July 25, 2017

No Image

Today in Movie Culture: 'Star Wars' Meets 'Arrested Development,' 'Justice League' Easter Eggs and More

Here are a bunch of little bites to satisfy your hunger for movie culture:

Mashup of the Day:

Ron Howard is finishing the Han Solo movie, so Nerdist added Howard’s Arrested Development narration to Star Wars and it’s perfect:

[embedded content]

Easter Eggs of the Day:

Comic-Con stuff is still permeating the internet, so here’s Mr. Sunday Movies with a look at the Easter eggs and other things you missed in the new Justice League trailer:

[embedded content]

Movie Parody of the Day:

Hulk and War Machine get animated and Hulk spoils a bunch of movies, including maybe Avengers: Infinity War, in this Comic-Con interview parody:

[embedded content]

Fan Art of the Day:

Here’s a pin mashing up Michael J. Fox’s Back to the Future and Teen Wolf characters our own Erik Davis got at Comic-Con:

Thanks @tracytubera for giving me a Future Wolf pin when I ran into you at the bar at our Comic-Con party. This thing is so rad pic.twitter.com/WvPeEIXUKv

— ErikDavis (@ErikDavis) July 25, 2017

Cosplay of the Day:

The Los Angeles Times profiled a cosplaying teacher who went to Comic-Con as Nebula from Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 (via Karen Gillan):

[embedded content]

Supercut of the Day:

To further soothe your Comic-Con hangover, here’s a supercut of all the utterances of “spider” and “man” in the Sam Raimi Spider-Man trilogy:

[embedded content]

Vintage Behind the Scenes Clip of the Day:

For no real good reason except that it showed up on the internet this week, here’s a brief video from the set of Predator 2 in 1990:

Danny Glover dancing with the predators on the set of Predator 2. pic.twitter.com/gtQuzUGUbs

— This Is Not Porn (@thisisnotp0rn) July 22, 2017

Filmmaker in Focus:

Frame by Frame looks at editing and scene transitions in the movies of Steven Spielberg:

[embedded content]

Movie Takedown of the Day:

If you didn’t already think Ghost in the Shell was bad, Honest Trailers breaks it all down for you:

[embedded content]

Classic Trailer of the Day:

Today is the 20th anniversary of the release of Air Force One. Watch the original trailer for the classic action movie:

[embedded content]

and

Let’s block ads! (Why?)


No Image

Democrats Want To Probe Trump Ties To Deutsche Bank. GOP Says, No Thanks

Earlier this year, Frankfurt, Germany-based Deutsche Bank paid a $425 million fine for its involvement in a money-laundering scheme with Russian clients.

Justin Tallis/AFP/Getty Images

hide caption

toggle caption

Justin Tallis/AFP/Getty Images

The House Financial Services Committee on Tuesday considered looking into President Trump’s financial ties, particularly those linking him to a bank that had been involved with laundering Russian money.

But Republican members voted “nyet” on a straight party-line vote of 34-26.

They defeated a Democrat-sponsored request to order Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin to “provide certain documents … relating to President Trump’s financial connections to Russia, certain illegal financial schemes, and related information.”

The committee, which deals with banking and money laundering, “will not be spending time and money” on an investigation that already is being touched upon by other congressional committees, said Chairman Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas.

The Senate and House intelligence committees and the Senate Judiciary Committee have all been looking at some aspects of Trump interactions with Russians. Hensarling called the effort to launch yet another investigation “blatantly political.”

But Rep. Ed Perlmutter, D-Colo., urged passage of the bill known as a “resolution of inquiry,” a rarely used measure that allows Congress to request documents from the executive branch. He said an inquiry is needed because it’s clear “the president has something to hide when it comes to his financial dealings with the Russians.”

Perlmutter said his “suspicions” have increased in recent days because “the president has threatened to fire not only Mr. (Robert) Mueller, the special counsel, but also his attorney general, Mr. (Jeff) Sessions because of the probe into Mr. Trump’s and his family’s financial dealings with the Russians.”

Committee Democrats had been pushing for a broad inquiry, but with a special focus on Trump’s dealings with Deutsche Bank. Earlier this year, the Frankfurt, Germany-based bank paid a $425 million fine for its involvement in a money-laundering scheme with Russian clients.

To better understand why a German bank has turned up in the middle of a controversy involving an American president, here is an explainer:

Deutsche who?

Deutsche Bank, founded in 1870 in Germany, is an enormous financial institution, which S&P Global Intelligence’s ranks as No. 15 in the world in total assets. In 2016, 18 percent of Deutsche Bank’s capital was in the United States.

But the company frequently gets into legal trouble. For example, just last week, it agreed to pay $77 million to end U.S. antitrust litigation in a case involving manipulation of interest rates.

What does a German bank have to do with a U.S. president?

Deutsche Bank and Trump have a long relationship. It started after Trump went through a series of bankruptcies in the early 1990s, and U.S. banks did not want to lend to him.

Deutsche Bank then stepped in as his go-to banker. A New York Times review of security filings estimates that over the past 20 years, Deutsche Bank has given Trump $4 billion in loan commitments and potential bond offerings.

