Tuesday, July 31, 2007
Wall Street Journal Agreement Expected This Evening
According to CNBC , the Bancrofts and News Corp are expected to reach an agreement for News Corp to own the Wall Street Journal.
S.I.'s Michael Silver On Bill Walsh's Genius - The Passing Of Bill Walsh
Early in his coaching tenure with the San Francisco 49ers, before he turned a long-suffering franchise into the greatest organization in professional sports, Bill Walsh once cut a player on the practice field.
Enraged by a cheap shot, Walsh fired the player -- who, to be fair, was not one of the team's major contributors -- right there on the spot, ordering a member of the security staff to escort him out of the building. To underscore his point, Walsh trailed behind as the two men trudged toward the locker room, screaming, "Don't even let him f----- shower!"
This was Walsh, who died today at 75 after a long bout with leukemia, at his most ruthless. Yet there was a calculated brilliance behind his brashness: After he took over in 1979, no Niner dared cross the new man in charge.
Nearly a decade later, as he was losing his grip after having completed the most impressive NFL coaching run since Vince Lombardi's in Green Bay, Walsh sometimes directed his enmity toward members of the local media. He was equal parts paranoid and condescending, and when he stepped down following his third Super Bowl title in January 1989, there wasn't a whole lot of sentimental sadness in either the press room or the locker room.
A few months later, I began covering the team as a beat writer for a Northern California paper, and the horror stories about Walsh's final days circulated with abandon. But he and I hit it off from the start, and over the next 17-plus years, whether I sought his opinion as a television analyst, as the progenitor of an offensive philosophy and unmatched tree of executive and coaching excellence, as a reinstalled Stanford mentor who'd just toyed with Joe Paterno, or a personnel guru who temporarily brought the 49ers back to prominence, he was invariably wise, witty and kind.
When people would ask about my relationship with the white-haired legend, I used to respond jokingly -- well, maybe half-jokingly -- that he and I bonded based on our shared belief of an unassailable tenet: Bill Walsh was a genius.
It wasn't that far from the truth. Growing up in L.A. as an oft-humiliated fan of the hometown Rams' chief rivals, I spent my high-school years watching in awe as Walsh transformed a 49ers team that went 2-14 his first year and 6-10 his second into a first-time champion in his third.
Because of Walsh, the franchise of a thousand choke jobs was now led by a cool, magical quarterback named Joe Montana, whose passes were as picturesque as the Golden Gate Bridge in heavy fog.
Because of Walsh, a group of young hellions led by Ronnie Lott took over a malleable defense that suddenly played with dash and defiance.
Because of Walsh and his innovative offensive schemes, receivers were five yards open, a 10th-round draft pick named Dwight Clark would become an All-Pro and Bay Area legend, and a washed-up running back named Lenvil Elliott would gain many of the key yards on the dramatic drive that produced The Catch.
On a more personal level, because of Walsh, I could wear my ratty, way-too-small 49ers jersey to school on Jan. 11, 1982, and for the first time in my life no one would dare laugh.
So, yes, after I started covering the Niners and thus stopped loving them like a gushy teenager, I was predisposed to think pretty highly of Walsh. But the more I learned of him -- and from him -- the greater my appreciation became.
In an era in which many head coaches callously prohibit their assistants from talking to the media (and, by extension, hurt their profiles and potential for attracting the interests of other employers), Walsh did the opposite, vigorously promoting the virtues of the coaches who worked under him through the press and back-channel diplomacy. This was especially true when it came to minority coaching candidates. Indeed, undoing racial injustices when it came to such hires remained one of Walsh's primary causes long after he stepped away.
Remember that in early January 1989, shortly before Walsh resigned as the Niners' coach, his receivers coach, Denny Green, got the Stanford job -- largely on the strength of his boss's recommendation. Walsh's reaction in the midst of a tense playoff drive? He essentially allowed Green to become the Cardinal's fulltime coach while filling in with the Niners whenever time allowed.
It's not surprising that, unlike Jimmy Johnson and other successful NFL head coaches whose assistants turned out to be substandard bosses, Walsh saw his legacy carried on directly (George Seifert, Mike Holmgren, Ray Rhodes, Green) and indirectly (Mike Shanahan, Jeff Fisher, Jon Gruden). It was Walsh, after all, who not only revolutionized football strategy with the West Coast Offense, but who also created the organizational blueprint for the modern franchise, from the down-to-the-precise-minute daily schedule to the filming of practices and play-installation meetings.
Give me an hour, and I can go on and on about the other areas in which Walsh made a lasting impact, including his insistence on cutting prominent players a year before their decline, rather than after it, all things being equal. Critics might call this another example of his ruthlessness, and some victims of the policy, such as Clark, would hold a longtime grudge.
But if you paid attention to the 49ers, you eventually understood that Walsh knew best, for he -- more than even Lott or Montana or Jerry Rice or owner Eddie DeBartolo -- was the man most responsible for the franchise's unprecedented run of excellence that included five Super Bowl championships in 14 years.
