Washington, D.C. ~ Thursday, August 12, 2010
Exerts from his speach are as follows:
"research revealed, for instance, that exposure to violence – whether the child was an observer or a direct victim – was associated with long-term physical, psychological, and emotional harm. The studies showed that children exposed to violence are more likely to go on to abuse drugs and alcohol. They’re at greater risk of depression, anxiety, and other post-traumatic disorders. They fail in school more often than other kids. They’re more likely to develop chronic diseases and to have trouble forming emotional attachments. And they’re more likely to commit acts of violence themselves.
We know that bullying has lasting, serious effects for both victims and perpetrators, and that bullying can be a sign of other serious anti-social and violent behavior. The Health Resources and Services Administration reports that kids who bully are more likely to get into frequent fights, vandalize and steal property, be truant or drop out of school, and carry a weapon. And these impacts are long-lasting, as the research tells us there is a strong association between victimizing peers during school years and engaging in illegal behavior as adults. Indeed, just two weeks ago when I was visiting the Menominee Indian Reservation of Wisconsin, tribal leaders emphasized the direct link between bullying among youth and occurrences of domestic violence in later years.
So if we realize that bullying is not just a school’s problem, how do we respond to it? When I was a kid, students were bullied for being overweight or for being labeled a nerd, not for being gay or because of sexual promiscuity. And the sitcom response from the 1960s and 70s was for parents to give kids boxing gloves because, we were taught, that if you have the courage to fight back, the bully backs down.
But bullying is not that simple and the notion that “kids will be kids” isn’t an answer to problem. When we talk about bullying, we are talking about a destabilizing force that not only disrupts the school environment; it disrupts young lives in serious, far-reaching ways, with dangerous academic, health, and safety consequences. From this summit and the work you all are doing, we know that bullying starts early; that bullying is widespread; that it escalates when unchecked, and that it takes many forms and is evolving. And as the tragic suicides of Megan Meier and Phoebe Prince make apparent, we know that bullying can also be fatal.
With the increasing use of social networking sites and text messaging, the face of bullying is changing. Previously, an incident may have involved girls bickering with each other over boys on the playground. Today, insults – and retaliation for insults -- are not only made face-to-face, they are also posted on a classmate’s Facebook profile for all to see. As the internet becomes today’s playground, the previous distinction between what took place inside and outside of school is disappearing. Unsurprisingly, teachers are now spending time mediating conflicts between students that began online or through text messages.
What’s more, the apparent anonymity offered by technology can lead to more vicious insults. It is apparent that children (and frankly adults) are willing to push the envelope in cyberspace and say malicious things that they might not otherwise say in person. Never before has particularly cruel harassment from school persisted as long as it does now online, where for example, a Facebook group, populated with hundreds of members, is dedicated solely to making fun of a fellow classmate because of his hair color. The Journal of Adolescent Health reported that the number of adolescent victims of online harassment increased by 50 percent between 2000 and 2005. And as students become more technologically sophisticated at younger ages, they learn early on that the Internet can be a powerful, and hurtful, tool.
Bullying is changing in other ways as well, as harassment has also become increasingly sexually explicit. In Los Angeles’ San Fernando Valley, middle school, high school, and college students posted comments on a web site that were full of sexual innuendo attacking fellow students. The online message boards had been accessed more than 67,000 times in a two-week period. This type of far-reaching harassment haunts and torments kids who are keenly aware that not just a few classmates can view these posts, but the whole world can view the disparaging comments. And with the widespread use of text messaging, an increase in “sexting” has also become a complication for combating bullying, where, with just the click of a cell phone button, an angry boyfriend can retaliate by forwarding compromising photos of a middle school girlfriend to his adolescent classmates.
And for gay and lesbian students, who are now coming out at earlier ages, bullying at school is also on the rise. According to a study released by the California Safe Schools Coalition, more than 200,000 California students are targets of harassment every year, based on actual or perceived sexual orientation. The study tells us that these 200,000 students are three times more likely to miss school because they feel unsafe, and are more than twice as likely to be depressed, to consider suicide, or to make a plan for suicide.
http://www.justice.gov/asg/speeches/2010/asg-speech-100812.html
Friday, August 13, 2010
Social Security Number Facts
You can check your identity for identity fraud free at MyIDScore.com; the personal information you share is collected in an opt-out manner. That is, you’ll have to send the company an e-mail to stop it from using your data to “make our fraud prevention tools better.”
