syberlion
syberlion's JournalThis is a creative person talking about non-creative executives
What Mr. Spacey points out here is if you have the content people want and can provide it at a relative cost, people will buy it. Think about it this way; what if when you went into an ice cream shop and the only way you could get a scoop or a small pint of your favorite flavor was by purchasing access to the freezer containing all the flavors the shop sells, which won't come cheap.
Oh, did I mention even with access to the freezer, your flavor is only made on Tuesdays and in the freezer for only an hour. Hit bad traffic on the way to the shop and too bad for you. How long do you think a store would stay open with that kind of business model?
The non-creative types, they can see the writing on the wall, they weren't creative enough to put it there, but they see it. Content delivery as a concept is in the process of a major shift from a few making choices for the many, to the many providing choices for all. The executives will be out of a job if they're no longer able to laud their power and influence over creative people.
It is my strong belief a lot of the swill currently peddled on over-the-air and on cable as "entertainment" is to give the non-creative executive types a false sense of security about their own short-comings.
If people are paying us to make this garbage, then boy are they stupid! The reality is, people are turning away from television in droves and the only ones left watching are those who may have lower standards, or may not know any better, so the content is reflecting the audience that's left behind.
There is a larger audience hungering for good stories, well written, developed and allowed to be taken in at whatever speed the individual can absorb the story, the entire story; not doled out on some arbitrary, shifting schedule set to maximize ad dollars from a few corporations. The story needs to be accessed by the mass market at a nominal price for access. Then, if all they want is a scoop, they can do that, but if they want the whole gallon, they can get that as well.
You have those non-creative types drooling over the few corporations with masses of money, instead of realizing the potential masses of people with a few discretionary dollars in their pockets. So, they play to the big money, and wonder why no one is watching.
It's going to be interesting to watch how all this plays out over the next ten to twenty years. Cloud technology is just starting to take off, and public WiFi infrastructure is slowly heading towards open availability without the need for cable access in homes, who knows what's around the corner?
I've Thought Long and Hard About This...
O'Connor was a Reagan appointee, and let's not forget America's most activist judge, Scalia. When the history of this country is finally written, the beginning of the end will be correctly traced to Reagan.
Bush the first was his Vice President, Casper Weinberger was Secretary of Defense, Edwin Meese Attorney General, Alexander "I'm in control..." Haig as Secretary of State.
Bush was previously appointed by Ford (the first non-elected President) as the director of the CIA. Bush, who as president pardoned Casper Weinberger even before he was tried for his part in the Iran-Contra Affairs (remember that one?). This was after Attorney General Ed Meese refused requests of assistance by the FBI and apparently looked the other way while a "shredding party" took place destroying National Security Council documents purportedly verifying Reagan's involvement in the arms sales to Iran.
The actions of the Reagan and then Bush the first's administrations set the president of certain people being above the law. Their actions in dealing with (or allowing) criminal actions of those in their own and in previous administrations signaled to right-wingers they could act without fear of legal action. Even if they were caught, they'd be pardoned.
What does this have to do with Bush v. Gore?
Even if the Supreme Court was found out as to their plot to install an unconstitutionally non-elected President, even if they were impeached by the Senate and tried in federal court, they knew they could act with impunity. Someone would pardon them, probably the very president they elevated to the post.
The point is, what the founding fathers set up as a nation of laws of which no one was above, is now a nation of men not unlike the very country our founding fathers fought against.
We no longer have trust in the judicial system. There is the law for the average person and then there is a system for those able to avoid the system. Even if they can't avoid it, there are ways designed for them to get through it unscathed (Scooter Libby, anyone?).
As to treason, the attempt to overthrow one's own government, it isn't where to begin as much as where do we end it? When do we reinstate the Constitutional government? At what point do we stand up against the very tyranny we left when we separated from King George and England?
What gets me about this whole farce is when you've corrupted the judicial branch, you've damaged the entire under-pinning of the government. So, when O'Connor says Bush v. Gore was a "mistake" she's admitting her complicity in a crime against the Constitution and is admitting she participated in circumventing the process, as written down in law, this government uses to govern itself. In effect, she helped overthrow the duly elected president by disrupting one state's process of counting ballots (these are the self-same states rights people).
