Friday, September 01, 2023

Disney greed: pulls ABC, ESPN, FX and other channels from Charter Spectrum

 In a move that has sent shockwaves across the cable television universe, Disney has mercilessly pulled the plug on some of the most beloved channels from Charter Spectrum's service. The corporate juggernaut, known for its insatiable appetite for money, has left millions of loyal viewers in the lurch, leaving them to face the bleak prospect of life without ESPN, FX, and other cherished networks.

The Great Disney Channel Robbery: A Sad Day for TV Lovers

The casualties of Disney's insatiable greed are nothing short of staggering. They've brazenly severed the lifeline to the sports world, with ESPN, ESPN2, and ESPN Deportes all disappearing from the screens of countless sports enthusiasts. Gone are the days of epic touchdowns, slam dunks, and nail-biting matches; Disney's lust for cash has sent sports fans into a tailspin.

FX and the Death of Quality Television

For those who appreciated high-quality drama and cutting-edge comedy, Disney's merciless slashing didn't stop at the sports channels. FX, FX Movie Channel, and FXX were unceremoniously yanked away, leaving viewers to lament the loss of their favorite shows and movies. It's as if Disney decided that laughter and gripping storytelling were a luxury only the wealthy could afford.

Freeform Fans in Distress

But wait, there's more! Disney's callous disregard for the joy of millions extends to Freeform, a channel that has given us iconic shows like "Pretty Little Liars" and "The Bold Type." Disney has essentially told its viewers, "Tough luck, you're on your own!"

National Geographic: Nature Lovers Left in the Wilderness

National Geographic and its sister channels, Nat Geo Wild and Nat Geo Mundo, have been the go-to destinations for nature lovers and those with a curiosity for the world around them. Disney's heartless decision means that viewers are now left in the wilderness, unable to explore the wonders of our planet from the comfort of their own homes.

Disney's War on Childhood Memories

Disney's assault on nostalgia doesn't stop at documentaries and drama. The House of Mouse has also taken a sledgehammer to the Disney Channel, Disney Junior, and Disney XD. Say goodbye to beloved animated classics, heartwarming children's shows, and the joy of family-friendly entertainment.

The BabyTV Bombshell

And just when you thought Disney's greed couldn't sink any lower, they've even stripped parents of BabyTV. Yes, you read that right – Disney has denied parents and their little ones the soothing comfort of educational and entertaining content.

Conclusion: Disney's Unbridled Greed Knows No Bounds

In the wake of this shocking betrayal, it's clear that Disney's lust for money knows no bounds. They've robbed viewers of their favorite channels, leaving countless homes in a state of disarray. This is a dark day for television, and Disney's unapologetic greed is a stain on the entertainment industry.

The only question that remains is: when will the relentless pursuit of profit stop? Until then, millions of viewers are left to mourn the loss of the channels they loved and wonder what Disney will take from them next.

Saturday, June 13, 2020

Black Lives Matter!

I'm not saying that ONLY Black lives matter.........BUT I am saying that Black lives matter!

Friday, April 24, 2020

Stay safe during these challenging times!

Please stay safe and practice social distancing during these trying times. The novel coronavirus has spread throughout the world and it looks like despite all of our efforts, the curve will not be flattened.

Friday, August 24, 2018

No, impeachment will not crash the stock market

https://www.politico.com/amp/story/2018/08/23/donald-trump-impeachment-stock-market-economy-750277

NEW YORK— The longest bull market run in American history could get killed off by a financial collapse in Turkey, a policy mistake by the Federal Reserve or a plain old economic recession.

It will probably not be slain by an impeachment of President Donald Trump.

Story Continued Below

This browser does not support the Ad element.

That’s the consensus view of Wall Street traders and money managers, who say that while an ugly impeachment fight might cause temporary volatility, markets could easily survive an impeachment and even the unlikely event that Trump is removed from office in a Senate trial.

In fact, Wall Street pros often talk about a potential relief rally if Trump departs the White House early.

The underlying economy would remain strong, and a hypothetical President Mike Pence would likely continue Trump’s policy of low taxes and fewer regulations without all the wild tweeting and investigations and persistent trade wars.

