Telling Time Warner What It Can Go Do With Itself PORTABLE

Shortly afterward, Pastor Brian and Wilma, a church member, come to inform April that her mother Rose died from a fatal brain aneurysm while riding on a city bus and was cremated. April is devastated by the news and seeks comfort from Randy. However, he is sleeping and shrugs her off. Later, Sandino comforts April as she tells him about her mother's death and the last time she spoke with her. Shortly afterward, Jennifer, Manny, and Byron return to April's after searching for their grandmother, and April dejectedly tells them the news.

Telling Time Warner What It Can Go Do with Itself

Over time, Sandino and April become good friends. Sandino fixes a ruined bedroom in her house. This makes Manny and Byron happy, but upsets Jennifer, who feels April does not want them there. While on a date, Sandino tells April he doesn't understand why she is with Randy and asks if she loves Randy. He tells her what true love is to him. One Sunday morning, Sandino eagerly knocks on April's bedroom door to get April ready for church, but Randy threatens to kill Sandino if he continues to spend time with April.

The next night, Manny needs his insulin shot and Jennifer goes to the kitchen to get it. As she prepares the shot, Randy approaches and attempts to rape her, but Sandino fights him off. April walks in on the fight, and Randy claims Jennifer offered him sex for money. April pretends to believe him and sends Randy to take a bath. When he is in the tub, April threatens to electrocute him with a plugged-in radio. Sandino arrives and tries to stop her, but April is enraged, as she explains that she was sexually abused by her stepfather Lee, who then lied about it to her mother, thus causing April to lose her faith in the people that cared about her. Once this is revealed, it is then known why April became an alcoholic due to her stepfather lying to her mother for years over the sexual abuse and why April chose to live a life without children and resenting her stepfather for what he did to her. Afterward, she drops the radio into the water, giving Randy a severe electric shock. Randy barely jumps out just in time, and Sandino orders him to leave in three minutes.

I Can Do Bad All by Myself received generally positive reviews from critics.[7] Rotten Tomatoes gave it a 61% approval rating based on 46 reviews, with an average rating of 5.9/10. The site's consensus states: "Though somewhat formulaic and predictable, Perry succeeds in mixing broad humor with sincere sentimentality to palatable effect."[5] Metacritic reported that the film has a score of 55 out of 100 based on 13 critics, indicating "mixed or average reviews".[7] Audiences polled by CinemaScore gave the film an average grade of "A" on an A+ to F scale.[8]

This is the low threshold for exit I talk about above. Once I decide I have no interest in continuing to read a book, I stop reading it and move on to another one. I have no hard and fast rule - like I make myself read the first 100 pages no matter what - it\u2019s a vibe thing. Once I\u2019ve had enough, I\u2019ve had enough. Sometimes I even quit when I\u2019ve been mostly enjoying a book, but don\u2019t need any more, as was the case with Charlie Kaufmann\u2019s Antkind.

I\u2019m certain that James Wood comes by his opinion honestly, and because he\u2019s a book critic, he\u2019s obligated to read books people are talking about and give his opinion, but I don\u2019t have that kind of relationship to books. I can spend much more time focused on what I like.

I\u2019m curious, who out there is a fellow book quitter? What percentage of books do you start and not finish? What\u2019s the latest you\u2019ve ever quit a book. (For me, it was 17 pages from the end, if you can believe that.) For you non-quitters, what is it that compels you to keep reading to the very (sometimes bitter) end?

