012 Republican budget, which would slash spending by nearly $6 trillion over 10 years mostly by reforming unsustainable health care entitlement programs. “It’s clearly a nervous breakdown on paper and it will do enormous damage, I think, to the vulnerable populations of this country,” predicted the chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, who added that the House Budget Chairman's proposed cuts to non-defense discretionary spending would “devastate the poor,” particularly in America's racial minority groups. Cleaver can grouse about Republican cuts all he wants, but the fact is that Ryan’s budget calls for only modest reductions in the welfare programs that Cleaver referenced. Mitchell could have pointed out that the 2012 budget plan would only pare back such programs to 2008 levels, but instead the NBC News chief foreign affairs correspondent turned her attention to the issue of Libya. Wondering why the U.S. went to war in Libya instead of the Ivory Coast or other countries in sub-Saharan Africa, Mitchell pressed: “Do you think it’s a matter of color?” “You know, I hate, I’m probably one of the strongest persons who advocates trying to reduce the language that separates people on the basis of color,” stammered Cleaver, seemingly puzzled by Mitchell’s claim that racial motivations drive U.S. foreign policy. Cleaver's stance against using language that “separates people on the basis of color” is curious considering the divisive language he used just moments earlier to smear the Republican budget as racially discriminatory. A transcript of the segment can be found below: MSNBC Mitchell Reports April 5, 2011 1:46 p.m. EDT ANDREA MITCHELL: Representative Paul Ryan’s 2012 budget, released today, includes reforms, what they call reforms, and also big cuts in housing assistance, job training, and food stamps, all of which would have a very big impact on particularly poor and minority communities, some say. Representative Emanuel Cleaver chairs the Congressional Black Caucus and joins me now. What is your initial reaction to what you’ve been able to see so far of the Ryan budget? Rep. EMANUEL CLEAVER (D-Mo.): Well we received a preview of it yesterday, as much as could be given without actually seeing the actual budget. It’s clearly a nervous breakdown on paper and it will do enormous damage, I think, to the vulnerable populations of this country. I’m not suggesting that Mr. Ryan wants to do damage but it is doing damage nonetheless. And when you consider the unemployment rate for African Americans is reaching a 25-year high, it’s 15.5 percent and rising, and that means that the people who are going to be impacted by layoffs, for example, particularly in the public sector, are going to be minorities. Minorities make up one-fourth of the federal workforce. They did that because they figured if they can work for the federal government there will be less opportunity for somebody to discriminate against them. MITCHELL: One of the columns praising what Ryan has done comes from David Brooks of the New York Times today. His point is this: “The Ryan budget will put all future arguments in the proper context: the current welfare state is simply unsustainable and anybody who is serious, on the Left or Right, has to have a new vision of the social contract.” You may not agree with David Brooks but his basic argument is that we have reached the point of no return. We have to take a fresh look, bring new sight to what we’ve always assumed is the given. Address that for a moment, given the budget deficit and what you’re facing. CLEAVER: To some degree I agree with Mr. Brooks but look, the budget is a moral statement, it is a declaration of the moral contract of the United States. And I do think we need to look at social welfare again but we can’t devastate the poor as we do it and I think we have to take some compassionately smaller steps than we’re taking now. The poor will always be with us, I read that in another non-government book. It means that we have some responsibility. The United States can’t invade, or go to war in Libya, to protect people who are being hurt and then say we’re no longer going to help people in the United States who are hurt. And it will disproportionately impact the vulnerable population, most particularly Hispanics and African Americans. MITCHELL: Want to ask you something, you just raised the subject of Libya. What do you think the United States’ responsibility ought to be in Cote d’lvoire and the Ivory Coast where we have seen hundreds and hundreds or people, both sides apparently have military – the outgoing president is refusing to give up power and the president-elect, who is entitled to take over, but there have been atrocities, reported at least, on both sides – do we have any responsibility or should we leave that up to the United Nations? CLEAVER: Well we have confused the world and the American public and it goes for both Republican and Democratic administrations. What separates us going into Libya that didn’t allow us to go into the Sudan, where tens of thousands, some record that hundreds of thousands, were killed? So it seems as if, that, you know, we have less interest in sub-Saharan Africa than we do in Northern Africa and the Middle East and there’s probably some reasons for that that I don’t understand. I hope it’s not what many Americans believe and that is that the oil rich countries are always going to get attention of and support from the United States. MITCHELL: Do you think it’s a matter of color? CLEAVER: You know, I hate, I’m probably one of the strongest persons who advocates trying to reduce the language that separates people on the basis of color. That’s why I talked about the fact that it may be oil. I don’t know. With President Obama, I don’t think he made a decision to invade or to use Tomahawk missiles in Libya but refuses to go into sub-Saharan Africa. After all, his family members are still living in sub-Saharan Africa. So I don’t think it’s that. But I think it is still confusing because we don’t know what separates it. Somebody needs to explain it to us. What is the national interest we have in Libya? And why don’t we have that same interest in the Ivory Coast, for example? MITCHELL: Emanuel Cleaver, thank you very much Congressman.
