top of page

Training Program Support

Public·50 members

Good Advice(2001) ((NEW))

Cindy was working at a small newspaper as an advice columnist. Ryan, as he can't get another job anywhere else, lies to the editor Page Hensen and takes over the column. Inexperienced at caring and giving solid advice, Ryan does poorly at first, and Page wants to get rid of "Cindy". However, he makes a real effort and begins giving good advice to the people writing in. The column turns into a huge hit and Page's newspaper begins to sell more and more across the city.

Good Advice(2001)


Adam asked me if I was gonna give this 5 stars and i replied yeah, i think so after establishing that this was just a tacky Tootsie knockoff thats not as good as tootsie ,which is actually pretty amazing, which i gave 4 stars

Ryan Turner (Charlie Sheen) is a womanizing hard driving stockbroker. The big publisher CEO Donald Simpson double-crosses him by feeding him false information taking revenge for sleeping with his wife. Ryan loses his clients, his money, his job and even his broker's license. He is forced to live with his self-involved girlfriend Cindy (Denise Richards). She had enough of his poverty and leaves him. Without any prospects, he takes over her badly written advice column for her paycheque. He must pretend that Cindy is still writing at home to her boss Page Hensen (Angie Harmon). At first, he's just as bad as she was. Eventually he starts trying. His best friend Barry Sherman (Jon Lovitz) and wife Cathy (Rosanna Arquette) aren't the most stable. When the column starts to get traction, everybody wants a piece including Cindy and CEO Simpson.This is not a good movie. Charlie Sheen is not light rom-com material. If you question this notion, check this movie out and you'll see. The story is nothing to write home about but it's not that bad either. The setup is awkward. The jokes aren't funny. I didn't laugh once. Jon Lovitz and Rosanna Arquette come closest to being funny. Charlie Sheen just isn't that guy. It's not a bad thing. Most actors can't do everything.

Although the address also dealt with domestic issues, Washington was also interested in outlining future U.S. foreign policy. Washington expressed his views on foreign relations with a warning against "permanent inveterate antipathies against particular Nations," as well as "a passionate attachment of one Nation for another." The first, he argued, would lead to unnecessary war, while the second would result in unwise treaty concessions, which could arouse the ill-will of other countries expecting fair treatment. Washington counseled the public to be wary of foreign influence. He argued for impartial commercial treaties, but against treaties of permanent alliance, although the United States should fulfill any existing agreements "with perfect good faith." Temporary alliances would be acceptable in "extraordinary emergencies."

ik vind het een hele leuke relaxte feel good movie. helaas jammer dat denise een kleine en mindere rol heeft, maar de keren dat ze in beeld is... schaadt de film niet ! wel grappig zo'n man die zich geheel inleeft in het vrouw zijn. angie mocht er ook zijn als editor. en die secretaresse... geweldig mens.

Measures that meet all four criteria should be used for purposes of accountability (e.g., for accreditation, public reporting, or pay-for-performance). Those measures that have not been designated as accountability measures may be useful for quality improvement, exploration and learning within individual health care organizations, and are good advice in terms of appropriate patient care. The Joint Commission has a primary focus on adopting accountability measures for its ORYX program. The Joint Commission will continue to re-examine all process (i.e., proportion and ratio) measures categorized as accountability measures to ensure they continue to meet the accountability criteria.

Now, don't get me wrong, I had a wonderful time at Harvard, but recently I've found myself thinking about how I would do things a bit differently if I could go to college all over again. In many ways, I wasn't very well prepared, as a young Midwestern woman, for the atmosphere and challenges of a prestigious university. I could have used some good advice about what to expect from college, and what to watch out for.

Now, with a doctorate and a good amount of professional success under my belt, I can't help but look back and wonder what the heck I was so worked up about. Why was I so worried? How did I ever get the idea that failing a test would somehow ruin the rest of my life in the first place? To be sure, universities don't usually go out of their way to alleviate the stress. It was constantly reinforced that being at Harvard was a 'Huge Honor' and a 'Great Opportunity.' That may be true, but it's also worth putting things in perspective. So, from the vantage point of someone who survived college and beyond, here are a few things that I wish I knew before I started.

In college, I felt that asking questions and getting extra help was an admission of failure, as well as a nuisance for the professor (and it was way too embarrassing to start out with "I haven't understood a single thing you've said this semester ..."). What I would do now if I got lost during a lecture, seriously, would be to go to the professor's office after class and refuse to leave until I understood the lesson. It is their job to teach you, and speaking as someone who has now taught college physics, I was never offended by a student spending extra time, even hours, with me to learn a lesson. It may be inconvenient for the professor, but you (or more accurately, your parents) are paying good money for this. You are the customer; never forget that.

Remember who's doing the teaching in most science classes scientists. Now, that professor may have been hired because they published sixty papers in five years, but they may not be able to teach their way out of a paper bag. In short, a good researcher does not necessarily (and in fact, not usually) make a good teacher. This is good to keep in mind for some perspective when a class seems confusing or overly difficult. It's not that you don't have the capacity to learn quantum mechanics, it's just not being presented in a manner that gives you much chance of learning it. Ask the professor, during an office visit, to try and put things in a different way, or start from more basic principles. Try talking to a graduate student or a tutor, anyone who can communicate more effectively, instead.