The question is, if the highest court in the land is corrupt, who's judging them? More importantly, how do we clear out the corruption?
misstate came up as an error in spell-check and it was late that night
But I agree, this missive was more an exorcise of frustration and venting one's mental anguish at another type of "yahoo-ness". I believe people are yahoos for believing in the right-wing talking points. I believe people are yahoos for writing right-wing talking points. As for the punctuation comment, that is a matter of opinion. However, if punctuation is all that was important to you regarding the message; then more is the pity for anyone missing the point.
Not everyone is an English professor, nor is everyone versed on all the rules of proper usage of verb tense, agreement, etc. However, criticism for criticism's sake is about as helpful as telling John F. Kennedy, "Hey, you're saying you're a jelly doughnut!" Was that the most important part of his Berlin speech?
I did not realize there was an AP standard to post to DU. I'll remember to have my Strunk & White "The Elements of Style" handy the next time I decide to pour out my thoughts and feelings to this most auspicious and well written web site. Heaven forbid anyone make a mistake...
Course, if you're a Democrat, FOX always makes sure your mistakes are headline news. I didn't realize there were cub reporters for FOX contributing to DU. 
Response to an article by Charles Krauthammer
Here is the article: "The Right-To-Work Dilemma"
Here is my response which I sent to him in an email:
Mr. Krauthammer,
In your first sentence you miss-state the over-all issue, an accommodation to reality. What happened in Michigan was a ham-handed execution of a lame-duck session of state government, to impart their will and not the will of the people. To do this, the legislature suspended rules, rammed through legislation without the normal processes and procedures normally put in place to allow input from all points of view. This speaks to a suspension of reality not an accommodation to it.
You speak of Globalization, however you did not include the fact that hordes of lobbyist worked to get tax breaks for American companies to essentially get paid for moving jobs out of America. Those same companies are now losing on their balance sheets because by under-cutting the American workforce, there are fewer Americans buying the company's foreign made goods. Globalization works when there is value placed on the worker and the worker is able to participate in the economic circle by having enough to buy the products. You cut that part out, as current corporate thinking goes, and you will destroy not only the American market, but the world market. The current corporate-think of cheap labor is a short-sighted one that even the staunch conservative Henry Ford didn't share. He believed you had to pay your workers enough to be able to buy the product. So much for cheap labor.
You stated "Angry protesters return" to a norm that doesn't exist today and hasn't existed for over twenty years, or more. What they were protesting about is being able to be at the negotiating table to see that the workers are a part of the decision-making process. Over the last twenty years, unions have given concessions in order to help keep businesses operating. There are many examples where management has taken advantage of this, Hostess comes to mind. They squandered the pension fund, money worker contributed, and even had the hubris to ask the bankruptcy court for payment on management bonuses.
When you compare the northern car companies to those of the south, you're comparing apples to oranges. The only reason there is a car manufacturing boon in the south is because foreign car manufacturers didn't want to pay the additional tax for vehicles not made in America. So, they researched where they could open the cheapest manufacturing here and the south won, oh not for it's level of intellect, but the amount of breaks the southern states gave these foreign manufacturers. These breaks, which the local people have to absorb by paying higher taxes to cover the taxes not being paid by these companies. The northern states, already having a manufacturing base felt they didn't need to lower their standards, and their tax base, in an attempt to lure these foreign companies. The right to work issue was just a bonus.
The reason Detroit went bankrupt was because of management deciding to not listen to market forces and stop building SUV's and gigantic gas-guzzlers when Americans were asking for higher fuel economy. Unions were not in the boardrooms, they were on the factory floors building whatever the company decided to put out for that year. Seems rather intriguing how management and republicans are afflicted with the same disease, an inability to listen to the people of America.
Next, you state "There is a principle at stake: A free country should allow its workers to choose whether or not to join a union. " Sir, I direct you to the Taft-Hartley Labor Act passed in 1947, yes you read that correctly, 1947. This act was passed and it outlawed the "closed shop". This means that joining a union was not a condition of employment. So, your assertion is false and is factually wrong, 65 years wrong. You can confirm this fact by reading up on it at this informational site: http://www.infoplease.com/encyclopedia/business/taft-hartley-labor-act.html As the rest of your blather, since it's based on a false premise, the rest of your statement carries the same validity.