“I’m not sure the market would be all that upset by Trump being forced to leave,” said Jim Paulsen, chief investment strategist at the Leuthold Group. “Many Republicans might welcome it, and if Pence moves in, the basic low regulation, low tax nature of the presidency would be the same, only without the constant self-induced volatility, and maybe ‘trade wars' would diminish.”

Trump took a very different view in an interview with Fox News that aired Thursday morning, saying the stock market likely would collapse if he were impeached.

“I will tell you what, if I ever got impeached, I think the market would crash. I think everybody would be very poor,” he said, amid new legal turmoil this week with two former advisers, Paul Manafort and Michael Cohen, now guilty of criminal acts.

Trump loves to bask in the stock market advance under his presidency and boasted this week about the length of the bull market. And stocks have indeed celebrated his policies on taxes and regulation.

But markets now move very little on news of fresh legal trouble for Trump. And analysts say that’s in part because the economic and stock market recoveries long predate Trump’s presidency and would probably live on without him.

“Fading trade wars, no change in corporate taxes and the deregulatory air in Washington would be something of a ‘Washington Goldilocks’ situation,” Michael Obuchowski, portfolio manager at Merlin Asset Management, said of a potential impeachment.

When Wall Street analysts list risks to the current market, they most often cite external turmoil, such as the currency crisis that recently rocked Turkey or the Fed moving too fast — or too slow — on interest rates. Geopolitical tensions in the Middle East and the Korean Peninsula also show up as potential destroyers of a bull market born in the ash heap of the 2009 financial crisis.

They sometimes cite political uncertainty surrounding Trump, but that is usually couched as the potential for trade wars and other unpredictable policies, not the threat of his removal.

Wall Street analysts generally agree that a protracted impeachment fight and potential Senate trial could weigh on stocks, giving Trump the opportunity to claim vindication for his market crash prediction. But they say any drop on Wall Street would be based on the uncertainty of the outcome of such a fight rather than real fear of a post-Trump presidency.

Stefanie Miller, a senior analyst at Height Capital Markets in Washington, said investors would be unnerved by any impeachment effort because of the instability that would bring.

"I do NOT think the market will shrug off impeachment proceedings in the House, even if they don’t lead to a conviction in the Senate," she said in an email. "Based on frequent conversations I’ve had with investors, I don’t get a sense that many would welcome the instability/headline risk stemming from those proceedings."

A larger concern among some investors is that Trump survives but Republicans are so damaged by him that they lose both the House and Senate, putting market-friendly policies more at risk.

“If the scandal helps both the House and Senate to go Democrat to a point where they could reverse tax or regulatory policies, that would matter to the markets,” Paulsen said. “But this seems unlikely, and even if both go Democrat it would mean gridlock for Trump’s term, not much different.”


Saturday, August 11, 2018

Men take care of their spouses just as well as women (new research suggests)

http://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2018-08-10-men-take-care-their-spouses-just-well-women-new-research-suggests#

Men respond to their spouse’s illness just as much as women do and as a result are better caregivers in later life than previous research suggests, according to a new Oxford University collaboration.

The study, published in Journals of Gerontology, Series B, is good news for our increasingly stretched adult care services, which have become more reliant on patients’ family and spouses for support. Conducted with peers from the University of Pennsylvania, the research sits in contrast to previous studies on spousal caregiving, which found that female caregivers tend to be more responsive. However, the new results reveal that men are just as responsive to a partner’s illness, as women.

Using data from the German Socio-Economic Panel Study, the research carried out by Dr Langner of Oxford University* and Professor Frank Furstenberg of the University of Pennsylvania**, focused on 538 couples in Germany with an average age of 69, where one of them had developed the need for spousal care, between 2001-2015, and looked at how caregivers adjusted their hours in response to the new care need: whether directly responding to their physical needs or performing errands and housework.

The findings show that men increased their care hours as much as women did, resulting in similar levels of care once their partner became ill. These similarities were particularly pronounced when a spouse was deemed severely ill, when there was little to no difference in the level of care given.