There is a method to the assignment of Social Security numbers which can help a little bit in spotting frauds. The first three digits are determined by where you lived when you received your number; 596 to 599, for example, are issued to residents of Puerto Rico (yes, it’s part of the United States). The higher the number, the further west you lived at the time you received your number. There are no Social Security numbers starting with 900-999.
000 unused 387-399 WI 528-529 UT001-003 NH 400-407 KY 530
NV004-007 ME 408-415 TN 531-539 WA008-009 VT 416-424
AL 540-544 OR 010-034 MA 425-428 MS 545-573
CA 035-039 RI 429-432 AR 574 AK 040-049 CT 433-439
LA 575-576 HI 050-134 NY 440-448 OK 577-579
DC 135-158 NJ 449-467 TX 580
VI Virgin Islands 159-211 PA 468-477 MN 581-584
PR Puerto Rico212-220 MD 478-485 IA 585 NM 221-222 DE 486-500
MO 586 PI Pacific Islands* 223-231 VA 501-502
ND 587-588 MS 232-236 WV 503-504 SD 589-595
FL 237-246 NC 505-508 NE 596-599
PR Puerto Rico 247-251 SC 509-515 KS 600-601 AZ 252-260
GA 516-517 MT 602-626 CA 261-267
FL 518-519 ID *Guam, American Samoa, 268-302
OH 520 WY Northern Mariana Islands, 303-317
IN 521-524 CO Philippine Islands 318-361 IL 525
NM 362-386 MI 526-527 AZ 627-699
unassigned, for future use 700-728
Railroad workers through 1963, then discontinued 729-899 unassigned, for future use
900-999 not valid SSNs, but were used for program purposes when state aid to the aged, blind and disabled was converted to a federal program administered by SSA.
http://stopforeclosurefraud.com/2010/08/13/your-social-security-number-may-not-be-unique-to-you/
https://annualcreditreport.experian.com/AnnualCreditReport/cac/ReportSummary2.do
https://www.myidscore.com/
http://w2.eff.org/Privacy/ID_SSN_fingerprinting/ssn_structure.article
http://stevemorse.org/ssn/ssn.html
There is a method to the assignment of Social Security numbers which can help a little bit in spotting frauds. The first three digits are determined by where you lived when you received your number; 596 to 599, for example, are issued to residents of Puerto Rico (yes, it’s part of the United States). The higher the number, the further west you lived at the time you received your number. There are no Social Security numbers starting with 900-999.
000 unused 387-399 WI 528-529 UT001-003 NH 400-407 KY 530
NV004-007 ME 408-415 TN 531-539 WA008-009 VT 416-424
AL 540-544 OR 010-034 MA 425-428 MS 545-573
CA 035-039 RI 429-432 AR 574 AK 040-049 CT 433-439
LA 575-576 HI 050-134 NY 440-448 OK 577-579
DC 135-158 NJ 449-467 TX 580
VI Virgin Islands 159-211 PA 468-477 MN 581-584
PR Puerto Rico212-220 MD 478-485 IA 585 NM 221-222 DE 486-500
MO 586 PI Pacific Islands* 223-231 VA 501-502
ND 587-588 MS 232-236 WV 503-504 SD 589-595
FL 237-246 NC 505-508 NE 596-599
PR Puerto Rico 247-251 SC 509-515 KS 600-601 AZ 252-260
GA 516-517 MT 602-626 CA 261-267
FL 518-519 ID *Guam, American Samoa, 268-302
OH 520 WY Northern Mariana Islands, 303-317
IN 521-524 CO Philippine Islands 318-361 IL 525
NM 362-386 MI 526-527 AZ 627-699
unassigned, for future use 700-728
Railroad workers through 1963, then discontinued 729-899 unassigned, for future use
900-999 not valid SSNs, but were used for program purposes when state aid to the aged, blind and disabled was converted to a federal program administered by SSA.
http://stopforeclosurefraud.com/2010/08/13/your-social-security-number-may-not-be-unique-to-you/
https://annualcreditreport.experian.com/AnnualCreditReport/cac/ReportSummary2.do
https://www.myidscore.com/
http://w2.eff.org/Privacy/ID_SSN_fingerprinting/ssn_structure.article
http://stevemorse.org/ssn/ssn.html
Quote of the week
On important character traits for successful interim management and on being an examiner.
