Loud, brash rude people are the kinds you verbally assault guilt-free. In the game of Who's The Bigger Asshole Chess, the louder and more obnoxious they are, the weaker their opening move. Such people can be verbally or physically assaulted, and the Court of Public Opinion will side with you on the "asshole deserved it" defense.
But then there are the subtle ones.
Case in point: Upon entering a sandwich shop I'm fond of, I proceeded to walk past two women who were standing away from the counter, discussing what they would have. I headed straight for the counter. One of the women, pretending not to see me, walked parallel and arrived at the counter in front of me. The fact that I made enough noise in my ski jacket, yet she never turned to acknowledge me, screamed "guilty conscience". She knew what she had done, and rather than get a angry stare from me, she refused to turn around.
Her companion also feigned being oblivious, joining her friend after her order was completed. When the sandwich-maker inquired what she wanted, my hopes were raised briefly when she turned and stated that she thought I was next. I gestured towards her friend, the first bitch, and started to say, "well, if you're buying together..." The woman turned back to the maker and ordered!
It was at that moment that I thought about bringing my killer rabbit to deal with rude people. Someone thinks they're better than me because they were born earlier? Or because they've spent a day bleeding their husbands' bank accounts dry in the pursuit of crass and pointless materialism? Let's get something straight: Black Friday is less about finding gifts for great bargains for the ones you love, unless "the ones you love" is a fancy way of saying you're a narcissist.
Anyway, back to the killer rabbit: Oh, what an adorable bunny, they'd say, followed by Argh, the cute bunny just ripped my eye out of its socket!
Mission accomplished. Excuse, sandwich-maker, you can just toss those two sandwiches or give them to the homeless or something. I'm ready to order now.
27 November 2010
20 November 2010
A close call
So Tawny sent me a link from the Star & Sickle:
Lockheed to close Eagan plant; 1,000 jobs affected
SUSAN FEYDER, Star Tribune
Lockheed Martin said Thursday it will close its Eagan facility that employs about 1,000 by 2013. The plant makes components for P-3 surveillance planes.
The company said the layoffs will be partially offset by the transfer of approximately 650 jobs from Eagan to Owego, N.Y., San Diego, Calif.; and Manassas, Va.
Lockheed said the moves are being done to trim costs and should save it about $150 million over the next 10 years.
This is great news! The recession is over and this means that maybe we will be cutting the defense budget! Besides, this is happening to an evil suburb that no one cares about. Eagan can move to Wisconsin for all I care.
Republican change. Conservative change. Voters got what they asked for - job loss.
posted by bradtheissenla on Nov. 18, 10 at 2:50 PM |
That would be the Republicans and Conservatives (not the same thing, bradtheissenla!) whom haven't even taken office yet? The same Republicans and Conservatives who weren't in power in Minnesota's legislature for...decades? The same Republicans and Conservatives whom were in a distinct minority in both houses of Congress for the past four years? Damn those evil Republican and Conservative puppet-masters for making the Democrats, liberals, and socialists double-down on failed economic policies!
This Eagan plant closing has been in the works for over a year, and was not dependent on who won or lost in the election. The defense industry is downsizing due to decreased budgets. The Eagan plant was built in the late 1960s when there was nothing but farmland all around. Back then the company was Univac div. of Sperry Rand, then it got rid of the Univac name and became Sperry. Sperry was purchased by Burroughs in about 1987, and the name changed to Unisys. Unisys, which remains a business disaster to this day, renamed their defense business Paramax and peddled it to Loral in 1995. The next year Lockheed bought the plant from Loral. Besides Lockheed, about the only defense businesses left in town are General Dynamics (former Control Data defense biz), BAE Systems (former United Defense - former FMC) and Alliant Tech (former Honeywell?) Any others?
posted by moparfool on Nov. 18, 10 at 3:58 PM |
OK, I can tell moparfool has worked in the defense industry. He knows what he's talking about, but his info is a little dated. BAE laid off a good chunk of their Twin Cities workforce last year and are considering closing the plant, and a neighbor of mine tells me Honeywell has a hiring freeze in place and have been in trouble for a while. Upon finding moparfool's comment, I had to include it as an example of what Star & Sickle commenters should be: informed, civil, and intelligent.