Continue reading …
Deputy prime minister owns up to securing his first internship through his father’s influence in a Finnish bank Nick Clegg was forced to admit it was “wrong” that his own career had been boosted by parental connections when he was starting out, getting him time at a bank and his first job in politics. The revelation that the deputy prime minister had been helped by his father’s influence cast a shadow over the government’s announcement of a drive to end unpaid internships. As the government put more accessible internships in desirable professions at the centre of a drive to give poorer children better opportunities, it also emerged that eight coalition MPs were continuing the practice of employing unpaid interns. An anonymous intern also said he had worked for Nick Clegg in opposition. A new national internship scheme is intended to get young people into professions otherwise closed to all but those who know people in the field or “your father’s friends”, in Nick Clegg’s words. Clegg also wants to encourage people to use national minimum wage legislation to shop employers who are taking advantage of free and eager young workers. The government pointed to an announcement by the Tory chairman, Lady Warsi, that they were leading by example in closing down the civil service to all informally arranged slots of work experience from 2012. In the morning when launching the policy, the deputy prime minister was asked by Labour MP John Spellar in the Commons whether he could confirm he had secured his first internship through his father’s influence in a Finnish bank. Clegg told the house: “Yes, I can. As a teenager, yes, I did receive an internship, as, I suspect, did many people around the chamber. “Good for you if you did not. All of us should be honest and acknowledge that the way that internships have been administered in the private sector, the public sector, political parties and – I discovered when we came into government – in Whitehall as well, under 13 years of Labour, left a lot to be desired. “I was a recipient of that, as, I suspect, many others here were as well. That is what we need to change if we want to secure greater social mobility in the future.” Afterwards, at the press conference to launch the document, Clegg was asked whether it was true his father had secured him a job at the European commission through a conversation with his neighbour, former foreign secretary Lord Carrington. Clegg said: “The whole system was wrong. I’m not the slightest bit ashamed of saying that we all inhabited a system which was wrong.” Included as part of the policies is a “business compact” being signed with large companies – including the Guardian – that they seek to provide fairer access to their workplaces. Clegg asked employers to pay at least the appropriate national minimum wage or payment of reasonable out-of-pocket expenses. They should encourage schools and blind applications in the hope the best qualified will be accepted. The government also launched its child poverty strategy, putting on a statutory footing a new child poverty and social mobility commission which will enshrine in law a body to monitor the progress made by this government and future ones towards eliminating child poverty by 2020. Seven indicators at different stages of the life cycle will be monitored by different Whitehall departments to see if they help or hinder social mobility. Asked about his own party’s policy on internships, Clegg said he had just set out a new set of rules. Lib Dem interns will now receive travel expenses and up to £5 for lunch, though many questioned whether that was feasible. Eight coalition MPs and three constituency parties were advertising for unpaid interns as Clegg announced the policy. The website working4anMP currently lists unpaid intern vacancies with the Conservative MPs Aidan Burley, David Davis, David Amess, Mark Menzies and Dominic Raab, and the West Thurrock constituency Conservative party. Lib Dem MPs advertising for an unpaid intern included David Ward and John Leech, along with the Bristol and Lewes constituency Lib Dem parties. A former unpaid intern for Nick Clegg, Jonny Medland from Oxford told the group Intern Aware he had “worked on all sorts of projects – drafting articles to appear in the local and national press, researching policy announcements from the then Labour government and making notes for speeches in the Commons. It definitely wasn’t ‘work experience’ but was exactly the sort of work which the coalition is now, rightly, insisting you should be paid for”. A survey conducted this year by the parliamentary branch of Unite revealed that half of MPs from the main parties are offering work experience without paying expenses. Nick Clegg Unemployment Apprenticeships Allegra