The key is knowing who to listen to and who not to listen to, and act on it. Take small pieces of data, string them together and move on it. That’s how to succeed. Of course, you need your basket of knowledge—analytics, parts of investment banking, how to do out of court restructurings—but that’s just book knowledge, which is cheap. Wisdom is expensive. Really good management thrive in micro instrumentalism while turnaround professionals excel at stochastic processes. As an Examiner, the only thing I have is the power of the pen. An Examiner can’t hire or fire and can’t exert control over the debtor. An Examiner has to be able to communicate with the court, and there is an art to that. It also helps to learn how to deal with incredibly complex matters that the judge wants out of the court. I take on the role of a mediator. I take everybody’s pulse, take in all of the information and go to the court with a solution. That makes me a better turnaround consultant.
A quote from William K. Snyder, Managing Partner, CRG Partners; Excerpted from the February 25, 2010 issue of Bankruptcy Professional.
The key is knowing who to listen to and who not to listen to, and act on it. Take small pieces of data, string them together and move on it. That’s how to succeed. Of course, you need your basket of knowledge—analytics, parts of investment banking, how to do out of court restructurings—but that’s just book knowledge, which is cheap. Wisdom is expensive. Really good management thrive in micro instrumentalism while turnaround professionals excel at stochastic processes. As an Examiner, the only thing I have is the power of the pen. An Examiner can’t hire or fire and can’t exert control over the debtor. An Examiner has to be able to communicate with the court, and there is an art to that. It also helps to learn how to deal with incredibly complex matters that the judge wants out of the court. I take on the role of a mediator. I take everybody’s pulse, take in all of the information and go to the court with a solution. That makes me a better turnaround consultant.
A quote from William K. Snyder, Managing Partner, CRG Partners; Excerpted from the February 25, 2010 issue of Bankruptcy Professional.
Treasury Releases Guest List for Next Week's Housing Finance Forum
Executives from the nation’s two largest mortgage lenders will also be in attendance – Barbara Desoer, president of Bank of America Home Loans, and Mike Heid, co-president of Wells Fargo Home Mortgage. Mark Zandi, chief economist of Moody’s Analytics also made the cut, as did S.A. Ibrahim, CEO of mortgage insurer Radian Group. Also, Lewis Ranieri, the man who has been called the “father of the mortgage-backed securities market,” and Bill Gross, co-chief investment officer of PMICO, which runs the world’s largest mutual fund, are among the 12 individuals on the guest list.
Excluded from the list of guest speakers were industry trade and lobbying groups, such as the Mortgage Bankers Association (MBA) and the National Association of Realtors (NAR). However, MBA says its chairman will be in attendance. Also excluded were Affordable-housing advocates such as the nonprofit National Community Reinvestment Coalition, which said that consumer and community groups had been "muscled out" by financial companies, economists and academics without a sense of how housing policy plays out in communities.
The event, held at the Treasury building next Tuesday, August 17, will be streamed live on www.treasury.gov.
http://www.treasury.gov/press/releases/tg826.htm
Excluded from the list of guest speakers were industry trade and lobbying groups, such as the Mortgage Bankers Association (MBA) and the National Association of Realtors (NAR). However, MBA says its chairman will be in attendance. Also excluded were Affordable-housing advocates such as the nonprofit National Community Reinvestment Coalition, which said that consumer and community groups had been "muscled out" by financial companies, economists and academics without a sense of how housing policy plays out in communities.
The event, held at the Treasury building next Tuesday, August 17, will be streamed live on www.treasury.gov.
http://www.treasury.gov/press/releases/tg826.htm
Ban GSEs from Investing in Mortgages with Transfer Fees
The Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) wants to restrict Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from purchasing mortgages with private transfer fee covenants, also referred to as Wall Street home resale fees.
These fees are sometimes worked into the language of home purchase contracts, and require that a percentage of the sale price be paid to the original owner of the property every time the property is sold, typically for 99 years.
