Yeah whatever drugs he was taking when posting that, I don't want any.

Agree. Sort of like MJ in the sense you could never look at him or watch one of his movies without thinking of that shit. I like most of his 70s/80s movies. Broadway Danny Rose, Manhattan, Annie Hall, Play It Again Sam, Hannah and her Sisters,etc. His 90s film Manhattan Murder Mystery is very underrated and in my opinion one of his best films.

Austria's Mulatschag TV recently conducted an interview with ALTER BRIDGE guitarist Mark Tremonti. You can now watch the chat below.

When asked about his band friendship with VAN HALEN bassist Wolfgang Van Halen, Tremonti said, "We played with VAN HALEN years and years ago at Madison Square Garden and Palace in Detroit. The first time I saw Wolfgang, he was just a little… probably five-year-old kid or six-year-old kid. Eddie [Wolfgang's father and VAN HALEN guitarist] that day gave me one of his guitars, so I got to know Eddie. Then years went by and Wolfgang ended up being a fan of ALTER BRIDGE, so we got to know him through ALTER BRIDGE. And Wolfgang invited us to go see soundcheck when VAN HALEN did a tour a couple of years ago, and we were the only in there, so it was quite a treat. And then recently I was in Los Angeles and Wolfgang invited me to his Dad's house and I got to go to 5150 studios and watch Eddie and Alex [Van Halen] and Wolfgang play their new record from front to back. So I was one of the only people who have heard the new VAN HALEN. It was incredible."

VAN HALEN's long-awaited new studio album in tentatively due in the fall, which is when the band is also expected to hit the road in support of the effort.


http://www.roadrunne...wsitemID=159528


Sounds like this album is leaving pipe dream territory and crossing over into reality.

I'm on the fence with this as VH has sucked for years and EVH is less productive than Axl. Roth hasn't created anything decent in years either.

This will either kick ass or be a complete fiasco. No middle ground.

When they reunited I said if they did a new album they should call it 1985. Doubt they do it but would be cool.

But it will be interesting to see how much free reign Roth is given to promote and hype, I suspect it will be little based on what he wasn't allowed to do for the 07/08 reunion tour which is too bad.

Yeah that was the most unfortunate thing regarding the reunion. Roth was kept on an incredibly short leash and had people not been waiting on a VH reunion for 20+ years, it would have fizzled out due to lack of promo. I still don't understand why they had to silence him. He is a natural at that sort of thing and could have brought so much excitement to the whole thing. While the reunion was a success, it was barely a popcorn fart in pop culture. Roth would have changed that.

If new Roth album flops/band disintegrates again then there is still time for another Hagar Reunion

I'd rather spend an eternity in hell than hear Hagar with Van Halen again.

1985?

Last Roth VH album was 1984 so its kinda like picking up where they left off.


I also agree that Anthony not being involved is terrible as he was a crucial part of their sound.

I wonder how many people will even care after all this time?

Good question and the fact they haven't hyped it up since the reunion could hurt it tremendously. Unless it has a huge hit, it will not connect with a young audience which means it'll sell decent the first week due to hardcores buying it and then quickly vanish from the charts.

In this day and age whether or not your album is good or bad, you gotta have that one massive, catchy single to grab the world by the balls.

I'm shocked that Brown won. Whitman had been saturating the entire state with ads. It may have been a backlash to that which caused Brown to get in by the hair of his chinny chin chin. I was glad he won, just surprised to see it actually happen when I came home tonight. Cant believe prop 19 lost. Even people opposed to marijuana or drugs of any kind should have voted yes on that. The average voter is a frightening thing to think about. I don't even want to know what goes through their heads.

Good discussion going. Hadn't checked this section in awhile.





There's a pic of this election.

Karl Rove getting upset over attack ads, now that's fucking funny huh?

Didn't see that but that is definitely hilarious. Hadn't heard his name in awhile.

Tonight is a GAME CHANGER for Obama.

How will the GOP beat him now?

Haven't you seen? They've already started congratulating Bush II. Also, the military is a socialist institution.