And I just heard that Republicans in Washington nixed the funding for unemployment compensation. Careful who you vote for!
posted by carlbs on Nov. 18, 10 at 5:11 PM |
Facts are such pesky things. The incoming Republicans are holding the line on extending unemployment benefits past 99 weeks. Ninety-nine weeks! That's almost two years. The well is dry already, folks, but the Left wants to continue priming the pump. Maybe instead of just printing more money and devaluing the earnings of those fortunate enough to still be employed, we should introduce an environment where businesses are willing to risk investment. An environment with lower taxes and lower health care costs. An environment where the President of the United States does not do everything he can to demean certain businesses that are still employing people in the midst of a recession: Defense, oil, nuclear energy, health care, auto manufacturing, financial services, etc.
Defense contracting has been a huge industry in Minnesota and it tends to employ a well-educated technical work force. The problem with defense contracting is that every so often peace breaks out. This happened in the late 1980's and the Minnesota defense industry fell upon hard times. Bill Clinton with a Republican Congress used the "Peace Dividend" to start balancing federal budgets. George W. Bush took over a country that was at peace with balanced budgets and he started two wars and cut taxes. The rest is history. The defense industry tends to be a boom and bust industry so in the long run it is probably better for Minnsota to wean itself off defense contracting. The CIA likes to manufacture threats (not to mention WMD's) so we can expect ongoing requests from DOD for expensive systems we can't afford. That will be good for Lockhead, wherever they are.
posted by theprince on Nov. 19, 10 at 10:05 AM |
It's patently false that the defense industry got a boost from the two wars that Bush "started": BAE, then called United Defense, lost the Crusader program within two years of Bush taking office. Defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld slated a number of defense programs for termination. Reasoning? Making the Army a swifter, more responsive force. Crusader was replaced with Future Combat Systems (FCS), which, thanks to Congressional allies, provisioned a cannon leveraging the Crusader technology be among the first vehicles built. But the budget for the cannon for FCS was smaller than Crusader. In the wake of the Crusader cancellation, many were laid off. In the wake of getting the FCS contract, fewer people were hired on.
The rest of theprince's comment leads me to believe he has an ample supply of aluminum foil in his home. The "Peace Dividend" basically consisted of Clinton doing relatively little to combat the terrorism that impacted U.S. citizens and interests around the world, including in 1993 in the underground parking garage of the World Trade Center. Or did theprince forget about that?
Gee, Another Transportation Company is leaving along with Oberstar.
posted by otter5 on Nov. 19, 10 at 10:44 AM |
*facepalm*
Firstly, would that be Jim Oberstar, resident of Maryland? Whenever he's in Minnesota, he's just visiting.
Second, the bulk of Lockheed's business in Eagan was surveillance equipment for military aircraft. I know. I WORKED THERE! A smaller piece of the Eagan facility works on the ERAM system for the FAA that I believe otter5 is referring to. But why let facts get in the way of your misguided hero worship?
How ironic that we blame Minnesota's high taxes for the closing of a company that relies on high federal taxes for support.
posted by philipp10 on Nov. 19, 10 at 12:18 PM |
And philipp10 doesn't grasp the difference between federal income tax and Minnesota's oppressive structure of sales taxes, property taxes, income taxes, etc.
There you have it folks.
Lockheed to close Eagan plant; 1,000 jobs affected
SUSAN FEYDER, Star Tribune
Lockheed Martin said Thursday it will close its Eagan facility that employs about 1,000 by 2013. The plant makes components for P-3 surveillance planes.
The company said the layoffs will be partially offset by the transfer of approximately 650 jobs from Eagan to Owego, N.Y., San Diego, Calif.; and Manassas, Va.
Lockheed said the moves are being done to trim costs and should save it about $150 million over the next 10 years.
Folks, this year I moved from a good job I liked in Iowa back to Minnesota to work for Lockheed-Martin. When I use the word "hate", I do not use it lightly to describe the job I was doing there. A month later, I had gone back to the job I loved in Iowa, even though it didn't pay as much. Even though Iowa is a good distance from my house in the Twin Cities. A house I'm concerned about selling for a decent price in a soft real estate market.
Guess what? I'd rather have to pay for a mortgage and rent simultaneously and pinch pennies for a while. It's preferable to having just the mortgage payment and not having the job to pay for it!
Now the vast horde of the uninformed just had to weigh in on this. Let the blame game begin!
This is great news! The recession is over and this means that maybe we will be cutting the defense budget! Besides, this is happening to an evil suburb that no one cares about. Eagan can move to Wisconsin for all I care.
posted by pdempsey on Nov. 18, 10 at 2:28 PM |
Please tell me this is satire. Given that Tawny's brother Fernando sometimes "thinks" like this, I fear it's not.
