text:
'This Week' Transcript: Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner
Transcript: Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner
Feb. 7, 2010 — -- ABC News: This Week
Jake Tapper Interview with Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner
TAPPER: The latest jobs numbers are disappointing in a lot of ways. Larry Summers was on this broadcast in December and he said that the economy would be creating jobs by the spring. Do you still believe that to be true?
GEITHNER: Absolutely. But remember where we were a year ago. You know, you had an economy that was shrinking at an annual rate of 6 percent. Three-quarters of a million Americans were losing their jobs every month. And the president acted with enormous force and care to get this economy growing again.
And the economy is now growing again. So we're seeing some encouraging signs of healing. This is going to take a while, and it's going to be uneven. But there's encouraging signs in this report. The unemployment came down modestly and created jobs back in November.
And our job, our responsibility is to make sure we're working very hard to reinforce this recovery. And we're seeing this growth that has just been established translate into more jobs.
TAPPER: How possible is it that we're going to have a double dip recession?
GEITHNER: I think we -- we have much, much lower risk of that today than at any time over the last 12 months or so. Again just think of where we are. We are in an economy that was growing at the rate of almost 6 percent of GDP in the fourth quarter of last year. The most rapid rate in six years. So we are beginning the process of healing.
And we have the capacity as a government to try to make sure we are reinforcing that process. And we help guide this economy back to the point where we're not just growing again, but we've seen growth translate into jobs. And that we're reaching the lives of all Americans.
TAPPER: I think a lot of Americans wonder if you're doing enough. There was a more than $800 billion stimulus package. They're talking now on the Hill about a more than $100 billion jobs package. But still, if you look at the budget that you guys introduced, you're still projecting 10 percent unemployment this year, more than 9 percent next year, more than 8 percent next year.
I realize that's going in the right direction, but it's still a staggeringly high number of unemployed. Are you doing enough?
GEITHNER: We need to -- we have more work to do, absolutely we have more work to do. And you heard the president at the State of the Union say, we want to work with the Congress now to try to make sure we are creating incentives to create more jobs, we're encouraging business investment, we're putting resources into infrastructure, we're giving help to state and local governments.
And it is very important people understand that we have more work to do and we can afford that, it's important to it, our basic priority still is to make sure that this growth we're seeing now, which is very encouraging, translates into more jobs more quickly.
TAPPER: The new senator from Massachusetts, Scott Brown, one of the first things he said after being sworn in was that the stimulus package has not created one job.
BROWN:"The last stimulus bill didn't create one new job. And in some states, the money that was actually released hasn't even been used yet."
GEITHNER: Oh, I don't think there's any basis for that judgment. I mean, again, just think where we were. January of 2009, three-quarters of a million Americans losing their jobs. We have an economy now that's growing again. With growth you're going to see jobs created.
Again, we already saw some job -- a month where we had positive job growth. But, you know, it's going to take a while. It took a long time for these problems to develop. They're going to take some time to heal. But we're in a much stronger position today.
But our priority has to be, and I think you see broad recognition of this now, is to make sure we're working very hard to make sure that we're seeing this growth translate into more jobs to reach more Americans.
TAPPER: Some critics wonder how hard you're working when they look at, for instance, last March. You and the president introduced a program to shore up $15 billion in loans for small businesses. And according to the special inspector general for TARP, Neil Barofsky, no details for that plan have come out, none of that money has been disbursed, that's last March, it's the 7A program.
Have there been programs that you've introduced that just have not worked?
GEITHNER: Look, the programs that the president supported in the Recovery Act were very, very effective. You saw small -- lending by the Small Business Administration increase by more than 70 percent -- 75 percent from the lows. And we have been very effective at trying to make sure we're opening up the broader credit markets to companies around the world.
Again, remember where we were in January of last year. You know, if you were a company, large or small, if you were a family trying to borrow to buy a house or borrow to buy a car or put your kids in college, or you were a municipal government, you did not know whether you were going to be able to get a loan.
So it is tougher out -- it is tough out there still, but we have made dramatic progress in trying to make sure we bring stability to this financial system at much, much lower cost than anybody anticipated.
You know, again, last February, people thought it was going to cost maybe half a trillion dollars to put out this financial fire, and by getting private capital to come in and replace our investments, by allowing to bring those investments back out of the banking system, we've saved the taxpayer lots of money, and we have resources now we can use to try to make sure we're working very hard to meet our -- you know the many other challenges we face as a country.
TAPPER: Isn't the problem though not so much that the credit is not available, but that the businesses are not taking out the loans because nobody is buying anything?
GEITHNER: Well, again, you know, we had a huge shock to the American economy. And you're still living with the aftermath -- the aftershocks of that basic trauma. So businesses were very, very cautious. But if you look at what's happening today across the country, you're seeing again the first signs now of businesses starting to take some risk again, starting to invest again, and starting to add jobs back again.
But, you know, our job is to make sure we're working to reinforce that process.
TAPPER: The Congress just voted to raise the debt ceiling to more than $14 trillion dollars. Moody's, the bond rater, just said, quote, "unless further measures are taken to reduce the budget deficit further or the economy rebounds more vigorously than expected, the federal financial picture for the next decade will at some point put pressure on the triple-A government bond rating.
Is the United States going to lose its triple-A government bond rating? And what happens when the credit markets are no longer willing to buy U.S. debt?
GEITHNER: Absolutely not. And that will never happen to this country. And again, if you step back and look at what has happened throughout this crisis, when people were most worried about the stability of the world, they still found safety in Treasuries and the dollar. You're still seeing that every time. People are reminded again about the many challenges you see around the world.
That is a very, very important sign of basic confidence in our capacity as a country to work together to fix these problems. We've done it in the past. We -- this is within our capacity to do. And the best way to get there is going to make sure that this economy is growing again. That translates into more jobs that reach more Americans.
That's the only path to try to make sure that we're able to turn to -- fix our long-term fiscal problems.
TAPPER: Do you think the budget that the administration just introduced takes enough serious measures to reduce the debt? I see that there is some tinkering here with spending freeze, some tax increases, letting the Bush tax cuts expire for the wealthiest Americans. But do you think it's a serious attempt?
GEITHNER: Absolutely. Again, look what the president proposed. The president proposed to cap non-security discretionary spending.
TAPPER: That's only one-eighth of the budget.
GEITHNER: No, but that's a very important thing to do. And that requires -- you know, we have some very tough choices to make, and we outline in that budget some things that are going to be very unpopular and hard for people to make people understand or recognize we have some tough choices to make.
We work with Congress and the House passed yesterday the restoration of basic disciplines in budgeting that all Americans live with so that...
TAPPER: Pay-go...
GEITHNER: ... we have to make sure we pay for new programs. You're seeing, again, across the political spectrum now a basic recognition that deficits matter. Very good for people to understand, again, that deficits matter. That tax cuts aren't free. Got to pay for our programs. And we've proposed in the budget some important steps to restore some basic fairness to our tax code and begin the process of bringing down those deficits.
And again, the president's budget proposes to bring the deficit down from its current levels very, very sharply to below 4 percent of GDP over the next four years or so. And we want to work with Congress to set up a bipartisan commission to try to make sure that we're going beyond that to address our long-term problems.
TAPPER: Do you think the fact that you guys are pushing the bipartisan commission is indicative of the fact that our political system is not capable of taking on the serious challenges our nation faces?
You and I know that the money, as Willie Sutton says, said, that -- why do you rob banks? Because that's where the money is. The money is in entitlement programs: Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, things that you do not touch in this budget.
The fact that you need a bipartisan commission to recommend cuts or tax increases, doesn't that indicate that our political system is incapable of making these tough decisions?
GEITHNER: Jake, I am very confident in our ability as a country to bring people together and make sure we are solving these challenges and these problems. We've done it in the past, it is completely within our capacity to do as a country.
But of course, it requires you bringing people together across the aisle to step back from politics, to try to bring practical solutions to things that are very important to our future as a country. And the president is committed to do that.
We're going to give the Republican Party the chance to share in the responsibility and the burden and the privilege of trying to fix the things that were broken in this country.
TAPPER: Republicans are afraid this is just a back door for tax increases. Are you willing to say that tax increases are off the table for this commission? Let's sit down and talk about the long-term structural problems with entitlement spending?
GEITHNER: The president's view, and this is a view shared by many Republicans, and it builds on what we've seen with effective commissions in the past, like the Greenspan commission that President Reagan established to help restore the financial footing of Social Security, is that for this to work, you've got to bring people together to step back from politics, day-to-day politics, and to bring fresh ideas to solve these kind of problems.
That's the only way to do it, we think. And we're committed to doing that. We've got to do it on a bipartisan basis, and we're deeply serious about doing this.
TAPPER: The president, during his State of the Union address, also talked about a deficit of trust, the fact that Americans don't trust government.
OBAMA:"We have to recognize that we face more than a deficit of dollars right now; we face a deficit of trust. Deep and corrosive doubts about how Washington works."
TAPPER: Whether it's at your -- your time as head of the New York Fed, your time dealing with AIG, or your time as Treasury Secretary, do you think that you bear any responsibility for that deficit of trust?
GEITHNER: Oh, I -- let me just say that I feel very proud for the actions we took to help to stem the damage caused by this crisis. And I feel it's a great privilege to have been able to work with this president to move so quickly and effectively to again -- to bring an economy that was in free fall -- a financial system at the edge of collapse, and to begin the process of healing.
But we all recognize, and I deeply recognize that we have a lot more work to do. And we are working very hard to make sure that the American people understand that we're going to make sure they don't bear a penny of loss for solving this financial crisis. Again we've brought back a huge amount of the money that the government was forced to put in the financial system.
And we are working very hard right now to try to make sure we put in place strong reforms that provide basic protections to Americans from ever again facing this kind of crisis again.
TAPPER: A year ago when you and the president introduced the mortgage modification program…
OBAMA: "Under this plan, lenders who participate will be required to reduce those payments to no more than 31 percent of a borrower's income. And this will enable as many as 3 to 4 million homeowners to modify the terms of their mortgages to avoid foreclosure."
TAPPER: If a year ago I had told you that today I'd be sitting here, and only 66,000 Americans had permanent mortgage modifications, would you have said at the time that that was a success?
GEITHNER: Oh, Jake, I think it's very important to recognize this program is providing very, very substantial cash flow relief right now to more than three quarters of a million Americans. And we -- we believe we're still on a path to be able to reach many, many more American households. And of course we're going to make sure that those temporary modifications translate into permanent modifications. But again...
TAPPER: But a lot of those temporary modifications were done verbally though. They weren't done with the paperwork that a lot of...
GEITHNER: No. We're -- we're absolutely committed to make sure that translates into what we said it would, which is for eligible Americans -- they're getting permanent modifications that substantially lower their monthly payment. Now, Jake, remember like, you know, again for the average household that translates into hundreds and hundreds of dollars every month for them.
That is real benefits -- great -- has greater income for them to meet their basic needs. But again step back for a sec. In February and March of last year house prices were falling off the cliff. People thought house prices might fall another 20 -- 30 percent. And we've had six months now of early signs of stability in house prices. So what that means is millions and millions of Americans -- middle class families across the country are now seeing more stability, and what is a basic source of financial security for all Americans.
Those programs were enormously effective in helping again pull a housing market that was in near collapse back to the point now where you're seeing the signs of stability.
