Showing posts with label economy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label economy. Show all posts
Monday, February 6, 2012
My Favorite Super Bowl Ad: Good Old Clint’s Call for an American Resurrection
No, I’d rather not discuss the outcome of the Super Bowl, thank you very much. Instead, this New Englander would much prefer to discuss the most surprising and evocative ad of the evening: Clint Eastwood’s pro-Detroit, pro-America ad.
While some are calling it a subtle pro-Obama/pro-auto bailout spot (Chrysler was a bailout recipient), I like to look at it as an apolitical inspirational, pro-America spot. As the airwaves and political discourse is currently swarming with disingenuous politicians who seem like snake oil salesmen who haven’t been able to offer voters a reason to embrace them, as opposed to arguing why voters shouldn't embrace the other guys, this is the kind of ad, the kind of sentiment that people are looking for. “We’re all scared . . . because this isn’t a game,” Dirty Harry said.
Yes, we know that Detroit, which was held up as an example, isn’t a shining city on a hill. It has serious, serious woes that can’t be overlooked or shunted aside simply because some of the car manufacturers are making cars again (some of ‘em thanks to big bucks from Uncle Sam). But the guts of this ad, the meat of it, is hope. It doesn’t talk down to us and tell us the economy’s robust and happy and that there’s a chicken in every pot. It doesn’t prescribe nonsense answers that, when parsed by experts will be proven to be meaningless or unable to execute in the real world. It offers American grit from one of the living symbols of it.
“That’s what we do, find our way through tough times,” Eastwood said in a way that’s more believable coming out of his mouth than the mouths of all the candidates for president including the current officeholder, who used to be able to talk the labels off of tin cans.
While I was on Twitter during the Super Bowl, my Twitter feed was overflowing with plaudits for this spot because it offered something we all want to believe in: An American resurrection. Yes, we do want to make Dirty Harry’s day.
Tuesday, October 4, 2011
Notes on Politics: Chris Christie’s Head Fake, Bono’s ‘F’ Word Campaign, Occupy [Your City]
Christie a Presidential No-Go
I must admit, I was disappointed to learn that New Jersey’s outspoken governor, Chris Christie won’t be running for president . . . as he has repeatedly said he would not, despite the lure of the siren’s song emanating from the lips of those who are desperately dissatisfied with the current GOP field.
I think Christie’s a smart, tough, work-with-anybody kind of person who would’ve brought much-needed pragmatism and leadership to the race. I’ve appreciated how he’s actually fielded questions with honesty and realism – like when he was asked why he was cutting funding for public school when he was sending his own children to private school – and think it would have been refreshing to see him go toe-to-toe with Mitt Romney, who often reminds me of a car salesman, and Rick Perry, who seems as though he’d rather be anywhere than talking policy while wearing a suit and tie.
And as for all the naysayers who were griping about Christie’s weight and saying he’s a bad role model, they were outright annoying and sanctimonious. I can’t stand the sanctimony. Christie’s in the business of developing and implementing public policy, not sashaying down a catwalk in a size zero sports jacket, sprinting up and down a basketball court or running a marathon. Last time I checked, he wasn’t jonesing to become an underwear model. Would he make a good poster boy for good health? No, and he’d be the first one to admit that. But he wasn’t being considered for either of those posts. He was being considered as a potential presidential candidate based on the contents of his head, not his stomach.
Bono’s “One” organization has released a new public service ad aimed at energizing us regular folk to be galvanized to act and pressure those with power to do something about the African famine, to intercede in some fashion. Featuring, of all people, Mike Huckabee, along with Jenna Bush, George Clooney, Kristen Davis, Michael Bloomberg, Arianna Huffington and Rob Lowe, to name a few, the ad tries to combine the shock of the “f” word (“f” standing for “famine”) with anger. It’s a dark and twisty kind of ad, clever.
The hodgepodge of folks -- many of them college students and members of unions -- who have been demonstrating in New York City as part of a loose group called “Occupy Wall Street,” have called for Wall Street types, who’ve fared well in this down economy, to pay a price for their recklessness. They want jobs and a whole bunch of other things, and they see rich, corporate titans, bankers and the assorted Gordon Gekkos of the world as standing in their way. They aspire to what one newscaster called, “An American Autumn” (to complement an Arab Spring, one would guess).