Please tell me this is satire. Given that Tawny's brother Fernando sometimes "thinks" like this, I fear it's not.
Republican change. Conservative change. Voters got what they asked for - job loss.
posted by bradtheissenla on Nov. 18, 10 at 2:50 PM |
That would be the Republicans and Conservatives (not the same thing, bradtheissenla!) whom haven't even taken office yet? The same Republicans and Conservatives who weren't in power in Minnesota's legislature for...decades? The same Republicans and Conservatives whom were in a distinct minority in both houses of Congress for the past four years? Damn those evil Republican and Conservative puppet-masters for making the Democrats, liberals, and socialists double-down on failed economic policies!
This Eagan plant closing has been in the works for over a year, and was not dependent on who won or lost in the election. The defense industry is downsizing due to decreased budgets. The Eagan plant was built in the late 1960s when there was nothing but farmland all around. Back then the company was Univac div. of Sperry Rand, then it got rid of the Univac name and became Sperry. Sperry was purchased by Burroughs in about 1987, and the name changed to Unisys. Unisys, which remains a business disaster to this day, renamed their defense business Paramax and peddled it to Loral in 1995. The next year Lockheed bought the plant from Loral. Besides Lockheed, about the only defense businesses left in town are General Dynamics (former Control Data defense biz), BAE Systems (former United Defense - former FMC) and Alliant Tech (former Honeywell?) Any others?
posted by moparfool on Nov. 18, 10 at 3:58 PM |
OK, I can tell moparfool has worked in the defense industry. He knows what he's talking about, but his info is a little dated. BAE laid off a good chunk of their Twin Cities workforce last year and are considering closing the plant, and a neighbor of mine tells me Honeywell has a hiring freeze in place and have been in trouble for a while. Upon finding moparfool's comment, I had to include it as an example of what Star & Sickle commenters should be: informed, civil, and intelligent.
And I just heard that Republicans in Washington nixed the funding for unemployment compensation. Careful who you vote for!
posted by carlbs on Nov. 18, 10 at 5:11 PM |
Facts are such pesky things. The incoming Republicans are holding the line on extending unemployment benefits past 99 weeks. Ninety-nine weeks! That's almost two years. The well is dry already, folks, but the Left wants to continue priming the pump. Maybe instead of just printing more money and devaluing the earnings of those fortunate enough to still be employed, we should introduce an environment where businesses are willing to risk investment. An environment with lower taxes and lower health care costs. An environment where the President of the United States does not do everything he can to demean certain businesses that are still employing people in the midst of a recession: Defense, oil, nuclear energy, health care, auto manufacturing, financial services, etc.
Defense contracting has been a huge industry in Minnesota and it tends to employ a well-educated technical work force. The problem with defense contracting is that every so often peace breaks out. This happened in the late 1980's and the Minnesota defense industry fell upon hard times. Bill Clinton with a Republican Congress used the "Peace Dividend" to start balancing federal budgets. George W. Bush took over a country that was at peace with balanced budgets and he started two wars and cut taxes. The rest is history. The defense industry tends to be a boom and bust industry so in the long run it is probably better for Minnsota to wean itself off defense contracting. The CIA likes to manufacture threats (not to mention WMD's) so we can expect ongoing requests from DOD for expensive systems we can't afford. That will be good for Lockhead, wherever they are.
posted by theprince on Nov. 19, 10 at 10:05 AM |
It's patently false that the defense industry got a boost from the two wars that Bush "started": BAE, then called United Defense, lost the Crusader program within two years of Bush taking office. Defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld slated a number of defense programs for termination. Reasoning? Making the Army a swifter, more responsive force. Crusader was replaced with Future Combat Systems (FCS), which, thanks to Congressional allies, provisioned a cannon leveraging the Crusader technology be among the first vehicles built. But the budget for the cannon for FCS was smaller than Crusader. In the wake of the Crusader cancellation, many were laid off. In the wake of getting the FCS contract, fewer people were hired on.
The rest of theprince's comment leads me to believe he has an ample supply of aluminum foil in his home. The "Peace Dividend" basically consisted of Clinton doing relatively little to combat the terrorism that impacted U.S. citizens and interests around the world, including in 1993 in the underground parking garage of the World Trade Center. Or did theprince forget about that?