Bush and Obama both deserve credit. Two almost identical empty suits but they kept going after this guy until the objective was achieved. On issues such as Bin Laden being murdered, the political hack crap should be abandoned. Not directing that at you, just a general statement based on some forums I've read since this happened.


As far as 2012 goes, Obama is going to win. A 3rd conflict that has the potential to get dicey, the death of Bin Laden, and the GOP not having anyone worthy will guarantee his reelection.

Its 2004 all over again.


Cant stand Obama but I certainly support what he did and the speech was actually good. He put off a vibe of being in control, not fucking around, and if he continues to portray this image I don't know how he can lose. Gingrich the only viable candidate to oppose him but the guy just has too much baggage.

A Paul/Ventura ticket?? I don't agree with Paul on some issues but if he wasn't older than Yoda, Obama would be in big trouble.

Presidential party's lose seats in midterm elections. Happens almost every time.

Yeah, and its REALLY gonna happen this time.

I know Paul is as as old as Yoda but does anyone think he has a chance in hell if he moved a bit towards the center? He has some wacky ideas but other than that and his age, would have a chance at going all the way. Would LOVE to see a debate between Paul and Obama. Paul would have him shaking in his boots.

America and Afghanistan are close to signing a strategic pact which would allow thousands of United States troops to remain in the country until at least 2024, The Daily Telegraph can disclose.


The agreement would allow not only military trainers to stay to build up the Afghan army and police, but also American special forces soldiers and air power to remain.

The prospect of such a deal has already been met with anger among Afghanistan’s neighbours including, publicly, Iran and, privately, Pakistan.

It also risks being rejected by the Taliban and derailing any attempt to coax them to the negotiating table, according to one senior member of Hamid Karzai’s peace council.

A withdrawal of American troops has already begun following an agreement to hand over security for the country to Kabul by the end of 2014.

But Afghans wary of being abandoned are keen to lock America into a longer partnership after the deadline. Many analysts also believe the American military would like to retain a presence close to Pakistan, Iran and China.





Both Afghan and American officials said that they hoped to sign the pact before the Bonn Conference on Afghanistan in December. Barack Obama and Hamid Karzai agreed last week to escalate the negotiations and their national security advisers will meet in Washington in September.

Rangin Dadfar Spanta, Mr Karzai’s top security adviser, told The Daily Telegraph that “remarkable progress” had been made. US officials have said they would be disappointed if a deal could not be reached by December and that the majority of small print had been agreed.

Dr Spanta said a longer-term presence was crucial not only to build Afghan forces, but also to fight terrorism.

“If [the Americans] provide us weapons and equipment, they need facilities to bring that equipment,” he said. “If they train our police and soldiers, then those trainers will not be 10 or 20, they will be thousands.

“We know we will be confronted with international terrorists. 2014, is not the end of international terrorist networks and we have a common commitment to fight them. For this purpose also, the US needs facilities.”

Afghan forces would still need support from US fighter aircraft and helicopters, he predicted. In the past, Washington officials have estimated a total of 25,000 troops may be needed.

Dr Spanta added: “In the Afghan proposal we are talking about 10 years from 2014, but this is under discussion.” America would not be granted its own bases, and would be a guest on Afghan bases, he said. Pakistan and Iran were also deeply opposed to the deal.

Andrey Avetisyan, Russian ambassador to Kabul, said: “Afghanistan needs many other things apart from the permanent military presence of some countries. It needs economic help and it needs peace. Military bases are not a tool for peace.

“I don’t understand why such bases are needed. If the job is done, if terrorism is defeated and peace and stability is brought back, then why would you need bases?

“If the job is not done, then several thousand troops, even special forces, will not be able to do the job that 150,000 troops couldn’t do. It is not possible.”

A complete withdrawal of foreign troops has been a precondition for any Taliban negotiations with Mr Karzai’s government and the deal would wreck the currently distant prospect of a negotiated peace, Mr Avetisyan said.

