Well, in what was an excellent bit of journalism Fox News Sunday earned the award for best choice in guest for May 20th, 2012.
The question was "Isn't it the job of every CEO to making money for the investors in the business?" And their token Obama supporter succeeded in fumbling all over the question in a very stupid fashion, thus showing why Democrats know nothing about business theory.
Le Sigh. Look, this was an EASY one! The correct answer is, "Yes. That is the job of every CEO--HOWEVER, it is also the responsibility of the CEO to not treat their employees as though they don't have an investment in the company. Isn't it a responsibility of the employee to care about how the company does to ensure that they will have a job in the next ten or twenty years? And isn't it a failure by the CEO when they have to lay off a number of employees because the CEO wasn't able to look after all of the interested partners? The problem with the question you're asking, is that most employees are not monitary investors in the company. So while the CEO is catering to Wall Street, isn't it also possible that he's neglecting the employees who should hold an equal or greater amount of interest that the company continues to make a profit?
"Yes, Bain's job was to save companies that would otherwise go out of business, but at what expense to the employees? Those steel workers were working their asses off in that company and their employers paid them back with a pink slip from Bain. Why weren't the employees treated as investors? Just because they have no money involved? What does that say about our system when one person is allowed to make $10 million after putting in $5 million and the man who spent 20 years of his life actually creating the product is fired? Why couldn't Bain have taken a smaller profit (they're already multi-millionaires, right?) and invested the profits they would have taken to the bank back into the company to save more jobs?"
EDIT 11-22-12
After reading about what went down for Hostess this week, this seems to be an excellent example. And while it might have started an unwanted discussion at the dinner table earlier today, I stand behind what I said. While my family members seemed to think that Hostess is without fault for this bankruptcy, I've now read 3 articles saying that it could have been prevented with different managerial decisions (my stance on it without having paid very much attention this past week). Besides, while I don't care to dwell on the issue, it seems that Hostess wasn't a privately traded company, removing a healthy dose of "oversight committee" whose opinions some family members seemed to think pertinent. Maybe they should have brought in Bain?
is covering the news covered by other news stations news? 'Cuz I get annoyed whenever Fox News tells me what stories weren't covered by "liberal media" or emphasizes the fact that the liberal news spent an excessive amount of time on one story while neglecting other stories instead of just telling me the story and being done with it.
I'm intelligent. I watch all the major news channels (well, not CNN or MSNBC, but then, I'm not a glutton for punishment--I like clips so that I can pick and choose what I watch) so that I can get a good sense of what's going on in the world. I KNOW when I see a story being covered days after I saw it on some other outlet. So does my dad when he reads something in the paper that doesn't make the television news for 3 or 4 days (he doesn't read as many papers or watch as much television news as me--just the local paper, the local news and the evenening news (the later two are usually ABC affiliate, but sometimes we watch NBC). We don't need someone to tell us when something is or isn't covered and it makes it look like they have an agenda against the other outlet.
Much like when one of the local news stations found out that a couple Pilot employees were mugged a month before but were never published as news so they implied that there was a cover-up. As the Pilot said, "people get mugged everyday, why should this mugging be treated any differently? It's not like there was any sensitive documents taken."
I haven't gone back to Fox News to see if there's been a follow up on the flesh-eating bacteria. A couple weeks ago I was annoyed by the article because there didn't seem to be any reason for it--not even an analysis of how often someone contracts the bacteria or a warning on how to avoid it. A few days after I saw the story on Fox, it was aired on the "liberal media" (I'm not sure which one). I didn't watch it to see if they gave any analysis, but I did take notice that since then, there have been 2 more articles on flesh-eating bacteria. Even if the "liberal media" half-assed it like Fox did, at least they're showing more than one example to emphasize that this isn't a once in a lifetime event. Feel free to share examples of Fox going more in depth with the story, I'd be interested to see them.
Okay, I'm currently paused at 2:32. Gingrich has just said that arguably the Declaration of Independence is the most important document for the United States. Since this is a program focusing on what the founders believed about religion in governance, I have a feeling that I know what Mr. McClay is going to say. Which is why I want to voice my own opinion before he can say it.