Manipulative as he might have been -- like all great coaches, really -- Walsh boldly strove for excellence and wasn't averse to risking everything while doing so. Every move he made was meant to create or sustain a dynasty, from the 1987 trade for Steve Young, that triggered a years-long quarterback controversy, to his persuading of Montana, Clark and other veterans not to cross the picket line during the '87 players' strike for fear of the damage to team chemistry it might cause (they nonetheless returned the following week).
As that strike reminded us, Walsh was a tactician whose brilliance shone behind-the-scenes and, most glaringly, on Sundays in front of a rapt, football-watching nation.
Playing his first game with replacement players against the Bill Parcells-coached Giants on Monday Night Football, Walsh, during interviews with the New York media, made a big deal about the presence on the roster of backup quarterback Mark Stevens, who'd run the option in college. Stevens, Walsh suggested, might be inserted in specific situations in which the Phony Niners could utilize his speed and running ability.
Sure enough, before a short-yardage play near midfield, Stevens came sprinting into the huddle, and everyone waited to see Walsh unveil his new toy. The bait successfully lowered, Stevens took the snap, faked a handoff, dropped back in the pocket and calmly delivered a touchdown pass to a wide-open receiver.
On one level, the whole thing was kind of coldblooded. It was also funny and sublime and, yes, genius. That was Bill Walsh, and those of us who got to observe him up close will remember him that way until we, too, are told to disappear without showering.
Something To Share About Coach Bill Walsh - Zennie Abraham
I only met Coach Walsh three times, and on every occasion he always referred to me as "Lenny" rather than "Zennie" but he never refused to take time to talk to me about his system, and I was into the details of it, like the "hitch step" for example, which is simply the extra step a QB takes just before throwing, and the concept of throwing without a hitch step, which is hard as hell to do -- try it yourself.
The point is that he would always share.
But what really rankled me -- and still does today -- is how many people, reporters, incorrectly describe "The Walsh System." It's always "short, ball control" and left at that.
That's so wrong.
Yes, that was a part of it. But man, that wasn't even the difference. It was the way of thinking.
To illustrate how different Coach Walsh's system was, let me compare it to the Dallas Cowboys passing game concept under Coach Tom Landry.
The Cowboys were known for passing plays that essentially "pulled" a defense into a particular direction and then took advantage of how the defense deployed itself as a result.
For example, one of the most successful plays the Cowboys ran in the 70s -- when Walsh was developing his ideas -- came out of split backs or "Red or Green Formation." The Flanker went in half motion toward the tight-end, and then
released at the snap of the ball.
The play started as a "sweep" running play, with both guards pulling, the fullback lead blocking and the halfback running. Then the QB would fake a handoff to the halfback, and then look down field.
The Flanker who went in motion toward the tight end then ran a crossing pattern 15 - 20 yards. Meanwhile the Split End ran a kind of "mirror" crossing pattern. The offensive play caused both safeties in a standard Cover Two -- which is what the Pittsburgh Steelers played at the time -- to essentially go deep and move wider apart, leaving the Flanker all alone on the crossing route.
That play worked in Super Bowl X, where Drew Pearson caught a 47-yard touchdown pass. But it failed to work later in the same game because Steelers safety Mike Wagner didn't move deep. When Split End Doug Donley ran his crossing pattern, Wagner stayed home rather than move deep or follow him.
The result was an interception, which surprised Dallas QB Roger Staubach -- "It was the first time it didn't work" Staubach remarked later.
Well, let's think about it. That play was designed to throw to one -- and only one -- receiver, the Flanker. The Split End was a decoy and the tight end wasn't even a factor in the play -- the running backs were strictly used for run fakes and then forgotten about.
Coach Walsh's offense didn't have so many decoys. And in his offense, there was always another receiver to go to. It was flexible, which was new at the time. It was so new that Paul Hackett, who was Coach Walsh's QB coach and passing game student, was hired as Offensive Coordinator by the Cowboys under Landry in '83 I believe. It didn't work out because Hackett's learned idea of flexibility conflicted with the "fixed" philosophy Landry held. So Landry was an example of many
coaches who didn't "get" what Bill was doing at the time.
How would Coach Walsh have changed that play? Ha. The fullback that is the lead blocker would have ran an "up" pattern off the run block fake. The Halfback would have ran a swing pattern after the sweep fake.
The Flanker's crossing pattern would remain. The Split End would have ran a fly pattern. So the order of recever progression would have been 1) Split End, 2) Flanker, 3) Fullback, 4) Halfback (hot receiver). The key read would have been the weak (free) safety. The Split End was essentially clearing out for the Flanker, who was clearing out for the fullback.
See?
That's not just an example of how Coach Walsh would have done it, it's an example of how his way is so basic and logical that it can be shown to a guy like me, and I can repeat it with confidence.
That's a pure tribute to the man.
But what I will most miss, Ray, is Coach Walsh as a member of the Bay Area sports community -- don't forget the impact he had on the Big Game rivalry.
You know, we're blessed to be around so many great people in one area of America. What a sad day. I was at JFK Airport in New York when I got the news Monday. The plane ride home -- from CNN -- was hard, so very hard. Reading Coach Dungy's book "Quiet Strength" helped some -- a good book by a great man who -- as one might expect -- was touched
by Coach Walsh.