Perhaps surprisingly, when their spouse is severely ill, men also increase the time they spend on housework and errands, more than women. However, at lower levels of spousal care need – when a spouse is only slightly unwell, women still spend more time doing housework and errands than men – because they already did more housework and errands prior to the disease onset.

There were also significant differences in levels of care given, for couples where the spouse was only unofficially seen to be ‘in need of care’. However, these differences disappeared in homes where no other household help was provided, when regardless of gender, male or female, spouses stepped up to care for each other.

Dr Laura Langner, Research Fellow at Nuffield College, Oxford and ESRC Future Research Leader, said: ‘Our results suggest that gender differences in spousal caregiving in old age are not as pronounced as previously thought. Past studies had numerous limitations, which we could overcome with our data.

‘We found that, unlike many previous studies on caregiving in later life – male caregivers were just as responsive towards their partner’s onset of illness as female caregivers. This stands in sharp contrast the division of caregiving (i.e. childcare) and housework in mid-life. There could be a number of reasons for this, but a key factor may be that in later life many people retire and no longer have the responsibility of work, so are able to focus on other priorities – that their spouse may have been doing already.’

Discussing the potential future implications of the research for patients and services, she adds: ‘People are living longer, meaning that we have an increasingly dependent aging population and we face an elderly care cost problem. Reforms are likely to continue reducing more expensive institutionalised care, and increase cheaper home care. With the gender gap in life expectancy closing, and children becoming less available to care for their parents, it is likely that many more men will be called upon to care for their partners. But, our findings at least suggest that women won’t have to worry that their partners are not up to the job of caring for them, should they need to.’

The team intend to build on the findings by applying the research approach to other countries and assessing how the results compare.


Wednesday, June 27, 2018

Germany's shame as holders dumped out of World Cup after South Korea defeat 2-0 -ESPN

South Korea vs. Germany - Football Match Report - June 27, 2018


Holders Germany were knocked out of the World Cup on a stunning afternoon in Group F, courtesy of a 2-0 defeat against South Korea.

The four-time winners, who lifted the trophy in 2014, had not exited a World Cup in the first round since 1938 but suffered a humiliating early exit after failing to find the crucial breakthrough. Mexico edged through at Germany's expense, despite a 3-0 defeat to Sweden, who finished top. Germany, meanwhile, finish bottom.

Germany were heading out anyway at 0-0 in injury time, but things got even worse when Kim Young-Gwon's strike was eventually given following a VAR referral. With Germany reeling -- and Manuel Neuer up field trying in vain to find a way back into the game -- South Korea made it 2-0, Son Heung-Min rolling the ball into the empty net.

There were a plethora of permutations in Group F ahead of kickoff but Germany started in Kazan knowing that a victory by two goals would be enough to progress, regardless of what happened in Mexico vs. Sweden in Yekaterinburg. But one of the favourites for the tournament came up short and have to face up to a terrible early exit.

Joachim Low made a big call before the match, dropping Thomas Muller, recalling Mesut Ozil and using a 4-2-3-1 formation that included Leon Goretzka on the right.

His men almost fell behind to a shock South Korea opener on 19 minutes -- and in bizarre fashion. Jung Woo-Young's free kick seemed harmless enough but Neuer inexplicably fumbled it, and only a quick reaction from the Germany No.1 thwarted Son Heung-Min from tucking home the rebound.
At the other end, the holders huffed and puffed but to little effect, Joshua Kimmich and Ozil's crosses coming to nothing. In truth it was turgid stuff, Timo Werner's deflected effort seven minutes before half time about as good as it got.

Germany limped to a goalless conclusion of the first half but with Mexico vs. Sweden also a stalemate, it did not matter as Low's men were through by virtue of their head-to-head record against the Swedes -- a 2-1 win last Saturday courtesy of Toni Kroos' 95th minute winner.

Goretza almost put Germany in front two minutes after the restart but was thwarted by a superb stop from Jo Hyeon-Woo -- and then news filtered through of Ludwig Augustinsson's opener for Sweden.
That left Germany with 40 minutes to find the one goal they needed to qualify at Mexico's expense and Kroos, their lifesaver against Sweden, just fired wide almost at the same time the Swedes went 2-0 up through Andreas Granqvist's penalty.