Where do those loans stand today?

While most of the loans have been paid back, Trump’s most recent financial disclosure shows he still has at least $150 million in outstanding debts to the bank.

Many people have loans. So what if Trump owes money to a bank?

For a president, any debt can create a conflict of interest, according to Norm Eisen, who served as the White House ethics adviser to President Barack Obama. He says debts raise questions about whether a president is making policy decisions based on a desire to get favorable terms from his lenders.

“When I was working for President Obama, we wouldn’t even let him refinance his modest home in Chicago because of the appearance of conflict,” Eisen told NPR.

Deutsche Bank isn’t Trump’s only lender. His most recent financial disclosure includes 16 liabilities, from Royal Bank America to Merrill Lynch. His debts total hundreds of millions.

But Deutsche Bank is particularly problematic because it’s so often in legal trouble. Since 2015, the bank has stacked up more than $9.2 billion in fines, penalties and settlements, according to monitoring by the Capital Performance Group. If Trump owes the bank a great deal of money, the question might arise: Would his administration back off tough regulatory enforcement so that the president can get better personal lending terms from Deutsche Bank?

Is special counsel Mueller looking into Deutsche Bank?

Yes, according to news reports. For example, The Guardian says Mueller wants to see an internal report done by Deutsche Bank itself. Several months ago, the bank did an internal review to determine whether any of Trump’s loans were connected to Russia or backed by the Russian government, the report said.

Also, New York regulators want to know whether loans made by Deutsche to Trump could expose the bank itself to heightened risk, The New York Times said.

What does the president have to say about all this?

In a recent interview with the Times, reporters asked whether it would cross a line for Mueller to examine his personal finances. Trump said it would, calling it a “violation.”

Trump has made it clear that he objects to Mueller, congressional investigators or banking regulators looking into his personal finances and loans.

Do other Trump family members owe money to Deutsche Bank?

Jared Kushner, the president’s son-in-law, secured and personally guaranteed a $285 million loan from Deutsche Bank in October 2016, as the The Washington Post first reported in June.

The loan came right before the election and just as Deutsche bank was settling the Russian money-laundering case with the New York regulators. Kushner did not include the loan on his financial disclosure form filed with the Office of Government Ethics in March nor was it listed on his updated form released last week.

The financial disclosure also shows Kushner has a $5 million to $25 million open line of credit from Deutsche Bank, which he shares with his mother.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)


No Image

Sen. King Calls For Health Care Compromise: 'This Is About Real People'

NPR’s Robert Siegel talks with Sen. Angus King, Independent of Maine, who voted on Tuesday against an effort to start discussing a bill to reset the Affordable Care Act.

ROBERT SIEGEL, HOST:

Only two Republicans, Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, broke ranks with their party in today’s vote. This vote does not repeal or replace the Affordable Care Act, but it sets the Senate on a course of discussing and perhaps amending a bill that would do just that. We’re going to turn now to a senator who voted against today’s motion to proceed, Senator Angus King of Maine, an independent who caucuses with the Democrats. And thanks for joining us once again.

ANGUS KING: Absolutely. Glad to be with you. And I got to say at the outset, I love John McCain. His statement today was just brilliant. I wish he’d voted the other way, but I think he served notice on his colleagues that he was simply voting for the procedural step to open debate and wasn’t necessarily expressing support for some further version of one of these bills.

SIEGEL: Do you love his proposal to go to the Senate health committee, return to regular order and have hearings on a health care bill that presumably committee Republicans and Democrats would both take part in?

KING: Absolutely. That’s exactly what we ought to do, Robert. I mean, that’s the way this place is supposed to work. And by the way, it’s the way John McCain’s committee work. I’m on the Armed Services Committee. We had long meetings, we had hearings – hearing after hearing after hearing. We had amendments, we had votes, we had no party-line votes within the committee. It can work that way. He’s absolutely right. That’s the way it ought to happen.

SIEGEL: But wouldn’t any bill that emerged from that process in the Senate then have to go eventually to the House of Representatives, where the Republican majority is more conservative than it is in the Senate? And wouldn’t it be a bill that ultimately you could say from the outset you’re going to vote against?

KING: Well, it depends on what happens. It depends on what the House decides. If they want to get something – and presumably, if there was a Senate bill that came out of a bipartisan process in the committee, there would be something there that the Republicans could support. If they decide they want the whole terrible consequence of kicking millions of people off of health insurance, then we aren’t going to be able to agree. But we certainly can get somewhere working in a regular way where people have a chance to get their voices heard.

SIEGEL: Can you imagine a bipartisan process by which you and Democrats give up something that you really want – say, the individual mandate – because that’s the only way to get another bill? Or is that a bright line right there that you can’t cross?

KING: Well, I don’t want to negotiate on the radio.

SIEGEL: Of course.

