What Bill O'Reilly Got Out of the Immigration Deal

By holding out his explicit endorsement of the Senate's immigration bill until Thursday night, Fox News' Bill O'Reilly figured out how?he could play kingmaker on a major national issue. "It is time for the USA to pass immigration reform," O'Reilly said. He pointed to the latest agreement in the immigration negotiations, which calls for spending $30 billion to send 20,000 more agents to secure the border with Mexico. "For years I?ve called for a more secure southern border, you know that. And now it looks like the secure border is in reach. At least somewhat. So I hope this bill does become law." He cited the bill's plan to make undocumented immigrants go through 13 years of purgatory before getting full legal status: "Senator Rubio told me on the phone today that it would be at least 13 years - 13 -- before people in the country illegally right now could gain full legal working status, and even longer to achieve citizenship." Rubio immediately sent out a press release celebrating O'Reilly's endorsement. The news was picked up on conservative blogs like Hot Air, Breitbart.com, The Blaze.

RELATED: Frank Luntz's Secret Tape Reveals the Right-Wing Media's True Cruise Control

This is decision-making theater.?Watching the Republican Party and conservatives talk themselves into backing immigration reform is like watching someone with a cavity talk themselves into going to the dentist. They don't want to do it, but they've already decided they have to do it. Now they're torturing the rest of us with elaborate rituals showing they're finally really for real this time ready to do it. The Republican National Committee has said the party must embrace immigration reform. The Wall Street Journal is solidly behind it. And so is Fox.?Fox's Sean Hannity endorsed immigration reform the day after the election, even though he once opposed "amnesty." Fox News head Roger Ailes? said recently, "Republicans haven?t used the right language? They keep talking about illegal immigration." Ailes also said: "I don?t have any problem with a path to citizenship."?Fox News Latino uses ?the term "undocumented immigrant" instead of "illegal."

RELATED: Who Stands Where on the Immigration Reform Deal

As?The Weekly Standard's Bill Kristol said of the border security deal on Fox on Thursday night, "It may be enough to give political cover to Republican senators who want to vote for this bill anyway, and are looking for something to be able to say -- when they go back home -- 'Oh we've really toughened up that border security.'" That might go for Fox, too.?The New Yorker's Ryan Lizza reported that?Sens. John McCain, Lindsey Graham, and Rubio had privately lobbied O'Reilly, Hannity, and Neil Cavuto:

"God bless Fox," Graham said. "Last time, it was 'amnesty' every ?fteen seconds." He said that the change was important for his re?lection, because "eighty per cent of people in my primary get their news from Fox."?

O'Reilly denied he'd worked with the Senate's Gang of Eight, saying, "This is a no collusion zone." O'Reilly has his own constituents to worry about.

Source: http://news.yahoo.com/bill-oreilly-got-immigration-deal-143421828.html

tourettes rosie o donnell soda bread recipe vanderbilt evan mathis staff sgt. robert bales jason russell

John Hodgman explains the end of the world to you

John Hodgman is the world's foremost expert on all things canny and uncanny, and everything in between. And today marks the release of Ragnarok, his one-hour comedy special about the apocalypse, via Netflix. To celebrate, we talked to him about the meaning of apocalyptic stories, and why he doesn't love zombies.

Last year, Hodgman did a comedy show about the apocalypse, timed to the supposed end of the world on December 21. And now it's available via Netflix, as of today. We talked to Hodgman on the phone for 20 minutes, and he told us all about the end of everything.

Where did the idea for doing an apocalypse-themed stand up tour and comedy special come from?

Well, I?m afraid of death. I?m unusual in that, I think. I turned forty a couple of years ago, and that is when a lot of humans start to really contemplate their mortality. Up until then it is pretty easy to pretend you are immortal, but when you turn forty it starts to come into focus that you are not beginning something but ending something and to think about what that ending is. Then I realized we were in the midst of this apocalyptic fervor surrounding the whole new age theory of the Mayan long-count calendar somehow encoding the end of the world or the end of some major period of human history.

And you know, apocalyptic visions are stories and books of the Bible and movies, and so on, are comforting ? even though they involve the death of millions of people ? because A) they usually involve one survivor or include in their story the idea that you are going to be the one who is going to be lifted up to Heaven or get to wander through the streets of empty New York or survive the zombie plague and finally get to shoot your former neighbors in the head. You know what I mean? So those are all kind of wish fulfillment.