As some 700 people were arrested over the weekend for blocking the Brooklyn Bridge, the movement against “corporate greed, unemployment and the role of financial institutions in the economic crisis,” as the New York Times put it, has spawned other “Occupy” groups in cities across the country including Boston, Los Angeles, Washington, D.C. and Chicago, with anti-corporate, anti-banker actions/protests slated for Memphis, Minneapolis and Baltimore and a ton more locales. The central organizing web page, Occupy Together was created by some of the movement’s un-leaders (they don’t have official “leaders” per se, but some leader-y type person had to put together the web site) to “provide people with information about events that are organizing, ongoing and building across the U.S. as we, the 99 percent take action against the greed and corruption of the 1 percent.”
Here’s how the “Occupy Together” movement looks to an English columnist who said we’re witnessing “the dissolution of the American Empire:”
“We are watching the beginnings of the defiant self-assertion of a new generation of Americans, a generation who are looking forward to finishing their education with no jobs, no future, but still saddled with enormous and unforgivable debt. Most, I found, were of working class or otherwise modest backgrounds, kids who did exactly what they were told they should: Studied, got into college and are now not just being punished for it, but humiliated – faced with a life of being treated as deadbeats, moral reprobates.
Is it really surprising they would like to have a word with the financial magnates who stole their future?”
So, is this the left’s answer to the conservative-leaning Tea Party? Imagine how wild it would be if the “Occupy Together” people and the Tea Party people actually got together on something . . .
I must admit, I was disappointed to learn that New Jersey’s outspoken governor, Chris Christie won’t be running for president . . . as he has repeatedly said he would not, despite the lure of the siren’s song emanating from the lips of those who are desperately dissatisfied with the current GOP field.
I think Christie’s a smart, tough, work-with-anybody kind of person who would’ve brought much-needed pragmatism and leadership to the race. I’ve appreciated how he’s actually fielded questions with honesty and realism – like when he was asked why he was cutting funding for public school when he was sending his own children to private school – and think it would have been refreshing to see him go toe-to-toe with Mitt Romney, who often reminds me of a car salesman, and Rick Perry, who seems as though he’d rather be anywhere than talking policy while wearing a suit and tie.
And as for all the naysayers who were griping about Christie’s weight and saying he’s a bad role model, they were outright annoying and sanctimonious. I can’t stand the sanctimony. Christie’s in the business of developing and implementing public policy, not sashaying down a catwalk in a size zero sports jacket, sprinting up and down a basketball court or running a marathon. Last time I checked, he wasn’t jonesing to become an underwear model. Would he make a good poster boy for good health? No, and he’d be the first one to admit that. But he wasn’t being considered for either of those posts. He was being considered as a potential presidential candidate based on the contents of his head, not his stomach.
One’s ‘F-Word’ Campaign
Bono’s “One” organization has released a new public service ad aimed at energizing us regular folk to be galvanized to act and pressure those with power to do something about the African famine, to intercede in some fashion. Featuring, of all people, Mike Huckabee, along with Jenna Bush, George Clooney, Kristen Davis, Michael Bloomberg, Arianna Huffington and Rob Lowe, to name a few, the ad tries to combine the shock of the “f” word (“f” standing for “famine”) with anger. It’s a dark and twisty kind of ad, clever.
Hey, it’s a lot better than rebooting “We Are the World.”
Angry About the Growing Financial Inequities Between a Small Percentage of the U.S. Population and Everyone Else? Occupy [Your City]
The hodgepodge of folks -- many of them college students and members of unions -- who have been demonstrating in New York City as part of a loose group called “Occupy Wall Street,” have called for Wall Street types, who’ve fared well in this down economy, to pay a price for their recklessness. They want jobs and a whole bunch of other things, and they see rich, corporate titans, bankers and the assorted Gordon Gekkos of the world as standing in their way. They aspire to what one newscaster called, “An American Autumn” (to complement an Arab Spring, one would guess).