Abdul Hakim Mujahid, deputy leader of the peace council set up by Mr Karzai to seek a settlement, said he suspected the Taliban had intensified their insurgency in response to the prospect of the pact. “They want to put pressure on the world community and Afghan government,” he said.







http://www.telegraph...until-2024.html

Wow. Very sad. We may start seeing more cases like this especially if someone gets cancer or needs a life saving operation and they have no coverage.

This could go either way. It's been gone waaaaaaaaaaaay too long but considering the fact most hardcore gamers are adults and will remember this, it might be a success. It had huge potential in the 90s/early 00s as a major franchise but of course they threw it all away. I don't give a shit about it anymore but will check it out for shits and giggles.

If Paul was 20-30 years younger, he'd be a serious threat to the establishment. I'm not an expert on this shit, but wouldn't it be nearly impossible to go back to the gold standard since there is so much money in circulation? Is there even enough gold on the planet to back every US dollar currently in existence? Would going back to the gold standard require a new currency? SLC is right on the money. The Fed is so misunderstood that its one of THE hot topics on all conspiracy sites. Like SLC, there are things about Paul I don't like but then other issues I do agree with him on. I don't think he will ever be president. He's too old. Someone can say Reagan ascended to the presidency at 70, but these are different times.He's also on the fringe with some of his ideas but I do agree with him regarding the need to do something on this particular issue. He also makes great points on changing course on the Bush-Obama strategy of never ending wars. An Obama-Paul debate would be very interesting to say the least. Would I vote for Paul in 2012? Depends.

The worst thing is if major work does have to be done - the shots in the mouth. .

Even though I have a needle phobia, I love the shots in the mouth.




Marathon Man is one of my favorite films.

Black Swan should have been number 1 on that list. A movie of the decade contender.

Black Swan should have been number 1 on that list. A movie of the decade contender.

Damn really?

While I am a huge Natalie Portman fan, I delayed watching this as I have zero interest in anything to do with ballet. Once I decided to watch it I was completely blown away by the film. Watched it again immediately after it ended. Even if you wind up not liking the story itself, it is a beautifully shot film. There should be riots if it doesn't win the Oscar for cinematography.

This is just fantastic.

Nutty bastards. I hope we stay OUT of it.

We cant stay out of it. We're the trip wire. Once the shit goes down, we're pretty much obligated to defend it at all costs.



I hope Obama is willing to use "shock and awe" like its never been seen before. If not, we may be getting our asses kicked in the very near future. We don't have enough troops there to properly defend SK, let alone march North.

He better not let our troops get slaughtered there. I'm gonna assume he's intelligent enough to have ordered part of our nuclear arsenal in the region to be on standby. A nuclear attack will need to occur within a few minutes to save American lives.

Nuclear or not, we need to do a decapitation strike on their leadership.

South Korea warned today that it will unleash "enormous retaliation" if North Korea launches fresh attacks against its territory.

North Korean troops bombarded Yeonpyeong, an island in disputed waters, with dozens of rounds of artillery earlier today, reportedly killing two South Korean soldiers and injuring around 20 people.

Seoul placed its military on its highest non-wartime alert level, scrambling F-16 fighter jets to the western sea and returning fire, officials said. It warned that the attack was a violation of the armistice that ended the Korean war in 1953.

The South Korean president, Lee Myung-bak, who convened an emergency security meeting shortly after the initial bombardment, said an "indiscriminate attack on civilians" could never be tolerated.

"Enormous retaliation should be made, to the extent that [North Korea] cannot make provocations again," he said.

The assault is one of the most serious in the decades since the war, given the involvement of civilians, although previous firefights around the disputed maritime border have resulted in a higher number of casualties.

In a short statement carried by the official KCNA news agency, the North said the South had fired first – presumably in reference to a live-fire drill being carried out as part of annual military exercises. It said it had repeatedly warned the South not to go ahead with the drill.

Analysts said that despite the seriousness of the clash, the situation was unlikely to escalate dramatically given the high stakes involved for all parties.