And B) even if you imagine that you are not going to survive, there is something comforting in so far as? It's not merely that you die, it?s that when you die, you get take the whole world out with you in that apocalyptic situation. Your passing is noted with the passing of all civilization and life on Earth. That, in a dark way, is comforting because the alternative is, what is actually frankly true for most people: That your death will pass relatively unnoticed and over time will not be remembered at all.

There is a picture of H.P. Lovecraft on the set of the special. The thing that I think he understood ? the thing about horror ? is not merely the horror of the unknown, but the horror of your own insignificance. And that the Old Ones and the pan-dimensional monster creatures that inhabit the margins of his stories, what makes them terrifying is not just the tentacles, but the fact they predate human history by millennia and will post date human history by even more millennia. The idea that we are as cosmically insignificant as we are is terrifying. That?s all. That?s the most terrifying.

What?s your favorite type of apocalypse? Zombies, asteroids, plagues?

What apocalypse do I find most comfortable? Well, zombies ? I?m not as into [zombies] as the rest of the world is. Because I think, as I say, that the wish fulfillment fantasy there is pretty transparent and juvenile ? which is [that] you get to hurt people with impunity, in a world where laws no longer apply to you. And, you know your perverse desire to murder is justified entirely, because you are constantly in a kill-or-be-killed situation. There is no nuance to the zombies. They want only brains and they cannot be reasoned with, and therefore there is nothing you can do. You?ve got to just go on a murderous rampage yourself.

But I guess probably the one I find most [compelling] is the "last person on Earth" scenario. Because there is that element of getting to drive through the abandoned city at high speeds and get to wander into every [apartment]. You know I live in New York City, so 40% of my brain is filled with apartment and lifestyle envy, so getting to wander through all the different lives that used to inhabit there [is an attractive fantasy]. But I also find that it is appropriately discomforting as well, because what is worse than death? Being the last person on earth. That is the loneliness we are all going to face in our personal apocalypse.

A lot of my quote-unquote "research" for thinking about the apocalypse was reading Stephen King?s The Stand. And not just the short version either. The whole directors cut, that he put out once he got his money together. So I had never read it when I was younger. I read it for the first time, I?m embarrassed to admit, over the past couple of years ago, when I was starting to think about this material. I found it very compelling and relatively timeless. And chilling.

Do you think the apocalypse should be religious or secular?

I am a true agnostic, which as you know is the lazy person's atheism. Kind of don't want to take a side. And truly, I think that even though my dark instincts are that there is nothing beyond ? and I am willing to say that there is little to no compelling evidence that there is something beyond ? I am always the first to announce my ignorance, and willingness to accept there might be evidence that I haven't gotten yet. That may be just grasping for hope. The reality is that I just don't know. And the apocalypses, such as the Book of Revelation, have less purchase on my imagination, because it seems more likely that we will not be Raptured to a special place.

And [a story that has] far less blood and fury, and [is] far more terrifying, of course, is The Road, which s a totally compelling and realistic and fatalistic imagination of what would happen if society went away. The thing about that book was, it was unbearable to read. To the point of getting mad ? like, why would you put someone through this? And then you kind of experience what it would be like to go through something like that, in the sense that your sensibilities get callused over, your emotions get callused, as they would have to in any profoundly traumatic experience where you see something that you hope never to have seen. And you become caught up in going forward through the book, just as the guy gets caught up in going forward down the road, even though you as the reader, and he as the protagonist, know just how hopeless the whole exercise is. There is something profoundly true about the human dumb persistence in life that is given real relief if you do not believe in an afterlife.

That just got real deep, right?

But then I realized I hadn't really checked in with the biography of Cormac McCarthy in a long time. And he had kind of come out of seclusion to do some press for the movie of The Road when that came out. So there were some more recent interviews with him. So the story that he [shared] was, "I started thinking about The Road when I was on a trip through Ireland with my son, a couple of years ago, who was about the same age at the time [as the boy in the novel.]" And I was like, "Wait a minute. You have a twelve-year-old son, Cormac McCarthy? What's your age again? Oh yeah. You're 79, or whatever. Oh, you're a guy who had a son very late in life. You are not writing about the human condition, or a global apocalypse, you're writing about the personal apocalypse that you're facing. You realize that you're not going to see your son grow up." So I got mad at Cormac McCarthy for putting me through all that, when it turns out he was just working through his own dumb emotions. [Laughs]

I'm not really mad at Cormac McCarthy, but that book really did a number on me.