Stratton Graham Snowdon guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Deputy prime minister owns up to securing his first internship through his father’s influence in a Finnish bank Nick Clegg was forced to admit it was “wrong” that his own career had been boosted by parental connections when he was starting out, getting him time at a bank and his first job in politics. The revelation that the deputy prime minister had been helped by his father’s influence cast a shadow over the government’s announcement of a drive to end unpaid internships. As the government put more accessible internships in desirable professions at the centre of a drive to give poorer children better opportunities, it also emerged that eight coalition MPs were continuing the practice of employing unpaid interns. An anonymous intern also said he had worked for Nick Clegg in opposition. A new national internship scheme is intended to get young people into professions otherwise closed to all but those who know people in the field or “your father’s friends”, in Nick Clegg’s words. Clegg also wants to encourage people to use national minimum wage legislation to shop employers who are taking advantage of free and eager young workers. The government pointed to an announcement by the Tory chairman, Lady Warsi, that they were leading by example in closing down the civil service to all informally arranged slots of work experience from 2012. In the morning when launching the policy, the deputy prime minister was asked by Labour MP John Spellar in the Commons whether he could confirm he had secured his first internship through his father’s influence in a Finnish bank. Clegg told the house: “Yes, I can. As a teenager, yes, I did receive an internship, as, I suspect, did many people around the chamber. “Good for you if you did not. All of us should be honest and acknowledge that the way that internships have been administered in the private sector, the public sector, political parties and – I discovered when we came into government – in Whitehall as well, under 13 years of Labour, left a lot to be desired. “I was a recipient of that, as, I suspect, many others here were as well. That is what we need to change if we want to secure greater social mobility in the future.” Afterwards, at the press conference to launch the document, Clegg was asked whether it was true his father had secured him a job at the European commission through a conversation with his neighbour, former foreign secretary Lord Carrington. Clegg said: “The whole system was wrong. I’m not the slightest bit ashamed of saying that we all inhabited a system which was wrong.” Included as part of the policies is a “business compact” being signed with large companies – including the Guardian – that they seek to provide fairer access to their workplaces. Clegg asked employers to pay at least the appropriate national minimum wage or payment of reasonable out-of-pocket expenses. They should encourage schools and blind applications in the hope the best qualified will be accepted. The government also launched its child poverty strategy, putting on a statutory footing a new child poverty and social mobility commission which will enshrine in law a body to monitor the progress made by this government and future ones towards eliminating child poverty by 2020. Seven indicators at different stages of the life cycle will be monitored by different Whitehall departments to see if they help or hinder social mobility. Asked about his own party’s policy on internships, Clegg said he had just set out a new set of rules. Lib Dem interns will now receive travel expenses and up to £5 for lunch, though many questioned whether that was feasible. Eight coalition MPs and three constituency parties were advertising for unpaid interns as Clegg announced the policy. The website working4anMP currently lists unpaid intern vacancies with the Conservative MPs Aidan Burley, David Davis, David Amess, Mark Menzies and Dominic Raab, and the West Thurrock constituency Conservative party. Lib Dem MPs advertising for an unpaid intern included David Ward and John Leech, along with the Bristol and Lewes constituency Lib Dem parties. A former unpaid intern for Nick Clegg, Jonny Medland from Oxford told the group Intern Aware he had “worked on all sorts of projects – drafting articles to appear in the local and national press, researching policy announcements from the then Labour government and making notes for speeches in the Commons. It definitely wasn’t ‘work experience’ but was exactly the sort of work which the coalition is now, rightly, insisting you should be paid for”. A survey conducted this year by the parliamentary branch of Unite revealed that half of MPs from the main parties are offering work experience without