Moon Seon-Min then had a glorious chance to end Germany's hopes but he took far too long in the area when all he needed to do was shoot either side of Neuer.

With time running out, Kimmich's cross evaded everyone in the box and seemed destined for the back of the net but Hyeon-Woo managed to get his body in the way, much to Germany's agony.
Mats Hummels should have been their savour three minutes from time but his free header from inside the area bounced over.

Then, the drama. Young-Gwon poked the ball past Neuer to make it 1-0 -- only after a VAR referral that ruled out an original offside decision -- and then Son tapped home with Neuer well out of his goal.

Wednesday, June 20, 2018

Zach Lowe on Kawhi Leonard, Jaylen Brown and Celtics-Spurs trades

 Article Link 

When an almost-27-year-old MVP candidate becomes available, the entire league takes notice. Most teams picking in the top 10 in Thursday's draft, if not all of them, have at least contacted the San Antonio Spursabout Kawhi Leonard and asked, essentially, "Keep us in the loop." Teams outside the top 10, including the Boston Celtics, Los Angeles Lakers and LA Clippers, have done the same.

Some of those suitors know they don't have enough: The Cavs holding Kevin Love and the No. 8 pick, the Grizzlies with No. 4 and Chandler Parsons, the Clippers with Tobias Harris and Nos. 12 and 13.

In theory, almost no team should pony up its best assets for a player who could bolt in a year without a nearly ironclad assurance he will re-sign. With Leonard, obtaining such assurance may not even be possible. No one knows whether they can trust the word of the advisors around him. There are deep suspicions that Leonard has already decided he wants to play for the Lakers.

Even so, teams will look hard. Leonard is a bona fide top-five player. He finished second in MVP voting in 2016, and third in 2017. Teams can go decades without acquiring a player that good.

Still: Unless Leonard signals a willingness to consider staying with rebuilding teams beyond L.A., they won't trade their best stuff for Leonard. The Suns and Kings can't afford the risk of flipping the No. 1 or No. 2 pick, respectively. Why would the Hawks deal, say, the No. 3 pick, John Collins and Taurean Prince -- gutting their team -- for Leonard, even if they saw some glimmer of hope he might stay? The Knicks might be tempted, but they almost surely won't include Kristaps Porzingis in any Leonard talks.

The Spurs haven't given up hope of reconciling with Leonard, league sources say, though it is unclear if the ballyhooed Gregg Popovich-Leonard summit in San Diego defused the tension. They still have the five-year, $219 super-max offer in the bag. They are projecting patience in preliminary talks.

Even so, the draft has a way of accelerating trade activity; if the Spurs receive an offer Thursday that meets their objectives, they should consider it. But there may not be enough time before then for any team to gain permission to speak with Leonard's camp -- or for the Spurs to arrive at a place where they would even entertain that question.

Pushing into July would help one of the rare suitors that can send out meaningful assets for Leonard and maintain a great team around him: Boston. Right now, the Celtics can't make any palatable offer that doesn't include one of Kyrie Irving, Gordon Haywardor Al Horford. (They could in theory flip Jaylen Brown, Marcus Morris, Terry Rozier, Guerschon Yabusele, Semi Ojeleye and picks today, but that five-for-one monstrosity would raise roster limit complications. Leonard would also have to waive his trade kicker.)

July brings the possibility of signing-and-trading Marcus Smart, and acquiring Leonard without losing either Jayson Tatumor Jaylen Brown. (Tatum is untouchable, regardless.) That may end up being Boston's approach: Attach the motherlode of picks -- that includes Sacramento's pick next season, provided it does not land at No. 1, along with future picks from Memphis and the Clippers -- to a package of Smart, Rozier, Yabusele (for his salary) and Morris, then dare the Spurs to do better. (The salary cap math on that barely works, and requires Leonard to waive some or all of his trade kicker. Smart would have to cooperate along several steps.)

It might sound ridiculous, but Boston will be wary including Brown, even if they get to speak with Leonard about re-signing. The Celtics are set up to contend for at least 10 years. The Irving/Hayward/Horford trio should carry them now. Brown and Tatum take over later.