49ers and Stanford Coach Bill Walsh Passes Away - NFL.com
Hall of Fame coach Bill Walsh dies
NFL.com wire reports
SAN FRANCISCO (July 30, 2007) -- Bill Walsh, the groundbreaking football coach who won three Super Bowls and perfected the ingenious schemes that became known as the West Coast offense during a Hall of Fame career with the San Francisco 49ers, has died. He was 75.
Walsh died at his Woodside home following a long battle with leukemia, according to Stanford University, where he served as coach and athletic director.
"This is just a tremendous loss for all of us, especially to the Bay Area because of what he meant to the 49ers," said Hall of Fame quarterback Joe Montana, the player most closely linked to Walsh's tenure with the team. "For me personally, outside of my dad he was probably the most influential person in my life. I am going to miss him."
Walsh didn't become an NFL head coach until 47, and he spent just 10 seasons on the San Francisco sideline. But he left an indelible mark on the United States' most popular sport, building the once-woebegone 49ers into the most successful team of the 1980s with his innovative offensive strategies and teaching techniques.
The soft-spoken native Californian also produced a legion of coaching disciples that's still growing today. Many of his former assistants went on to lead their own teams, handing down Walsh's methods and schemes to dozens more coaches in a tree with innumerable branches.
Walsh went 102-63-1 with the 49ers, winning 10 of his 14 postseason games along with six division titles. He was named the NFL's coach of the year in 1981 and 1984.
Few men did more to shape the look of football into the 21st century. His cerebral nature and often-brilliant stratagems earned him the nickname "The Genius" well before his election to the Pro Football Hall of Fame in 1993.
Walsh twice served as the 49ers' general manager, and George Seifert led San Francisco to two more Super Bowl titles after Walsh left the sideline. Walsh also coached Stanford during two terms over five seasons.
Bill Walsh turned the struggling 49ers into the Team of the '80s.
Even a short list of Walsh's adherents is stunning. Seifert, Mike Holmgren, Dennis Green, Sam Wyche, Ray Rhodes and Bruce Coslet all became NFL head coaches after serving on Walsh's San Francisco staffs, and Tony Dungy played for him. Most of his former assistants passed on Walsh's structures and strategies to a new generation of coaches, including Mike Shanahan, Jon Gruden, Brian Billick, Andy Reid, Pete Carroll, Gary Kubiak, Steve Mariucci and Jeff Fisher.
Walsh created the Minority Coaching Fellowship program in 1987, helping minority coaches to get a foothold in a previously lily-white profession. Marvin Lewis and Tyrone Willingham are among the coaches who went through the program, later adopted as a league-wide initiative.
He also helped to establish the World League of American Football -- what was NFL Europe -- in 1994, taking the sport around the globe as a development ground for the NFL.
Walsh was diagnosed with leukemia in 2004 and underwent months of treatment and blood transfusions. He publicly disclosed his illness in November 2006, but appeared at a tribute for retired receiver Jerry Rice two weeks later.
While Walsh recuperated from a round of chemotherapy in late 2006, he received visits from former players and assistant coaches, as well as California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Sen. Dianne Feinstein.
Born William Ernest Walsh on Nov. 30, 1931 in Los Angeles, he was a self-described "average" end and a sometime boxer at San Jose State in 1952-53.
Walsh, whose family moved to the Bay Area when he was a teen-ager, married his college sweetheart, Geri Nardini, in 1954 and started his coaching career at Washington High School in Fremont, leading the football and swim teams.
Walsh was coaching in Fremont when he interviewed for an assistant coaching position with Levy, who had just been hired as the head coach at California.
"I was very impressed, individually, by his knowledge, by his intelligence, by his personality and hired him," Levy said.
After Cal, he did a stint at Stanford before beginning his pro coaching career as an assistant with the AFL's Oakland Raiders in 1966, forging a friendship with Al Davis that endured through decades of rivalry. Walsh joined the Cincinnati Bengals in 1968 to work for legendary coach Paul Brown, who gradually gave complete control of the Bengals' offense to his assistant.
Walsh built a scheme based on the teachings of Davis, Brown and Sid Gillman -- and Walsh's own innovations, which included everything from short dropbacks and novel receiving routes to constant repetition of every play in practice.
Though it originated in Cincinnati, it became known many years later as the West Coast offense -- a name Walsh never liked or repeated, but which eventually grew to encompass his offensive philosophy and the many tweaks added by Holmgren, Shanahan and other coaches.
Much of the NFL eventually ran a version of the West Coast in the 1990s, with its fundamental belief that the passing game can set up an effective running attack, rather than the opposite conventional wisdom.
Walsh also is widely credited with inventing or popularizing many of the modern basics of coaching, from the laminated sheets of plays held by coaches on almost every sideline, to the practice of scripting the first 15 offensive plays of a game.
After a bitter falling-out with Brown in 1976, Walsh left for stints with the San Diego Chargers and Stanford before the 49ers chose him to rebuild the franchise in 1979.