Has the apocalypse gotten more literary in the last decade? It used to be a lot more goofy, like in the days of Mad Max and Hell Comes to Frogtown.

Yeah, I miss those days. There's some really, really interesting [stuff happening now]. It was an interesting thing that happened when Cormac McCarthy wrote essentially a science fiction novel. Without any science in it. But a speculative fiction novel about a future apocalypse. And there's beautiful and moving and powerful and literary speculative fiction out there that is not ashamed of the genre. And I'm not suggesting that Cormac McCarthy was ? but the way that book was treated by most humans in the world was, "Finally someone has done a serious book [of speculative fiction.]"

And I was like, "That's not true." The fact that that book was treated better than other great works along the same theme ? including, for that matter, The Stand. Line by line, it's hard to find a better writer than Stephen King. This guy is up there. While it takes its own melodramatic turns, there are moments of abject sorrow and terror in there that rival anything I've read under the "literary" umbrella. And as human and as revelatory.

There is a general fascination, that maybe has come to its head or maybe is still going on, with this feeling that things ? particularly American culture and American primacy ? [are] kind of unraveling. And there is an anxiety, that is appropriate to the times, that we have done such damage to this planet that it may be irreversible. So there is an apocalyptic mood in general, culturally and politically, that is getting everyone's attention from the far-right doomsday preppers, who are underground and imagine the New World Order is coming... to the Chardonnay club of literary circles in New York, who read and discussed The Road.

But certainly, I think the success of that book and the acclaim it got opened the door for writers who might not necessarily have taken a look at these kinds of [topics, and] might not have felt comfortable working in genre before.

Are you going to see World War Z?

Sure. Only because I have to. As much as I malign the zombie thing, what Max Brooks did was more interesting than mass-murder wish fulfillment, so I'm definitely going to check it out.

People talk about the Soft Apocalypse, where everything is just super gradual. What would be the softest apocalypse?

Every day, as we're living it today. It's hard not to feel like frogs in a gently simmering pan at the moment. The softest apocalypse is the one we're living right now, and the one that we face every minute that passes, before the individual apocalypse that awaits the end of all of our days.

Thanks to Amanda Yesilbas for transcription.

Source: http://io9.com/john-hodgman-explains-the-end-of-the-world-to-you-521452635

Ada Lovelace 12/12/12 manny pacquiao Chopper Live jerry brown michael buble michael buble

Finance blogger wisdom: fixing financial television | Abnormal Returns

• abnormalreturns
• June 20th, 2013

Abnormal Returns?is on hiatus this week. However that does not mean that we are content-free.?As we did last year, and the year before, we asked a panel of independent finance bloggers a series of (hopefully) provocative questions. We hope you enjoy these posts as much as we do putting them together. Check out answers to yesterday?s question on what the next big financial innovation might be. Feel free to jump in the comments with your own answers to the questions.

Question:?Can financial TV (CNBC/BBTV/Fox Business) be fixed? If so, what you do differently if you were in charge? (Answers in no particular order.)

Tom Brakke, tjb research, @researchpuzzler: I?m not sure that it can be fixed.? But it can be helped.? One small example:? Do the equivalent of a Charlie Rose show.? Thoughtful, insightful, in-depth interviews that (at least sometimes) get past the marketing spin and ?talking your book? to something deeper.? The business is full of niches with interesting people and ideas.? Wouldn?t it be nice to get a chance to explore some of them every now and then?? That never seems to happen on financial TV (although I gave up on it a long time ago).

Morgan Housel, The Motley Fool, @TMFHousel: When Jon Stewart had Jim Cramer on his show a few years ago, Cramer made the point that it?s hard offer valuable programing when you have 17 hours of live TV to fill each day. Stewart replied, ?Maybe you could cut down on that?? That?s ultimately what needs to happen to business news (and most online content).

30 years ago there was one hour of market TV per day, and handful of business newspapers and magazines. Today it?s 24 hours of news and an uncountable number of online outlets. What changed isn?t the volume of news, but the volume of drivel and interpretations of irrelevant events that we blow out of proportion.