paying expenses. Nick Clegg Unemployment Apprenticeships Allegra Stratton Graham Snowdon guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Click here to view this media GOP Preps Emergency Bill With Deep Cuts If Shutdown Becomes Inevitable : While the GOP preps House members with guidance in the event of a government shutdown, they’re also readying a one-week stop-gap funding bill, including $12 billion in domestic discretionary cuts, and six month’s worth of Pentagon funding. The purpose is simple. If negotiations over a six-month spending package don’t yield an agreement in the next day or two, the Congress will be armed with the proper protocols for operating during shutdown. But the House of Representatives will also pass a politically tough temporary funding package — with cuts too deep for many Democrats to accept — and leave the question of a shutdown in their hand. If the Senate can pass it, and the President signs it, it buys congressional leaders and the White House another week to hash out a longer plan — but at the cost of steep, steep cuts. On an annualized basis, it would amount to well over half a trillion dollars. Ed Schultz talked to Rep. Karen Bass about the Republicans preparing for a government shutdown and she had a bit of additional news not already reported to MSNBC. Apparently the stopgap spending measure only funds the government for a week, but it funds the Pentagon for the rest of the year. And so much for Eric Cantor saying this would be the last of these CR’s to keep the government funded. The Republicans look like they’re playing an extremely dangerous game here. Let the hostage taking begin. Here’s more from Josh– Hostage Drama : With negotiations still at a standoff, House Republicans are preparing a one-week stop gapping spending measure to keep the government open for a single week. But the price is roughly half a trillion dollars of program cuts on an annualized basis . So the aim is present Democrats and the White House with cuts they can’t accept and force them to be the ones who ‘shut down the government.’ This is being presented as a clever ploy. And perhaps it is. But if my memory serves me right this is actually pretty similar to the ploy they used in 1995 and which worked so well for them. And as Think Progress reminded us this week, it’s the Republicans who have been clamoring for shutting down the government — Caught On Tape: Republicans Touting Support For Government Shutdown .
Continue reading …Ashley Judd’s memoir details a family faced with troubles ranging “from depression, suicide, alcoholism, and compulsive gambling to incest and suspected murder,” she writes. Radar and MSNBC received advance copies of All That Is Bitter & Sweet , out today. Judd writes that “there was always marijuana inside the house” and…
Continue reading …David Sokol’s sudden resignation —and the scandal that accompanied it—shocked the business world last week, but this isn’t the first time Warren Buffett’s ex-heir apparent’s ethics have been questioned. Just last year, a judge rebuked Sokol for accounting irregularities at MidAmerican Energy, the company he was chief executive of…
Continue reading …
While at a recent fun dinner, some acquaintances and I were surprised to discover that three out of seven of us had been divorced. Some of us were remarried, some were freshly uncoupled, some were dating, and as the night got more and more dishy, one of the non-divorcees asked if any of us ever had a gut feeling from the start that the marriage was not going to work out. The three divorcees, bonded by our marital histories, looked at each other with dumb recognition. Yes, yes we’d all had reservations about getting married, tucked away in some tiny, shushed pit of our stomachs. We’d all been quietly scared of what we were about to do, and one by one we confessed our reasons for not listening to ourselves — I thought it was too late to cancel, I thought that everyone felt scared and wrong on their wedding day, I thought marriage would be the thing to fix our relationship. Hindsight is always 20/20, but I imagine a lot of married and divorced people have insights to share about how they felt during their engagement. Without further adieu, I address this post to the engaged people out there who are wondering if they’re making the right decision. So you’re getting married?! That’s exciting! Maybe you’re planning a huge beautiful event, or maybe you’re just having a small ceremony and going to dinner with your parents — but no matter the size of the wedding, at some point it might start to feel like it’s picking up a life of its own, steaming ahead no matter what. If you’re wondering if you should be getting married, it’s time for a gut check. How do you know if what you’re feeling is just