There are a lot of pro-religion people who dislike Thomas Jefferson (writer of the Declaration) because he wrote the Virginia Statue for Religious Freedom which is the place you will find the words "separation of church and state". Jefferson also built his University under that principle. In every other university of it's time and before, a chapel was placed at the center of it. At UVA, the Rotunda which served as both a space for classrooms and the library is at the center. Then are dorms where students and professors live together. The chapel was built outside of the lawn. Isn't this a visual description of how Jefferson believed the country should be governed?
First commercial break--
Well...you've convinced me that the founding fathers were religious...which you do realize wasn't the same religion you have now, right? Washington wasn't Pat Robertson.
And, please...don't use memorials to tell us what the founders believed. They were created LATER and with the ideals and interpretations of the people who designed and built it. Go to the Smithsonian and look at the HUGE statue of Washington. He's supposed to draw comparisons to Ancient Greece appearing like the Zeus to our Democratic pantheon. All was good for about 20 years as he sat in the middle of D.C. for everyone to gaze upon. Then one day someone looked at it in a new light. GEORGE WASHINGTON WAS NAKED!!!!!!!!! And he's been hidden away ever since.
If you are trying to tell me the story of the founding fathers and their beliefs, do NOT use ANYTHING that wasn't contemporary to their time. You should be discussing the evolution of the Enlightenment, not telling me what men were thinking during the Depression when the Jefferson Memorial was commissioned. If you don't talk about the University while discussing Jefferson, Gingrich, you get a failing grade and my emense simpathy for all of the students whose education was hurt inside of your classroom.
HAHAHAHAAH. Oh My God. Want to talk about irony?!? They start out with wondering if a monument about Jefferson could get built today since the first thing you notice is his own words about swearing to God to fight against all tyranny over the mind of man. Wow. That's really deep. Of course, I'm not sure that Gingrich got it right as he uses this line as evidence of Jefferson's belief that we should all have God in the center of our lives. The started out the segment on Jefferson by saying that Jefferson is often seen as the "patron saint" for separation of church and state because he wasn't a traditional Christian and believed in the Englightenment and the necessity to question everything. One of the things that he had to question was what exactly was the role of God...and as you can see when you tour UVA--secular learning comes at the center; religion is a necessary moral guide, but not at the expense of books and discovery. The Catholic Church played a major role in the Enlightenment which came as a result of the Scientific Revolution, when the Church said that it didn't matter how much evidence you had to say that the Sun was at the center of the Solar System; the Bible says that Humans (and therefore Earth) are the center of the Universe. Jefferson, would therefore be a hypocrit because if his God suddenly said that he was not allowed to innovate or learn, he'd become an Atheist for sure. The mind of man is what's most important...the fact that he's swearing to God to fight tyranny over it is a mere technicality.
And now we're talking about Slavery...Umm...thank-you Fox News. Apparently their theory on education is that using examples of the use of the word God is evidence of the founders' feelings--that the examples alone are explaination of what they felt. Are they actually going to go into what those words would have meant in 1776 to 1789?!? Or are we supposed to just be dumb cows and assume that the connotations and meanings haven't changed? I feel like my professors writing on papers: "expand" and "more detail". Quotes are necessary, but without delving into the significance you're looking at a C paper. What does it mean when Jefferson wrote that "all men are created equal under their creator"? If you can't tell me, why bother?
Ahh...and apparently the Virginia Statue of Religious Freedom doesn't exist as a founding document. Well, played Fox News, well played. Since it was never officially voted upon by the founders to make it a federal document, it must be left to the shelves of "things the founders wrote to influence the way people thought without actually meaning for it to become meaningful law". Well, I take your Statue for Religious Freedom and raise you one (or rather 85) Federalist Papers. Your move. Oh wait...I'm throwing in a Common Sense article on the side.