Realistically, I?d like to see more focus on long-term business news, which Americans are still interested in, and less reactionary coverage to trading and speculation, which they aren?t.

Brian Lund, bclund, @bclund: No, it can never be fixed.? Any forum where monetization is driven by ratings is almost surely broken and can rarely be of true value to the viewer, because the best way for producers to drive ratings in to create conflict, putting people on who are on polar opposites of an issue and then letting them berate each other in the most over the top way.? It?s the financial version of gladiator fights, giving no value to the audience.? The real question should be how can make it so the next generation looks to themselves for financial information instead of the talking heads on TV?

Jeff Carter, Points and Figures, @pointsnfigures: ?No, financial TV wants viewers. How do you get more viewers?? be controversial, be loud. Turn it off and listen to Stocktwits.

Robert Seawright, Above the Market, @rpseawright: ?I am often entertained by financial television, and entertainment is what drives ratings.? Therefore, in that sense, there is little to fix. I would like less ?What?s going to happen today?? and more longer-term analysis, but I suspect that I?m in the minority on that. Moreover, it can be very damaging to the individual investor.? From that perspective, financial television can be fixed, but not in a way that would drive ratings success, because good investing for the vast majority of people should be boring and good television can?t be boring.

David Merkel, Aleph Blog, @alephblog: ?Financial TV is hopeless. Short-signal communications are almost always low value.? All the best ideas take time to communicate, and require a lot of thought.? Printed text will always beat video; more information per unit of time spent.

Bill Luby, VIX and More,? @VIXandMore: I probably average less than an hour of financial news TV per month, but when I do watch, I seem to get more out of the Asian and European versions than their U.S. counterparts.? The problem seems to be a mismatch between ratings, content quality and the target audience.? If you want to chase ratings, you are going to see something that resembles tabloid TV cross-bred with reality TV that seeks to appeal to a mass audience.? If I were in charge, I?d probably create a money-losing venture that focused on in-depth features.? Imagine a 60 Minutes of the financial world.? Alternatively, I just might leave the camera on Art Cashin all day just for the heck of it?

Dynamic Hedge, Dynamic Hedge, @dynamichedge: The job of the financial media two fold: sell advertising and provide programming. The relationship between these two groups is almost perfect. Viewers want seemingly random market movements and dry financial data explained in an emotionally appealing narrative. Advertisers, predominantly financial service firms, want lots of actionable ideas and opposing viewpoints to generate trade commissions. It?s a bonus if the overall investing process appears so complex that the viewer opts to give up and use one of their more comprehensive financial services.

The result of wanting the mundane explained as narrative is headlines (and segment lead-ins) like: Disappointing reports help push US stocks down and the subsequent Stocks open higher on Wall Street ahead of Fed. Blast those disappointing reports and their linear cause and effect on the stock market! Huzzah the subsequent expectation of a positive report and its opposing effect on the actual reports! Quick, bring in an octobox and find every single angle and opposing viewpoint. Now cut to advertisement for financial services to either ?take advantage? of these reports/viewpoints for one low flat rate, or services that have even more professionals make sense of these dueling ideas. Repeat for infinity.

The result is viewers churned to death trying to chase the narrative to the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, or an abdication of their financial future to the firm with the best retirement fantasy montage (sailboat, vineyard, I?ll take two of both). Both are not optimal outcomes.

As long as humans prefer their information in narrative format and financial service firms have something to sell, we?re going to have this problem. My personal feeling is that none of this is implicit or somehow dishonest or disingenuous. The financial service providers are providing services and so is the financial media. The users of the respective products have the final say on who gets their money and attention. The fact is markets mostly fluctuate day-to-day because of buyers and sellers, unknown to one another,? making decisions they feel will better their lot in life for a variety or reasons. If there is a problem with the financial media, it is that the producers are too good at getting into the ?variety of reasons?. The only true solution is to ignore these day-to-day happenings. This would result in a lot of dead airtime and will never happen. The way to mitigate the damage to the investing public more responsible voices on air advocating for the viewer (just have to make sure they can hold their own). Remember, the viewer decides whether or not they will pay attention to the Octobox. You can always turn it off.