The long-suffering 49ers went 2-14 before Walsh's arrival. They repeated the record in his first season. Walsh doubted his abilities to turn around such a miserable situation -- but earlier in 1979, the 49ers drafted quarterback Joe Montana from Notre Dame.
Walsh turned over the starting job to Montana in 1980, when the 49ers improved to 6-10 -- and improbably, San Francisco won its first championship in 1981, only two years after winning two games.
Championships followed in the postseasons of 1984 and 1988 as Walsh built a consistent winner and became an icon with his inventive offense and thinking-man's approach to the game. He also showed considerable acumen in personnel, adding Ronnie Lott, Charles Haley, Roger Craig and Rice to his rosters after he was named the 49ers' general manager in 1982 and the president in 1985.
Walsh left the 49ers with a profound case of burnout after his third Super Bowl victory in January 1989, though he later regretted not coaching longer.
He spent three years as a broadcaster with NBC before returning to Stanford for three seasons. He then took charge of the 49ers' front office in 1999, helping to rebuild the roster over three seasons. But Walsh gradually cut ties with the 49ers after his hand-picked successor as GM, Terry Donahue, took over in 2001.
He is survived by his wife, Geri, and two children, Craig and Elizabeth.
Walsh's son, Steve, an ABC News reporter, died of leukemia at age 46 in 2002.
1-18-08 - Monster Movie Not Godzilla: J.J. Abrams' Cloverfield
In this video taken at the San Diego Comic-Con, J.J. Abrams, the producer of the upcoming " Cloverfield " movie does say that the movie is not a Godzilla remake. He explains that he was in Japan with his son and in buying toys considered that America really doens't have its own terrible giant monster, with the exception of King Kong.
This movie's going to change that.
He also gives some updates -- real good updates -- about Star Trek XI
Monday, July 30, 2007
New York Jets Training Camp Video - Jets Confidential
It's the start of training camp and the first football games of preseason are not far away. While in New York for my CNN appearance, I went to New York Jets Training Camp with my good friend and business buddy Bill Chachkes. In this video we get a glimpse of the Jets passing offense, Chad Pennington, and an interview with Dan Leberfeld of Jets Confidential
Study: Young Americans Have "Warmest" Feelings Toward Barack Obama
The Democracy Corps study on young people and politics that reveals Republicans to be alienated from America's youth (18 to 31) also shows that Senator Barack Obama has earned the "warmest" feelings of America's young voters.
The study question goes like this:
"Now, I'd like to rate your feelings toward some people and organizations, with one hundred meaning a VERY WARM, FAVORABLE feeling; zero meaning a VERY COLD, UNFAVORABLE feeling; and fifty meaning not particularly warm or cold."
Here's the resulting graph results:
The study question goes like this:
"Now, I'd like to rate your feelings toward some people and organizations, with one hundred meaning a VERY WARM, FAVORABLE feeling; zero meaning a VERY COLD, UNFAVORABLE feeling; and fifty meaning not particularly warm or cold."
Here's the resulting graph results:
Study: Republicans Alienate Youth; Will Lose Presidential Race To Democrats
A new study, which you can get a copy of by just clicking on the title of this post, reveals that the Republican Party is so out of touch with America's young people that the party will lose the 2008 Presidential race for that reason alone. Here's more directly from the study...
"A major, multi-mode survey of America’s young people recently conducted by Democracy Corps shows young people profoundly alienated from the Republican Party and poised to deliver a significant majority to the Democratic nominee for President in 2008.1 The political stakes with this generation could not be higher.
In 2008, young people (ages 18-31) will number 50 million, bigger than the baby boom generation.
By 2015 they will likely comprise one-third of the U.S. electorate. While participation among young people still lags well behind other generations, turnout increased two election cycles in a row and, in 2004, jumped nine points (to 49 percent).2 In 2004, younger voters were the only generational cohort outside of the World War II generation to support John Kerry (56 percent). In 2006, younger voters supported Democrats by a 60 – 38 percent margin, the highest of any generation.3
The looming disaster Republicans face among younger voters represents a setback that could haunt them for many generations to come. Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama lead Rudy Giuliani—the most acceptable of the Republican offerings among youth—by significant margins, assembling a diverse coalition of support and leading the vote among independents.
Exploring attitudes toward the parties themselves, young voters’ reaction to fundamental issues and their perceptions of the GOP suggest a fundamental alienation from the Republican Party, a crisis that will not leave with the Bush administration.
Young people react with hostility to the Republicans on almost every measure and Republicans and younger voters disagree on almost every major issue of the day. The range of the issue disagreements range from the most prominent issues of the day (Iraq, immigration) to burning social issues (gay marriage, abortion) to fundamental ideological disagreements over
the size and scope of government. This leaves both potential Democratic nominees with substantial leads over Rudy Giuliani, but importantly, both Democrats still have room to grow their support among younger voters. The current problems with the Republican brand are not fully reflected in young people’s preferences in for President."
"A major, multi-mode survey of America’s young people recently conducted by Democracy Corps shows young people profoundly alienated from the Republican Party and poised to deliver a significant majority to the Democratic nominee for President in 2008.1 The political stakes with this generation could not be higher.
In 2008, young people (ages 18-31) will number 50 million, bigger than the baby boom generation.