As some 700 people were arrested over the weekend for blocking the Brooklyn Bridge, the movement against “corporate greed, unemployment and the role of financial institutions in the economic crisis,” as the New York Times put it, has spawned other “Occupy” groups in cities across the country including Boston, Los Angeles, Washington, D.C. and Chicago, with anti-corporate, anti-banker actions/protests slated for Memphis, Minneapolis and Baltimore and a ton more locales. The central organizing web page, Occupy Together was created by some of the movement’s un-leaders (they don’t have official “leaders” per se, but some leader-y type person had to put together the web site) to “provide people with information about events that are organizing, ongoing and building across the U.S. as we, the 99 percent take action against the greed and corruption of the 1 percent.”
Here’s how the “Occupy Together” movement looks to an English columnist who said we’re witnessing “the dissolution of the American Empire:”
“We are watching the beginnings of the defiant self-assertion of a new generation of Americans, a generation who are looking forward to finishing their education with no jobs, no future, but still saddled with enormous and unforgivable debt. Most, I found, were of working class or otherwise modest backgrounds, kids who did exactly what they were told they should: Studied, got into college and are now not just being punished for it, but humiliated – faced with a life of being treated as deadbeats, moral reprobates.
Is it really surprising they would like to have a word with the financial magnates who stole their future?”
So, is this the left’s answer to the conservative-leaning Tea Party? Imagine how wild it would be if the “Occupy Together” people and the Tea Party people actually got together on something . . .
Tuesday, August 9, 2011
Notes on Politics: More on Bachmann's 'Newsweek' Photo, Scarborough Assesses U.S. Econ Crisis
More Backlash on the Loony Newsweek Bachmann Cover Photo
The folks at Newsweek have attempted to make excuses for why they thought it was appropriate to select a photo for its cover that makes a politician look like an escapee from a mental institution while bestowing upon her the moniker the “Queen of Rage.” However, given the many, many photos from which they had to choose, the one they selected is clearly designed to make GOP presidential hopeful Michele Bachmann look unhinged, not to reflect her “intensity” as the Newsweek folks bogusly claimed.
That's why the former journalism instructor in me adored the rebuttal by Tommy Christopher in Mediaite where he took the publication to task and calling “bull&%$#” on the rationale its staff have offered.
“In three years of covering the White House, I have accumulated hundreds of rapid-fire shots of President Obama, for example, and there are lots of them that freeze odd-looking moments (a cough, a blink) that look jarring out of context,” Christopher wrote. “I’m sure all news photographs do. That’s why they take so many shots, so they (or their editors) can select the one that best conveys the truth of the moment.”
“Whatever the intent of the Newsweek cover, it was a specific choice, not some process of elimination,” Christopher continued. “The same is true of the outtakes [that Newsweek put on its web site], all of which have been selected from dozens of nearly-identical, but subtly different, shots.”
Additionally, I was very heartened to learn that the National Organization for Women has weighed in on the matter as well, calling the cover “sexist.” (They typically leave conservative women high and dry.
“The main reason why we would stand up for Michele Bachmann and defend her against these kind) of misogynistic attacks is we want women to run for office,” the president of NOW, Terry O’Neill told The Daily Caller. “Of course my job is to defeat Michele Bachmann and I intend to do so. But good women will not run for office if Newsweek magazine can do this to such a prominent politician and get away with it.”
‘This is Gordon Gekko’s America.’
Conservative pundit and former congressman Joe Scarborough wrote a scathing commentary for Politico, decrying how the yawning gap between those on the middle and low ends of the economic scale and those at the very top is plunging a knife through the beating heart that is what's left of the American dream. Putting the current horrendous string of economic bad news into historic context, the Morning Joe co-host said:
“Since 1970, executive pay has increased 430 percent while workers’ wages have crept up at a pace that barely kept up with inflation. The average executive’s pay has jumped over that time period to 158 times that of the average worker’s pay in those companies. It’s no wonder that the top 0.1 percent of income earners get richer by the day while millions of Americans are seeing their situations get worse.”
“This is not John Wayne’s America,” Scarborough lamented. “This is Gordon Gekko’s America. In fact, I’m pretty sure that if the Duke faced one of these CEOs in a John Ford film, he’d kick some ass and force the leech to start treating workers fair. And you can bet that my Republican father would be cheering him on from the front row of the theater.”