It comes amid growing international concern over reports that North Korea has a new uranium enrichment facility.

Lee ordered officials to "sternly respond" to North Korea's action but stressed that they had to make sure the "situation would not escalate," an aide said.

Yeonpyeong is only around 75 miles west of the South Korean capital.

Broadcasters showed smoke rising from houses in the attack, and Seoul's YTN television said residents had been evacuated to bunkers after firing broke out, at around 2.30pm. It is thought around 1,200 people live on the island.

Lee Chun-ok, a 54-year-old island resident, said she had been watching TV when she heard sounds of artillery, and a wall and door in her home suddenly collapsed.

"I thought I would die," said Lee, who had been evacuated to the port city of Incheon. "I was really, really terrified, and I'm still terrified."

The White House condemned the attack as "belligerent", adding: "The United States is firmly committed to the defence of our ally … and to the maintenance of regional peace and stability."

In London, William Hague urged Pyongyang to stop further "unprovoked" attacks.

Russia's foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, said there was a "colossal danger" of escalation, Reuters reported. He added: "Those who started this bear a huge responsibility."

China, North Korea's main ally, steered clear of assigning blame. A foreign ministry spokesman, Hong Lei, urged both sides to "do more to contribute to peace and stability in the region".

An unofficial spokesman for North Korea told the Guardian that firing artillery was a "totally justifiable act of self-defence" in response to the sea drills and warned that nuclear war could follow "at any point" unless the exercises stop. Pyongyang has repeatedly issued such threats in the past.

"If the South continues its dangerous behaviour, Seoul will be the next target. It will be a sea of fire," said Kim Myong-chol, executive director of the Centre for Korean-American Peace.

Han Seung-joo, a former South Korean foreign minister, said the "reckless and provocative" act suggested desperation on North Korea's part, and suggested it may be meant to send a message to a domestic audience rather than to the outside world, boosting solidarity and "show[ing] that they can get away with this".

Professor Chu Shulong, an expert on international security at Beijing's Tsinghua University, said it was too early to be sure what had happened.

But he added: "Over the years, North Korea has always been a place that likes to make trouble to get attention from the international community. After they get attention, they can start a new round of negotiations and get supplies from other countries. This is what they have been doing during the past 20 years."

The disputed maritime border has long been a source of friction and has seen repeated skirmishes – in some cases fatal – in recent years.

Relations between the two Koreas have remained especially tense since the South's Cheonan warship sank in March, killing 46 sailors. An international investigation led by Seoul blamed a North Korean torpedo but Pyongyang denies any involvement.


http://www.guardian....ned-south-korea

I'll be at the Frisco show. Anyone here plan on going to see them on this tour? More dates are expected to be announced at some point.

Was gunna' grab some Toronto tickets but they're gone.

Just go through a scalper site, or wait awhile and Ticketmaster may release more tickets for that show.

This is pretty much "last chance saloon" for SG fans to see them live. While they are gonna release a new album this year, a massive tour is unlikely and I doubt the US/Canada get a second leg.

July 02 - Toronto, ON - Molson Canadian Amphitheater July 03 - London, ON - John Labatt Centre July 05 - Ottawa, ON - Ottawa Blues Fest July 06 - Uncasville, CT - Mohegan Sun Arena July 08 - Newark, NJ - Prudential Center July 09 - Wantagh, NY - Nikon at Jones Beach Theatre July 10 - Mansfield, MA - Comcast Center for the Performing Arts July 12 - Fairfax, VA - Patriot Center July 13 - Philadelphia, PA - Festival Pier at Penn's Landing July 14 - Atlantic City, NJ - Borgata Spa & Resort Event Center July 16 - Chicago, IL - UICPavilion July 18 - Morrison, CO - Red Rocks Amphitheater July 21 - San Francisco, CA - Bill Graham Civic Auditorium July 22 - Inglewood, CA - The Forum July 23 - Las Vegas, NV - The Joint July 29 - Vancouver, BC - Rogers Arena July 30 - George, WA - The Gorge Amphitheater Special guests: * COHEED AND CAMBRIA: all shows July 2-10 (Toronto, London, Ottawa, Uncasville, Newark, Wantagh, Mansfield) * THE MARS VOLTA: all shows July 12-23 (Fairfax, Philadelphia, Atlantic City, Chicago, Morrison, San Francisco, Inglewood, Las Vegas) * QUEENS OF THE STONE AGE, MEAT PUPPETS: July 29 (Vancouver) * QUEENS OF THE STONE AGE, MASTODON, MEAT PUPPETS: July 30 (George, WA)