Gee, Another Transportation Company is leaving along with Oberstar.
posted by otter5 on Nov. 19, 10 at 10:44 AM |
*facepalm*
Firstly, would that be Jim Oberstar, resident of Maryland? Whenever he's in Minnesota, he's just visiting.
Second, the bulk of Lockheed's business in Eagan was surveillance equipment for military aircraft. I know. I WORKED THERE! A smaller piece of the Eagan facility works on the ERAM system for the FAA that I believe otter5 is referring to. But why let facts get in the way of your misguided hero worship?
How ironic that we blame Minnesota's high taxes for the closing of a company that relies on high federal taxes for support.
posted by philipp10 on Nov. 19, 10 at 12:18 PM |
And philipp10 doesn't grasp the difference between federal income tax and Minnesota's oppressive structure of sales taxes, property taxes, income taxes, etc.
There you have it folks.
We told you so...
...as demonstrated by the civilian court trial of Ahmed Ghailani, a dirtbag who was acquitted on all but 1 of the 285 charges against him.
Wait a minute, didn't Obama and his politicial-agenda-driven Attorney General Eric Holder assure us that these trials were necessary to save our Constitution? Never mind that Mr. Ghailani is not an American citizen. Never mind he may never have set foot on U.S. soil, save perhaps for the sovereign soil of the U.S. Embassy he was accused of bombing.
Remember when Obama and Holder told not to worry? That it wasn't like these guys were going to be found "not guilty"? Now, at the time, implying the trials were going to have a predetermined outcome was rightly criticized by judicial scholars on both sides of the spectrum. There's a word for that: Show trials. OK, two words. I mean, if they're going to be found guilty, why bother waste court employees' time?
And now? The dirtbag was almost acquitted! One editorial for the Star & Sickle characterized it as a perilously close call, but a "success." A success? Conviction on only 1 of 285 charges? Sounds more like dumb luck for the prosecution. The fact is that the case for the other 284 charges fell apart when the judge refused to allow a key witness because the information was obtained through enchanced interrogation techniques, or what the Left hyperbolically calls torture. Throw in a judge appointed by Bill Clinton, and you've got a recipe for disaster. I remember I and conservative commentators observed this logic gap at the time Obama pushed for the civilian trials: If we're going to try these dirtbags suspects in a criminal court of law, how can we use evidence obtained by the Bush administration using techniques decried almost universally by the Left? A classic example of the libs wanting to have their cake and eat it too. And rather than admitting that maybe the actual constitutional scholars were right that civilian trials for suspects who had been previously treated as enemy combatants would produce disastrous results, I predict they'll play the blame game when this blows up in their face: "We could convict theseterrorists militants freedom fighters purveyors of man-caused disasters if only Bush hadn't tortured them! Blame Bush! Blame Bush!
Can't have it both ways, morons.
Wait a minute, didn't Obama and his politicial-agenda-driven Attorney General Eric Holder assure us that these trials were necessary to save our Constitution? Never mind that Mr. Ghailani is not an American citizen. Never mind he may never have set foot on U.S. soil, save perhaps for the sovereign soil of the U.S. Embassy he was accused of bombing.
Remember when Obama and Holder told not to worry? That it wasn't like these guys were going to be found "not guilty"? Now, at the time, implying the trials were going to have a predetermined outcome was rightly criticized by judicial scholars on both sides of the spectrum. There's a word for that: Show trials. OK, two words. I mean, if they're going to be found guilty, why bother waste court employees' time?
And now? The dirtbag was almost acquitted! One editorial for the Star & Sickle characterized it as a perilously close call, but a "success." A success? Conviction on only 1 of 285 charges? Sounds more like dumb luck for the prosecution. The fact is that the case for the other 284 charges fell apart when the judge refused to allow a key witness because the information was obtained through enchanced interrogation techniques, or what the Left hyperbolically calls torture. Throw in a judge appointed by Bill Clinton, and you've got a recipe for disaster. I remember I and conservative commentators observed this logic gap at the time Obama pushed for the civilian trials: If we're going to try these dirtbags suspects in a criminal court of law, how can we use evidence obtained by the Bush administration using techniques decried almost universally by the Left? A classic example of the libs wanting to have their cake and eat it too. And rather than admitting that maybe the actual constitutional scholars were right that civilian trials for suspects who had been previously treated as enemy combatants would produce disastrous results, I predict they'll play the blame game when this blows up in their face: "We could convict these
Can't have it both ways, morons.