FHFA has issued a notice of proposed guidance to the Federal Register, that would ban Fannie and Freddie from purchasing or guaranteeing mortgages and securities that have the controversial home resale fees attached to them. The guidance would also extend to home loans and securities purchased by the Federal Home Loan Banks or acquired as collateral for advances.
FHFA is seeking public comment on its proposed ban on home resale fees for the next 60 days before finalizing the new rule.
These fees are sometimes worked into the language of home purchase contracts, and require that a percentage of the sale price be paid to the original owner of the property every time the property is sold, typically for 99 years.
FHFA has issued a notice of proposed guidance to the Federal Register, that would ban Fannie and Freddie from purchasing or guaranteeing mortgages and securities that have the controversial home resale fees attached to them. The guidance would also extend to home loans and securities purchased by the Federal Home Loan Banks or acquired as collateral for advances.
FHFA is seeking public comment on its proposed ban on home resale fees for the next 60 days before finalizing the new rule.
HAMP Redefaults
Redefault rate of HAMP modifications are that 10 percent of six-month-old permanent mods are 60-plus days delinquent, and 6 percent are 90-plus days delinquent.
The analysts at Barclays are predicting a 60 percent redefault rate over HAMP’s lifetime. A separate study by Fitch Ratings projects 55 to 75 percent.
http://www.treasury.gov/press/releases/tg819.htm
The analysts at Barclays are predicting a 60 percent redefault rate over HAMP’s lifetime. A separate study by Fitch Ratings projects 55 to 75 percent.
http://www.treasury.gov/press/releases/tg819.htm
Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection- New Ageny Head take a Look
Elizabeth Warren met Thursday at the White House with senior Obama advisers, but a presidential spokeswoman said no decision had been made. If Obama doesn't choose her, he risks infuriating his already-agitated liberal supporters who see Warren as the only logical candidate.
If he gives her the nod, Obama risks deepening the financial community's distrust of his administration and sparking a confirmation fight. He would be elevating a woman who, despite her mild manner, has repeatedly proven herself a thorn in the administration's side during her tenure as watchdog over the government's $700 billion bank bailout program.
She was the child of a cash-strapped family on the Oklahoma plains, a teenage wife and young mother who became the only member of her immediate family to graduate from college, then went on to teach at Harvard Law School. Drawn to the field of bankruptcy, she initially took a jaundiced view of the irresponsible spendthrifts she believed were gaming the system, only to discover during her research a humanity in their stories that altered her life's work. She has long maintained the bearing of a straight-shooting, "aw shucks" Washington outsider, even though she began showing her Beltway savvy as a political infighter more than a decade ago.
An advocate of the middle-class, Warren wrote a 2003 book with her daughter, Amelia Warren Tyagi, called “The Two-Income Trap: Why Middle-Class Mothers and Fathers Are Going Broke.” In it, the pair adopts the controversial belief that families with two incomes are actually less well-off financially than families in the 1970s, when often only one member of the family worked.
Women should still work if they are so inclined, the authors (two working women themselves) argue, but they may not end up in better financial shape. The authors demonstrated that two-income families tend to take on higher fixed expenses like more expensive mortgages, which leave little financial cushion if one member of the family loses their job. In the past, an abrupt loss of income could be compensated for by the other family member sought a low-paying job until that income could be replaced. But now, the two members of a family can’t make up for the sudden jolt of losing a single income.Gardner, Marilyn, "Two incomes, more debt?; A new study offers a controversial theory of why today's families are having a tough time staying afloat," Christian Science Monitor, Sept. 17, 2003(8)Gardner, Marilyn, "Two incomes, more debt?; A new study offers a controversial theory of why today's families are having a tough time staying afloat," Christian Science Monitor, Sept. 17, 2003
Including higher mortgage payments, car payments and tuition payments, the average two-worker home now has less money to spend than a family with one breadwinner in the 1970s. Warren and Tyagi concluded that is the reason why two-income middle-class households report a higher rate of bankruptcy than one-income middle-class homes in the 1970s.