Jared Woodard, Condor Options, @condoroptions: I?d carve out some grown-up time where the eyeball-maximizing, circus business model gives way to whatever smart guests really want to talk about. Professional jargon is allowed as long as you explain yourself, segments last longer than 30 seconds, and there?s a debate show, like the old Crossfire show on CNN, where you have to present evidence for your conclusions. I would cut out all the goldbug/anti-government stuff, which has limited appeal in a stable economy. Also, I would get Bart Chilton to commit to a regular story time / pop culture review segment.

Wesley R. Gray, Ph.D., TurnkeyAnalyst & Empiritrage, @turnkeyanalyst & @empiritrage: I love being entertained. Why change it?

Kid Dynamite, Kid Dynamite?s World, @kiddynamiteblog: This is related to the mandatory savings question.? The answer is NO ? financial TV cannot be fixed because people are greedy, stupid, and lazy.? Financial TV is catered toward the TELL ME HOW TO MAKE EASY MONEY NOW mentality that dominates the American financial psyche.?? No one wants to watch intelligent financial discourse ? they just want to read 140 character trade recos on Stocktwits?

Josh Brown, The Reformed Broker, @reformedbroker: Duh, the Josh Brown show. And my show is about investing ? INVESTING, portfolio management, matching capital with liabilities, retirement income, strategies, probabilistic planning, financial technology breakthroughs and career advice. It is definitely not about stock picks or ?trading the news?, there?s plenty of that already.
??

Thanks to everyone for their participation. Stay tuned for another question tomorrow.

Abnormal Returns is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com. If you click on my Amazon.com links and buy anything, even something other than the product advertised, I earn a small commission, yet you don't pay any extra. Thank you for your support.

The information in this blog post represents my own opinions and does not contain a recommendation for any particular security or investment. I or my affiliates may hold positions or other interests in securities mentioned in the Blog, please see my Disclaimer page for my full disclaimer.

blog comments powered by

Source: http://abnormalreturns.com/finance-blogger-wisdom-fixing-financial-television/

elizabeth berkley lenny dykstra mlb 12 the show sabu franchise tag lesotho a wrinkle in time

US: No sector should be kept out of EU talks

BRUSSELS (AP) -- The United States sees no reason to keep the movie and television industry out of upcoming trans-Atlantic free-trade negotiations with the European Union, despite France insisting that sector should be excluded, a high-level U.S. official said Thursday.

U.S. Ambassador to the EU, William E. Kennard also said that his country has not tried to keep any sector out of the negotiations with the 27-nation EU, countering French claims that Washington would exclude financial services.

The talks are expected to kick off next month after President Barack Obama and EU leaders announced on Monday that they would seek a free trade deal between the world's two mightiest economic regions. Such a pact would create a market with common standards and regulations across countries that together account for nearly half the global economy.

For weeks, France has piled on pressure on the other EU nations to keep the cultural sector off limits and last week the EU agreed on a negotiating mandate that included France's demand ? but with the proviso that it could possibly come back as an issue later in the negotiations.

"No one is saying that you cannot talk about audiovisual," Kennard told a small group of reporters on Thursday. "I don't think it is completely accurate to say it is a complete carve-out. It is more of a constraint," he said.

For years now, Paris has sought to protect its cultural industries from the cultural clout of Hollywood through subsidies and quotas. Since the EU is a patchwork of often tiny countries with their own languages and cultures, such protection has become a fully acceptable practice in the bloc.

That is why France insisted that the issue be kept out of the negotiations. EU Trade Commissioner Karel De Gucht, who will negotiate on behalf of the 27 countries based on a unanimous mandate, had always argued that the mandate should be as open as possible since there always would be enough guarantees to protect EU culture.

The United States also wants as level a playing field as possible.

"Frankly, we are happy that we are only talking about audiovisual as a constraint right now and not lots of other things that are politically sensitive on both sides," Kennard said.

He denied the U.S. was trying to keep the financial services out of the talks.

"That is not accurate because we already have a separate track dealing with the whole array of financial services issues," Kennard said. The issues are being dealt with through the G-20 group of the world's 20 leading industrial and developing countries and through dialogue between financial regulators, he added.

He said those talks should move in parallel with the trans-Atlantic free trade talks.