nazherald.co.nz writer Scott Kara tweeted this: Just interviewed Chris Cornell. Nice chap. Still recording “sonic aggressive” new Soundgarden album but nearly ready he reckons.

BRUSSELS – In a stern rebuke, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates warned Friday that the future of the historic NATO military alliance is at risk because of European penny-pinching and distaste for front-line combat. The United States won't carry the alliance as a charity case, the outgoing Pentagon chief said.

Some NATO countries bristled, but Britain quickly and heartily agreed.

Gates' assessment that NATO could face "a dim if not dismal" future echoes long-standing concern of U.S. policymakers about European defense spending. But rarely, if ever, has it been stated so directly by such a powerful American figure, widely respected in the United States and internationally.

The remarks, at the close of Gates' final overseas trip, reflect a new reality of constrained American finances and a smaller global reach.

Earlier in the week Gates played "bad cop" to U.S. President Barack Obama's good, criticizing Germany's abstention from the air campaign in Libya two days after Obama lavished an award and fancy White House dinner on visiting Chancellor Angela Merkel.

But Gates spoke for the Obama administration, and his warning Friday was aimed squarely at Europe's priorities.

"The blunt reality is that there will be dwindling appetite and patience in the U.S. Congress, and in the American body politic writ large, to expend increasingly precious funds on behalf of nations that are apparently unwilling to devote the necessary resources or make the necessary changes to be serious and capable partners in their own defense," he said.

That assessment may cause Europeans to question the future of their defense relationship with the United States, on whom they have counted for a large measure of their security for six decades.

It comes on the heels of the withdrawal of one American combat brigade from Europe as part of a significant reduction of U.S. troops in Europe.

The U.S. has been the brawn behind NATO since its birth in 1949. But the disparity between strength and allies' investment has only grown wider.

In a question-and-answer session after his speech, Gates, 67, said his generation's "emotional and historical attachment" to NATO is "aging out." He noted that he is about 20 years older than Obama, his boss.

For many Americans, NATO is a vague idea tied to a bygone era, a time when the world feared a Soviet land invasion of Europe that could have escalated to nuclear war. But with the demise of the Soviet Union in 1991, NATO's reason for being came into question. It has remained intact — and even expanded from 16 members at the conclusion of the Cold War to 28 today — but European reluctance to expand defense budgets has created what amounts to a two-tier alliance: the U.S. military at one level and the rest of NATO on a lower, almost irrelevant plane.

Gates said this presents a problem that could spell the demise of the alliance.

"What I've sketched out is the real possibility for a dim if not dismal future for the trans-Atlantic alliance," Gates said. "Such a future is possible, but not inevitable. The good news is that the members of NATO — individually and collectively — have it well within their means to halt and reverse these trends, and instead produce a very different future."

Without naming names, Gates blasted "nations apparently willing and eager for American taxpayers to assume the growing security burden left by reductions in European defense budgets."

A German foreign ministry spokeswoman defended that nation's contribution and noted Obama's recent praise.

However, defense spending is uneven within Europe.

Liam Fox, defense secretary in Britain, a strong U.S. ally, told NATO Thursday that European governments were undermining military co-operation with the U.S. by failing to spend enough on defense. He also said other European nations should be more willing to send their forces to NATO operations such as Afghanistan.

He praised Gates as a champion of the trans-Atlantic relationship.

"Unless Europe carries more of the share of its own defense, we should not assume his successors will do the same," Fox said.