KING: But I do think that there are – I mean, I myself, since I got here in 2013, have been talking with a number of people about things we can improve and change in the Affordable Care Act. The Affordable Care Act is not perfect by any means. The problem is the response has been, we don’t want to fix it. We just want to repeal it, get rid of it, throw it out. We want to cut Medicaid. And if their bottom line is severe cuts to Medicaid and a major tax cut for the wealthiest Americans, then we aren’t going to get anywhere.

But if they can stop talking about repealing and start talking about fixing and really dealing with the real problems of people in our society – that’s what bothers me about this. This is about real people. This is about disabled people, elderly people in my state of Maine. And that’s why Susan Collins and I had to vote no today.

SIEGEL: Senator King, just briefly. If, in fact, the leadership, the Republican leadership, doesn’t go along with Senator McCain and sticks with this reconciliation process, do you think they have 50 votes to pass a big health care bill?

KING: I don’t think so. I think they’re going to end up a month from now exactly where they are now, and that is trying to find 50 votes for various options. I think we’ve seen three or four now, none of which could get 50 votes. They may go to the House with – they may get 50 votes on some stripped-down bill that does practically nothing and just gets them into the conference with the House. But then whatever comes back out has to go through the Senate. I think it’s very hard to get those 50 votes.

SIEGEL: Senator Angus King of Maine. Thanks for talking with us.

KING: Thank you.

(SOUNDBITE OF THE NEW MASTERSOUNDS’ “IN THE MIDDLE”)

Copyright © 2017 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at www.npr.org for further information.

NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by Verb8tm, Inc., an NPR contractor, and produced using a proprietary transcription process developed with NPR. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)


No Image

Student Athletes Who Specialize Early Are Injured More Often, Study Finds

A growing number of pediatric sports medicine groups warn that when a child focuses on a single sport before age 15 or 16, they increase their risk of injury and burnout — and don’t boost their overall success in that sport.

Hero Images/Getty Images

hide caption

toggle caption

Hero Images/Getty Images

If you’re involved in high school athletics, you know the scene. There’s increasing pressure to specialize in a single sport and play it year-round.

The upside? Focusing on one sport can help give kids the edge they need to compete on elite club teams — or travel teams. Many athletes hope to attract the attention of college recruiters, or be offered a sports scholarship. This emphasis on competitive success has become widespread throughout the U.S., according to a consensus statement from the American Medical Society for Sports Medicine.

And, the downside? The “increased emphasis on sports specialization has led to an increase in overuse injuries, overtraining, and burnout, according to a 2016 report from the American Academy of Pediatrics .

Now, comes a study, published this week in The American Journal of Sports Medicine, that adds to the evidence that specialization may increase the risk of a range of injuries for high school athletes.

“We found that kids who had higher levels of specialization were at about a 50 percent greater risk of having an injury,” says study author Timothy McGuine, a senior scientist and research coordinator at the University of Wisconsin Health Sports Medicine Center. The injuries McGuine and his colleagues noted included ankle sprains, knee tendonitis, and stress fractures.

The researchers determined specialization by asking athletes in the study these questions: Have you quit one sport to focus on another? Do you consider your primary sport more important? Do you train more than eight months a year for your primary sport? (Students who answered yes to all three questions were considered highly specialized.)

Until now, a lot of what was known about these kinds of injuries has been anecdotal.

To get more hard evidence, McGuine and his colleagues asked athletic trainers to record injuries as they happened during games and practices. The trainers tracked about 1,500 players from 29 high schools in Wisconsin during the 2015-2016 school year.

“We then reported into a database the type of injury, and how it occurred,” McGuine explains. They also recorded information on whether the athlete went to the doctor, whether they had X-rays or MRI’s, whether they had surgery, and how long the injury kept them from playing their sport.

In total, 235 students, of the roughly 1,500, sustained an injury that was serious enough to take them out of the game for a week.

McGuine’s finding underscores the recent advice from a growing number of pediatric and sports medicine groups.

In a clinical report published last year, the American Academy of Pediatrics concluded that current evidence “suggests that delaying sport specialization for the majority of sports until after puberty (late adolescence — around 15 or 16 years of age) will minimize the risks and lead to a higher likelihood of athletic success.”

And a consensus statement from the American Orthopaedic Society for Sports Medicine concluded that “there is no evidence that young children will benefit from early sport specialization in the majority of sports,” given the risk of overuse injury and burnout.

That group recommends several measures to prevent burnout and injury including “avoiding overscheduling and excessive time commitments.”

As a rule of thumb, McGuine says, kids should limit the number of hours they participate in organized sports each week to the number of years they’ve been alive — or less. “So a 10-year-old should not play or practice more than 10 hours a week,” he says.

Still, not all sports medicine experts are convinced by the new evidence.

“Sport specialization may simply be a marker for a larger volume of training and competition,” Dr. John DiFiori, Chief of the Division of Sports Medicine at UCLA told us by email. In other words, kids who focus on one sport and train year-round may simply be on the field more competing and practicing compared to kids who don’t specialize. He’d like to see more research to answer that question.

In the meantime, there’s one conclusion everyone seems to agree on: Parents, clinicians, and coaches need to work together with the leagues to ensure healthy play.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)