06 November 2010
Election recap
Just some commentary on some of the elections I was following this past campaign.
First, the losers:
Keep thinking that way, lefties. Don't take the pounding as a reminder of who the boss is, and adapting yourself to meet the boss' interests and needs. Just say the boss is wrong. No wonder you're in the unemployment line...
First, the losers:
- Christine O'Donnell - Too bad this woman didn't win. From early on, at least on the national stage, it didn't seem like the election was going to be about issues, but about smearing O'Donnell personally. Ironic that the supposed party of tolerance and acceptance would slam O'Donnell for "dabbling in witchcraft" YEARS ago. The whole brouhaha about her anti-masturbation stance (which, once again, was on MTV YEARS ago!) was unsurprisingly lampooned by every moron who had the time to attend political rallies or get air time. Know what masturbation is? Self-love. Too much self-love equates to narcissism. And O'Donnell is spot on about pornography: It can be destructive to relationships. Look the statistics up. To be fair, what O'Donnell doesn't get is it's about everything in moderation. More than anything, the O'Donnell-Coons campaign exposed rampant misogyny alive and well on the Far Left. Most prominent was Bill Maher, who vowed to continue releasing embarrassing video clips of O'Donnell from his failed talk show until she came on his current-testament-to-how-much-sleaze-HBO-will-tolerate. O'Donnell wisely didn't take the bait, relegating Maher to only feel he's important to the national political debate.
- Sharron Angle - Apparently, the voters of Nevada and I disagree about whether Sen. Harry Reid is representing their interests. Angle rightly hammered Reid over the issue of illegal immigration, but may have spent too much time and money on that. Joy Behar, clueless twit that she is, nearly torpedoed Reid in the final days with her charges of "racism" against Angle's anti-illegal immigration ads and calling Angle a "bitch" who would "burn in hell". Angle marvelously took the high road and turned Behar's verbal bile into campaign cash and sent her flowers for helping her campaign. Joy still wouldn't shut up, so Angle continued to laugh her way to the bank.
- Carly Fiorina - This one was a close one against Barbara "Don't Call Me Ma'am" Boxer. Fiorina might have eked out a win here had it not been for the hairdo comments about her opponent.
- Meg Whitman - Sadly, too few people failed to see through the cheap political stunt pulled by Whitman's former housekeeper and politically-driven attorney Gloria Allred during the California gubernatorial campaign. Allred essentially used Diaz as a pawn to give Jerry "Moonbeam" Brown an edge. Greta Van Sustern, hardly a conservative, rightly berated Allred for conduct that definitely wasn't in Diaz's best interest. Couple this with NOW throwing its support behind Brown, even after he or an aide were caught on tape calling Whitman a whore, and Whitman's campaign was successful at least in exposing the kind of feminism that NOW and Allred really believe in: Empowering liberal women only. Or in other words, sometimes promoting liberalism over female empowerment. Hypocrites.
- Chris Barden - Doing my best to continue following Minnesota politics while living in Iowa, I was impressed with the thoroughness of his case against Lori Swanson. However, Barden thought he was making a courtroom argument against the populist Swanson who can keep her teflon coating by pursuing companies under the guise of consumer protection. Lest I fall into the same trap the Left has and accuse the voters of being stupid, I do have to wonder if a majority of them in Minnesota let their passions guide their votes. After all, it's stylish to hate corporations as evil, faceless tyrannies without once considering their motivations.
- Dan Severson - Not enough visibility. Incumbent Mark Ritchie won the last election in 2006 with the help of ACORN. Since then, the Secretary of State position has become a politically-charged position. The 2008-9 recount between Norm Coleman and Al Franken exemplified this. It worries me when uncounted ballots are "found" in someone's car trunk in a close race. Evidence in a trial is inadmissible unless there is a clear and uncompromised chain of custody. Why should it be any different for an election? Sorry, once there's a chance the ballots could have been compromised, the safe strategy is not to count them. I'm all for everyone's vote counting, but what about when you cease to be sure whether it's really their vote? Ritchie's shtick has been about not disenfranchising voters. Except, curiously, absentee voters. I'm sure it has nothing to do with the voting patterns of deployed military personnel. Just a coincidence. As Minnesota gears up for a gubernatorial recount, I hope Tom Emmer is more tenacious in challenging the partisan Ritchie. However, if Minnesota ends up with a Governor Dayton, I'm comforted by two things:
- Both houses of the Minnesota state legislature swung to GOP control for the first time in decades, nullifying some of the damage Dayton could do.