Flipping Brown for Leonard tilts Boston more toward the present, and chips away at what looks like a bright future stretching well beyond 2025. To maintain that present-future balance, it makes more sense to use Hayward or Irving as the centerpiece of any Leonard trade. Boston does not appear inclined to go that route -- at least not now. If the Spurs deal Leonard, they should enter full rebuild mode and chase picks and younger players, anyway. (Also: A Boston defense featuring Brown, Leonard and Horford is one spicy meatball.)

Swapping Brown (and lots of other stuff) for Leonard would leave Boston with four players earning fat max contracts, including three -- Horford, Irving and Leonard -- who can negotiate fatter ones in 2019. If four such deals prove too much to bear, Boston might have to sell low on one. Meanwhile, Brown isn't eligible for a new deal until 2020-21, and his maximum salary starts at least $5-6 million below those of Hayward and Irving.

There's also this: What if Brown is on a path to becoming the next Kawhi Leonard?

There are striking statistical and stylistic similarities between Brown and the Leonard of 2012 and 2013. Like Leonard then, Brown already profiles as an elite multi-positional wing defender.

By the end of their second seasons, both had shattered developmental curves on offense. Remember: The Spurs hoped Leonard might turn into Bruce Bowen, only they weren't sure he would ever shoot well enough to even become that. "Our expectations weren't necessarily for him to be a 3-and-D guy," R.C. Buford, their GM, told me in the summer of 2013. "His track record didn't lead you to believe he could extend out to the 3-point line." Leonard remarked in that same summer that perhaps the Spurs might call some plays for him in 2013-14.

That was Leonard's third season, the year he won the Finals MVP, and even then, he ran about only six pick-and-rolls per game, according to Second Spectrum tracking data. The idea of Leonard as a No. 1 ball-handling option deadly enough to crack the MVP race seemed farfetched, even within the Spurs.

In his just-concluded second season, Brown used about five ball screens per game.

Both proved almost immediately they could bully smaller guards in the post. Both obliterated expectations as spot-up shooters by the end of their second seasons; Brown is ahead of where Leonard was.

More than two-thirds of Leonard's 3-point attempts in his second season came from the corners; he hit 43 percent of those, but just 13-of-53 non-corner 3s. Brown has hit almost exactly 43 from the corners for his career, but he's much more accomplished on above-the-break 3s than young Kawhi; Brown hit a very solid 69-of-184 (37.5 percent) on those longer 3s last season. He hit them over decent contests, and out of the pick-and-roll:

Playmaking was and is the final frontier for each. Brown averaged just 1.6 assists per game last season, and dished dimes on only 8.5 percent of Boston's possessions -- low even for a second/third-option wing type. Leonard in his second season: 1.6 assists per game, 7.7 percent assist rate. (Those numbers jumped in Year 3, but only a little: two dimes per game, 10.4 percent assist rate.)

They didn't start out as natural quick-thinking pick-and-roll players. They were (and are) physical drivers who like to burrow into defenders until they reach a comfort zone, and then rise up. That can work, but it is not the sort of slicing action that draws help and unlocks kickout passes; defenses can almost stay home in five-on-five mode:

Leonard grew into a decent passer starting in 2016 -- not even close to a great one, but good enough for a team to run a functional offense through him. He showed hints of something more in the 2017 playoffs, but then Zaza, and then sadness.

Whether Brown can make similar progress is by far the biggest question about him -- one the Celtics are surely trying to answer now. He has a tendency to get a little single-minded and reckless around the basket, hoisting up wild shots instead of making easy passes -- like the one to the corner staring Brown in the face before Joel Embiid swallows him:

He sometimes holds the ball a beat too long, so that help defenders are already rotating back when he releases a pass:

He misses cutters here and there. He appears to sometimes see them a second late, when the defense is already closing windows. On other trips, he doesn't seem to have the confidence to try thread-the-needle passes. Adventures in nuanced pick-and-roll play can end in miscommunication and sad-trombone comedy:

Some of his floaters are awkward -- launched almost from the foul line, released on the way down.