You speak of right to work states having lower unemployment, there may be some validity to that, but they also have higher usage of food stamps and higher welfare numbers as well. In an article about which states use more federal money than they contribute, Mother Jones took a look at 2010 census data and found states that voted republican tended to get more federal dollars than they provide ("Most Red States Take More Money From Washington Than They Put In" Feb 16, 2012). It would seem to me if you have lower unemployment, you would have a higher influx of money going from the state to federal government. However, since the wages are markedly lower, they are not contributing more. Lower wages means less money to put back into the local economy, which means less of a tax base for the state to operate.
Free trade is the straw man of your argument. Trade by its very nature is not free. The word itself belies your argument. From Merriam-Webster.com, "The business of buying or selling or bartering commodities." You go to any business person and say "I want to Trade for Free" and you'll be laughed out of the room. There is no such animal, nothing is for free, period. There is an exchange of value, there is a price, there is an agreed contract, period. What you are talking about is devaluing labor until it is almost free. That is the process we are the victims of here in America and it most certainly is a head-long tumble to the bottom. Fair trade is the mantra we must spread across the globe.
The recalibration you speak of is one of devaluation of the one thing this country was founded on and that is the might of the American worker, We The People, that is the value we put into the products we generate, that the world prizes when they see the label "Made In America" because it stands for quality and strength. No lame ducks will destroy that, no matter how hard and how craftily they try. We must work towards Fair Trade, a fair day's pay for a fair day's work.
The Target Audience wasn't to the Left or the Right
The target audience was to the moderate middle independents. Why do you think Rombot had to trot out Romney-care and throw the tea-party under the bus? Because he had to work on making the moderate indie voter believe his swill. That's why you saw an aggressive approach, Indie voters need to be persuaded to vote one way or the other.
Obama's approach was to let Romney be the aggressor, let him bluster his way through his over-rehearsed talking -points [read well rehearsed lies which will be fact checked before the stage clears]. Meanwhile, Obama slowly shook his head, or visibly winced when Romney would puff out his chest in imagined victory.
Obama maintained a low-key, well paced, cadence with thoughtful pauses. Basically, he was presidential. That's his job, period. I was more disappointed in the after-debate coverage on MSNBC, except for Al Sharpton. Al, nailed it with his comment about Romney's points being from 19th century instead of the 21st century. Also, how there's tape of Romney saying something completely different than what he said during the debate.
The rest of the pundits on screen were wanting Obama to "go for the jugular". That wasn't what Obama needed to do tonight, he needed to allow Romney to feel victorious and than use Romney's own words to show how truly different these two men are.
The Wealthy Can Afford Austerity
This is because even during bad times, they're still making money. It's a skewed view of economics because they don't understand economics in the first place. The majority of these supply-side, austerity people were born half-way between third base and home plate, so of course they believe the supply is always there and is there for everyone.
It is the same with this austerity mentality. When their money isn't making as much as they think it should, they shift their spending to balance out their over-all yield. So, on a personal level, austerity gives them a positive outcome. The problem is they are operating from the supply-side of the fence. They have plenty in reserve so shaving a few dollars here and there isn't hurting them personally. They can still jet to one of their multiple houses, visit their money in the Cayman islands, or run for federal office for nine years...
Austerity assumes there is a built in surplus or wealth in the overall governmental system. Cutting from the bottom is alright because, those near the bottom of the economic ladder will receive some phantom assistance from the rest of society and the rest will take care of itself. The main fault with this premise is those with the wealth aren't going to distribute that wealth into the system. Even if they do, the concentration of wealth causes a distribution problem. Fewer hands are sending money into the economic system.
How many cars can one person (realistically) buy? How many shirts, etc.? Having wealth in a very few hands reduces demand. Reduced demand means reduced production, which means reduced employment. Reduced employment further reduces demand and you eventually get economic depression.