TAPPER: Recently the president introduced a way of attacking the issue of banks that are too big to fail. He called it the so-called, "Volcker rule." Some sources close to you said that you had some concerns about that rule. What were those concerns?
GEITHNER: Oh, I am committed, and the president is committed to make sure that the reform package Congress moves forward -- puts in place tough, conservative, effective constraints in risk taking on the largest institutions in the country. And I am very confident we're going to be able to do that. This is an important part of that.
And I'm very supportive again of this basic principle. You want to make sure that institutions that have the privilege of access to the safety net the government provides aren't allowed to use that to subsidize the kind of risky activity that could bring the financial institutions to the edge of collapse.
TAPPER: And you are also concerned that you want -- you didn't want these American firms to be unable to compete with the...
GEITHNER: Oh, of course. Of course. But I'm very confident we can make sure that we are working very closely to raise global standards around the world so we have a level playing field.
And you know we are -- we have -- we are going to have a much stronger financial system ahead than we had going into this crisis. Because we are going to make sure that again we're putting in place stronger protections against risk taking. And we're going to make sure that we work with countries around the world so that we're raising standards globally -- not just raising the United States.
TAPPER: Lastly when you came in, and you met with President Obama, you told them about five bombs that needed to be diffused. Fannie, Freddie -- some others. And you recently said -- you compared your experience to the movie, "The Hurt Locker."
GEITHNER: Oh, no. I wasn't comparing my experience. There's nothing like what we faced to what American soldiers face every day.
TAPPER: Still diffusing these bombs, even if they were theoretical economic bombs, was -- must have been very nerve racking.
GEITHNER: This was like nothing anybody in public office today, or in the last few decades have ever faced. It was the gravest most dangerous moment since the great depression of the United States. Again remember we had a -- we were in a situation where people were no longer sure they could safely keep their money in the strongest American banks.
It was catastrophic, and it translated directly into factories closing. Millions of people losing their jobs, and their homes. Economic -- it could be around the world came to a sudden stop. It was the gravest moment we've ever seen. And we were very, very effective, because of the leadership of the president, moving very quickly with enormous care and force to bring stability.
And those policies have got this economy growing again. And as I said we've been able to put out this financial fire at much, much lower cost than anybody anticipated. And what that means is we have much more resources now available to meet our long-term challenges.
TAPPER: I guess was, all I mean was,-- personally, even though I know you don't like talking about your personal life all that much, or your emotions all that...
GEITHNER: Right.
TAPPER: ... much publicly -- personally it must have been nerve racking.
GEITHNER: Oh, it was -- it was hard. But, you know, we were all very focused on what we could do. And you know, this -- this job -- these jobs are a little bit like the fireman. They're a little bit like the doctor. And they're a little bit like the people that go and try to diffuse bombs. It's a mix of those things. And I'm very proud of what we've been able to do. But of course I understand -- I -- ever minute with a recognition that we have a lot more work ahead of us.
TAPPER: Secretary Geithner, thanks so much for joining us. Really appreciate it.
GEITHNER: Nice to see you.
TAPPER: And we're joined now by our roundtable to talk about that interview and all the day's news. We're joined by George Will, Peggy Noonan of the Wall Street Journal, Al Hunt of Bloomberg News, John Podesta of the Center for American Progress, and Ruth Marcus of the Washington Post.
Thanks so much for joining us.
George, Tim Geithner said that businesses are now starting to borrow because they are now starting to take on risk because we're emerging from this economic crisis. Is the economic crisis the only reason why businesses are hesitating?
WILL: No, I think there are a number of things. It's what they don't know and what they do know. What they don't know is what energy is going to cost. The president says he's going to push on with cap and trade, which would raise the cost of everything. They don't know what the cost of health care will be. The president says he's going to push on with health care reform.
Furthermore, they do know that their taxes are going to go up. The expiration of the Bush tax cuts on the rich are actually tax cuts largely on small business. Since the 1980s, the net -- almost all net new job creation has been in small start-up companies five years old or younger.
Furthermore, they know that interest rates eventually are going to go up. They can't go down. They're zero now. So any increase in interest rates is going to be adverse.
To add that to the fact that 42 cents of every dollar Washington spends this year is borrowed, and you add that to the fact that in 2009, every penny of tax revenues was spent before an appropriations bill was passed. That is on entitlement programs or interest rates. That's why they're worried.
TAPPER: John, just -- I know you don't agree with everything George said...
... but...
PODESTA: I don't know what George is proposing. It seems to me that if -- the other thing we absolutely know is that if we return to the policies that got into this mess, it's going to produce the same result. So I think the president has to move forward with trying to reform the health care system, which is now eating up more than 17 percent of our gross domestic product...
TAPPER: How? What's the direction on that?
PODESTA: Well, I think that he's going to press ahead to try to get reform done either through some combination of passing the Senate- passed health care reform bill with some fixes or perhaps a substantial package that would reduce overall costs in the health care system and expand coverage, but somewhat scaled-back package, but I think he's going to try to do it this year, and I think he's going to try to get us off of our so-called addiction -- I remember that phrase from George W. Bush -- addiction to foreign oil and try to create an innovative energy economy.
So there's a lot of work to do, as Tim Geithner said. They've got to really thread the eye of a needle to create jobs in the short term, but to deal with the long-term deficit problems that the country faces.
MARCUS: I'm going to find one common area of agreement with George, which is that I agree that the businesses are loathe to start borrowing and to start creating jobs, but I disagree almost entirely with all the reasons that George said that that exists.
It's not because of fear of higher taxes. Most of it, it's -- a very, very small sliver of small businesses would be affected by higher taxes.
It's not because of not knowing about health care costs or energy costs. It's because of a fundamental concern -- which is completely justified -- about the future path of the economy short term.
In other words -- and you can see it in the reaction that the administration itself had to -- what seemed like good news on the economy with the jobless rate this month. It is going to be a long slog out of this, and it's not at all clear that it's going to be a steady uphill climb. It may be a steady trough that inches very slowly uphill. It may go down again before it goes up. And that's what's holding back business.
NOONAN: I think people who might otherwise be hiring or taking on new help or expanding are feeling nervous. I think they're feeling nervous in part because every time the administration speaks about economic issues, what they say doesn't sound true. It sounds like some kind of mix between "rah-rah" and gobbledygook.
So -- so another problem I think is that the administration did not depart from the Bush administration way of spending and spending, and people can see it. Bush kind of broke the bank, and now Obama is double-breaking the bank. And so people look at this and they think, "I don't feel secure to hire someone. I can sort of feel the pressure of bad stuff coming down the pike," so I think that's part of the problem. TAPPER: Al, you also have been critical of the economic message coming from the administration. When you heard Secretary Geithner in that interview and when you've listened to the president more recently, has that improved at all?
HUNT: Not much. They don't have anyone that really conveys a very coherent economic message. I don't think it is. I disagree with Peggy and George in the sense that I think it's the policies. I -- I do think there's a psychological problem that is huge.
A year-and-a-half ago, the global economy almost went off the cliff. Everyone knows that, whether you're a small-business person or you're Goldman Sachs. There is a sense that we have avoided the cataclysm, that we're on the way back, but there's nervousness about that.
And if we're -- if we are on the way back, we're not on the way back very -- very rapidly. If you look at that jobs report the other day, yeah, the headlines were pretty good. It went to single digits for the first time in a long time. But when you dig deep in there, there was a lot of very, very discouraging numbers there.
So I think -- I think the psychological problem is -- is -- is really very vivid.
TAPPER: OK. We're going to have to take a quick break. But after the break, the roundtable will be back with the politics of national security and Sarah Palin's Tea Party speech. And, of course, later, the Sunday funnies.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
FALLON: Let's take a moment to remember the accomplishments of the Democrats' 60-seat supermajority.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PALIN: The administration says then there are no downsides or upsides to treating terrorists like civilian criminal defendants, but a lot of us would beg to differ. For example, there are questions we would have liked this foreign terrorist to answer before he lawyered up and invoked our U.S. constitutional right to remain silent.
Our U.S. constitutional rights.
TAPPER: That's former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin speaking in Nashville last night at the Tea Party convention, one of the many topics we'll talk about in the roundtable.
George, let me ask you a question. Does Governor Palin have a point there when she's talking about the failed Christmas Day bomber, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, being able to invoke our constitutional rights?
WILL: She has a point in that it seemed reflexive on the part of the government without much thought about this. Here was someone who came from Yemen, from Al Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula, who you would think would have interesting things to tell us, and they instantly Mirandized him, after, what, 50 minutes of conversation. I understand he's still being interrogated, but he still does have a lawyer.
The point of counterterrorism is not to prosecute successfully terrorists; it's to prevent terrorists from committing their acts in the first place. It is prevention, not prosecution. And this looked like just another way of saying, "We're not George Bush," which isn't the point.
MARCUS: Well, I mean, they -- it actually might have been a way of saying, "We are George Bush," since that's exactly what happened with the shoe bomber.
I think that it's fairly clear that that particular incident was not well-handled. I agree with George. It was -- there was not enough consideration given to differing routes of dealing with it. On the other hand, he was not instantly Mirandized. He did answer questions for 50 minutes. From my point of view, that was not long enough, and I think next time around there's going to be a lot more consideration given to various routes.
At the same time, I think it's been completely over-dramatized what rights he would have gotten in another setting. Whether or not he's instantly Mirandized and whether or not he's interrogated is one thing. Whether he's tried in a criminal court or in a military commission, he's still going to be invested with all sorts of rights that apparently Sarah Palin's not comfortable with.
HUNT: Well, but I think the problem here was that the administration itself six months earlier set up something, the high- value intelligence group, that was precisely for areas like this.
And the premise, which I think is anti-Bush, is that a skilled interrogator is far more important in getting information from a terrorist than all the waterboarding and Cheney-esque tortures in the world. I think they're right on that, and they -- they bypassed it. They didn't use it this time.
TAPPER: Well, it wasn't operative until a couple weeks ago.
HUNT: Well, they set it up in August, though, Jake.
TAPPER: Right.
HUNT: And Dennis Blair wasn't aware that it wasn't operative. That's -- that's a problem.
The second problem -- I don't think prosecutions are unimportant here. They didn't have any prosecutorial problem here. There were 40 witnesses on that airplane. They had material evidence -- his underwear, if you will -- so I think they botched this one up.
I agree with Ruth. I don't think it was a terrible...
PODESTA: Jake, the proof's in the pudding. He's talking. The FBI has gone to Nigeria, got his parents to cooperate. They've talked to them. He's cooperating. They've already rolled up a cell in Malaysia, evidently, from information that he's given.
And I think that, you know, you can huff and puff, as former Governor Palin likes to do, but the proof's in the pudding. He's talking. They've gotten actionable intelligence. They're acting on it. And I think that's -- we've got to...
NOONAN: But can I just -- it is weird that the U.S. government is announcing to the world that he is talking. It is -- it is strange that they're saying, "Abdulmutallab, he's singing like a bird. All you people back in Yemen, all you people in Nigeria and all the places he's been to in the past two years, realize he's giving you up. We've turned him." That's not good for us.
PODESTA: Maybe if the -- maybe if all those politicians stopped attacking the FBI. Mitch McConnell likened the FBI to a Larry King interview. Maybe if they'd stop with the politics...
MARCUS: Now, that's cruel.
PODESTA: Well, no, I think he owes the FBI an apology. But if they'd stop with the politics, maybe they wouldn't have to respond to it.
TAPPER: Well, that's an interesting argument, because what happened was on Tuesday there was an Intelligence Committee hearing. And both FBI Director Mueller and the director of national intelligence, Admiral Blair, said very tersely that Abdulmutallab -- that the questioning and the interrogation was still going on.