Press Briefing by Tony SnowRoom 450Eisenhower Executive Office Building Play Video Press Briefings Audio 12:51 P.M. EDTMR. SNOW: All right, good afternoon. Questions.Q Thanks. This morning when you were talking about the idea ofa debate on Iraq, you said that there's no debate right now aboutwithdrawal right now. The question isn't withdrawal right now. Thequestion is withdrawal over a period of time, by sometime next year. Socan you answer that question, whether there's a debate about that?MR. SNOW: Well, what's interesting is there seems to be a failureto recognize that the President has talked for quite a while abouttrying to have a surge so that we can bring forces home. And I want toread through a series of quotes that I think makes the case that thestory we're talking about is not, in fact, about any kind of generallynew deliberations, but the kind of things the President has been talkingabout really since the advent of Baker-Hamilton.Here we are on January 10th: "If we increase our support at thiscrucial moment and help the Iraqis break the current cycle of violence,we can hasten the day our troops begin coming home." This is a pointthe President has made, and some of you have heard him make thesecomments in off-the-record meetings with reporters, as well.April 2007: "Embedding the troops, training the troops,over-the-horizon presence" -- this is when he was talking about where wewant to be -- "in other words, if there's a problem, be in a positionwhere you can come in and help." The President: "Chasing down al Qaedaand extremists, particularly those from other foreign countries, helpingthe territorial integrity of Iraq, that's something I'm for. And itwould require less troops over time to be in that position. However, Ididn't think we could get to Baker-Hamilton because of the impendingchaos inside Baghdad."Thus saying there's the desire to get towardBaker-Hamilton, but first you have to address conditions of violencewithin Baghdad.May of this year: "I've talked about the idea of having adifferent force posture that would enable us to be there to help theIraqis in a variety of ways, protect the border, chase down al Qaeda,embed and train the troops, provide security, psychological security ofhelping this new government." Again, lower troop levels.And finally, just the other day, on July 4th: "We all long for theday when there are far fewer American servicemen and women in Iraq, thata time will come when Iraq has a stable, self-sustaining government thatis an ally against these extremists and killers. That time will comewhen the Iraqi people will not need the help of 159,000 American troopsin their country. Yet withdrawing our troops prematurely based onpolitics, not on the advice and recommendation of our militarycommanders, would not be in our national interest. It would hand theenemy a victory and put America's security at risk, and that's somethingwe're not going to do.Short answer: We want to get to the situation, we want to get to acondition where the Iraqis do, in fact, have the freedom of space andthe security necessary to go ahead and put together the building blocksfor a civil society. That not only includes security in the streets,but it also means other things: economic development; it means a ruleof law that could be administered fairly through the army, the militaryservices and the courts; it means having electricity and water -- all ofthose things, the building blocks of a civil society. And that's theway the President's been expressing it from the start.Q Well, clearly, that's true, and we've all heard him say thosethings. We've heard you say those things, we've heard otheradministration officials say those same things. But that isn't thequestion, because that's talking about an eventual goal, which nobody isarguing with. The question is a simple one: Is there debate now abouttime to speed up the timetable by which you bring combat troops out ofIraq?MR. SNOW: There's no timetable. I think -- again, let's --Q That's not what I asked. I asked, is there a debate about howto --MR. SNOW: No, you just said -- you just asked speeding up atimetable.Q I didn't ask, is there one? I said, is there a debate aboutsetting one?MR. SNOW: Oh, is there a debate about setting one? No, right now,what the discussion in the White House is, let's go ahead and proceedwith what Congress, itself, decided to do just two months ago.Twomonths ago, Congress said, ok, we're going to do the way forward -- wewill adopt the way forward, having given General Petraeus an81-to-nothing vote in the United States Senate. And they said, but wewant some reporting here. We want to get a starting point glimpse ofthis on July 15th, and on the 15th of September, we want recommendationsfrom the generals about how they want to proceed after that.In other words, it's the same sort of approach the President hasalways taken, which is, let's ascertain the facts on the ground, let'ssee what the commanders think is going to be most successful andeffective.What we're going to get in the next week is a series of reports onbenchmarks, on a number of benchmarks that had been agreed by members ofCongress and also laid down by this administration about how to judgewhere things stand -- some probably satisfactory, some probablyunsatisfactory.We certainly will find out, we'll be able to read them