An EU-commissioned study shows that a trade pact could boost the 27-country bloc's economic output by 119 billion euro ($159 billion) a year and the U.S. economy's by 95 billion euros ($127 billion). Another estimate showed eliminating tariffs alone would add $180 billion to U.S. and EU gross domestic product in five years' time while boosting exports on both sides by about 17 percent. That could add about 0.5 percent annually to the EU's GDP and 1 percent to the U.S.

____

Follow Raf Casert on Twitter at http://www.twitter.com/rcasert

Source: http://news.yahoo.com/us-no-sector-kept-eu-191411737.html

lakers trade ann arbor news nick young south dakota state long beach state beasley trailblazers

LeBron leads Heat to second straight title

The Miami Heat's LeBron James holds the the Larry O'Brien NBA Championship Trophy after Game 7 of the NBA basketball championship against the San Antonio Spurs, Friday, June 21, 2013, in Miami. The Miami Heat defeated the San Antonio Spurs 95-88 to win their second straight NBA championship. (AP Photo/Lynne Sladky

The Miami Heat's LeBron James holds the the Larry O'Brien NBA Championship Trophy after Game 7 of the NBA basketball championship against the San Antonio Spurs, Friday, June 21, 2013, in Miami. The Miami Heat defeated the San Antonio Spurs 95-88 to win their second straight NBA championship. (AP Photo/Lynne Sladky

The Miami Heat's LeBron James (6) shoots against the San Antonio Spurs during the first half in Game 7 of the NBA basketball championships, Thursday, June 20, 2013, in Miami. (AP Photo/Steve Mitchell, Pool)

The Miami Heat's LeBron James (6) shoots against the San Antonio Spurs' Danny Green (4) during the first half in Game 7 of the NBA basketball championships, Thursday, June 20, 2013, in Miami. (AP Photo/Lynne Sladky)

The San Antonio Spurs' Tim Duncan (21) embraces Miami Heat's Dwyane Wade (3) as Miami Heat's LeBron James (6) looks on during the first half in Game 7 of the NBA basketball championship, early Friday morning, June 21, 2013, in Miami. The Miami Heat defeated the San Antonio Spurs 95-88 to win their second straight NBA championship. (AP Photo/Steve Mitchell, Pool)

Miami Heat s forward LeBron James (6) reacts after he was fouled during the second half in Game 7 of the NBA basketball championship against the San Antonio Spurs, Thursday, June 20, 2013, in Miami. The Miami Heat won 95-88. (AP Photo/Wilfredo Lee)

MIAMI (AP) ? LeBron James and the Miami Heat remain atop the NBA, and not even a proud push from the San Antonio Spurs could knock them down.

James led the Heat to their second straight title, scoring 37 points and grabbing 12 rebounds in a 95-88 victory Thursday night in a tense Game 7 that was tight until Miami pulled away in the final minute.

Winning the title they needed to validate their best season in franchise history ? and perhaps the three-superstar system they used to build it ? the Heat ran off with the second straight thriller in the NBA's first championship series to go the distance since 2010.

"It took everything we had as a team," Dwyane Wade said. "Credit to the San Antonio Spurs, they're an unbelievable team, an unbelievable franchise. This is the hardest series we ever had to play. But we're a resilient team and we did whatever it took."

Two nights after his Game 6 save when the Heat were almost eliminated, James continued his unparalleled run through the basketball world, with two titles and an Olympic gold medal in the last 12 months.

"I work on my game a lot, throughout the offseason," said James, who was MVP for the second straight finals. "I put a lot of work into it and to be able to come out here and (have) the results happen out on the floor is the ultimate. The ultimate. I'm at a loss for words."

He made five 3-pointers, defended Tony Parker when he had to, and did everything else that could ever be expected from the best player in the game.

The Heat became the NBA's first repeat champions since the Lakers in 2009-10, and the first team to beat the Spurs in the NBA Finals.

Players and coaches hugged each other after the game. The respect between the sides was obvious from the opening tipoff of Game 1 through the final buzzer.

Fans stood, clapped and danced as the clock ticked down, when every score was answered by another score, each stop followed by a better stop. The Heat pushed their lead to six points a few times midway through the fourth but San Antonio kept coming back.

The Spurs, a whisker away from a fifth title two nights earlier, couldn't find a way to win it all in what was perhaps the last shot Tim Duncan, Parker and Manu Ginobili will ever get together.