TAPPER: After that, the White House called a briefing and told White House reporters what was going on, which was that Abdulmutallab's family was cooperating. That decision then was criticized, as you just criticized.
Now, what the White House says is, people were criticizing us before. They knew Abdulmutallab was cooperating. Now they're criticizing us for letting people know that he's cooperating. They can't have it both ways. Is that not fair?
NOONAN: I think two facts. One is, sometimes when you hold the executive and you are president and you work for a president, you have to show forbearance and not answer back when it will jeopardize things in a serious way, as I think perhaps the telling everybody that Abdulmutallab is talking might jeopardize things.
The second thing is, yes, both parties to some extent use these grave national security issues as a political football. People like us always complain about it. But the fact is, at those Tuesday hearings, everybody in American intelligence, when asked, "Do you see the possibility of a coming attack in the next few months?" they said, "Yes, yes, yes, and yes."
Both parties should sober up on this and seriously work together as if they were retired people in Virginia and Maryland who used to work in the government and know now party stuff on this issue doesn't matter.
TAPPER: Well, Al, does the president have a responsibility -- John was saying that the politics were interjected, and he was suggesting that the Republicans were interjecting it -- does the administration have a higher threshold to not respond, to not let these things on?
They say, look, we're letting the American people know that we are doing everything we can to protect them. Is that fair? Or is it that they're just trying to get political cover?
HUNT: I think they need to do that, Jake, without sometimes going into the particulars. And I think they probably have said more than they needed to say here. I doubt very much that it jeopardizes national security. I also think that almost all those experts -- Peggy's right -- that if you talk to of either party will tell you that there's somebody out there, some people out there who are planning an attack. They want to attack us. They want to attack us soon. I don't think the handling of the Christmas bomber -- I envy you all, because you pronounced his name better than I can -- I don't think -- I don't think the handling of that is going to change in any way what the likelihood is of any successful attack or not.
MARCUS: But -- but I want to go back to something that John said and disagree with John, which is, the proof's not necessarily in the pudding, because what if he had actionable intelligence about ongoing plots of people in the air, of people about to be deployed?
That he's talking now is terrific. I tend to think that the administration should have sucked it up and not answered all -- not defended itself so much, though I completely understand the instinct to do that.
But whether he talked a little bit, if he -- but it's not at all clear to me that he was telling everything...
PODESTA: That's a -- that's a legitimate point, but they did interrogate him before he -- they, you know, put him under to -- for an operation to deal with his wounds. And when he came out, the FBI has said -- I don't -- you know, the Intelligence Committee could go into this -- the FBI has said that he's -- he decided he wasn't going to talk anymore, and they -- at that point, they gave him his Miranda warnings.
So that's -- it's a -- you know, it's a question of how long you go on for. I think that's a question of judgment. Maybe you're right. Maybe the FBI was right. I tend to listen to the professionals. And other people tend to listen to Governor Palin.
But I think that -- to attack the FBI...
PODESTA: But, you know, I come back to -- to attack the FBI for their conduct in this case as the Republican leadership has done, I think is unconscionable.
By the end of the week, we had -- we had Senator Shelby putting a hold on 70 nominees, including the head of the intelligence at the Department of Homeland Security, the head of intelligence at Department of State. I mean, what gives here? Are these people serious or are they just playing politics?
TAPPER: Well, and then that's interesting, because all this debate, all this partisanship comes during a period, a two-week period, where President Obama is really hitting home the idea that there needs to be more bipartisanship. In fact, here's the president speaking yesterday at the Democratic National Committee's winter retreat.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) OBAMA: I'm proud to be a Democrat. I'm proud to be a leader of this great party. But I also know that we can't solve all of our problems alone. So we need to extend our hands to the other side. We've been working on them. Because if we're going to change the ways of Washington, we're going to have to change its tone.
TAPPER: So, Al, that speech came one day after the White House attacked Senator Shelby for the very thing John was just talking about. He had put blanket holds on all nominees because he was concerned, he says, about some national security issues. What's going on here?
HUNT: Well, first of all, Senator Shelby is totally fraudulent on this to begin with. He was concerned about pork for his home state of Alabama. This is as bad as the Nebraska carve-out. It's outrageous what he did. It's, I think, an abuse of senatorial prerogative.
But I also, Jake, think that it's nice to give speeches. We have to have a more civil dialogue in this town. We have to have more bipartisanship. For a whole lot of reasons, it's not going to happen. It might selectively be able to -- you might have a few areas. You'll have some jobs bills where Orrin Hatch and Chuck Schumer might agree.
But in a -- in a broader sense, this is -- these are divisive political times, and that's not going to change, at least until after the November election.
TAPPER: George, the administration and the president has said specifically that he was hoping for some bipartisanship support for some of the small-business tax cuts and credits he's pushing. There's an elimination of a capital gains tax for investments in small businesses, a tax credit for hiring, hoping for Republican support. I have yet to hear one Republican voice, one level of support for any of that.
If there's not bipartisan support for tax cuts, is there support -- is there possibility for any support for anything bipartisan?
WILL: Well, I'll volunteer. I subscribe to Milton Friedman's view that any tax cut of any shape at any time for any reason is to be supported. So I think probably they'll get some support on this.
But he has a very aggressive agenda from which he has retreated not one bit. I think you'd agree with that. And so when he extends his hand, he says, "I ask only one thing of Republicans, and that is that you quit being Republicans," and they respectfully decline.
If you have an aggressive agenda, you're going to have to push it aggressively in a partisan manner.
NOONAN: I'd add, sometimes timing is everything. If the president had spoken like that or acted in a manner reflective of his comments last year, when he first became president, instead of presenting some bills that want to actually know Republican support, he might be in better shape now. It's very convenient for him to be saying, "We're all in this together," when his numbers are going down.
TAPPER: You wrote recently rather approvingly of the election of Scott Brown in Massachusetts. He has -- is that unfair?
NOONAN: Sure. No, no, good.
TAPPER: OK. OK. And -- and he came here talking a lot about wanting to work in a bipartisan fashion. One of the first things he did, as you saw in the interview with Geithner, we ran a clip of Brown, was say that the stimulus bill has not created one job. Now, you can criticize with the stimulus bill, but it is -- you can -- you can disagree with whether or not it's created 2 million jobs, but certainly it has created one job.
HUNT: Scott Brown's.
TAPPER: But, I mean, is -- do people just come down to Washington and become partisan, if even Scott Brown is already saying the stimulus bill hasn't created one job?
NOONAN: Well, Scott Brown was saying things like that on the way to election. He is very much against the -- the president's economic program.
I would say, look, obviously, the stimulus bill must have created at least one job, but when you try to find out where are the jobs, how many, what has this bill done, you know, you can't really get an answer. It sort of all dissolves in gobbledygook. You never know. I can't imagine Mr. Geithner knows how many jobs it's created.
WILL: It has -- it has increased federal civilian employment dramatically, and it has preserved unionized public employee jobs in the state and local governments.
TAPPER: John, is there any hope for bipartisan work in this Congress this election year?
PODESTA: Well, you know, you have to kind of turn over a lot of rocks to try to find some possibility of that. I think the one place where you still might be able to find bipartisan work is the efforts that Lindsey Graham and John Kerry and -- and Joe Lieberman are undertaking to try to find out whether they can do a comprehensive energy and climate bill that would actually create an energy revolution in this country.
Senator Graham has stuck his neck out. He's working hard at it. And, you know, I'm still hopeful that we can find some bipartisan support on a bill that the president could -- could sign.
TAPPER: Bipartisan seems to be the word of the day. Sarah Palin talked a lot about there needing to be bipartisan work last night in her speech, even though she was definitely pushing a rather conservative Tea Party agenda. What did you think of her speech, Peggy?
NOONAN: Hmm. I'll tell you, it's almost odd what struck me. The Tea Party movement itself has to decide if it is a movement, in which case it will probably become part of a broad Republican coalition, or if it is going to be a third party.
It was interesting to me that Palin continually called it a movement and didn't refer to any third-party ambitions. If it's going to be a movement, it's good news for the Republicans. If it were going to be a third-party thing, it would be bad news for the Republicans, very good for the Democrats.
MARCUS: I'm not really sure that having it be a movement that's part of the Republican Party would be good news for the Republicans. It would -- Sarah Palin talked last night about how it was a great thing for the Republicans to have robust and divisive primaries, and I would think John here would say, "Yes, excellent. Let's go to it, and, in fact, have those robust and divisive primaries and pick the Tea Party candidate, because running against a Tea Party candidate is going to be a lot easier for whatever Democratic candidate there is than running against some kind of consensus centrist-esque Republican candidate."
NOONAN: But at the end of the day, this is a big movement. It's the most respected party, I think, in the polls now. It leads before Republicans and before Democrats...
NOONAN: ... but when these folks vote, they're not going to be voting Democratic. They're going to be voting Republican at the end of the day.
PODESTA: I think the only thing that's certain is that it's good news for Republican consultants, because there seems to be a lot of profiteering done now (inaudible) the Tea Party movement, as was evidenced, I think, in Nashville this week.
But I think that, so far, we've seen -- I think, actually, in the end of the day, it's going to be a problem for the Republican Party. And -- and I think Governor Palin could be a problem for the Republican Party. This week, Wall Street Journal reported that John Boehner and Eric Cantor were meeting with bankers from Wall Street saying, "Why -- why aren't you giving us more money? We're opposing financial regulatory reform. We're opposing putting caps on your bonuses."
Sarah Palin won't stand for that. The Tea Party movement won't stand for that. And I think when that clash happens, I think the Republican leaders in -- in Congress, I think, are going to pay a price for it.
HUNT: The Tea Party movement will clearly help Republicans this year, because they're an insurgent party this year. They create energy out there. They don't -- they don't have litmus tests of Scott Brown or Mark Kirk or anyone like that. However, I'm not sure exactly what the Tea Party movement is. I don't think the polls -- the people who respond to the polls -- know what it is. And it remains to be seen whether it will be an asset to the Republican Party once you get beyond this insurgency year.
TAPPER: One thing -- and speaking of difficult Republican primaries, there is a difficult Republican primary, very contested, in California right now. A former Hewlett-Packard CEO, Carly Fiorina, is running this ad running for the Senate for the Republican nomination against former Republican Congressman Tom Campbell. Take a look.
(UNKNOWN): Is he what he tells us? Or is what he's become over the years, a FCINO, fiscal conservative in name only, a wolf in sheep's clothing? The man who literally helped...
TAPPER: There you go, the demon sheep ads. George, aside from the -- the fact that that demon sheep now haunts me at night, I'm wondering if you could comment on the fact that Republicans are now running to the right for this mantle of fiscal conservative. Certainly that's something we see in the Tea Party movement. We're seeing it now in California, as well.
WILL: Sure, because California has a closed primary. Republicans will vote in it. And about 15 percent of the decline to states will vote in it. That's -- Fiorina running an ad against Tom Campbell, who was running for governor until enticed back into the Senate race, I think by Meg Whitman, who's running for governor and really doesn't want two former Silicon Valley CEOs running in tandem on the ticket, Meg Whitman coming from eBay, Carly Fiorina from Hewlett-Packard.
That said, it's the dog that didn't bark there. There's another candidate there, and he's Chuck DeVore. He's the conservative in the race. And I'll make you a small wager that he is the Republican nominee, neither of those two.
TAPPER: Do you want to get in on that action?
NOONAN: That -- I've watched that thing three times. It is -- I'm fascinated by it. It is less like a political advertisement than it is like a nervous breakdown. It is crazy. Its text doesn't follow its art, if that's what it would be called. It's like -- it's like an answer to the question, what would happen if Salvador Dali made a tech (ph) commercial?
TAPPER: You don't -- you don't like the demon sheep? You're not a fan of the demon sheep?
NOONAN: I kind of love it.
MARCUS: More livestock in political ads is what we need. Can we say something about the -- the Republican lurch to claim the mantle of fiscal conservatism?
TAPPER: Very quickly, yes.
MARCUS: Give me a break, OK? There is a serious proposal out there, first for a statutory commission, now for an executive order commission to tackle this, to put everything on the table, and Republicans have balked.
TAPPER: All right, and we're going to have to leave it there. The roundtable will continue in the green room on abcnews.com, and you can get political updates all week long by signing up for our newsletter also on abc.com.