Sigh...okay...once again. Thank-you for the interesting quiz questions. I didn't know that Franklin asked that a prayer be held before each meeting and I didn't know that there's a painting of Pochahontas being baptised in the Capital. But, for the latter, do you mind telling me when it was painted? Who commissioned it (or bought it for placement)? And when it was placed where it now sits? Because if it wasn't done while the founders were in office, then all you are telling me is that at some point some government official, who has been removed from the founders by how many years decided to put in some religious artwork--just like Congress decided to add "under God" to the Pledge of Alliegence in 1947. So far Gingrich, you're ACING the "how many ways can we fool the public into believing whatever we're trying to tell them by giving lots of examples and no in depth analysis" section while failing dismally the "we're actually trying to teach you something" part. You won't find many *educated* people who believe in Separation of Church and State who don't know that the founders attended church regularly, but can still give you plenty of evidence of why they wouldn't support the lack of separation many on the right wish to have.
I highly doubt that Jefferson would say that it isn't tyranny to tell a child that they have to memorize a passage from the Bible before class every morning, especially if said child was Jewish, Muslim, or Hindu. Though he would probably say that reading the Bible (and the Torah and the Quran and I'm afraid I'm insinsitive because I do not know the holy book for Hindus) and deciding what you believe for yourself is very important to a well rounded education. In fact Gingrich, how about you hop over to the Smithsonian and pick up a copy of Jefferson's Bible? Or is it against your faith to see your holy book cut into little pieces and re-spliced together to form a cohesive account of exactly what Jefferson believed--I think he even wrote in some footnotes to help you figure it out.
Ugh...This latest question is giving me a glimpse into the real reason behind this program: "which came first the Christmas Tree in the White House or the Easter Egg Roll?" They want to stop the people who want to get rid of such traditions for being religious. Okay...I can see that. I wish they'd said that from the beginning. That's the problem that this program has had--they're trying to push one agenda while hiding it behind something seemingly educational. It's okay to want to show the traditions of the past--in fact, if they'd done a good job showing how the traditions started and where they fit into the historical context, it would be well done. But instead we have all these rather random references thrown out without any real analysis into the history.
Look we can agree that the founding fathers believed that personal religion plays a huge roll in everyday life--in their own decision making too. They wrote the 1st amendment to say that everyone gets to believe what they believe when they believe it and to be able to live based on the way that they believe that they should. But they didn't give government the right to say "this is a Christian Nation only." Heck Egg Rolling was a Pagan idea that the early Christians adopted--Protestants should be protesting the annual event even louder than the Atheists. The same is true of the Christmas tree which came from Germany (Washington decorated Mount Vernon with boughs (I think they're called) over the doorways and that was it). The Atheists aren't asking for representatives to throw away their faith--many times they'll agree on moral issues anyway, no Bible required. All they're asking for is that non-Christian faiths not be tossed aside as worthless. If you look at the history, the first "White House Christmas tree" was decorated in 1929--before that it was a family tree that no one can even agree about who had the first (as they adopted the custom from Germany, remember). If the first family has a Christmas tree, fine, but we don't need to have one standing there saying "look world, everyone in this country celebrates Christmas"--in fact, there are many conservative Christian groups who don't believe in having a tree or exchanging gifts--shouldn't they be standing up for their beliefs? And I don't think that the Atheists mind if our representatives talk about their own faith so long as there is a clear understanding that they aren't trying to speak for everyone. By the way, Roosevelt abandoned the egg rolling while he was president and Congress banned the use of the White House lawn to be used as a children's playground in 1877. And I don't think they ever answered the question about which came first.
Wait...big government supplants the church--the state becomes the church?!? What? I do not undertand this guy's reasoning. Especially given the topic we're supposed to be talking about. Are we supposed to believe that people left the church when government got bigger under Roosevelt? Well, I guess one could argue that with better education, fewer people bought into some of the things the churches have to say (see that video on the Amish I posted yesterday--one of the girls felt she had to leave the community when her mother told her it would be better if she didn't think all because she couldn't understand the reasoning behind being allowed to pay for a taxi to take her to the store, but not beling allowed to own a bicycle that would let her be self-sufficient and go by herself). And as for people turning to government rather than the church for aid, well one can't expect people who have left the church for their own reasons (I highly doubt that Roosevelt's government was paying people not to go to church) to ask for aid from an organization that they don't fundamentally agree with. And aren't churches finding it more difficult to pay for all the needy people they have? Where are all the Christian millionaires to pay for their care? Oh right. I forgot. Romney paid exactly his 10% to charity last year.