"In my case I still have Game 6 in my head," Ginobili said. "Today we played an OK game, they just made more shots than us. LeBron got hot. Shane, too. Those things can happen. But being so close and feeling that you are about to grab that trophy, and seeing it vanish is very hard."

They were trying to become the first team to win a Game 7 on the road since Washington beat Seattle in 1978, but those old guys ran out of gas just before the finish.

Duncan had 24 points and 12 rebounds for the Spurs, but missed a shot and follow attempt right under the basket with about 50 seconds left and the Spurs trailing by two.

James followed with a jumper ? the shot the Spurs were daring him to take earlier in the series ? to make it 92-88, sending San Antonio to a timeout as Glenn Frey's "The Heat Is On" blared over the arena's sound system.

He then came up with a steal and made two free throws for a six-point lead, and after Ginobili missed, James stalked toward the sideline, knowing it was over and that he was, once again, the last one standing.

Wade had 23 points and 10 rebounds for the Heat, who overcame a scoreless Chris Bosh by getting six 3-pointers and 18 points from Shane Battier.

Streamers fell from the arena ceiling onto the fans for the second year in a row, but this one meant so much more. A narrow escape in Game 6 was still fresh in everyone's mind.

They were down 10 in the fourth quarter of that one before James led the charge back, finishing with a triple-double in Miami's 103-100 overtime victory. This one was nearly as tight, neither team leading by more than seven and the game tied 11 times.

Kawhi Leonard had 19 points and 16 rebounds for the Spurs, who had been 4 for 4 in the championship round. Ginobili had 18 points but Parker managed just 10 points on 3-of-12 shooting.

The Heat and coach Erik Spoelstra collected the Larry O'Brien trophy again from Commissioner David Stern, presiding over his final NBA Finals before retiring next February.

He couldn't have asked for a better way to go out.

James avenged his first finals loss, when his Cleveland Cavaliers were swept by the Spurs on 2007. That helped send James on his way to South Florida, realizing it would take more help to win titles that could never come alone.

He said he would appreciate this one more because of how tough it was. The Heat overpowered Oklahoma City in five games last year, a team of 20-something kids who weren't ready to be champions yet.

This came against a respected group of Spurs whose trio has combined for more than 100 playoff victories together and wanted one more in case this was San Antonio's last rodeo.

Duncan is 37 and Ginobili will be a 36-year-old free agent next month, the core of a franchise whose best days may be behind them.

Meanwhile, it's a potential dynasty along Biscayne Bay, but also one with a potentially small window. Wade's latest knee problems are a reminder that though he came into the NBA at the same time as James and Bosh, he's a couple of years older at 31 with wheels that have seen some miles.

James can become a free agent again next summer with another decision ? though hopefully not another Decision ? to make. He's comfortable in Miami and close with Wade, and the Heat have the leadership and commitment from owner Micky Arison and president Pat Riley to keep building a championship core around him.

Why would he want to leave?

San Antonio's most recent title came at James' expense. The Spurs exploited the weaknesses in James' game though knew someday they would be gone, Duncan telling him afterward that the league would someday belong to James.

And James simply isn't giving it back.

He came in averaging 33.8 points in Game 7s, already the best in NBA history, and was even better in this one.

He can't be defended the way he was six years ago, too strong inside and too solid from the outside. He drove Danny Green back like a tackling dummy to convert a three-point play in the second quarter, then knocked down a 3-pointer for the Heat's next score.

Heat fans, criticized over the last two days after many bolted before the finish Tuesday and then tried to force their way back in, weren't going anywhere early in this one. The game was too good.

And there was another celebration to watch.

The Heat had the classic championship hangover through the first few months of this season, too strong to lose at home but not committed enough to win on the road, where they were just 11-11 following a 102-89 loss in Indiana on Feb. 1.

They won in Toronto two nights later on Super Bowl Sunday and didn't lose again until well into March Madness, running off 27 straight victories before falling in Chicago on March 27 and finishing a franchise-best 66-16.

The small-market Spurs have always been a ratings killer, but interest grew throughout this series in their attempt to toppled the champs. Game 6 drew more than 20 million viewers, a total that Game 7 was expected to top.

And the games got better, too. Games 2-5 were all decided by double digits, neither team able to carry its momentum from one game to the next.