By 2015 they will likely comprise one-third of the U.S. electorate. While participation among young people still lags well behind other generations, turnout increased two election cycles in a row and, in 2004, jumped nine points (to 49 percent).2 In 2004, younger voters were the only generational cohort outside of the World War II generation to support John Kerry (56 percent). In 2006, younger voters supported Democrats by a 60 – 38 percent margin, the highest of any generation.3
The looming disaster Republicans face among younger voters represents a setback that could haunt them for many generations to come. Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama lead Rudy Giuliani—the most acceptable of the Republican offerings among youth—by significant margins, assembling a diverse coalition of support and leading the vote among independents.
Exploring attitudes toward the parties themselves, young voters’ reaction to fundamental issues and their perceptions of the GOP suggest a fundamental alienation from the Republican Party, a crisis that will not leave with the Bush administration.
Young people react with hostility to the Republicans on almost every measure and Republicans and younger voters disagree on almost every major issue of the day. The range of the issue disagreements range from the most prominent issues of the day (Iraq, immigration) to burning social issues (gay marriage, abortion) to fundamental ideological disagreements over
the size and scope of government. This leaves both potential Democratic nominees with substantial leads over Rudy Giuliani, but importantly, both Democrats still have room to grow their support among younger voters. The current problems with the Republican brand are not fully reflected in young people’s preferences in for President."
Barack Obama's Call For A Change In Diplomacy - AP News
This article refers to the fact that Senator Clinton's shifted her position on this topic.
Obama Calls for Shift in Diplomacy - AP
By MIKE GLOVER 07.28.07, 1:25 PM ET
DES MOINES, Iowa -
Democrat Barack Obama cast himself Saturday as the leader the United States needs for it to stand up to and engage renegade nations such as North Korea.
'We need a president who'll have the strength and courage to go toe to toe with the leaders of rogue nations, because that's what it takes to protect our security," the Illinois senator told Democrats at a rally. "That's what I'll do as your next commander in chief."
Obama and rival Hillary Rodham Clinton have had a running argument since clashing in last week's debate over how far the United States should be willing to go in its diplomacy with countries such as Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea.
After a viewer asked the candidates if they would be willing to meet with those nations' leaders, Obama said it was a disgrace that the U.S. won't hold talks with them. For role models, he invoked late presidents John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan for their Cold War diplomacy.
Clinton, who has criticized the Bush administration for not engaging Iran and Syria directly, said she would not meet in the first year of her presidency with the leaders of those five nations, before knowing what their intentions were. After the debate, Clinton called Obama naive.
On Saturday, Obama said he would be willing to meet - without conditions - in the first year of his presidency with the leaders of those nations, contrary to "the chattering class" in the nation's capital who "want to focus, like they always do, on who's up and who's down."
Defending his position, Obama cited Kennedy's 1961 inaugural address saying that the nation must never negotiate out of fear, but also never fear to negotiate.
"I was called irresponsible and naive because I believe that there is nobody we can't talk to," said Obama, drawing loud cheers. "We've got nothing to fear as long as know who we are and what we stand for and our values."
Obama said his campaign was about "turning the page on a failed foreign policy and having the strength to engage our adversaries and protect American interests around the globe."
When dealing with renegade nations, Obama said, the Bush administration has mistakenly been led by a "guiding diplomatic principle" that it can punish a nation by refusing to talk.
"I am confident we can go before the world and talk to the worst dictators and tell them we don't believe in your values, we don't believe in your human rights violations, we don't believe in you exporting terrorism, but if you are willing to work with us in a better direction then we're willing to talk," Obama said. "We shouldn't be afraid."
Obama Calls for Shift in Diplomacy - AP
By MIKE GLOVER 07.28.07, 1:25 PM ET
DES MOINES, Iowa -
Democrat Barack Obama cast himself Saturday as the leader the United States needs for it to stand up to and engage renegade nations such as North Korea.
'We need a president who'll have the strength and courage to go toe to toe with the leaders of rogue nations, because that's what it takes to protect our security," the Illinois senator told Democrats at a rally. "That's what I'll do as your next commander in chief."
Obama and rival Hillary Rodham Clinton have had a running argument since clashing in last week's debate over how far the United States should be willing to go in its diplomacy with countries such as Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea.
After a viewer asked the candidates if they would be willing to meet with those nations' leaders, Obama said it was a disgrace that the U.S. won't hold talks with them. For role models, he invoked late presidents John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan for their Cold War diplomacy.
Clinton, who has criticized the Bush administration for not engaging Iran and Syria directly, said she would not meet in the first year of her presidency with the leaders of those five nations, before knowing what their intentions were. After the debate, Clinton called Obama naive.
On Saturday, Obama said he would be willing to meet - without conditions - in the first year of his presidency with the leaders of those nations, contrary to "the chattering class" in the nation's capital who "want to focus, like they always do, on who's up and who's down."
Defending his position, Obama cited Kennedy's 1961 inaugural address saying that the nation must never negotiate out of fear, but also never fear to negotiate.
"I was called irresponsible and naive because I believe that there is nobody we can't talk to," said Obama, drawing loud cheers. "We've got nothing to fear as long as know who we are and what we stand for and our values."