Here's one of my personal favourites from one of last summer's weddings. I think the dog would really like a share of the wedding cake, given the opportunity. I'm just glad I was in the right place at the right time to shoot a couple of frames before the dog decided there were better chances elsewhere….
This entry was tagged dog, Norfolk, wedding cake. Bookmark the permalink.


text:
Films, Producing, Spielberg, Uncategorized
Hi folks and welcome to my latest top 10. I'm going a little bit left field and looking at the Top 10 films where Spielberg hasn't directed but has been credited as Producer or Executive Producer. One of the attractions of Spielberg to me growing up, was even if he wasn't in the directors chair he seemed to be involved in the majority of films that I enjoyed growing up.
With over 170 Production credits to his name, putting a Top 10 wasn't as easy as I thought it would be at first. I immediately discounted any that he had directed, and obviously ignored the dozens currently on his announced slate on IMDB. I have also culled a few more by not looking at sequels, however this still left me with a plethora of options. So I decided to go with the heart and not the head on this one, which means quality productions such as the Coen's True Grit are left off and also there is the omission of crowd favourites Innerspace and The Money Pit which would have been 11 and 12th respectively if I had too.
One further caveat is that I haven't seen all the films on the list so I may have missed some of your favourites that I'm not too familiar with. So without further ado, here is the Top 10 list of my favourite Spielberg Production credits.
10. Twister (1996) Dir: Jan De Bont
After the stresses and strains of the emotional experience of Schindler's List, Spielberg was taking an unprecedented 4 year break from the Director's chair. He was, however, very much keeping his head in the game with his Producers hat on, with a variety of TV shows, the hilarious and anarchic Animaniacs and the rather damp squib (pun very much intended) Seaquest DSV. Movie wise is was a mixed bag, including the fun and sprightly Caspar (which again just missed this list) and the cringeworthy Flintstones (Steven Spielrock anyone???).
1996 was a summer of big blockbuster action films, with Roland Emmerich's fantastic Independence Day leading the way, Michael Bay showing considerable restraint, by his standards anyway, with the ridiculously entertaining The Rock and we met Ethan Hunt for the first time as Mission Impossible burst onto our screens via the Channel Tunnel.
Crashing into the 2nd place in the Box Office chart that summer was Twister, a film about a group of storm chasers battling to find the Big one in the American midwest. With spectacular, Academy Award nominated visual effects (it lost out to Independence Day), the film actually touches on a number of Spielbergian themes, our group of Chasers are all Science nerds, there are broken relationships, there is the destruction of small town America, it is all there. The script is a bit hokey, but whoever watches films like this for Shakespearean delivery, this is a perfect Sunday afternoon movie.
9. *Batteries Not Included (1987) Dir. Matthew Robbins
I watched this again recently and to be fair it has aged, but what we have here is a simple tale of triumph over adversity and an enormous sense of a community coming together to beat the odds, which are traditional Spielberg themes.
The film is anchored by a beautiful pair of leading performances from Jessica Tandy as the dementia suffering Faye and the dazzling Hume Cronyn who plays her steadfast husband Frank. Originally conceived as a story to be included in Spielberg's Amazing Stories, the idea had enough legs to be made into a full length film.
It's a charming tale, with plenty of 1980s schmaltz, that tales off slightly in the final act. A film that still appeals to all ages, the adults will enjoy the nostaglia, and the youngsters will giggle at the alien antics.
Worth noting also that *Batteries Not Included was the screenwriting debut of Pixar legend Brad Bird who would go on to direct The Incredibles and also some of the later Mission Impossible franchise. I wouldn't be too surprised if the bigwigs at Pixar didn't get a large portion of their ideas for 2008's UP from the set up here as there are plenty of shared themes, not least the last house standing setting.
8. Poltergeist (1982) Dir. Tobe Hooper
Yeah I know, Spielberg directed Poltergeist, yadder, yadder, yadder. Erm, no he didn't, and to constantly claim that he did is quite offensive to Tobe Hooper. Yes Spielberg was by all accounts a very hands on Producer, and a number of themes smack of Spielberg, not least the Suburban setting, the dysfunctional family, the young children in peril etc, but those are just the headlines and this is Hooper's film.
Despite the setting and the family dynamic, the characters, in particular the adults don't really fit the Spielberg mould of the time. The Freelings are pot smoking ex-hippies, trying to hold onto their youth, whilst they can, (one fan theory I read was that the whole plot was imagined by Diane whilst high off the pot!!). The reliance on effects that are now quite dated, again doesn't appear to fit in the practical mentalities of Spielberg at the time, i.e. E.T, Raiders etc.
Poltergeist has some terrific setpieces and the most terrifying clown this side of IT, and is again one of those films that nostalgia has been kind too, and it makes this list because Steven Spielberg produced it, not directed it.
7. Deep Impact (1998) Dir Mimi Leder
1998 was the year of Twin film battles, where films with similar themes go head to head. In animation we had Dreamworks Antz, facing off against Pixar's A Bug's Life, Peter Weir's The Truman Show up against Ron Howards Ed TV, and Spielberg's own Saving Private Ryan and Terrence Malicks The Thin Red Line.
As far as audiences were concerned however, the biggest battle was the fight to save the Earth in two films about cataclysmic asteroids are set to crash into and destroy Earth films. Winning this particular box office battle was Michael Bay's, Bruce Willis starring preposterous (even for an asteroid film) Armageddon, which inexplicably was only held off the number 1 spot for the year by Titanic.
Personally, I always thought from viewing both Armageddon and Deep Impact that the Mimi Leder film was superior, in every way, from the science involved to the script, (Armageddon's is so hilariously bad, its actually quite fun). The main difference between the two, is that Deep Impact has very little if any testosterone and with Leder at the helm why would there be, there is a seriousness with the situation, we are drawn into the characters, we care for them, we want them to succeed. We don't really give a toss about Bruce and his neanderthal mates.
Deep Impact is a classic Friday night movie, with a fabulous ensemble cast, who all contribute. Booking the trend somewhat of 90s action flicks and in complete contrast to Armageddon's gung ho, if there is a lead in Deep Impact then it is surely the excellent Tea Leoni's determined journalist, who more than holds her own alongside Morgan Freeman (playing the President we all wish they had now), Robert Duval's seasoned Astronaut and an early role for Elijah Wood.
Armageddon may have triumphed at the box office but there is no doubt which is the superior film.
6. Men In Black (1997) Dir. Barry Sonnenfeld
Probably the film in the list that had the least input from Spielberg, here very much Executive Producing through Amblin, however that is no reason not to include it. Very loosely based on the early 1990s comics by the same name, (the films are considerably lighter in tone than the comics), Men in Black deals with a fictious Government agency who deal with extra-terrestrial life that lives, generally in perfect harmony with humans on Earth, the catch being, that humans don't know about due to the MiB organisation.
The first and by some considerable distance the best of the series is helped by a brilliant double act, taking the buddy movie to new heights. We have the seasoned old pro, the craggy faced Tommy Lee Jones, playing it straight as die throughout, alongside the cocky new recruit, an at the top of his game Will Smith. The chemistry between the two leads is fantastic and it is a shame that they have struggled somewhat to replicate that in the lacklustre sequels that followed.
Once more the effects are really good and Sonnenfeld demonstrates some of his Gothic tendencies that he employed so well in his Addams Family films in the early 90s.
Men In Black was a box-office monster, helped in no small part to the star wattage of Biggest Star in the Galaxy at the time Will Smith, it helped that he had an absolute banger of a theme tune to accompany it, but this film would have been nothing without Jones's, sardonic and occasionally moving performance.
5. Gremlins (1984) Dir. Joe Dante
There are three rules that you have to follow if you're going to take care of your Mogwai, it becomes apparent quite quickly that they are all utter balls. We all know about the nonsense of not eating after midnight, I mean when does that end, can you book a table at the breakfast buffet or is there a certain time you have to reach before you can kick back with a croissant. There's also the issue of time zones but lets not go there. But what about never getting them wet, through fear of multiplication, yet at one point the hoard of Gremlins are clearly seen walking through snow with no ill effect. Then there is the fear of bright lights, which a bit like when you ask your teenage kids whether they heard you ask them to empty the dishwasher, depends on what mood they are in at the time, for example the Gremlins seem ok in the lighted kitchen when they are helping themselves to the cake mix.
Now lets not be an old fuddy duddy about this, these glaring plotholes are part of pop culture folklore and are very much a part of the appeal of this perennial festive classic. Mixing extreme lightness, carol singing Gremlins, break dancing Gremlins, even Snow White singalong Gremlins, with terrifying darkness, the chainsaw attack, the grizzly water fountain finale and worst of all the reason why Kate doesn't celebrate Christmas, we have a film that at one point you think the whole family could enjoy and the next would make an interesting double bill with Driller Killer.
I'm sure Gremlins was made with one eye firmly on the merchandising potential and this has often raised questions at to who this film is aimed at. What is undoubted is that it is hilarious and at times scary as hell. A sequel, which many devotees prefer to the original, I'm not one of them, arrived 5 years later and was more a satirical look at movie sequels and merchandising tie-ins. The original though is a black comedy that has landed itself firmly in the pop culture lexicon for the past 30 plus years. Still to this day, despite it's obvious nonsensical plot, it is tremendous entertainment and Christmas just isn't Christmas without it.
4. Who Framed Roger Rabbit (1988) – Robert Zemeckis
Ok, the mixing of live action and animation was nothing new in 1988, Disney themselves had been making films since the early 1940s in this format, however films that had placed an animated lead character alongside a human lead were few and far between and seen as little more than a gimmick.
Who Framed Roger Rabbit is in all sense an purposes a Film-Noir with a Looney Tunes, technicolour back drop. From the hilarious prologue short cartoon "somethin's Cookin" starring Roger and the (we found soon after) hard drinking, womanising Baby Herman we have the tone set, for one of the most innovative blockbusters of the 80s.
There are plenty of elements of this film that perhaps are aimed at an older audience, for example one of the scariest villains of any childhood with the horrific Judge Doom, and of course the Femme Fatale who quite frankly will have many of the male and female audience questioning their sanity.
Technically magnificent, it still very much holds up today. Bob Hoskins is brilliant as the cynical, grieving, hard drinking Eddie who has a particular dislike for Toons, but the true star of the show is Zemeckis, who never lets get away from its noir routes.
3. Super 8 (2011) Dir. J.J Abrams
It is no secret how much of an influence Spielberg has been on the career of J.J Abrams, and in 2011, Abrams made Super 8, his love-letter homage to Spielberg, in this quite brilliant science-fiction tale. This is the entry in the Top 10 that is probably the least talked about, and has largely been forgotten by the film community, which is a crying shame as I would say it is easily in my Top 10 movies of the last decade.
It's all here in this one, clear references to E.T, and The Goonies from Spielberg's back catalogue, with touches of Stand By Me and even Alien, it is sci-fi, action mixed with nostaglia all set in a nice Spielberg inspired Suburban community.
Led by a sparking young cast the film is told from their point of view as they try to solve the riddles of the mysterious goings on that follow a train crash in their town. The friends agree to get together to help make a horror movie using a Super 8 camera, a further nod to Spielberg's own childhood, and over time they bond. The film is a thrill ride in the traditional Spielberg way, at times it is genuinely scary and at other points, deeply moving, the main character has recently lost his mother in a workplace accident, the absent parent a recurrent Spielberg theme.
A film about friendship, a film about belonging, this is more than just a kids monster movie. It's legacy lives on with the Netflix produced, and majorly Spielberg inspired Stranger Things.
2. The Goonies (1985) Dir. Richard Donner
In 1985 Spielberg was taking his first real steps into Directing films, aimed more at critical acclaim that box office receipts, with his adaptation of Alice Walker's The Color Purple. Having been dismissed a nothing more than a popcorn peddler, a PT Barnum figure if you will, by many a critic, Spielberg decided to focus on what was deemed more grown up material.
Thankfully, it didn't mean that he had lost his sense of humour or his desire to be involved in wholesome family entertainment. Whereas the Color Purple dealt with themes of domestic abuse, incest and segregation, in 1985 he produced two of the most iconic 80s films that were as far away from the above as possible (actually may be not the incest, but we'll come back to that later in the blog).
The Goonies is one of those rare breed of films, where you would be pushed really hard to find anyone who has anything bad to say about it. It is a very simple of tale of friendship and adventure, a real kids adventure film that has spanned the generations, from people like myself who loved it since its release, to my parents who were delighted at the time that there was a film that wasn't a cartoon or involved galaxy's far far away to entertain the kids, and now my children who watch it now and can't comprehend that it was made 35 years ago.
And that there is the point, The Goonies is timeless, it is so fresh it could have been made last week. Perfectly cast from the noble Sean Astin as self appointed leader, to 80s icon Corey Feldman as the most punchable but still likeable Goonie, Mouth. Then there is my favourite, Ke Huy Quan, fresh from playing Indy's card playing best mate, as the inventive James Bond fanatic Data, and of course the Pop Culture icon, Jeff Cohen's Chunk, who's confession scene is possibly the finest moment in the whole of 80s cinema.
The tomboyish Martha Plimpton playing the sarcastic Steph, a pre-Thanos Josh Brolin playing the tough older brother, and every schoolboys crush Kerry Green as cheerleader Andy round out one of the most likeable casts of any film.
Terrific pantomime villain support comes from Anne Ramsay, Robert Davi and a young Joe Pantoliano as the criminal Fratellis, add to the brilliance of this simple piece of entertainment.
You don't hear of anyone stating they don't like The Goonies, because there is nothing not to like. I would question anyone who disagrees with that probably doesn't like films at all, but for a film about a bunch of kids looking for buried pirate treasure (btw didn't know the name One-Eyed Willy was a bit dubious when I was a kid……….ah innocence) to still be this endearingly popular 35 years on is an absolute credit to everyone involved. Now about that incest……..
1.Back to the Future (1985) Dir. Robert Zemeckis
Ok we'll get to that shortly. Back to the Future could well be the perfect film. It is entirely possible that no film made before or since has resonated or landed in the pop culture psyche as much. Similar to the Goonies it is one of those films that everyone has seen, and everyone, even none film fans get a little smile on their face if you mention it.
When I was growing up in the 80s and as was often the way in Manchester, school holidays were often dominated by bad weather, and my older brother and I had a stock pile of films recorded from the BBC and ITV that would regularly be watched almost on loop. There was obviously the Star Wars trilogy, the aformentioned The Goonies and of course Back to the Future, possibly the most quotable film for me and my brother.
What is often overlooked with Back to the Future is the perfection that is it's screenplay. My brother now lives in America and it dawned on me during a recent WhatsApp video call just how much we quote the film in general conversation, and I'm not just talking about the "Great Scott's" of this world I'm talking the more subtle lines. For example, if my brother is wearing something a bit unusual, I will say "and what are you wearing Dave?" which Marty mutters to his brother Dave who is inexplicably wearing a business suit in the altered future………my brother is not called Dave.
My brother and I used to cook lunch during the School holidays and he would often jokingly throw in the line "Damn it Man, I sliced my hand" in honour of Marvin Berry cutting his hand trying to open the boot of his car whilst the keys were locked inside, or if one of us was playing music at an annoying volume, the other walk into their room, and say "hold it fellas, I'm sorry you're just too damn loud".
It's little things like this that make this film special to everyone who has had the pleasure of seeing it. Similar to the Goonies, it is incredibly fresh and could have been made last week. Led by Michael J Fox as Marty McFly, nobody my age (I was 8 when the film was released) had ever seen anyone cooler than Marty. He was the most awesome character growing up and is probably still my favourite now when all said and done.
Are there issues? Well you could argue that the mother/son incestuous connotations is a little Oedipal, and some may today question the friendship between Marty and Doc, but from a story telling point of view it is brilliantly done and in the case of Marty and Lorraine, (played by another 80s icon the simply stunning Lea Thompson), is resolved carefully without too much cringe.
Worth noting also that Back to the Future has my number 1 punch the air moment when George, a suitably awkward Crispin Glover, finally stands up to Biff, quite possibly the greatest screen bully ever, played with dotable menace by Thomas Wilson. It still gets a cheer to this day.
Back to the Future was followed up by two quick fire sequels in 1989 and 1990 and, despite never truly hitting the heights of the original, are fantastic watches, and may well be the second and third part of the most complete trilogy. Pray tell nobody gets the insane idea to reboot, remake or simply go back in time to update the original. Some things are best left well alone.
My name is Dominic Holder and I like to promote the beauty and wonder of Cinema in my writing. I spend a lot of time promoting the power of Cinema as a tool of wellbeing to anyone and everyone. I love all kinds of films but in particular I am a devoted fan of Steven Spielberg, Tom Hanks, John Williams, Star Wars, Disney and Marvel. My love of Cinema stems from a trip as a 4 year old to local cinema in Bolton to watch a Star Wars/Empire Strikes Back double bill, it was the first in a series of life changing moments, I knew from the moment the Imperial Star Destroyer engulfed the screen at the start of A New Hope I was hooked. Thankfully nearly 40 years later I still get excited and still find escapism and happiness within this wonderful medium.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