This one was back and forth for more than three quarters, with Mario Chalmers' 3-pointer at the buzzer giving Miami a 72-71 lead heading to the final 12 minutes of the season.

Game 6 could have shaken the Spurs, who were so close to holding the trophy that officials were preparing the championship presentation before Miami's rally. The Spurs held a team dinner late that night, figuring the company was better than having to dwell on the defeat alone in their rooms.

The pain of that game or the pressure of this one had little effect on their veterans but brought out a change in their leader, the subject of some rare second-guessing for his rotations near the end of the collapse.

The famously blunt Gregg Popovich was in a chatty mood pregame, actually preferring to stay and talk even when there were no more questions, saying the busier he was, the less he'd worry.

"It's torture," he said of Game 7s. "It's hard to appreciate or enjoy torture."

But it sure was beautiful to watch.

The sport's most pressure-packed game had a nervous start, each team making just seven baskets in the first quarter and combining for seven turnovers. The Spurs took an early seven-point lead, but a pair of 3-pointers by Battier during an 8-0 run helped Miami take an 18-16 lead.

The Heat nursed a narrow lead for most of the second quarter, and after San Antonio went ahead in the final minute of the period, James tipped in a miss before Wade knocked down a jumper with 0.8 seconds left to send the Heat to the locker room with a 46-44 edge.

Notes: Home teams are 15-3 in Game 7s of the NBA Finals. ... Miami improved to 5-3 all-time in Game 7s in the postseason and became the fourth team to win the final two games at home since the finals went to a 2-3-2 format in 1985, joining the Lakers in 1988 and 2010, and Houston Rockets in 1994. ... Green was just 1 for 12, going 1 for 6 behind the arc. He started the series by making 25 3s in the first five games, a finals record for an entire series.

___

Follow Brian Mahoney on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/Briancmahoney

Associated Press

Source: http://hosted2.ap.org/APDEFAULT/347875155d53465d95cec892aeb06419/Article_2013-06-21-NBA%20Finals/id-ef3a6409a3a145548a5e3b1c7d57460f

PlayStation 4 ign nba playoffs Chad Johnson engadget 2 Chainz spurs

Unable to pay for husband's funeral, Apple Valley woman allegedy buries him in back yard

APPLE VALLEY -- Unable to pay for a funeral, an Apple Valley woman reportedly told sheriff's deputies she was forced to bury her husband in a shallow grave in the couple's back yard weeks after the man died, according to San Bernardino County Sheriff's officials. Investigators are trying to determine if the man died of natural causes.

The identity of the deceased man has not been released. The woman has also not been identified.

Apple Valley deputies were called out to a home in the 16000 block of Navajo Road around 1 p.m. Wednesday for a welfare check on a 63-year-old man, according to authorities.

At the home, deputies found the man's 59-year-old wife who told deputies her husband, who has not been identified, had died weeks earlier, according to sheriff's officials. Unable to pay for a funeral, she reportedly told officials she buried him in the back yard.

The man's body was found in a shallow grave and his body did not appear to have any obvious signs of trauma.

The woman was not arrested pending a cause of death ruling from the coroner, according to Cindy Bachman, spokeswoman for the sheriff's department.

It's a violation of the state's health and safety code to bury a human body anywhere other than an approved and recognized cemetery.

More to come.

Source: http://www.sbsun.com/ci_23496433/apple-valley-woman-unable-pay-husbands-funeral-allegedy?source=rss_viewed

Happy new year fiscal cliff Pitbull Hannah Storm jenny mccarthy fergie new years

Deal of the Day: Case-Mate Tough Case for Samsung Galaxy S4

The June 14 ShopAndroid.com Deal of the Day is the Case-Mate Tough Case for Samsung Galaxy S4. Built to withstand sudden drops and accidental falls, the Tough case is the epitome of protection. A snug, form fitting silicone wrap provides shock resistance, while the polycarbonate hard shell protects against impact. Color options include black, pink and purple.

The Case-Mate Tough Case is available for just $20.00, 33% off today only. Backed by our 60-day return policy and fast shipping!

Never miss a deal. Sign up for Daily Deal alerts

Source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/androidcentral/~3/tvTR4U49XrA/story01.htm

la riots rachel maddow gia utah jazz lawrence of arabia denver nuggets new jersey devils