"Every new report on consumer debt or bankruptcy blames families for frivolous buying," said Warren. "Our data show families in financial trouble are working hard, playing by the rules and the game is stacked against them."Shea, Christopher, "Two Incomes, One Bankruptcy Reexamining the Agony of the Middle Class," The Boston Globe, Sept. 14, 2003. Shea, Christopher, "Two Incomes, One Bankruptcy Reexamining the Agony of the Middle Class," The Boston Globe, Sept. 14, 2003.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/12/AR2010081206356_pf.html
If he gives her the nod, Obama risks deepening the financial community's distrust of his administration and sparking a confirmation fight. He would be elevating a woman who, despite her mild manner, has repeatedly proven herself a thorn in the administration's side during her tenure as watchdog over the government's $700 billion bank bailout program.
She was the child of a cash-strapped family on the Oklahoma plains, a teenage wife and young mother who became the only member of her immediate family to graduate from college, then went on to teach at Harvard Law School. Drawn to the field of bankruptcy, she initially took a jaundiced view of the irresponsible spendthrifts she believed were gaming the system, only to discover during her research a humanity in their stories that altered her life's work. She has long maintained the bearing of a straight-shooting, "aw shucks" Washington outsider, even though she began showing her Beltway savvy as a political infighter more than a decade ago.
An advocate of the middle-class, Warren wrote a 2003 book with her daughter, Amelia Warren Tyagi, called “The Two-Income Trap: Why Middle-Class Mothers and Fathers Are Going Broke.” In it, the pair adopts the controversial belief that families with two incomes are actually less well-off financially than families in the 1970s, when often only one member of the family worked.
Women should still work if they are so inclined, the authors (two working women themselves) argue, but they may not end up in better financial shape. The authors demonstrated that two-income families tend to take on higher fixed expenses like more expensive mortgages, which leave little financial cushion if one member of the family loses their job. In the past, an abrupt loss of income could be compensated for by the other family member sought a low-paying job until that income could be replaced. But now, the two members of a family can’t make up for the sudden jolt of losing a single income.Gardner, Marilyn, "Two incomes, more debt?; A new study offers a controversial theory of why today's families are having a tough time staying afloat," Christian Science Monitor, Sept. 17, 2003(8)Gardner, Marilyn, "Two incomes, more debt?; A new study offers a controversial theory of why today's families are having a tough time staying afloat," Christian Science Monitor, Sept. 17, 2003
Including higher mortgage payments, car payments and tuition payments, the average two-worker home now has less money to spend than a family with one breadwinner in the 1970s. Warren and Tyagi concluded that is the reason why two-income middle-class households report a higher rate of bankruptcy than one-income middle-class homes in the 1970s.
"Every new report on consumer debt or bankruptcy blames families for frivolous buying," said Warren. "Our data show families in financial trouble are working hard, playing by the rules and the game is stacked against them."Shea, Christopher, "Two Incomes, One Bankruptcy Reexamining the Agony of the Middle Class," The Boston Globe, Sept. 14, 2003. Shea, Christopher, "Two Incomes, One Bankruptcy Reexamining the Agony of the Middle Class," The Boston Globe, Sept. 14, 2003.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/12/AR2010081206356_pf.html
Inception
Inception is a 2010 American science fiction action film written, produced, and directed by Christopher Nolan and starring Leonardo DiCaprio, Ken Watanabe, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Ellen Page, Tom Hardy, Marion Cotillard, and Cillian Murphy. The story, inspired by the concepts of lucid dreaming and dream incubation,[5] is a variant on the heist genre with a cyberpunk plot. The film begins in medias res as Dom Cobb washes up on a beach and is brought by guards into the chamber of an elderly man. The scene then cuts to Cobb and his trusted associate, Arthur, on an "extraction" mission: wherein an individual's mind is infiltrated through dreams and information is stolen. Extractors and their victims sleep in close proximity to one another, connected by a device called the PASIV [16], that administers a sedative and share a dream world built on their mental projections. In the dream world, pain is psychologically experienced as real, but death results in awakening. Cobb carries a spinning top called a "totem" which either spins unceasingly or topples, to determine whether he is dreaming or awake, respectively. The mission is revealed to be an audition by a powerful businessman, Saito, who hires Cobb and Arthur to perform the act of "inception"—using dreams to secretly implant an idea.