While studying in Galatians this morning and using a new Christmas present alongside my Bible, I came across a very interesting reference that I believe will help us to keep out of the deep, dark deception that has already entered many sectors of the Body of Christ.
This new present that I am referring to is a reference book called "Linguistic Key to the Greek New Testament" by Fritz Rienecker. The Scripture portion is from Galatians 2:11-13.
I know some are familiar with this definition of the word 'hypocrite' but some of you may not be. Have you ever looked at the seriousness of not being honest with your feelings and viewpoints before? If this is not something that you struggle with, don't read any further. I know that in many ways these issues that we have of being up front and truthful are common to all men (and women). God is always digging deeper into our characters in order to free us from the "little foxes" that we may not even be aware of. It's always easier to see the 'bigger sins' and miss the 'little foxes that spoil the vine'.
Say to yourself right now, "I am not ashamed of the Gospel of Jesus Christ"!!


PERTH AMBOY, N.J. (AP) _ A fast-moving fire that may have been set destroyed a century-old YMCA on Monday, leaving at least one man missing.
At least 50 men had rented single rooms at the YMCA. Officials said the missing man may have escaped unharmed and left the scene.
The blaze at the 100-year-old, four-story building broke out around 6 a.m. and wasn't declared under control until four hours later. One of the building's wings collapsed.
Two firefighters and five other people suffered minor injuries.
The fire spread quickly, even though the building had a working sprinkler, and was believed to have started in a fourth-floor room, said Mayor Joseph Vas.
``There may have been an arson attempt last night by a disgruntled resident,″ Vas said.
Initially 17 residents were feared missing, but 16 were located by evening, including three men who returned after a weekend away, said Jay Jimenez, an aide to the mayor.
Although the missing man was believed to have escaped, Fire Chief James Hicks said the rubble would be searched for bodies.
The fire also forced the evacuation of about 17 children taking part in a summer program at a school immediately behind the YMCA.
Perth Amboy is a working-class city of about 40,000 people within sight of New York City.
It was the second fire at the YMCA this year. A fire was set in a wastebasket a few weeks ago. There were no injuries.