- I'm permanently moving to Iowa, so any economic damage Dayton could do to Minnesota automatically would benefit the "sane" states bordering Minnesota.
- Chip Cravaack - MN Rep. Jim Oberstar (D) thought he had a seat for life. However, supporting economically disastrous Cap-And-Trade legislation and referring to some of his constituents as "flat-Earthers" did not endear him in those same voters' eyes. Oberstar claims permanent residence in Maryland and reportedly only had one political contributor in-state. That certainly didn't help his case.
- Michelle Bachmann - Representative Bachmann was a lightning rod for Dem efforts to unseat her this election. Pelosi, Biden, and Obama all lent time to give Taryl Clark the edge in the MN-6 US House race. Why? Bachmann isn't part of the GOP leadership. But she is a successful conservative woman. Bachmann has long dealt with the naked misogyny that Sarah Palin dealt with as a vice-presidential candidate and later as a private citizen. Two low points for the attacks on Bachmann:
- Joy Behar saying that Bachmann was anti-children. Joy, if Michelle was anti-kid, why would she give birth to five of them and foster 23 others?
- Chris "Thrill Up My Leg For Obama" Matthews asking if Bachmann was "in a trance" because she wouldn't give him the answers he was looking for regarding whether a GOP-dominated House would conduct witch-hunts on "un-American" activities. Bachmann's wouldn't bite and simply returned the serve: "I imagine that thrill on your leg is not quite so tingly anymore". Point. Set. Match.
- Dan Webster - Holding his own in a race against the mentally-deranged Alan Grayson, Webster was the victim of perhaps the most fallacious ad I've seen. Grayson's campaign took Webster's comments before a gathering of Christian men and twisted the words completely around to paint Webster as misogynist who believed women should submit to their husbands. For this, Grayson and his campaign labeled Webster "Taliban Dan Webster". Too bad what Webster actually said to the men was that they shouldn't use the quote about "wives submit to your husbands". The ad was so over the line that MSNBC left-biased "info-babe" Contessa Brewer opined to guest Grayson that the ad had crossed the line. Grayson just smiled his creepy smile and dismissed her protests. On election night, Grayson naturally blamed the weather for his 18-point loss. Did I miss it? Was Florida hit with a blizzard on election night? Damn that Global Warming, robbing Grayson of his divine right!
- MSNBC viewers: Seeing themselves as a foil to the "hyper-partisan" Fox News Channel by ironically, being even more partisan in the opposite direction, the MSNBC dream team has doubled down on stupid. Keith Olbermann, a frequent critic of Fox News' hosts contributing to political campaigns (though News Corporation's rules permit them to do so as long as it doesn't impact their ability to do their jobs effectively), ended up being put on indefinite suspension after it was revealed he had given the maximum allowable contributions to three Democrats' campaigns without prior permission, in violation of NBC's rules. Personally, I think Keith should just get a slap on the wrist for this, as his material is pure comedy gold. Without him, the conservative Newsbusters site might have to layoff some of their bias watchdog! Most importantly, the show could be worse: It could be called "Countdown with Alan Grayson" now!
Naturally, Rachel Maddow attacked Fox News instead of hers and Keith's employer, whining about how FNC's employees are not forbidden from these contributions. Umm, Rachel, every employer makes their own rules. Don't like it? Work somewhere else!
So how does this benefit the 12 viewers MSNBC has left? Well, with the upcoming acquisition of the channel by Comcast, some changes to their business model might be forthcoming. I doubt Comcast will tolerate MSNBC being a losing business venture like GE's Jeff Immelt did, mainly because Immelt has used MSNBC as a propaganda machine to promote policies that ultimately benefit GE. Olbermann's departure quite possibly was prearranged, and Phil Griffin just looked for a pretext.
In the end, I am a strict laissez-faire capitalist. I believe competition among the news companies is good, and a FNC monopoly on cable news would be no better the monopoly CNN held for many years. Competition keeps 'em honest, and a MSNBC that competes with FNC on actual news reporting rather than just news commentary benefits everyone.
Yeah, I know. Keep dreamin'.
Keep thinking that way, lefties. Don't take the pounding as a reminder of who the boss is, and adapting yourself to meet the boss' interests and needs. Just say the boss is wrong. No wonder you're in the unemployment line...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)