The target is Robert Fischer, son of Saito's terminally ill corporate rival, Maurice Fischer. The objective is to convince Fischer to break up his father's empire, preventing it from becoming a monopoly and threatening Saito's own company. Cobb recruits a "dream team" consisting of Eames, a forger who can change his appearance inside dreams; Yusuf, a chemist who develops the necessary sleep sedatives; and a new dream world architect, Ariadne. One night, while Cobb is sound asleep to the dream machine, Ariadne enters Cobb's dream and discovers that a shade of his deceased wife, Mal, continually haunts him, and is revealed to be sabotaging his missions as an extractor. Cobb discloses to Ariadne that he and Mal shared dreams, spending many years in a limbo dream world forging their lives. After waking, Mal remained convinced that they were still dreaming and committed suicide, attempting to force Cobb to join her by incriminating him in her death. Cobb refused and was forced to flee the U.S. and leave his children to avoid murder charges. In return for completing the mission, Saito promises to use his influence to clear the charges and reunite Cobb with his children.
When the elder Fischer dies in Sydney, Saito and Cobb's team share the flight with Robert Fischer back to Los Angeles and drug him during the 10-hour flight—the timeframe of which allows the team to infiltrate the young Fischer's mind and navigate through three dream levels constructed by Ariadne. They first enter young Fischer's dream, a rainy downtown area, and kidnap him. However, they come under attack by his mental defenses manifesting as armed personnel, and Saito is badly injured in the ensuing gunfight. Once at their safe house, the team learns that the mission has become more dangerous than they anticipated. Fischer was trained to fend off potential extractors; thus, his projections are militarily skilled. To make matters worse they learn that, due to the intensity of the sedatives they took, an in-dream death will not awaken them as normal but instead send them into limbo, where their minds could remain trapped indefinitely. With few options and Fischer's mental defenses closing in, Cobb and his team decide to continue on with the mission.
Moving forward, Eames changes into Peter Browning—Fischer's godfather and an executive of his father's company—to extract information from him. They then escape from Fischer's mental defenses into a van and sleep into the second dream level—Arthur's dream—while Yusuf stays behind to protect the rest of the team. The second dream happens in a hotel building where the team tricks Fischer into believing that the kidnapping on the first dream level was real and orchestrated by Browning. Cobb convinces Fischer to enter Browning's subconscious in order to find out his motives, but in fact the team enter into Eames' dream, with Arthur staying behind to protect the team. The third dream level is a snowy mountain fortress, which Fischer must break into to reveal the planted idea. However, Fischer is killed by the unexpected appearance of Mal, causing him to go to limbo. While Eames and a dying Saito stay behind to fend off Fischer's hostile projections, Ariadne and Cobb bring Fischer to a fourth level in an attempt to salvage the mission, save their mark, and confront Mal. The fourth level is Cobb's dystopia—a post-apocalyptic crumbling city beside a beach—and there, he and Ariadne confront Mal. Mal attempts to convince Cobb to stay in limbo by making him question reality. Cobb ultimately reveals that he originally planted the idea in Mal's mind to wake up from their dream lives—the act that proved inception was possible in the first place—but that the belief persisted even after she woke, making him indirectly responsible for her suicide. She attacks him, but Ariadne shoots her. Fischer and Ariadne are able to return to the mountain fortress (the 3rd level), where he comes to the intended conclusion that his father wanted him to be his own man and resolves to dissolve the company; thus, making the team's mission of inception a success.
To wake the team from each dream, timed "kicks" are organized at each level: Eames's rigging of explosives to level the mountain fortress, Arthur creating a hotel elevator to plunge down its shaft, and Yusuf driving the van over a bridge and crashing into a river. A wounded Saito dies at the snow fortress and though the kicks are imminent, Cobb remains in limbo to locate him. The film connects back to the opening scene, when Cobb speaks to the elderly man. The man is revealed to be an aged Saito—spending 50 years in limbo—and Cobb convinces him to return them both to reality. Saito reaches for a gun and Cobb suddenly awakens to find everyone on the plane, including Saito, up and well. Saito honors their arrangement and Cobb enters the United States, reunited with his children at home. Cobb spins his totem to test reality, but is then distracted by his children. The top wobbles reassuringly, but continues to wobble in the exact same motion as the camera smash cuts to black, leaving the audience to determine whether Cobb is actually in a dream or in reality.