Obama said his campaign was about "turning the page on a failed foreign policy and having the strength to engage our adversaries and protect American interests around the globe."
When dealing with renegade nations, Obama said, the Bush administration has mistakenly been led by a "guiding diplomatic principle" that it can punish a nation by refusing to talk.
"I am confident we can go before the world and talk to the worst dictators and tell them we don't believe in your values, we don't believe in your human rights violations, we don't believe in you exporting terrorism, but if you are willing to work with us in a better direction then we're willing to talk," Obama said. "We shouldn't be afraid."
Sunday, July 29, 2007
Iron Man Movie Debut At San Diego Comic-Con
Wow. This is a movie that can only be done using today's CGI technology. Plus, in casting Robert Downey, Jr. as the modern Tony Stark, they may have just got him right. Check this out:
The CNN Roland Martin Debates Show in NYC - Zennie's Transcript
CNN's just posted the transcript from the CNN Roland Martin Debates Show which was shown on Friday, July 27, 2007. Here's the text below. But some information, first my name is spelled Zennie, not Zenni. That's about it; here it is:
MARTIN: Joining me now, the four people you just saw asking those YouTube questions. Kim Friedrich, a working mom who's battling breast cancer; Lucas Brown Eyes, and award winning film student; Zenni Abraham, CEO of Sports Business Simulations, and Lori Harfenist, a TV producer from New York.
Now Kim, I got to start with you. You got lots of attention worldwide as a result of your question.
FRIEDRICH: Yes, I did.
MARTIN: And a lot of people were shocked when you took your wig off. What led you to say: I need to do this, to get this point across?
FRIEDRICH: Actually it was anger at Senator Edwards and his wife. The day that Mrs. Edwards, that they had that press conference that she had cancer again, I heard one thing out of it. In 48 hours, she went from thinking she had an unrelated problem to cancer, to finding out that she might have cancer to having tests, to having biopsy, to having treatment all in 48 hours. I was home having -- recovering from my biopsy at the time and what took me four months, that's what they did in 48 hours, because I didn't have health insurance.
MARTIN: You know what? We got a lot of questions in this debate dealing with healthcare, and that's really personal to me, because like a lot of folks, in 2000, covered the Democratic National Convention, my appendix ruptured, in the hospital five days, $70,000 and frankly, I ended up having to file for bankruptcy because the healthcare bills were absolutely phenomenal.
Kim, you talked about the anger. Lucas, talk about that, because a lot of folks were angry.
BROWN EYES: Yeah.
MARTIN: In the questions, they were really upset.
BROWN EYES: Well, that's because the people who feel like they're not heard are angry. If you don't feel like you're being heard, you're going to be angry. And YouTube allowed them to speak. So naturally, you're going to get a lot of anger. Like my generation, I'm going to college and a lot of my friends are angry because they can't afford to go to college, so they're going to a college that isn't their first choice, they're going to a community when they can't afford it and they're angry about it, which prompted me to make my video.
ABRAHAM: His anger came out as humor.
(INAUDIBLE)
MARTIN: Now, that was good, that was good. Now Laura, talk about that. This whole issue of this YouTube debate. Has it really advanced the political process? Do you think it really changed anything?
HARFENIST: I think it did because I think it got people really thinking that they can actually make a difference for a change. I know, for myself, before I even voted I felt completely apathetic because politics seems over here, everyone seems the same. This forum really allowed people to, you know, come into more -- all the candidates in a more natural vernacular, they lost the finger pointing a lot, which I really appreciated. Unfortunately it's back, right now.
But, I was happy to see that it made it feel approachable. I think young people are going to start voting a lot more because they feel like, wow, you know what? I can actually make a difference.
MARTIN: And we saw a large spike in terms of the 18-49 demo, really watching, now.
Zenni, let's talk about this debate, took place four days ago.
ABRAHAM: That's right.
MARTIN: People are still talking about it.
ABRAHAM: That's right.
MARTIN: I mean, it's amazing.
ABRAHAM: But you know what's interesting about the debate, it's not just that people are still talking about it, but it's the first that we have had a television debate and an Internet presentation of the debate inform the national conversation. For example, you know about the Senator Obama, Senator Clinton spat.
MARTIN: Yeah, and it's still going on.
ABRAHAM: But something else, though, there have been five different videos that have presented different views that Senator Clinton has given on the same subject and accused her of flip-flopping and so now it's starting to change in a way, such that by next week we're going to have a different conversation and that's because of YouTube and it's fascinating what's happening.
MARTIN: So many folks are logging on and people are really talking about it and that's what's important to me, the fact that we're getting people involved in this campaign, because I'm sick of the media, frankly, folks, my colleagues keep saying, oh, this is so long, you think, like that. This is for the presidency, the commander in chief.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Right.
MARTIN: I mean, give me a break. We spend more time picking a car than we do for the president.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That's right.
HARFENIST: I thing that's the country's really sick of the way that everything is. Everyone wants to feel proud of being an American again, and our foreign policy and you know, rally behind the presidency and this is our opportunity to do it, so we should definitely start now.