Now, before the "wealth distribution-ist" start calling me names, what I am talking about isn't the old chestnut of take from the rich and give to the poor. Sorry, that's not what I'm advocating. It has to do with economic balance. What does that mean? Well, for starters economic balance is based on the principle that money is a constant in economics. By that I mean there is no more or less money, just where it is and how many many have it. The tax system was created to make sure we could maintain a balanced system. Those with less are taxed less and those with more are taxed more, period.
Economic balance is also known by another more familiar name, The Middle Class. When taxes are distributed fairly and evenly, this benefits everyone across the entire economic scale. When the middle class shrinks and they end up paying most of the taxes you have what we have now.
If you're one of the ones standing atop a pile of money and think by just moving the fulcrum of the economic scale closer to you (austerity), this can get the economic system to balance. All this does is shift the scale to where most of the middle class are on the poverty side and end up paying the majority of the taxes. You'll achieve balance, but at an extremely high cost, for the middle class.
Fair distribution is what is needed to maintain our country's infrastructure. When wealthy people are paying half of what the middle class are paying, there is something wrong. Fair share of the tax burden, that's what is needed, not a reduction of governmental services.
The middle class have become too soft. The middle class have allowed themselves to be lured in by the siren call of the wealthy. You too, can eventually pay less and keep more. The lower class are willing to murder the middle class to achieve the false promise of wealth. Look at any tea party gathering and tell me I am wrong. Austerity is just a tool to starve the government to the point where we'll accept any savior. Even some Austrian failed painter...
Meiko
I agree that the actions of one ill-tempered troglodyte shouldn't put us off the main goal this election season. My point in writing this was to express what's been building up inside for some time. I actually am glad I got upset. Upset enough to write about it. Upset enough to put this out there for others to read and discuss.
I live in the very red state of Texas, where it is difficult to know who to talk to about these things. So many people are demoralized to the point of not wanting to do something about changing it, much less talking about it around here. I remember when this state was Blue, I worked on Ann Richard's campaign, met Barbara Jordan and helped local progressives on city council elections. There is an oppressive nature that colors the body politic at this time in history. One I've had a difficult time pinning down.
What that reporter did was an overt action that crystallized for me what is happening to this country. Educated people used to garner a certain respect. The men (and women) at the beginning of this nation understood the value of having educated leaders, people with vision and social compassion. They saw what happened when people attained money, position, power and lost respect for those below their station.
What strikes me is in the beginning, they attempted to negotiate with the King, but got nowhere. Because the King had no respect for his subjects. That's what galls me is this utter lack of respect. Something as fundamental as respecting someone, is still an issue 300 years later? Really?
That we are still so under-developed as a species, well it bothers me. We are all the same; we live, we breathe, we laugh, we cry, we all die. While we are here, for such a short time really, we need to make it our life's goal to not only make this place better for ourselves, but for everyone else we come in contact.
It is sad there are those around us that have forgotten the second half of this goal.
My Rant on the Reporter Interrupting the President's Prepared Immigration Speech
When I read the story about the reporter interrupting the President as he was giving a prepared speech about the Administration's policy on Immigration, I just couldn't believe we've sunk that low in this country. Then later, when I read what the reporter's Editor-in-Chief said, that just set me off, so that's what I am writing about today.
When questioned about what this rude, uncouth person (clearly, the knuckle-dragger reporter is not a journalist) did at the White House, Mr. Carlson said, "This is what reporters are suppose to do...They're supposed to get their questions answered." (Huffpo - Obama Immigration Speech) This only proves there is no respecting this President. Had someone done this to the right's saint Reagan (you know the one, he raised taxes 11 times), the right-wing controlled media would have asked for a beheading and nothing less would have sufficed.
I listen to the Randi Rhodes show (available in select markets, I-Heart and XM Sirius satellite radio). There is something she's said for years and this incident just goes to prove her point. There needs to be standards and practices for journalism or else you shouldn't be able to brand yourself as "news" (or a "reporter" for that matter). What we have now is opinion-tainment, or just plain propaganda. There are no facts, there is no news, just opinion being paraded as facts with the lead in of "Some say...". This drives me crazy. Another Randi quote you'll hear her say is, "The news is dead."