Ok now you read the official write up from Wiki-- what do you think? I followed it, but I thought it was werid.
I'm not sure but I think the end he was in a dream world state. The top was spinning and the kids were wearing the same clothes and had not grown at all, and Daddy who had been working in France was now there in the US and he was in the airport then the house no car ride. The only thing that may mean he was actually lucid again (if he ever was) was seeing the kids faces and the top wobbeling. What do you think?
The target is Robert Fischer, son of Saito's terminally ill corporate rival, Maurice Fischer. The objective is to convince Fischer to break up his father's empire, preventing it from becoming a monopoly and threatening Saito's own company. Cobb recruits a "dream team" consisting of Eames, a forger who can change his appearance inside dreams; Yusuf, a chemist who develops the necessary sleep sedatives; and a new dream world architect, Ariadne. One night, while Cobb is sound asleep to the dream machine, Ariadne enters Cobb's dream and discovers that a shade of his deceased wife, Mal, continually haunts him, and is revealed to be sabotaging his missions as an extractor. Cobb discloses to Ariadne that he and Mal shared dreams, spending many years in a limbo dream world forging their lives. After waking, Mal remained convinced that they were still dreaming and committed suicide, attempting to force Cobb to join her by incriminating him in her death. Cobb refused and was forced to flee the U.S. and leave his children to avoid murder charges. In return for completing the mission, Saito promises to use his influence to clear the charges and reunite Cobb with his children.
When the elder Fischer dies in Sydney, Saito and Cobb's team share the flight with Robert Fischer back to Los Angeles and drug him during the 10-hour flight—the timeframe of which allows the team to infiltrate the young Fischer's mind and navigate through three dream levels constructed by Ariadne. They first enter young Fischer's dream, a rainy downtown area, and kidnap him. However, they come under attack by his mental defenses manifesting as armed personnel, and Saito is badly injured in the ensuing gunfight. Once at their safe house, the team learns that the mission has become more dangerous than they anticipated. Fischer was trained to fend off potential extractors; thus, his projections are militarily skilled. To make matters worse they learn that, due to the intensity of the sedatives they took, an in-dream death will not awaken them as normal but instead send them into limbo, where their minds could remain trapped indefinitely. With few options and Fischer's mental defenses closing in, Cobb and his team decide to continue on with the mission.
Moving forward, Eames changes into Peter Browning—Fischer's godfather and an executive of his father's company—to extract information from him. They then escape from Fischer's mental defenses into a van and sleep into the second dream level—Arthur's dream—while Yusuf stays behind to protect the rest of the team. The second dream happens in a hotel building where the team tricks Fischer into believing that the kidnapping on the first dream level was real and orchestrated by Browning. Cobb convinces Fischer to enter Browning's subconscious in order to find out his motives, but in fact the team enter into Eames' dream, with Arthur staying behind to protect the team. The third dream level is a snowy mountain fortress, which Fischer must break into to reveal the planted idea. However, Fischer is killed by the unexpected appearance of Mal, causing him to go to limbo. While Eames and a dying Saito stay behind to fend off Fischer's hostile projections, Ariadne and Cobb bring Fischer to a fourth level in an attempt to salvage the mission, save their mark, and confront Mal. The fourth level is Cobb's dystopia—a post-apocalyptic crumbling city beside a beach—and there, he and Ariadne confront Mal. Mal attempts to convince Cobb to stay in limbo by making him question reality. Cobb ultimately reveals that he originally planted the idea in Mal's mind to wake up from their dream lives—the act that proved inception was possible in the first place—but that the belief persisted even after she woke, making him indirectly responsible for her suicide. She attacks him, but Ariadne shoots her. Fischer and Ariadne are able to return to the mountain fortress (the 3rd level), where he comes to the intended conclusion that his father wanted him to be his own man and resolves to dissolve the company; thus, making the team's mission of inception a success.