And as I read Michael Goldfarb’s GlobalPost piece in Salon today about the sudden, horrifically violent riots in London -- with Goldfarb suggesting that “youth unemployment” is a chief “underlying cause of the rioting,” adding that “as the government’s austerity measures begin to bite here, it’s not likely to get better any time soon” -- I start to worry. Throw in a diminished U.S. credit rating, a stock market with drops powerful enough to give the nation collective motion sickness, and a former Republican congressman, who entered Congress as part of the Contract with America class of lawmakers, calling this a “greed is good” America, and I'm more than a little unnerved.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Suburban Mom's Political Fix: Colbert, a Pitchfork and AIG Outrage
The more I think about the latest round of AIG bonuses -- of which, according to U.S. Rep. Cummings who was on MSNBC this morning, there are likely to be more -- the angrier I become.
The latest news from Bloomberg -- which reported, "American International Group Inc. . . . budgeted $57 million in 'retention' pay for employees who will be dismissed" -- was just icing on the cake.
Reading this New York Times piece this morning while watching Morning Joe, I could literally feel my blood pressure rising. Here are the main arguments for the AIG bonuses:
-- A contract is a contract. (Tell that to the auto makers whose employees have changed terms of their contracts in light of dire economic circumstances. Try to hand that line to the people who had contracts one day, then their companies went out of business, whose companies didn't receive federal bailout money, and those contracts became just worthless pieces of paper.)
-- We should support the bonuses for the smart people still working at AIG, so they won't go to another firm, because they might be able to get the company out of the mess it's in. (You mean the people who got AIG, and by extension, the taxpayers, into this quagmire in the first place?)
-- The government shouldn't be interfering with private contracts at a private company. (You mean the company that's now 80 percent owned by the federal government? The one that's received billions in taxpayer bailout money? The one that wouldn't exist without federal money?)
Bah humbug to all the naysayers who pooh-pooh this justified taxpayer outrage, label it simple-minded populism, and say that the bonus money only represents a tiny fraction of the AIG bailout money so we shouldn't be angry about the bonuses, but instead we should be steamed about the overall mega-bailout. (Me, I'm steamed about it all.)
That being said, Stephen Colbert's spoof on The Colbert Report about the angry, anti-AIG mob was very funny. (Link to the video here.)
The latest news from Bloomberg -- which reported, "American International Group Inc. . . . budgeted $57 million in 'retention' pay for employees who will be dismissed" -- was just icing on the cake.
Reading this New York Times piece this morning while watching Morning Joe, I could literally feel my blood pressure rising. Here are the main arguments for the AIG bonuses:
-- A contract is a contract. (Tell that to the auto makers whose employees have changed terms of their contracts in light of dire economic circumstances. Try to hand that line to the people who had contracts one day, then their companies went out of business, whose companies didn't receive federal bailout money, and those contracts became just worthless pieces of paper.)
-- We should support the bonuses for the smart people still working at AIG, so they won't go to another firm, because they might be able to get the company out of the mess it's in. (You mean the people who got AIG, and by extension, the taxpayers, into this quagmire in the first place?)
-- The government shouldn't be interfering with private contracts at a private company. (You mean the company that's now 80 percent owned by the federal government? The one that's received billions in taxpayer bailout money? The one that wouldn't exist without federal money?)
Bah humbug to all the naysayers who pooh-pooh this justified taxpayer outrage, label it simple-minded populism, and say that the bonus money only represents a tiny fraction of the AIG bailout money so we shouldn't be angry about the bonuses, but instead we should be steamed about the overall mega-bailout. (Me, I'm steamed about it all.)
That being said, Stephen Colbert's spoof on The Colbert Report about the angry, anti-AIG mob was very funny. (Link to the video here.)
Monday, March 16, 2009
Suburban Mom's Political Fix: AIG Bonuses: 'How Do They Justify This Outrage?'
On the subject of the obscenity that is the $165 million in bonuses AIG handed out to executives this weekend -- particularly given that U.S. taxpayers own 80 percent of the company after shoveling $170 billion into it to keep it afloat -- President Barack Obama is finally singing the same tune the rest of us were singing when we learned about the bonuses to which the company said it was contractually obligated to pay.