The spoiled rich kids have grown up and what they did to the rest of us in kindergarten, elementary school, middle-school and high school, they are doing it again, only now they are affecting us nationally. This is serious and it's time to put these spoiled little brats back in their place, period.
These are the same little brats that didn't respect the Principal because they knew their parents would buy off the school and pay for whatever trouble they got into there. These are the same disrespectful miscreants that left flaming bags of dog-poop on an aging veteran's doorstep, watching from a distance and laughing at a man who faced down the Nazis stomping on flaming dog-poop. These are the same malcontents that would dress up in a state trooper's uniform just to stop college girls and scare them half out of their wits. All the while not even caring that what they were doing was a felony because they knew they would never see the inside of a jail cell.
I don't expect anything to change from the right, however, if Mr. Carlson wants to act that way, or have people on his staff act that way, then by all means, I believe that's the way they act in the House of Commons in England. Maybe he'd be happier under British rule, they already have a built in aristocracy.
I was raised to respect the office if not the person occupying it. Since 1980 I've had to endure 20 years, yes 20 years, of buffoons, mental midgets, a head of the CIA and Darth Vader (c'mon, we all know Darth was really the President for 8 years)... Oh, and that's not even mentioning the first 4 years of a stolen presidency. I will admit I never, ever referred to Prince George as President, although I did at least say "Mister" Bush, that's a form of respect... Considering all of the other names I'd love to call him.
The bottom line here is the actions of this reporter shows a basic lack of respect, not only for the President, but for America in general and Americans overall. Decent, hard-working, truly ethical, salt-of-the-earth Americans. We are what stands in the way of the privileged class from running rough-shod over us all. The Super-Rich have gotten their way since birth and they want to dismantle this democratic republic under the guise of "it's our turn". The only right they have is the very same one each and everyone of us have, and that's the right to vote (Even as they rig voter laws and purge the voter rolls of those they know wouldn't vote for their kind anyway). They don't like messy elections, because there are a whole hell of a lot more of us than there are of them and they don't like the odds. They like to own the casino, because that way the house always wins. Well America is not a casino.
They are truly Anti-American in their view of this country. They don't want to deal with the messy reality of having a purpose to run on, other than protecting their money and stealing what little we have left. They don't want to have to ask us for anything, much less our measly little stinky vote, there's just too many of us and besides we're so unwashed and huddled. Wouldn't it be easier for everyone if we just selected someone based on how much money was raised? Oh wait... Isn't it ironic the court case that opened the floodgates of money was called "Citizens United" when it would be better titled "Billionaires United".
OK, it's late and I was pissed when I read about this story. Sorry if I drifted a bit here and there, but I was very upset. It's people like this reporter dis-respecting the office of the President of the United States of America and worse, the Editor-in-chief Mr. Carlson, condoning this behavior which boiled my blood. At least in the 1930's people like this wore white hoods so you could know who they were and what they stood for, it's not that easy anymore.
Not using the name of the reporter was intentional, I am not going to give him any additional exposure by mentioning his name. Besides, he'll probably end up on Faux and Friends in about 6 months...
Tucker Carlson is a Tool
That Mr. Carlson would say of a rude, uncouth person (clearly, the knuckle-dragger reporter is not a journalist) "This is what reporters are suppose to do...They're supposed to get their questions answered." (Huffpo - Obama Immigration Speech) This only proves there is no respecting this President. Had someone done this to the right's saint Reagan (raised taxes 11 times), the right-wing controlled media would have asked for a beheading and nothing less would have sufficed.
I listen to the Randi Rhodes show (available in select markets, I-Heart and XM Sirius satellite radio). There is something she's said for years and this incident just goes to prove her point. There needs to be standards and practices for journalism or else you shouldn't be able to brand yourself as "news". What we have now is opinion-tainment, or just plain propaganda. There are no facts, there is no news, just opinion being paraded as facts with the lead in of "Some say...". This drives me crazy. Another Randi quote you'll hear her say is, "The news is dead."