To wake the team from each dream, timed "kicks" are organized at each level: Eames's rigging of explosives to level the mountain fortress, Arthur creating a hotel elevator to plunge down its shaft, and Yusuf driving the van over a bridge and crashing into a river. A wounded Saito dies at the snow fortress and though the kicks are imminent, Cobb remains in limbo to locate him. The film connects back to the opening scene, when Cobb speaks to the elderly man. The man is revealed to be an aged Saito—spending 50 years in limbo—and Cobb convinces him to return them both to reality. Saito reaches for a gun and Cobb suddenly awakens to find everyone on the plane, including Saito, up and well. Saito honors their arrangement and Cobb enters the United States, reunited with his children at home. Cobb spins his totem to test reality, but is then distracted by his children. The top wobbles reassuringly, but continues to wobble in the exact same motion as the camera smash cuts to black, leaving the audience to determine whether Cobb is actually in a dream or in reality.
Ok now you read the official write up from Wiki-- what do you think? I followed it, but I thought it was werid.
I'm not sure but I think the end he was in a dream world state. The top was spinning and the kids were wearing the same clothes and had not grown at all, and Daddy who had been working in France was now there in the US and he was in the airport then the house no car ride. The only thing that may mean he was actually lucid again (if he ever was) was seeing the kids faces and the top wobbeling. What do you think?
Relief from Judgment
Florida Rules of Civil Procedure
RULE 1.540 RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT, DECREES, OR ORDERS
(a) Clerical Mistakes. Clerical mistakes in judgments, decrees, or other parts of the record and errors therein arising from oversight or omission may be corrected by the court at any time on its own initiative or on the motion of any party and after such notice, if any, as the court orders. During the pendency of an appeal such mistakes may be so corrected before the record on appeal is docketed in the appellate court, and thereafter while the appeal is pending may be so corrected with leave of the appellate court.
(b) Mistakes; Inadvertence; Excusable Neglect; Newly Discovered Evidence; Fraud; etc. On motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party or a party’s legal representative from a final judgment, decree, order, or proceeding for the following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial or rehearing; (3) fraud (whether heretofore denominated intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party; (4) that the judgment or decree is void; or (5) that the judgment or decree has been satisfied, released, or discharged, or a prior judgment or decree upon which it is based has been reversed or otherwise vacated, or it is no longer equitable that the judgment or decree should have prospective application. The motion shall be made within a reasonable time, and for reasons (1), (2), and (3) not more than 1 year after the judgment, decree, order, or proceeding as entered or taken. A motion under this subdivision does not affect the finality of a judgment or decree or suspend its operation. This rule does not limit the power of a court to entertain an independent action to relieve a party from a judgment, decree, order, or proceeding or to set aside a judgment or decree for fraud upon the court.
Writs of coram nobis, coram vobis, audita querela, and bills of review and bills in the nature of a bill of review are abolished, and the procedure for obtaining any relief from a judgment or decree shall be by motion as prescribed in these rules or by an independent action.
RULE 1.540 RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT, DECREES, OR ORDERS
(a) Clerical Mistakes. Clerical mistakes in judgments, decrees, or other parts of the record and errors therein arising from oversight or omission may be corrected by the court at any time on its own initiative or on the motion of any party and after such notice, if any, as the court orders. During the pendency of an appeal such mistakes may be so corrected before the record on appeal is docketed in the appellate court, and thereafter while the appeal is pending may be so corrected with leave of the appellate court.
(b) Mistakes; Inadvertence; Excusable Neglect; Newly Discovered Evidence; Fraud; etc. On motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party or a party’s legal representative from a final judgment, decree, order, or proceeding for the following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial or rehearing; (3) fraud (whether heretofore denominated intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party; (4) that the judgment or decree is void; or (5) that the judgment or decree has been satisfied, released, or discharged, or a prior judgment or decree upon which it is based has been reversed or otherwise vacated, or it is no longer equitable that the judgment or decree should have prospective application. The motion shall be made within a reasonable time, and for reasons (1), (2), and (3) not more than 1 year after the judgment, decree, order, or proceeding as entered or taken. A motion under this subdivision does not affect the finality of a judgment or decree or suspend its operation. This rule does not limit the power of a court to entertain an independent action to relieve a party from a judgment, decree, order, or proceeding or to set aside a judgment or decree for fraud upon the court.
Writs of coram nobis, coram vobis, audita querela, and bills of review and bills in the nature of a bill of review are abolished, and the procedure for obtaining any relief from a judgment or decree shall be by motion as prescribed in these rules or by an independent action.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