Well...I guess I see the Vietnam Memorial differently. Some see it as being something cold and barren that doesn't serve to honor what the men sacrificed themselves for. That because there isn't a religious part to it, it's somehow empty. I think that the American people, when the cover it with flowers and poems and other things are helping to create a memorial that isn't trying to please everyone. Yes, I can see the need to remember the nurses, and maybe the need to have the statues of the fighters, but everyone knows the saying "you can please some of the people some of the time, but none of the people all of the time. The Vietnam Memorial is my favorite memorial because of it's simplicity--it's not trying to talk you into believing something. It's simply a place for you to come and reflect on what that war meant to you. If religion matters, then feel free to add your own, just like the religious symbols on the government headstones. But no one wants to impose their religious views on the others. And I just can't see Washington, Franklin, Jefferson or any of the other founders putting the 10 Commandments on a building.
Umm...I'm not sure what to think about this documentary(?). What's really throwing me off is the voiced over translations. The vocal tones are just...wonkie--it sounds like a really bad kung-fu movie where the voices don't match the lip movements. There'll be someone speaking passionatley in the background and the translator is a bit mono-tone. I'm also not sure what to think about the accent, either. It just doesn't sound natural.
And...well, they just lost whatever credibility they had with me. Yes, the radicals are nuts and we need to do a lot to educate the masses of people who ignorantly(?) think that American's are imperialistic infidels who want to make the world in their image. But please don't try to tell me that when you condemn them for protesting the cartoon about Muhammed. Or protesting the burning of Korans. There are fundamentalist Christians who get pissed off when you bash the Bible...please read the comments section on just about any religious article on foxnews.com.
Ooh, an interview with he NYC Imam--I generally like him. It is important to look at the role of politics in religion. And remember something. Most women in Islamic countries are forbidden from getting an education. They can't read the Qu'ran for themselves to learn what it really says. And how many men do you think have read the book from cover to cover? Heck, how many American church goers have read the Bible cover to cover? One of my dad's biggest complaints about the Catholic Church is that they tend to use the same passages all the time.
Oh good God. Newt Gingrich is hosting the episode on the Bird Flu...
Sigh, yesterday I caught up on a weeks worth of Bill's "Talking Points" (the only 3 minutes of his show that he shares with the "free world" of hulu). Once again, Bill took the top spot as the most trusted news source. Sigh. And once again, I fee the need to qualify his pride.
The problem with comparing Fox News to the rest of the "lame stream" media is that the aren't comparable. It is a fact that Fox leans right while NBC, CBS, ABC, and they're siblings lean left (or rather, more left, though since I watch only their local channels not on cable, I cannot judge their content fully--our local NBC and Fox station are "married" for all that they share a studio and news anchors). For all that I comment on Fox News, I have no real desire to watch their programing--just as I have no real desire to watch MSNBC or CNN. I don't want to listen to the excessive bashing that is a news commentary show (except for Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert who bash both sides equally). Sorry I ramble.
Here's the real point. There are only a handful of people who watch BOTH Fox News and the "liberal left". These are the people who also watch Jon Stewart looking for the real nuggets of truth (not the dick jokes). If I ask a conservative, then they will probably say that they trust Fox. If I ask a liberal, they will probably say MSNBC. If I ask a poor person living in the slums, they will probably say none of the above since they don't generally care about the news. Now, where does that leave the population that could reply to the poll in question? Generally speaking, I'd guess Conseravatives who watch Fox News: Older Americans who have some money tucked away. I'm afraid that I didn't pay enough attention to know the actual percentage points, but since I think one of the things this country needs to do is get more people interested in current events, we need to take into consideration that of the "don't know" there are enough people to maybe make a difference in those figures that Bill is so proud of.