Over the past two years, military spending by NATO's European members has shrunk by about $45 billion — the equivalent of the entire annual defense budget of Germany, one of the alliance's top-spending members.

As a result, the U.S. defense budget of nearly $700 billion accounts for nearly 75 percent of the total defense spending by NATO members. The combined military spending of all 26 European members is just above $220 billion.

The White House stood by Gates' comments Friday, though officials emphasized that the outgoing defense secretary was not guaranteeing a dim future for NATO, only saying that the possibility existed if allies cannot provide the resources needed. "I don't think anyone would argue with that," said Tommy Vietor, spokesman for the National Security Council.

Gates has criticized the Europeans before. He bruised feelings at NATO by publicly calling for larger troop contributions in Afghanistan. He has also criticized the heavy restrictions many European governments set for their soldiers, including bans on night patrols that mean many of them rarely leave their bases.

In February 2010 at the National Defense University in Washington he said NATO was in danger of becoming a paper tiger.

"The demilitarization of Europe, where large swaths of the general public and political classes are averse to military force and the risks that go with it, has gone from a blessing in the 20th century to an impediment to achieving real security and lasting peace in the 21st," he said then.

To illustrate his concerns about Europe's lack of appetite for defense, Gates pointed to Libya, where France and other NATO nations pushed hard for NATO intervention and where the U.S. insisted on a back seat role.

"While every alliance member voted for the Libya mission, less than half have participated at all, and fewer than a third have been willing to participate in the strike mission," he said. "Frankly, many of those allies sitting on the sidelines do so not because they do not want to participate but simply because they can't."

Such inequality is unacceptable, Gates said, and so is the poor follow-through that occurred once the mission began.

"The mightiest military alliance in history is only 11 weeks into an operation against a poorly armed regime in a sparsely populated country, yet many allies are beginning to run short of munitions, requiring the U.S., once more, to make up the difference," he said.

During his first two years on the job, Gates alternately coaxed and complained, often loudly pressing allies to send more forces and funding to Afghanistan and to lessen their restriction on the troops they had there.

After a while he scaled back his constant hounding, acknowledging that it wasn't paying off much. And he frequently joked that NATO colleagues weren't shy about mentioning his "megaphone diplomacy."

NATO did send more forces over the past two years, and Dutch, British and other European forces have taken heavy losses. But as the Afghan war approaches its 10th anniversary, the U.S. has more than twice as many forces in Afghanistan as all other nations combined. Several NATO nations have withdrawn forces or have announced plans to do so. The U.S. shares the NATO goal of ending combat there by 2015.

Gates offered praise and sympathy along with his chiding, noting that more than 850 troops from non-U.S. NATO members have died in Afghanistan. For many allied nations these were their first military casualties since World War II.

Gates spoke at the Defense and Security Agenda think tank in Brussels, where earlier in the week he attended a two-day meeting of NATO defense ministers.

http://news.yahoo.co...tes_nato_doomed


---------------------------

What does everyone think about this development? I am in the minority that thinks we should have pulled out of NATO decades ago and that the alliance serves no real purpose in the 21st century. While we do have some key allies in the alliance(most notably Britain), if push ever came to shove I think the alliance overall would have revealed itself to be a paper tiger.

The NATO expansion of the 90s and beyond was pure idiocy. It made it even weaker. You willing to risk WWIII over the protection of Slovenia? Yeah.....sure.

Even the strategy of encircling Russia is a relic. There's simply no point in doing it. Europe depends on Russia for some of its energy needs. Russia could turn off the spigots and send that region into chaos yet we're gonna pretend to surround them in a checkmate move? I'm surprised Russia even bothers to complain about this as its a waste of oxygen. Putin should have laughed in Bush and Obama's faces regarding the issue at one of their meetings. The only legitimate issue concerning the expansion is missile defense.

Regardless, a US pullout of NATO or just minimizing our role is a strategic move. Pretty much a 180 of US foreign policy in the post Cold War era and a departure from the Bush/Obama doctrine.