The president, who seems to be have taken on an overly ambitious agenda, said in a statement today that this an "outrage:"
"This is a corporation that finds itself in financial distress due to recklessness and greed. Under these circumstances, it's hard to understand how derivative traders at AIG warranted any bonuses, much less $165 million in extra pay. How do they justify this outrage to the taxpayers who are keeping the company afloat?
. . . This isn't just a matter of dollars and cents. It's about our fundamental values. All across the country, there are people who work hard and meet their responsibilities every day, without the benefit of government bailouts or multi-million dollar bonuses. And all they ask is that everyone from Main Street to Wall Street to Washington, play by the same rules. That is an ethic we must demand."
The president said he's ordered the Treasury secretary to do everything he could to "block these bonuses." Administration officials also made the rounds on the Sunday talk show circuit and espoused the same line that this is an outrage. White House economic advisor Larry Summers echoed the president, using the same word "outrageous" to describe the bonuses while on ABC this weekend, but then made excuses by saying that a contractual obligation is a contractual obligation.
If this is indeed such an outrage, shouldn't those AIG folks who accepted billions in public dollars be morally obliged to the taxpayers first, instead of engaging in excuse-making, saying that their contracts, signed under vastly different conditions, should be honored? (The contracts wouldn't even be able to be honored but for the taxpayer money.)
Meanwhile, all across the country, groups of employees are taking voluntary furloughs (sometimes involuntary) in order to avoid layoffs. So why shouldn't those AIG employees who received the bonuses be shamed into NOT accepting that money? Or forced to give it back? What am I not getting here?
The president, who seems to be have taken on an overly ambitious agenda, said in a statement today that this an "outrage:"
"This is a corporation that finds itself in financial distress due to recklessness and greed. Under these circumstances, it's hard to understand how derivative traders at AIG warranted any bonuses, much less $165 million in extra pay. How do they justify this outrage to the taxpayers who are keeping the company afloat?
. . . This isn't just a matter of dollars and cents. It's about our fundamental values. All across the country, there are people who work hard and meet their responsibilities every day, without the benefit of government bailouts or multi-million dollar bonuses. And all they ask is that everyone from Main Street to Wall Street to Washington, play by the same rules. That is an ethic we must demand."
The president said he's ordered the Treasury secretary to do everything he could to "block these bonuses." Administration officials also made the rounds on the Sunday talk show circuit and espoused the same line that this is an outrage. White House economic advisor Larry Summers echoed the president, using the same word "outrageous" to describe the bonuses while on ABC this weekend, but then made excuses by saying that a contractual obligation is a contractual obligation.
If this is indeed such an outrage, shouldn't those AIG folks who accepted billions in public dollars be morally obliged to the taxpayers first, instead of engaging in excuse-making, saying that their contracts, signed under vastly different conditions, should be honored? (The contracts wouldn't even be able to be honored but for the taxpayer money.)
Meanwhile, all across the country, groups of employees are taking voluntary furloughs (sometimes involuntary) in order to avoid layoffs. So why shouldn't those AIG employees who received the bonuses be shamed into NOT accepting that money? Or forced to give it back? What am I not getting here?
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Suburban Mom's Political Fix: 'Tis Gettin' Ugly in Cable TV Newsland, NBC vs Stewart
Let me first say this: I'm a big fan of Morning Joe. Love the camaraderie between Joe and Mika. Love the in-depth political conversations in which they engage that sometimes sound like discussions you might overhear in a bar at 12:20 in the morning. I'm a bigggg fan.
Last week, I laughed my fanny off at Jon Stewart's lambasting of CNBC -- Rick Santelli in particular -- for what Stewart saw as aggressive market cheerleading, urging people to buy stocks from companies that, not too long after the buy recommendations were made, collapsed.
When I heard Joe Scarborough yesterday morning talking about Stewart with CNBC's Jim Cramer (Joe felt Stewart was unfairly targeting his CNBC colleagues and cherry-picking prognostications just to make them look foolish), I knew it would get ugly. Cramer, who also appeared on the Today Show that morning, wasn't pleased with Stewart either.