This may seem like strange advice, but let me explain. In most colleges, there are prescribed courses that you need to take to fulfill a "major." I majored in astrophysics, so every semester there were two or three courses I had to take. There was also a smattering of required, general education courses, like writing, history, basic philosophy, and such. But then there were some unassigned credits, where I could take any class I liked. Most of my friends who were doing a physics major decided to take extra physics courses. I took Icelandic literature (no joke!), Japanese art, and human behavioral biology, among others. I can not tell you how much the random, extraneous classes I took in college enriched my life. Not only did these classes provide welcome variety to my education, they've also provided me with a good understanding of many different fields, and gotten me started on some wonderful, life-long hobbies. Believe me, in graduate school I had the opportunity to take any and every course in physics I could ever have wanted. In retrospect, I should have learned more languages, practiced more art and studied more history.

The last half-century is littered with foreign policy mistakes made by new administrations in their earliest days: John Kennedy's Bay of Pigs; Richard Nixon's missteps on Vietnam; Jimmy Carter's policies on human rights and energy; Ronald Reagan's high rhetorical posture on terrorism; and Bill Clinton's acceptance of the "midnight intervention" in Somalia from outgoing President George Bush. On reflection, more seasoned presidents--and their national security teams--might like to have revisited each of these early actions. The risks for the new president are obvious. On Inauguration Day, Bush will have in place only one top foreign policy aide other than Vice President Dick Cheney: new National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, whose job is not subject to Senate confirmation. Even if the Senate follows tradition and immediately confirms Colin Powell (secretary of State) and Donald H. Rumsfeld (Defense secretary), the lower-level positions where much of the work gets done can't be filled for weeks--or longer. And even then, these people must learn how to work together and with the president--a chemistry that cannot be developed, or even accurately predicted, in advance. Further, every "out party" becomes the "in party," bringing with it at least some misconceptions about what is necessary and possible in U.S. foreign policy--and those misconceptions take some time to overcome. The new "ins" tend to try following through on positions taken during the election campaign, whether or not they match with reality. And the newcomers, however much experience they may have, can't begin to get the feel for how the world and America's place in it really work until they have the responsibility for reacting to day-to-day events. Especially since the end of the Cold War, which at least had some clear and enduring rules, the picture of power, purpose and possibility that confronts the new team will of necessity be significantly different from what they experienced before. And "before" can be a long time in terms of changes in the world: 12 years for the Democrats leading up to 1993; eight years for the Republicans now. Two areas illustrate the virtue of "go slow": Our European allies, who regret the departure of every U.S. president--to whose policies and peculiarities they have become accustomed--look to the new administration for continuity and steadiness. They also devise tests for American leadership and are unforgiving in applying them. Fairly or not, this time they will judge the new Bush administration by how it deals with an issue that came up in the election campaign: whether U.S. troops will remain part of the NATO-led peacekeeping forces in Bosnia and Kosovo. Revisiting long-term NATO policy in the Balkans is fair game; but starting off by sowing uncertainty about whether the U.S. will continue to share military risks with allies would cause problems far out of proportion to the intrinsic importance of the matter. The Europeans also want to know whether Bush will try to reverse last year's rejection by the Republican-led Senate of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. They also will watch to see how he deals with what, for Bush, must have been an unwelcome after-Christmas gift from departing President Clinton: the U.S. signature on the treaty creating an International Criminal Court. Of more consequence in trying to keep the first few months of foreign policy as "error free" as possible is national missile defense. Bush and his team have reiterated that this will have high priority, but it remains a policy minefield. How this issue develops will have a critical impact on relations with Russia and China, the shape of the strategic nuclear environment, risks from weapons of mass destruction, the future of arms control and--again--European allies' views of the new administration's competence. Furthermore, although the concept of national missile defense has been formally backed by Clinton and Al Gore as well as by Bush, there has been no agreement by the two major parties on what form it should take. And parts of the U.S. military are ambivalent, as they foresee moneys being drained from favorite arms programs. Last year, a bipartisan panel of former (and some future) government officials, convened by the Rand Corp., differed widely--and vigorously--on what to do about missile defenses. But they had one common piece of advice for the new president: "Mismanaging this issue could have severe consequences across a wide range of concerns. Promptly after inauguration, you should mandate a comprehensive review of all critical factors." That says "go slow." And however high President Bush puts foreign policy and national security on his leadership agenda, this is good advice, coming from people who have "been there"--and sometimes suffered--before. Robert E. Hunter is a senior advisor at the RAND Corp.This commentary originally appeared in Los Angeles Times on January 8, 2001. Commentary gives RAND researchers a platform to convey insights based on their professional expertise and often on their peer-reviewed research and analysis. 041b061a72


Welcome to the group! You can connect with other members, ge...
bottom of page