DESCRIPTION ctermid() returns a string which is the pathname for the current con- trolling terminal for this process. If s is NULL, a static buffer is used, otherwise s points to a buffer used to hold the terminal path- name. The symbolic constant L_ctermid is the maximum number of charac- ters in the returned pathname.
RETURN VALUE The pointer to the pathname.
BUGS The path returned may not uniquely identify the controlling terminal; it may, for example, be /dev/tty.
It is not assured that the program can open the terminal.


Go for your First Drive with Zoomcar and get Rs.200 off on your first booking. Select cars from Ford Figo, Ford Eco-Sport, Mahindra XUV, Maruti Swift, BMW, Mercedes and lots more. First Drive Only. On Minimum Booking fare of Rs 999.
Go for your First Drive with Zoomcar and get Rs.600 off on your first booking. Select cars from Ford Figo, Ford Eco-Sport, Mahindra XUV, Maruti Swift, BMW, Mercedes and lots more. Min Booking Fare of Rs.3000. Applicable on Monday to Thursday booking.
Book a car at 50% off at Zoomcar. Check out now our dealshack . Offer valid till further changes. Hurry Now!!!
Drive a Mercedes for Rs.225 per Hour at Zoomcar. Book Mercedes as low as Rs.230 per Hour. Standard Booking Terms & Condition.