What upset me most (besides the fact that Bill will repeat these facts for the next month as though they actually mean something to me) is that when he informed us that he was either tied with or beating Jon Stewart in the popularity contest (whatever) he was snide and rude, as though because of what one poll said he is better than Stewart (his long standing rival). I decided long ago, though careful observation and a healthy appreciation of what television psychologists say, that anyone who has to constantly tell everyone how much better they are over someone else is jealous...and probably has low self-esteem. Not that telling him such would do anyone any good. I prefer the smile and nod and don't take them seriously method.
Am I a hypocrit? I don't know. I don't try to belittle Bill with a lot of passive aggressive "I'm better than you" or "You're an idiot (cough: pinhead)" comments, but I do use him a lot as an example. It's not personal--he's just my only real access point to Fox News since they won't show more on Hulu (I do like their "news minute" show, even if they are a bit too blatent about the hulu-ness; I mean, hulu isn't really about hulu programing--it's about streaming a variety of media in a central location). I also don't think that my ultimate message is meant to make me look better, smarter, more handsome/beautiful, or be able to fly.
http://nation.foxnews.com/obesity/2010/12/13/first-lady-childhood-obesity-national-security-threatI don't normally curse; in fact I never do. But I'm pissed. At FOX News of course. And their loyal readers. I finally have the credible argument I needed to maybe get FOX News to remove their "Fair and Balanced" lie. And what pisses me off is that the "intelligent real Americans" who believe that crap actually DO BELIEVE THAT CRAP! Look, here's the "article". FOX News changed the picture to support their political bias. Why do I know this? Logic:
If they didn't consciously decide to change the picture then there would be no point to changing it. If they did consciously decide, then of course they're going to choose the picture that best supports their message.
And the "loyal Americans" ate it all up--read the comments. Why exactly do schools even bother to teach about Yellow Journalism when half the population won't believe it true from their precious FOX News?
I can't help but feel like I was in some way responsible for this addition to the TV site since I sent about 40 emails to various Fox personalities asking why they were so against sharing their video with folks like me who don't care to pay for access to the channel. But I'm concerned as to why they are the only videos which are so proud to include the intro and conclusion telling us that these videos are exclusive for Hulu. Are they censoring something? Or just embarrassed to share with the free world (taken literally) what they tell the paying world? Sigh, I guess it's back to the emailing for me. I really would love to get my hands on some "Fox and Friends" because honestly, they HAVE to do better than what is used as soundbites on youtube and certain comedy central shows.
So. The great debate between conservatives and liberals over education continues. Actually, I myself find this article to be quite revealing. I never realized that conservatives don't particularly like TJ, but I guess that's only a certain subset. Also, I'm thinking of trying to win that $1000 for charity (maybe for planned parenthood?) because if I remember correctly, the 1st amendment says that there will be no establishment of a religion, which also means that there can be no one religion over any other. SO, if this is a "country under god" that also includes Allah and Zeus. And Christianity isn't a religion, so we can't just say that we're a christian country--sorry peeps, but you can't choose an arbitrary subset as a religion--religions have doctrines and as Westboro Baptist Church illustrates, not even the Baptists can agree on what their religion is supposed to be.
But I'm tired...I'm not even sure how much sense this blurb of mine makes. In any case, it sure doesn't make sense to me that when one party/group makes a decision on content that the story becomes "more balanced"--I don't like being told what I believe--they always screw it up.
I'm watching some of the older videos on my hulu account that are about to expire--namely Colbert and Jon Stewart. Of course, the top news for January 4th or so was still the underwear bomber. Here's what I don't understand:
WHY THE HECK IS YEMEN A NEW COUNTRY OF TERROR?!?!? DOESN'T ANYONE REMEMBER 2000 WHEN THAT WAS THE COUNTRY OF ORIGIN OF THE BOMBERS OF THE USS COLE?!?!? Or is that only relevant to one small 12 year old who remembers seeing the faces of the 17 dead on the front page of the paper and reading the stories of their lives. How about walking into a classroom and having a teacher mention that she had taught one of the 5 dead who grew up in and around Norfolk? I'm actually disappointed by Stewart and Colbert to not have picked up on this--it makes me sadder that the 17's deaths were in vain. RIP.