FRIEDRICH: Yeah well, people are tired of the president just being an automaton, too. Just saying the same things over and over again and it just seems like they don't even mean it anymore. I want to see the real people. I want to see what they really think and what they really believe.
ABRAHAM: You know what's interesting, and this has to be brought out, is that next debate, the Republican debate, you're only going to see two of them. So, I think the Republicans are afraid -- they didn't come to the NAACP convention...
FRIEDRICH: I hope not.
Yeah. I mean, but Kim, how do you feel about that? I mean, you have 10 Republican candidates, only two have said, yeah, I'll be happy to show up. In fact, Mitt Romney even criticized the debate saying, well, he didn't want to get asked a question about a snowman. I mean, as if your question was simply about -- a snowman. As if the other questions were considered to be meaningless. How does that make you feel?
FRIEDRICH: Well, actually, I think it's funny. I think it's funny that a rival network that's a minion of the Republican party, if you can beg that phrase, they accuse the Democrats of being scared because they wouldn't be on their channel. And it seems like the Republicans are running scared of people -- actual, real people. And that's what we are.
ABRAHAM: Especially African-Americans.
MARTIN: Lori.
HARFENIST: Absolutely, it speaks for itself. You know? If you don't want answer questions that real people are putting out there -- you know -- it speaks volumes for...
MARTIN: Would that affect your decision to vote for a Republican candidate if they chose not to show up for the September 17 CNN/YouTube debate?
BROWN EYES: Extremely because YouTube, this whole debate got me into politics. I registered to vote because of this.
MARTIN: I mean, this is your first election? Your first time you vote?
BROWN EYES: This is my first time to vote. I just turned 18. Now, this has got so many of my friends to actually start watching the debates. You know? Everyone's talking about it and if the Republicans don't show up, that's going to be a big, like, what?
ABRAHAM: And you won't vote for them.
BROWN EYES: I won't. I'll be like, what are you so afraid of? Why are you afraid of hearing what we have to say?
MARTIN: I'll tell you what. I certainly appreciate the fact that all of you stepped out there, put your questions out there, and hopefully more people will get engaged, because again, this is the commander in chief and there, frankly, is no more important decision that we can make, than we choose a president of the United States.
I thank all of you. Kim Friedrich, Lori Harfenist, Lucas Brown Eyes, and Zenni Abraham. Thanks a lot.
ABRAHAM: I have the brown eyes.
MARTIN: I appreciate that. Folks, you can catch the CNN/YouTube debate again this weekend Saturday and Sunday at 9:00 p.m. Eastern.
MARTIN: Joining me now, the four people you just saw asking those YouTube questions. Kim Friedrich, a working mom who's battling breast cancer; Lucas Brown Eyes, and award winning film student; Zenni Abraham, CEO of Sports Business Simulations, and Lori Harfenist, a TV producer from New York.
Now Kim, I got to start with you. You got lots of attention worldwide as a result of your question.
FRIEDRICH: Yes, I did.
MARTIN: And a lot of people were shocked when you took your wig off. What led you to say: I need to do this, to get this point across?
FRIEDRICH: Actually it was anger at Senator Edwards and his wife. The day that Mrs. Edwards, that they had that press conference that she had cancer again, I heard one thing out of it. In 48 hours, she went from thinking she had an unrelated problem to cancer, to finding out that she might have cancer to having tests, to having biopsy, to having treatment all in 48 hours. I was home having -- recovering from my biopsy at the time and what took me four months, that's what they did in 48 hours, because I didn't have health insurance.
MARTIN: You know what? We got a lot of questions in this debate dealing with healthcare, and that's really personal to me, because like a lot of folks, in 2000, covered the Democratic National Convention, my appendix ruptured, in the hospital five days, $70,000 and frankly, I ended up having to file for bankruptcy because the healthcare bills were absolutely phenomenal.
Kim, you talked about the anger. Lucas, talk about that, because a lot of folks were angry.
BROWN EYES: Yeah.
MARTIN: In the questions, they were really upset.
BROWN EYES: Well, that's because the people who feel like they're not heard are angry. If you don't feel like you're being heard, you're going to be angry. And YouTube allowed them to speak. So naturally, you're going to get a lot of anger. Like my generation, I'm going to college and a lot of my friends are angry because they can't afford to go to college, so they're going to a college that isn't their first choice, they're going to a community when they can't afford it and they're angry about it, which prompted me to make my video.
ABRAHAM: His anger came out as humor.
(INAUDIBLE)
MARTIN: Now, that was good, that was good. Now Laura, talk about that. This whole issue of this YouTube debate. Has it really advanced the political process? Do you think it really changed anything?
HARFENIST: I think it did because I think it got people really thinking that they can actually make a difference for a change. I know, for myself, before I even voted I felt completely apathetic because politics seems over here, everyone seems the same. This forum really allowed people to, you know, come into more -- all the candidates in a more natural vernacular, they lost the finger pointing a lot, which I really appreciated. Unfortunately it's back, right now.
But, I was happy to see that it made it feel approachable. I think young people are going to start voting a lot more because they feel like, wow, you know what? I can actually make a difference.