pre-wedding jitters, which are totally natural, and not something more serious? Take Away Distractions No matter how busy you are, either planning your wedding or just going through your everyday life, it is more important than ever to take time for yourself. Not for manicures or video games, but to physically be with yourself. Set aside about 15 minutes a day that you just sit in a quiet, non-distracting place with your thoughts, and listen to yourself. What comes up? If things are nagging at you now, there is nothing that a party and some cake is going to correct, so instead of distracting yourself with wedding planning, give yourself time to respect any concerns you have about your marriage. Put Your Emotions On Paper How do you feel about being married to your fiancee? Quick, take a moment and write down every single emotion that you have when you think, not about your wedding day, but about being married. Take your time. When you’re done, divide up those emotions into positive and negative ones, and check out your list. What themes do you notice? If you really want to get down to the nitty gritty, have your fiancee do this exercise as well and talk about the emotions you both come up with. If my ex and I had done this, maybe we would have seen that we both had the same concerns that we were just getting married because it was the age that a lot of people got married. Why Are You Getting Married? Now, I don’t mean this in a sense of “why does marriage exist as an institution?” It’s a wonderful institution, one that should be enjoyed by all people. What I mean is what made you decide to get married to the person you’re marrying at this point in your life? Are you getting married because he asked you? Are you getting married because you’ve been together a while and you’re of “marrying age”? Are you getting married because you want to start building a life with your partner, and this is a huge step in that direction? A lot of people end up getting married more out of expectation than out of passion for each other, but if your options have ever been “we either get married or break up,” be careful. Marriage should be a new addition you add to the house that is your relationship, not the structure you impose on the house once it’s already built. This is not to say that marriages based on practicality can’t be happy and wonderful, but merely to say that what you want, deep down, should never be pushed aside for what you’re supposed to want. How Is Your Relationship? Take a snapshot of your relationship exactly as it is right now. Freeze. What you must expect is that your relationship will be, no matter how fancy the wedding ceremony or how great the honeymoon, exactly like this for the rest of your lives. No changes whatsoever. Is that something you’re okay with, or is part of you convinced that the relationship will evolve once rings are involved? Because I can tell you now — time evolves a relationship, living together evolves a relationship, and adding responsibilities evolves a relationship. Marriage, on its own, does not. It also does not fix relationships. Of the divorcees I know, the number one question that we all wish someone had asked us as we went headlong into marriage was, “If you could walk away with absolutely no consequences, would you do it?” Think about it honestly. When I worked with children in the past, I would watch them throw these epic temper tantrums, and out of desperation one day I asked a kid who’d been yelling and crying for about 10 minutes if he was tired and wished he could stop and pretend he never started having a tantrum. He looked up at me through tears and nodded, so I told him his secret would be safe with me. He got up and walked into another room, where I found him playing quietly. Sometimes we put so much effort into things we’re doing, like dating or wedding planning, that we don’t stop to think about whether or not we even want the results of that effort. Marriage, even a happy and successful one, can be extremely stressful, but that stress is worth it if you’re marrying the best person for you. I write this not in an effort to stop people from getting married, but merely to encourage people to take marriage incredibly seriously. There is nothing you can’t walk away from, but if you think leaving a fiancee is hard, try leaving a spouse. Keep asking yourself questions and giving yourself gut checks to make sure you’re making a decision that is best for you and best for your relationship. We would love to hear your own stories of thoughts you had as you were preparing to walk down the aisle — were you terrified, were you excited, were you trying not to think about it, and how did that correlate with the success of the relationship? Tell us in the comments!
Continue reading …