text:
Category Archives: History
History, Politics, Uncategorized
October 9, 2017 Kvatch	Leave a comment
Celebrating Columbus Day is a disgraceful exercise in historic revisionism.
History, Politics, Rights
June 18, 2017 Kvatch	Leave a comment
America does face a threat of political violence. It does not come, by and large from baby boomer evangelicals in Montana. Nor does it come from President Trump, whatever his flaws… The threat today comes from the progressive left and its growing enthusiasm for force as a political tool.
Tucker Carlson, Fox News, 05/25/2017
As we have seen the secular left rise and hostility within it rise, it has become a threat to domestic order, and to this administration.
Lou Dobbs, Fox Busniess, 06/14/2017
You know, congressman, I agree with everything you say. I do think it's important that we take note that the left in this country is trying to kill America.
Lou Dobbs, Lou Dobbs Tonight, 06/14/2017
Some on the hard left understand this, and that's exactly why they support it, because political violence could lead to the dissolution of a country they despise.
Tucker Carlson, Tucker Carlson Tonight, 06/15/2017
There is a historical parallel… This is exactly the same sort of toxic rhetoric the Hutu-led government promoted in Rwanda for two years prior to the call for their supporters to grab their machetes. The murder of almost a million Tutsi and moderate Hutu men, women, and children followed.
Dobbs and Carlson are part of a modern Radio Télévision Libre des Mille Collines (RTLM).
White Privilege Wins
November 9, 2016 Kvatch	Leave a comment
This country cannot be saved, and is no longer worth saving.
Nothing left to do at this point but figure out how to get out before the doors are shut for good.
Elections, History, Politics
Stronger Together?
October 17, 2016 Kvatch	Leave a comment
This is the tagline of Hillary Clinton's campaign, but as the nastiest presidential election in collective memories of every American alive today grinds to a close, the few of us that proudly remain on America's left need to ask if it makes any sense to even consider common cause with our fellow citizens.
For over 30 years, since Ronald Reagan's first inaugural, the right has been on an unrelenting campaign to turn America's progressives and liberals into demons—and oh how they have succeeded. Even the Democrats, who might be expected to provide cover for liberals, broke with them during Bill Clinton's campaign, and cast us off as relics impeding the party's ability to win elections. And so, lacking any champion at the national level, we were branded as libtards, feminazis, and traitors. The blowback has even reached the center-right Democrats represented by Clinton, as unhinged racists openly talk about revolution, assassinating the former Secretary of State before she can assume office, and rounding up the leftists preparatory to stripping them of their citizenship and deporting them. (That last, by the way, is unconstitutional, but that hardly matters to your average Trump supporter who cheers their candidate's promises to lock up his opponent till she rots.)
So here's the thing… Evangelicals lament America's drift toward immorality. They claim that America has abandoned them and their way of life. Southerners, 150 years after the Civil War's end, lament the loss of separate identity and curse the nation that took them back. Citizens in the rust belt lament lost industries and the jobs that went with them. White males lament a lost patriarchy and curse the crushing political blow that they are about to receive. But in this festival of loss not one of these constituencies conceptualizes that, through each political or economic spasm, the coasts with their liberal politics, inclusive values, and vibrant multi-cultural populations have continued to keep America chugging along. These states and regions are the ones that put $2 into federal coffers while taking back $1. These states and regions are the ones that provide the innovation that brings the country back from massive financial misdeeds and might provide a way forward.
We didn't abandon the evangelicals. They chose to abandon us, branded us as immoral "others". We didn't force Southerners to chose separation. They chose it for themselves. We did not take coal jobs from Appalachia, automotive jobs from Detroit, or steel jobs from the midwest, but once those jobs were gone we tried our damnedest to provide the money for training and retooling. We can't help white males who feel threatened. Being forced to compete on equal terms with women, other races, other creeds, and other orientations is the imperative of our Constitution.
There is no longer any reason to reach out, no reason to compromise.
LET…THEM…DIE!
Clinton has it wrong. We are not stronger together.
History, Politics, Privacy
Texas Secession – An Opportunity Missed
May 26, 2011 Kvatch	4 Comments
Though the Texas Secession Movement never really seems to gain enough traction to get anything accomplished, I'm here to say…please, LET THESE MORONS GO!!!
I mean, really, these idiots are willing to risk having all passenger air traffic in and out of the Lone Star State stopped by the Feds. And when the Texas legislature quashed the infamous 'pat-down' bill, crowds of protestors came to the capital to shout "traitors" at their representatives.
So… Is there any way we could encourage Texas to secede? Imagine the benefits. The average IQ of Americans might ascend a whole point or two against other countries just by excising this pool of retards. The most polluted state in the nation could go and wallow in the cesspool that it's become. Fresh potable water will no longer be a problem in the 'Greater 49' as we cut off, damn up…whatever…the Rio Grande, the Red River, the East Branch of the Colorado, and just about every other fresh water source that Dry Star State depends on. Our Texan friends will be forced to get real friendly-like with their neighbors south of the border since the only way out of Texas will be through Mexico. And maybe our gun happy Texan brethren can apply themselves to Mexico's violence problem.
In short, Texas needs a hard lesson in just how painful it can be to try and survive on its own, and I think that it's time for the state of my youth to head to school.
Economics, Finance, History
Railroad barons got nothin' on us
August 4, 2010 Frogette	2 Comments
The heartland's favorite gajillionaire, Warren Buffet, this week convinced 40 of the wealthiest Americans to donate half of their money to charity. This hasn't happened in a long time. Well since the good old days when Carnegie bought his way into heaven by creating a University, Getty provided the world with a parting gift of not one, but two beautiful museums, and countless other robber barons left their houses and extensive art collections to posterity. It warms the cockles of my little heart to hear that Bill & Melinda Gates (Buffet's partners in the effort), won't be only the billionaires waiting for me at the Pearly gates. They'll be joined by Larry Ellison, Jimmy Buffet and George Lucas. Sure their kids are probably freaking out, but it's not like they're going to have to get jobs or anything. Half a gajillion dollars is still a lot of money.
Full disclosure: I'm actually pretty impressed by this. I don't know I'd be selfless enough to give up half the lily pad if asked. You go rich guys!
History, Humor, Politics, Rights, Satire, Sports
Palin quits Iditarod
March 8, 2010 ERITAS News Service	4 Comments
Sarah Palin dropped out of the 2010 Iditarod today, earning her the distinction of being the first former Alaska Governor to quit the storied 1,100 mile endurance challenge.
Palin's withdrawal comes after two days of disappointments out on the route. Palin was delayed on Saturday in Anchorage when her number one and two dogs Levi and Bristol ran off into the woods together for two hours. As a result the race had to be restarted Sunday.
After the restart Palin failed to shoot any wolves from her sled. "The terrain was unsportsmanlike by being so bumpy that I couldn't get off a clean shot at any of them dontcha know," she said Sunday afternoon via satellite phone.
Soon after that Palin was again delayed, this time by a crew from Dog Fancy magazine who had come to photograph Levi for the April centerfold.
Palin suffered another setback Sunday evening when perspiration blurred the directions she had written on her hand. As a result she took a wrong turn in the dark near Yentna Station and fell into last place.
"This is too hard, I quit," Palin radioed to race officials this morning.
However, the Iditarod will not be a total loss for Palin. She has received a $1.25 million advance from HarperCollins to write a book about how to win the Iditarod, and she gets to keep all the musher apparel and equipment provided by Loki, Go, Neos, and Archie McPhee.
And Bristol is expecting puppies.
In other news, Senator John McCain today explained his decision to include dead people among the signatories of a letter opposing an end to the 'don't ask, don't tell' policy on gays in the military. "I'm a big supporter of seance," said the four term Arizona lawmaker. "Our nation has produced many great military leaders like George McClellan, George Armstrong Custer, Bill Westmoreland, and my old navy buddy Matt Perry. Why should we limit ourselves to the opinions of the living, when at stake is whether our men in uniform are comfortable in the showers?"
don't ask don't tellJohn McCainoldquittersarah palin
Health, History, Humor, International, Politics, Satire
GOP split on health care — Bachmann: we didn't nuke Japan enough – Palin: we nuked them the right amount
February 3, 2010 ERITAS News Service	9 Comments
A congresswoman's remarks on Japan's health care system this week have unexpectedly resulted in a disagreement between two of the Republican Party's leading personalities.
It all began Tuesday when Rep. Michele Bachmann, addressing home state supporters in Rochester, Minnesota, warned that Democratic health proposals would lead to limits on Americans' free speech. A government-controlled health plan, she said, would allow the government to threaten its critics by denying them health care.
Bachmann pointed to Japan as an illustration of what happens when the government takes over health care. "You know those old Japanese soldiers who hid in the jungles and didn't know World War II was over until decades later?" she asked.
"Well what they were hiding from was the government health care system, forced down their throats after the war by that well-known pinko General Douglas MacArthur," Bachmann said.
Bachmann reminded her audience that the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were a preemptive action meant to prevent post-war socialism. "Obviously we didn't nuke them enough," she said.
Those comments did not sit well with former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin. The rising GOP star and Fox News commentator questioned Bachmann's version of history, telling viewers Tuesday night, "I've seen M*A*S*H? So I think I'm on on firm ground by pointing out MacArthur was a Korean general, not Japanese?"
Continued Palin: "And not only that, but if you don't mind me saying so also, the nuking was needed to rouse Godzilla from his slumbering on the ocean floor."
"Thereto, the three times we nuked Japan was exactly the right amount," Palin said.
However, in a retort issued through her press office, the Minnesota lawmaker stood by her evaluation that Japan had not been nuked enough. "If all of Japan had been incinerated, it would have saved them from being enslaved by socialist government health care," Bachmann said.
godzillahealth care reformjapanmichele bachmannrepublicanssarah palin
History, International, Politics
Come the revolution
January 10, 2010 Cartledge	7 Comments
Amigo Kvatch and friends were lamenting during the week (Blogs Against Kleptocracy – Game Over ) another blow to a dubious democracy by the US Supreme Court. At the same time a desperate Aussie farmer was 30 ft up a wind monitoring mast on his property in the high country south of Canberra, on a hunger strike. He is protesting new laws which forbid him to clear native vegetation.
The link with these stories is the assumption that systems of government and law were established with most of us mind. A public protest to Federal Parliament began in Canberra's "Magna Carta Park" in the firm belief that that historical document enshrined some sort of rights to the people.
When King John conceded rights to the 'people' that group consisted of a well defined group of powerful male land owners. The majority in England at that time were merely regarded as a rabble of undeserving serfs. Only a change in language use, a more inclusive approach gave the impression it means us.
Equally the American founding fathers were sparing, even nervous, about giving any real power to the rabble. You still are not trusted to 'elect' a president, and historically the entrepreneurial class has, by default if not law, been given precedence over the people. The only real wonder is that the people have, Ragebot aside, willingly accepted this travesty of democracy.
My real fear is that Corporate Kleptocracy; the American model, is a creeping pandemic. I feel a Julius Caesar moment approaching where any semblance of rights we do have will be taken away. All for our own good mind.
Aussies are a feisty lot and will continue to fight it, but with countless competing agendas a cohesive counter attack is highly unlikely. And still I sigh wistfully: Come the revolution…
Health, History
Thanksgivings of the Past
November 26, 2009 Kvatch	6 Comments
There are many reasons to be thankful that most of us weren't around to celebrate Thanksgiving in the 1930's. Here's another:
Read the original post at The Consumerist and a have a happy, Camel free, Thanksgiving!


text:
Криванський поток () — річка в Словаччині, права притока Іпеля, протікає в округах Детва і Лученець.

Довжина — 48.2 км; площа водозбору 204 км².

Витік знаходиться в масиві Оструожки на висоті 670 метрів. Впадають Тугарський потік; Доброчський потік; Будінський потік і Слатінка.

Впадає у Іпель біля села Требельовце.