out. Butthat gives you a glimpse of where, at the very earliest stages of notonly a surge, but an operational surge, where all the forces are in andthey're now having an opportunity to work with their Iraqi counterparts,you now have the beginning part and you'll be able to look in two monthsat how you proceeded on those benchmarks, and also whether generals aregoing to be in a position to say, we did this right, we did this wrong,this is where we need to go next.Q But various Republicans have said the President can't waituntil September, and they're saying you need to go faster. So, puttingaside the timetable, is there a debate for, right now, going on insidethe White House for a gradual withdrawal of U.S. troops, as The New YorkTimes said? A gradual --MR. SNOW: No.No, there's no -- again, ultimately, the Presidentwants to withdraw troops based on the facts on the ground, not on thematter of politics. And I would refer you to the last quote I just readto you, which was from last week.Furthermore, I know -- there's a convenient shorthand, but I thinkthe position that Senator Lugar and others had was a little more subtlethan that. The one thing that they didn't want to talk about was simplywithdraw for withdrawal sake. They understand that there is realpolitical pressure here in the country, and they also understand thatthere's an importance for having demonstrated political success andeffort within Iraq.I think what we have here is, ironically, a pretty shared vision ofwhere we want to go. Jennifer's first answer -- first response to myanswer was, well, everybody agrees with that. I think there is generalagreement about the end state here. So the question is, how do you getto the point where you can achieve those goals. And I actually thinkthat if you've looked at the statements of Senator Lugar and others,you're going to find that they largely track with the quotes I just readto you from --Q You said that this morning, as well. Senator Lugar said, "Theprospects that the current surge strategy will succeed in the wayoriginally envisioned by the President are very limited."MR. SNOW: By September. He also talked about having it done bySeptember. And the fact is we don't think that everything is going tobe accomplished by September, and we've never said that. What SenatorLugar, I think, also is concerned about, as you read further into whathe says, is that he does not want a situation where we withdraw hastily,we create a vacuum, and therefore we have a longer-term and much moredangerous security environment for the United States.Q He said most U.S. troops can be pulled out by the middle of2008, specifically. Do you agree with that?MR. SNOW: We'll see. I mean, I'm not a general, I'm not going totry to play one.Q He also said, "Our course in Iraq has lost contact with ourvital national security interest." Do you agree with that? Does thatreally show --MR. SNOW: I think it's tied up with our vital national securityinterest. But I'm not going to -- again, I'm not going to get into afight with --Q But how can you say, as you did this morning, you're sayingagain that Republicans like Lugar are not necessarily opposing the WhiteHouse when they're saying "our force in Iraq has lost contact with ourvital national security interest" -- how does that agree with whatyou're saying?MR. SNOW: Well, again, what you've done is -- we went through thislast week, where you take one sentence, I'd cite another sentence -- Ididn't bring the whole speech with me this time.Q Well, he's got a speech -- it's 45 minutes. Is there a linein his speech that agrees with your policy?MR. SNOW: Yes, I think there -- the whole series of lines inthere.Again, ask yourself what Dick Lugar wants to see. What he wantsto see is an effective and integrated diplomatic effort within theregion, which this administration has been trying to work through andhas been working through. What he wants is more political progress onthe ground with the Iraqis. What he wants is better training andcapability on the part of the Iraqis. He wants al Qaeda to lose. Hewants the Iraqi people to win.I think there are substantial areas ofagreement here.Q Sure, but he's saying that the course you're taking is notsucceeding in those endeavors, so --MR. SNOW: No, he's -- again, we have just started the course.Thecourse has just begun.Q He is saying time is running out.But he's not a Democrat,he's a Republican, a very senior one saying --MR. SNOW: I understand that --Q -- time is running out.MR. SNOW: I understand that, Ed.Q But is the White House in denial about that, then?MR. SNOW: No, the White House is not in denial about the fact, butI think you're in denial about the fact that in the overall contours,there's just not that much disagreement. If you want disagreement, youcompare what he's saying with what Harry Reid is saying. If you want adisagreement, you take a look at what Dick Lugar has been saying andwhat Democratic leaders have been saying, by and large.What Dick Lugar is trying to do -- and I think this is a sensiblething -- is to try to lower the temperature and find a way where you canget some bipartisan conversations, because in many cases, people havedug in their heels, saying, the President is for it, we're going to beagainst it. And he understands that if you try to look at this throughstrictly a political lens, you run a