Young Leonard was cagier than current Brown at navigating crowds with a live dribble. (Ginormous hands helped him develop a tighter handle.) He was calmer, more under control, better at stopping and pivoting into floaters and short jumpers. He could already stop on a dime, and pogo-stick straight up into clear airspace as defenders fell away. Brown doesn't have the same balance; he often flicks up shots with his body flying sideways, or toward the rim. He has been more turnover prone than Leonard.

Brown shot 37 percent on 2-pointers outside the restricted area; Leonard was about 45 percent in his second season, and drained a Nowitzkian 51 percent of his long 2s in Year 3. Leonard was (and is) a much more accurate free throw shooter.

It takes young guys a long time to read the game in motion, and Brown is already making strides. He's learning to change pace, keep defenders on his hip, and trick defenses:

The results are scattershot, but Brown will improve with reps:

He is starting to hit the brakes, Leonard-style, and hop into clean, controlled midrange looks instead of careening toward the rim:

He has a nice crossover, a nascent Eurostep, and a softening left hand:

Brown isn't ponderous off the catch -- a good sign. As soon as he sees Khris Middleton duck that first screen, Brown changes direction, knowing he can dust Middleton the other way.

A 21-year-old finishing that baby over Rudy Gobert, with his off-hand? Sheesh, as the kids say.

Brown is a monster athlete, but his explosiveness doesn't translate into games as much as it should. That will change as he hones his feel and his jumper. Skills are not discrete things. They interact. One skill amplifies or diminishes another. As Brown becomes more confident and anticipatory with the ball, his athleticism will sing louder. He will gain separation more easily.

Get ready for Deandre Ayton, Luka Doncic, Trae Young and more top prospects.
Brown is not Leonard now, and might never be. Skeptics wonder if his 3-point shooting uptick will sustain. Kevin Pelton's SCHOENE scores peg Leonard and Brown as only mildly similar through two seasons. Leonard in 2012-13 was already swiping steals at alarming rates, snaring more rebounds than Brown, and posting better advanced numbers. He is more physically imposing, enveloping victims with a crazy 7-3 wingspan (compared to seven-feet flat for Brown) and those frying pans with fingers. He is the best perimeter defender since Scottie Pippen.

To be an MVP candidate with average passing skills in the pace-and-space era, a perimeter player has to be off-the-charts fantastic at every other part of the game -- not just good, or even very good. Leonard got there.

Leonard's developmental curve was unusual. Players don't grow from where he was in his first two seasons into MVP candidates. To expect the same from Brown is unreasonable.

But sometimes smart, tenacious and skilled players defy reasonable. Leonard did. Brown might. His jump from Year 1 to Year 2 was jarring. The Celtics aren't ready to put a ceiling on him, and they shouldn't be. He may never crack the top five in MVP voting, but it is not a stretch to imagine Brown making an All-NBA team and busting into some of those lofty "two-way player" conversations.

Most executives around the league consider it a no-brainer for Boston to toss Brown into any Leonard trade, provided the Celtics get the requisite assurances about Leonard's health and willingness to re-sign. It's not -- not given Brown's youth, salary and potential to grow into something like 90 percent of prime Leonard.

But that last 10 percent is why you probably do it. It is the 10 percent that separates the very best players. It wins championships. Every one of those 10 percentage points is exponentially harder to find than the one below it.

Boston has put itself in such a good position that it can deal future for present and still feel good about the future. A healthy Leonard will be a superstar for at least the next five seasons. Tatum will be one soon. They'd still have extra picks, and maybe that is the bright line in the end if trade talks with the Spurs advance: If you get Brown and Rozier, you don't get that Sacramento gem -- and perhaps not the Memphis one, either. (Boston could move Rozier for some very nice things now, but they need his salary -- or some replacement salary -- to make most Leonard deals work.)

Adding a fourth max salary would make for a painful luxury tax bill in 2019-20, but Brown and then Tatum are on pace to create the same problem starting only a year later. Maybe Horford would take a discount on annual salary to lock in a long-term deal. Worst case, you trade one of the big-money veterans for whatever you can get.

If everything lines up right -- and only then -- Leonard is good enough, and still young enough, that you probably hold your nose and deal Brown in exchange. If anything about Leonard feels off or unknowable, Boston can sit tight and feel fine. Brown is that intriguing.