Примітки

Посилання

Округ Зволен
Лученец (округ)
Річки Словаччини
Річки басейну Іпеля

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


text:
package com.qrokodial.sparkle.utilities.logging;

import com.qrokodial.sparkle.utilities.characters.StringUtils;
import com.qrokodial.sparkle.utilities.collections.Tuple;
import com.qrokodial.sparkle.utilities.time.DateUtils;

import java.io.IOException;
import java.io.OutputStream;
import java.nio.charset.Charset;
import java.nio.charset.StandardCharsets;
import java.util.*;
import java.util.logging.Level;

public class Logger {
    private List<OutputStream> streams;
    private Charset charset;
    private String id;
    private Map<OutputStream, Level> minimumLevels;

    /**
     * Constructs the class.
     *
     * @param streamInfo an array of tuples containing the streams to push logging output to and the minimum logging
     *                   level that gets outputted to that particular stream
     * @param charset    the charset in which to use for output
     * @param id         an ID that can be used to identify this logger
     */
    public Logger(Tuple<OutputStream, Level>[] streamInfo, Charset charset, String id) {
        streams = new ArrayList<>();

        this.charset = charset;
        this.id = id;

        for (Tuple<OutputStream, Level> tuple : streamInfo) {
            addStreams(tuple.getFirst());
            minimumLevels.put(tuple.getFirst(), tuple.getSecond());
        }
    }

    /**
     * Constructs the class.
     *
     * @param streamInfo an array of tuples containing the streams to push logging output to and the minimum logging
     *                   level that gets outputted to that particular stream
     * @param id         an ID that can be used to identify this logger
     */
    public Logger(Tuple<OutputStream, Level>[] streamInfo, String id) {
        this(streamInfo, StandardCharsets.UTF_8, id);
    }

    /**
     * Constructs the class.
     *
     * @param streamInfo an array of tuples containing the streams to push logging output to and the minimum logging
     *                   level that gets outputted to that particular stream
     */
    public Logger(Tuple<OutputStream, Level>[] streamInfo) {
        this(streamInfo, null);
    }

    /**
     * Constructs the class.
     *
     * @param streams      the output streams to push logging output to
     * @param charset      the charset in which to use for output
     * @param id           an ID that can be used to identify this logger
     * @param minimumLevel the minimum logging level that gets outputted
     */
    public Logger(OutputStream[] streams, Charset charset, String id, Level minimumLevel) {
        this.streams = new ArrayList<>();
        addStreams(streams);

        this.charset = charset;
        this.id = id;

        for (OutputStream stream : streams) {
            minimumLevels.put(stream, minimumLevel);
        }
    }

    /**
     * Constructs the class.  Sends output solely to {@link System#out}.
     *
     * @param id           an ID that can be used to identify this logger
     * @param minimumLevel the minimum logging level that gets outputted
     */
    public Logger(String id, Level minimumLevel) {
        this(new OutputStream[] { System.out }, StandardCharsets.UTF_8, id, minimumLevel);
    }

    /**
     * Constructs the class.  Sends output solely to {@link System#out}.
     *
     * @param minimumLevel the minimum logging level that gets outputted
     */
    public Logger(Level minimumLevel) {
        this(null, minimumLevel);
    }

    /**
     * Constructs the class.  Sends output solely to {@link System#out}.
     */
    public Logger() {
        this(Level.ALL);
    }

    /**
     * @return the output streams that this logger logs to
     */
    public List<OutputStream> getStreams() {
        return Collections.unmodifiableList(streams);
    }

    /**
     * Subscribes output streams to future logging events.
     *
     * @param streams the subscribing output streams
     */
    public void addStreams(OutputStream... streams) {
        for (OutputStream stream : streams) {
            this.streams.add(stream);
        }
    }

    /**
     * @return the charset used in output
     */
    public Charset getCharset() {
        return charset;
    }

    /**
     * @return an {@link Optional} that might contain an ID used to identify this logger
     */
    public Optional<String> getId() {
        return Optional.ofNullable(id);
    }

    /**
     * Logs a message as {@link Level#FINEST}.
     *
     * @param message the message to log
     */
    public void finest(Object... message) {
        println(Level.FINEST, message);
    }

    /**
     * Logs a message as {@link Level#FINER}.
     *
     * @param message the message to log
     */
    public void finer(Object... message) {
        println(Level.FINER, message);
    }

    /**
     * Logs a message as {@link Level#FINE}.
     *
     * @param message the message to log
     */
    public void fine(Object... message) {
        println(Level.FINE, message);
    }

    /**
     * Logs a message as {@link Level#CONFIG}.
     *
     * @param message the message to log
     */
    public void config(Object... message) {
        println(Level.CONFIG, message);
    }

    /**
     * Logs a message as {@link Level#INFO}.
     *
     * @param message the message to log
     */
    public void info(Object... message) {
        println(Level.INFO, message);
    }

    /**
     * Logs a message as {@link Level#WARNING}.
     *
     * @param message the message to log
     */
    public void warning(Object... message) {
        println(Level.WARNING, message);
    }

    /**
     * Logs a message as {@link Level#SEVERE}.
     *
     * @param message the message to log
     */
    public void severe(Object... message) {
        println(Level.SEVERE, message);
    }

    /**
     * Logs a message followed by a newline character "\n".
     *
     * @param level   the logging level that this message should be logged at
     * @param message the message to log
     */
    public void println(Level level, Object... message) {
        Object[] newMessage = new Object[message.length + 1];
        System.arraycopy(message, 0, newMessage, 0, message.length);
        newMessage[message.length] = "\n";

        print(level, newMessage);
    }

    /**
     * Logs a message without appending a newline character.
     *
     * @param level   the logging level that this message should be logged at
     * @param message the message to log
     */
    public void print(Level level, Object... message) {
        StringBuilder buffer = new StringBuilder();
        buffer.append(DateUtils.TIMESTAMP.format(new Date()));

        getId().ifPresent(id -> {
            buffer.append(" (");
            buffer.append(id);
            buffer.append(")");
        });

        buffer.append(" [");
        buffer.append(level.getLocalizedName());
        buffer.append("] ");

        buffer.append(StringUtils.combine(message));

        byte[] payload = buffer.toString().getBytes(getCharset());

        getStreams().forEach(stream -> {
            if (level.intValue() >= minimumLevels.get(stream).intValue()) {
                int offset = 0;

                try {
                    while (payload.length > offset) {
                        int length = Math.min(1024, payload.length - offset);

                        stream.write(payload, offset, length);
                        stream.flush();

                        offset += length;
                    }
                } catch (IOException e) {
                    e.printStackTrace();
                }
            }
        });
    }
}

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


Here at Penketh Group, you know how we like to stay two steps ahead of the trends. Earlier this year it was the continuation of biophilic office design and the rise of inclusive workspaces – this time, it's the idea of active and 'blended learning'.
In fact, last year, Steelcase ran extensive research on the topic which involved 60 interviews, observations at 24 schools, four workshops and two university collaborations. This, combined with more recent briefs from our own customers tell us that this is more than just a trend.
Blended learning is a movement in workspace interior design that is accommodating a shift in control as students transition from passive listeners to active participants.
Of course, users need a strategically designed space, portfolio of furniture and adequate technology in order to make blended learning work. Before we explore that in more depth though, let's first come to an understanding of what the concept is all about.
Blended learning is a concept coined by Steelcase and describes "an approach to teaching which combines online and face-to-face learning" and accommodates multiple learning situations.
It extends beyond traditional methods of teaching and conventional learning environments into more agile and versatile spaces such as virtual learning and collaborative idea-sharing.
Students these days expect to see technology incorporated as part of their programmes or courses and expect to be able to use digital tools as means to learn.
Blended learning is about integrating this with more classic methods of teaching.
As part of their global research, Steelcase dedicate a great deal of resource into the education sector. They utilise everything from cognitive neuroscience and behavioural studies to gain a better understanding of how people want to teach and learn.
From this research, it's clear that blended learning is where we're headed.
Of course, there will always be a number of people who champion traditional and there are many who still feel safe in the realms of lecture rooms and static seating. That said, there is a whole multitude of advantages that a more active and blended approach can bring to any training or learning space.
As attitudes and perceptions evolve, approaches to workspace design and how learning environments are used need to as well. Along with space-planning, furniture and technology, cultures also need to align in order to make blended and active learning viable.
As training and learning spaces gradually move away from traditional lecture seating and sedentary speak-and-listen cultures, furniture needs to respond. Opt for modular and portable furniture which can be easily moved around the space according to requirement.
Steelcase Node (pictured below) is a great example of this and a popular seating solution amongst our customers within the education sector.
A culture and attitude change calls often call for a reimagining of how a space flows and that is certainly true in this case.
Consider creating small settings around the edges or just outside of the learning space for impromptu meetings or private chats. Another example would be to include high stools and tables as an alternative to the architecturally tiered flooring which limits movement around the space and interaction.
It goes without saying that face-to-face connections will still be a vital part of learning processes but as we mentioned earlier, technology is reshaping the world of learning.
Screen sharing technology such as Clickshare, media:scape and video conferencing will become common place in a blended learning environment. SMART Boards means audio and video content can be easily stored and shared away from the physical workspace.
The objective of blended learning is to merge online and offline teaching and learning methods. So, in order for it to work, you will need to cater for both digital and analogue styles.
Something like Steelcase Verb (pictured above) is an intuitive collection of products which work together to accommodate multiple learning styles. Rolling desk can be manoeuvred around the space to improve screen viewing, while individual whiteboards encourage those who prefer analogue methods.
Click for more reading on how to cater for both digital and analogue creativity in the workplace.
Are you looking to transform your training or learning space? Speak to one of our expert space planners via any of the contact methods listed below.