very high risk of ignoring the factthat our national security really is under assault by the forces ofterror, and it's important to succeed in Iraq because, as I pointed outthis morning, what begins in Iraq, whether it is a Democraticrenaissance or a victory in the war on terror, does not end there. Andwhat we want to make sure is that the seed that gets planted is the seedof democracy and not the one of terror and tyranny.Q I need to correct the record, Tony, because you quoted me andyou quoted me incorrectly.MR. SNOW: I'm sorry.Q You said that I said everyone agrees with what the Presidentsaid. I didn't say that.MR. SNOW: No, no, I didn't say that. You said everybody agreeswith those benchmarks.I did not have --Q I didn't even say that.MR. SNOW: You didn't?Q What I said is that everyone agrees what the President said,not that they agree with him.MR. SNOW: Oh, I'm sorry. Okay. Well, I stand corrected.Q Tony, back to the debate again within the White House, are yousaying it hasn't even accelerated? Given what people like Senator Lugarare saying -- and they're saying September is too far away, you need toassess this now -- is there no debate in the White House about pullingtroops back or drawing down now, for any reason -- political, orwhatever?MR. SNOW: No, the conversation is always about what do you do tosucceed in Iraq. Again, it seems -- Martha --Q I understand that. Tony, nobody is debating -- SecretaryGates is not offering suggestions, other people are not offeringsuggestions about how you draw down short of this all-out victory?MR. SNOW: Let me -- no, it's not even an all-out victory. Whatthe President said all along is, of course, we're going to draw down,but you have to draw down when it makes sense to do so. Andfurthermore, what he said is, everybody, take a look first at what'sgoing on.Here we have people trying to read into -- I mean, you sent me anemail talking about reaction to a report that hasn't even been releasedyet --Q No, I didn't. I sent you an email -- if you want to talkabout our email exchanges -- I sent you an email talking about themounting criticism on the Hill.MR. SNOW: I think you said, the mounting reaction to the report,which has not yet been released.Q No, I did not. I said that -- well, we'll go back and check--MR. SNOW: Okay. (Laughter.)Q But what I also asked about is how the White House is reactingto that --MR. SNOW: What the White House is doing is, once again, saying tomembers of Congress, two months ago you put together a piece oflegislation; you said, give us a snapshot at the beginning. We'reawaiting the snapshot.The snapshot will become available; let's seewhere we stand. Then as a practical matter, you ask yourself, how arethe efforts succeeding, or are there places where they are notsucceeding? At this point, it would be irresponsible to say we're goingto leave before we know what the results are.Q Tony, you've been saying that for a long time. What we'resaying is --MR. SNOW: We're being consistent.Q -- you're being consistent, but let me go back to this -- areyou in denial?I mean --MR. SNOW: No.Q -- surely, you know what's going on there, whether there's asnapshot this week or not a snapshot this week. You have a pretty goodidea what's going on --MR. SNOW: Let me just refer back to what has appeared in many ofyour networks and newspapers, which is that there seems to beindications that certain parts of the surge, in fact, are working and inimportant ways, and that there are certain things that still have notbeen accomplished. So your question is, at the very beginning you seemto have some signs that lead to encouragement -- and it's interesting,people say, well, okay, we've heard that, that's old news. It's not oldnews.A year ago Anbar had been written off, and as a matter of fact,many news organizations were running news stories saying, it has been adisaster, write it off, it's gone. Now it's precisely the oppositenarrative.What you have to have in a time of war is the honesty to assess thesituation on the ground. You have to have the flexibility and theingenuity to try to respond so that you're more effective, and thatcontinues to be the case, with General Petraeus and everybody elseinvolved.Q Tony, I'll just say that on Anbar, the President mentioned thesuccess in Anbar before the surge even started -- in his January speech,he talked about some of the successes in Anbar.MR. SNOW: I know.Q But can you please address the question of whether there ismore intense debate right now, because not only what Republican senatorsare saying, but also because the American people are saying it?MR. SNOW: Are you asking -- let me put it this way. If you'retalking about more intense debate in reaction to poll numbers -- no.Q Okay, then not in reaction to poll numbers. Is there moreintense debate because it's clear September may be too far away?MR. SNOW: No, I don't think so. I think, again, Congress, itself,has laid this out. We're playing right now according to the scriptCongress laid out. And I think maybe the most sensible thing --Q Senator Lugar is saying September was too late.MR. SNOW: Well, let's see what Senator Lugar says when he's had anopportunity to look at a report that will be out within the next week.Q He's already said it, Tony.MR. SNOW: Well, he hasn't seen the report.Q Can you just -- a few back-and-forths ago you st