MARTIN: And we saw a large spike in terms of the 18-49 demo, really watching, now.
Zenni, let's talk about this debate, took place four days ago.
ABRAHAM: That's right.
MARTIN: People are still talking about it.
ABRAHAM: That's right.
MARTIN: I mean, it's amazing.
ABRAHAM: But you know what's interesting about the debate, it's not just that people are still talking about it, but it's the first that we have had a television debate and an Internet presentation of the debate inform the national conversation. For example, you know about the Senator Obama, Senator Clinton spat.
MARTIN: Yeah, and it's still going on.
ABRAHAM: But something else, though, there have been five different videos that have presented different views that Senator Clinton has given on the same subject and accused her of flip-flopping and so now it's starting to change in a way, such that by next week we're going to have a different conversation and that's because of YouTube and it's fascinating what's happening.
MARTIN: So many folks are logging on and people are really talking about it and that's what's important to me, the fact that we're getting people involved in this campaign, because I'm sick of the media, frankly, folks, my colleagues keep saying, oh, this is so long, you think, like that. This is for the presidency, the commander in chief.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Right.
MARTIN: I mean, give me a break. We spend more time picking a car than we do for the president.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That's right.
HARFENIST: I thing that's the country's really sick of the way that everything is. Everyone wants to feel proud of being an American again, and our foreign policy and you know, rally behind the presidency and this is our opportunity to do it, so we should definitely start now.
FRIEDRICH: Yeah well, people are tired of the president just being an automaton, too. Just saying the same things over and over again and it just seems like they don't even mean it anymore. I want to see the real people. I want to see what they really think and what they really believe.
ABRAHAM: You know what's interesting, and this has to be brought out, is that next debate, the Republican debate, you're only going to see two of them. So, I think the Republicans are afraid -- they didn't come to the NAACP convention...
FRIEDRICH: I hope not.
Yeah. I mean, but Kim, how do you feel about that? I mean, you have 10 Republican candidates, only two have said, yeah, I'll be happy to show up. In fact, Mitt Romney even criticized the debate saying, well, he didn't want to get asked a question about a snowman. I mean, as if your question was simply about -- a snowman. As if the other questions were considered to be meaningless. How does that make you feel?
FRIEDRICH: Well, actually, I think it's funny. I think it's funny that a rival network that's a minion of the Republican party, if you can beg that phrase, they accuse the Democrats of being scared because they wouldn't be on their channel. And it seems like the Republicans are running scared of people -- actual, real people. And that's what we are.
ABRAHAM: Especially African-Americans.
MARTIN: Lori.
HARFENIST: Absolutely, it speaks for itself. You know? If you don't want answer questions that real people are putting out there -- you know -- it speaks volumes for...
MARTIN: Would that affect your decision to vote for a Republican candidate if they chose not to show up for the September 17 CNN/YouTube debate?
BROWN EYES: Extremely because YouTube, this whole debate got me into politics. I registered to vote because of this.
MARTIN: I mean, this is your first election? Your first time you vote?
BROWN EYES: This is my first time to vote. I just turned 18. Now, this has got so many of my friends to actually start watching the debates. You know? Everyone's talking about it and if the Republicans don't show up, that's going to be a big, like, what?
ABRAHAM: And you won't vote for them.
BROWN EYES: I won't. I'll be like, what are you so afraid of? Why are you afraid of hearing what we have to say?
MARTIN: I'll tell you what. I certainly appreciate the fact that all of you stepped out there, put your questions out there, and hopefully more people will get engaged, because again, this is the commander in chief and there, frankly, is no more important decision that we can make, than we choose a president of the United States.
I thank all of you. Kim Friedrich, Lori Harfenist, Lucas Brown Eyes, and Zenni Abraham. Thanks a lot.
ABRAHAM: I have the brown eyes.
MARTIN: I appreciate that. Folks, you can catch the CNN/YouTube debate again this weekend Saturday and Sunday at 9:00 p.m. Eastern.
Oakland Raiders Broke? JaMarcus Russell Deal May Be Five Years Due To Revenue Problems - Profootballtalk.com
I figured the Oakland Raiders may have problems signing a quaterback on time, even with the new CBA. They're still playing in the Oakland Coliseum, which needs to be re-designed to generate more revenue.
RUSSELL DEAL COULD BE FOR FIVE YEARS - Rumor from Profootballtalk.com
A league source tells us that the negotiation of a contract between the Raiders and No. 1 overall pick JaMarcus Russell has been and will continue to be a difficult process, and that the Raiders might end up signing Russell a five-year deal.
Per the source, there are whispers of cash issues in Oakland that could prevent the team from funding a six-year package. Though we don't know whether that's a certainty, there's definitely some wisdom in scaling the contract back by a year, since no one knows at this point whether Russell will be a Peyton Manning or a Ryan Leaf. If it's the latter, the team has less money at risk.
Russell is represented by the firm of Metz, Lock, and Malinovic. They also represent receiver Dwayne Bowe. The No. 23 overall selection is a holdout in Kansas City. Said the source about the situation in Oakland, "It will be a long holdout unless the agents take a bad deal."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)