Seriously. Read this article about why people vote against reforms. To be fair--that health care bill is a piece of work and a half, but don't those congressmen add in all their special interest BS BECAUSE their constituencies would be FURIOUS that an honest congressman would say he would support a bill that gives health care to Nebraska without giving his state of Oklahoma some kind of benefit. Yay for being a "Christian Nation" who doesn't give a S#!T (excuse my French) about any state other than the one that we live in. Just because I live in Southern Virginia (which should be a completely different state than Northern Virginia because they are crazy), doesn't mean that I won't allow our Governor to pass laws that affect the whole state--like seat belt laws. I won't even say that in order to allow it, the governor has to give money to Norfolk to pay for a light-rail system (which is a FAILURE of EPIC proportion!).
Okay, I know I sent a LOT of annoying emails to various fox personalities complaining that there is no access to Fox News for me (I like to know what the enemy is saying). Yeah...they complied, but not in a good way. I figured that they would just stream their current programs on the "television" site, but instead, I'm not sure what they did. The media is from at least 2008 (I quit adding to my queue once I hit the election, so there may be more). But they actually took the time to make it look like the news has always been online--a commentator at the beginning to introduce it as "Fox News on HULU.com"...HULU is HUGE on the first screen. I need to pay more attention to whether that intro is the same commentator though the rest of the clip. But since I know that at least part of it is fake, I have no idea what to think about the rest of this--how was this news used a year and a half ago?!? Is the commentary totally new, made to look like Fox News made better news then? I'm so confused! Or rather, I'm so annoyed. ABC news was also recently added to the site--they only have the past 2 weeks or so. Why does Fox News need to be special (ed.)?
By the way--WOOO! For Mrs. McCain for standing up for gay right to marry. I KNEW I liked her!! She should totally run for president!
Some people say it better than I could. See below.
Please ignore the conservative crack about the candidate Fox News attacked in favor or Dole. I'm NOT that conservative--I believe in a wide world effort, not isolationism--while I can appreciate Ron Paul, I believe that there is a purpose for government in global interactions--since it's obvious that big economic bosses screw up royally more often than not. The purpose of this video is that it is a better description of how I feel about Fox News.
Here's my 2 cents. News is News--not opinion. News is by my definition facts. There is no place to put "spin" or opinion. "8 year old boy is killed by stray bullet at 2am" can't get spun much, except from conjecture that it might be a gang killing (which, since I watch a LOT of "liberal" news, isn't conjecture). Giving a number of dead in Iraq also doesn't involve much spin, except that maybe the "liberal" news will actually give pictures to go along with names and numbers. To not do that is disrespectful to the dead in my opinion.
But I don't get much Fox News. You see, I'm poor. We spend $10 on cable a month and don't get those special channels. The way I look at it, the fact that Fox News loses most of it's potential fanbase because they can't afford to pay for the channel and/or choose not to. People already either love or hate Fox News--they aren't going to make any converts from those who already have access. By being on the expensive cable, they are choosing to limit their "fan base" and therefore, when Bill O'Reilly tells about how Fox News has the highest viewership out of all the news channels, I have to wonder how skewed the numbers are.
Another thing about Fox News is that they aren't much actual news--it's mostly opinion. Like I said, news is news. And Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck, and Rush Limbaugh AREN'T news. They are commentators, not news casters. Fox News Sunday (which IS shown on the local fox station) isn't news either. It's a roundtable discussion much like "Ask the Press". They even bring in a guy from NPR and other "liberal" sources. They comment on this weeks news. Pointless in my opinion.
Besides. Pro-Life isn't conservative in my opinion because it's having big government dictate the rights of individual women...but that's just me.