The spoiled rich kids have grown up and what they did to the rest of us in kindergarten, elementary school, middle-school and high school, they are doing it again, only now they are affecting us nationally. This is serious and it's time to put these spoiled little brats back in their place, period.
These are the same little brats that didn't respect the Principal because they knew their parents would buy off the school and pay for whatever trouble they got into there. These are the same disrespectful miscreants that left flaming bags of dog-poop on an aging veteran's doorstep, watching from a distance and laughing at a man who faced down the Nazis stomping on flaming dog-poop. These are the same malcontents that would dress up in a state trooper's uniform just to stop college girls and scare them half out of their wits. All the while not even caring that what they were doing was a felony because they knew they would never see the inside of a jail cell.
I don't expect anything to change from the right, however I wish Mr. Carlson's email, or his mailing address became public so he could receive not only my strongly worded letter explaining journalistic ethics and how what he is supporting is, as far as I am concerned, an Un-American attitude; but an avalanche from regular Americans saying the same thing. If he wants to act that way, or have people on his staff act that way, then by all means, I believe that's the way they act in the House of Commons in England. Maybe he'd be happier under British rule, they already have a built in aristocracy.
I was raised to respect the office if not the person occupying it. Since 1980 I've had to endure 20 years, yes 20 years, of buffoons, mental midgets, a head of the CIA and Darth Vader (c'mon, we all know Darth was really the President for 8 years)... Oh, and that's not even mentioning the first 4 years of a stolen presidency. I will admit I never, ever referred to Prince George as President, I did at least say "Mister" Bush, that's a form of respect... Considering all of the other names I'd love to call him.
The bottom line here is there is a lack of respect, not only for the President, but for America in general and Americans overall. Decent, hard-working, truly ethical, salt-of-the-earth Americans. We are what stands in the way of the privileged class from running rough-shod over us all. The Super-Rich have gotten their way since birth and they want to dismantle this democratic republic under the guise of "it's our turn". The only right they have is the very same one each and everyone of us have, and that's the right to vote. They don't like that, because there are a whole hell of a lot of us than there are of them and they don't like the odds. They like to own the casino, because the house always wins. Well America is not a casino.
They are truly Anti-American in their view of this country. They don't want to deal with the messy reality of having a purpose to run on, other than protecting their money. They don't want to have ask us for anything, much less our measly little stinky vote, there's just too many people and besides we're so unwashed and huddled. Wouldn't it be easier if we just selected someone based on how much money they raised? Oh wait... Isn't it ironic that the court case that opened the floodgates of money was called "Citizens United" when it should be called "Billionaires United".
OK, it's late and I was pissed when I read this story. Sorry if I drifted a bit here and there, but I was very upset when I read this story. It's people like the reporter who dis-respected the office of the President of the United States of America and worse, the Editor-in-chief condoning this behavior which boiled my blood. At least in the 1930's people like this reporter wore white hoods so you could know who they were and what they stood for, it's not that easy anymore.
I'm surprised no one's mentioned the movie The Dead Zone
Because that is exactly what I thought of when I read this post. You know the scene:
Martin Sheen as President Greg Stillson, launches WW-III "It's my Destiny" and "The missiles are flying, Hallelujah, Hallelujah."
I may not be Christopher Walken, but that's the vibe I get from Willard... Yes, I am strongly in the Willard camp because I cannot call him that cutesy fluffy-inducing name, there is nothing fluffy about him. I prefer another movie image to come to mind when discussing this Bundy like person and that's Willard, the boy who controlled the rats.
That's another creepy reference that seems to fit him as well. Torturing that poor boy in prep school, what if he did have the ability to control the rats back in prep school, oh wait it was a pack that went after that boy, wasn't it? At least the rats have shown regret for their actions...
Willard said, "It's my turn." So, what you're saying is this is your destiny Willard? I would love for someone to ask him that question so there's audio of him saying "Yes, it's my destiny" so we could loop that with Martin Sheen's Dead Zone audio together. Just putting it out there into the universe for the possibility...
Sorry, this is your pipe dream Willard, America is moving forward not into the looking glass.
Profile Information
Member since: Mon Aug 20, 2007, 03:42 AMNumber of posts: 136