Which, of course, only prodded Stewart to attack anew, and brilliantly, I might add, particularly the part at the end of the segment below (link here) where he had Dora the Explorer weighed in on the war between cable network personalities while Dora's pet monkey Boots offered to throw feces at Joe and Cramer.
Tangential question: Why is Jon Stewart doing the job that the news media should be doing?
Last week, I laughed my fanny off at Jon Stewart's lambasting of CNBC -- Rick Santelli in particular -- for what Stewart saw as aggressive market cheerleading, urging people to buy stocks from companies that, not too long after the buy recommendations were made, collapsed.
When I heard Joe Scarborough yesterday morning talking about Stewart with CNBC's Jim Cramer (Joe felt Stewart was unfairly targeting his CNBC colleagues and cherry-picking prognostications just to make them look foolish), I knew it would get ugly. Cramer, who also appeared on the Today Show that morning, wasn't pleased with Stewart either.
Which, of course, only prodded Stewart to attack anew, and brilliantly, I might add, particularly the part at the end of the segment below (link here) where he had Dora the Explorer weighed in on the war between cable network personalities while Dora's pet monkey Boots offered to throw feces at Joe and Cramer.
Tangential question: Why is Jon Stewart doing the job that the news media should be doing?
Saturday, March 7, 2009
Suburban Mom's Political Fix: Puppies, Kittens & Jim Cramer
The Colbert Report's Stephen Colbert lampooned professional media prognosticators -- the same ones skewered by Jon Stewart -- who've been aggressively advising President Barack Obama to be more positive about our dour economic situation, despite the negative Dow numbers and layoff notices.
So Colbert interviewed CNBC's Jim Cramer (who was smacked around in Stewart's 8-minute anti-CNBC barrage on The Daily Show) while images of puppies and kittens ran behind Cramer's head. Colbert said the footage -- puppies frolicking in a meadow, with giant bows around their necks -- would make people feel more "comfortable" and possibly stop shoving all their money under their mattresses.
I couldn't stop laughing. (Link to the video here.)
So Colbert interviewed CNBC's Jim Cramer (who was smacked around in Stewart's 8-minute anti-CNBC barrage on The Daily Show) while images of puppies and kittens ran behind Cramer's head. Colbert said the footage -- puppies frolicking in a meadow, with giant bows around their necks -- would make people feel more "comfortable" and possibly stop shoving all their money under their mattresses.
I couldn't stop laughing. (Link to the video here.)
Thursday, March 5, 2009
Suburban Mom's Political Fix: Jon Stewart Deftly Destroys CNBC, Including Santelli
I, like, the rest of the informed citizenry, have been greatly distressed about the economic news as of late. It's so dire and bleak. It seems as though a huge black hole has opened up and all these solid American companies (or companies we thought were solid and would be around forever, like Ford), are hurtling into it . . . that's when those companies aren't being thrown lifelines worth trillions of dollars in taxpayer money with no guarantee that the money will stave off further disaster. (The New York Times breaks down the sordid amounts here.)
Even the normally optimistic Brian Williams is so down in the dumps these days that at the end of his NBC Nightly News broadcast last night, he put out a call for viewers to send in feel good stories about folks who are doing good things for others so that he could report on something positive for a change.
Yes, it's gotten that bad.
Columns like Maureen Dowd's yesterday, detailing the obscene pork (8,000+ items including funds for "pig odor research," "catfish genetics research" and a tattoo removal program for gang members) in the proposed federal budget -- pork which Senator Obama said he'd eliminate when he was campaigning for president, but now that he's the Commander in Chief, he and his people are saying that the pork in this proposed budget is President Bush's fault, not his -- just make things feel hopeless.
Then I saw Jon Stewart. Thank God for Jon Stewart. I don't normally tune into The Daily Show, despite the constant pleadings of my friend Gayle who's a major Stewart fan. I usually watch local news at 11 p.m. and then go to bed. But I digress . . . Jon Stewart was supposed to have as a guest the now infamous CNBC analyst Rick Santelli, he of the much-ballyhooed rant against the Obama administration's housing bailout proposal and how it would reward bad behavior and help people who bought more house than they could afford, people who Santelli called "losers" who made bad decisions.
But Santelli canceled his Daily Show appearance. And I'm so glad he did.
What Stewart & Co. aired instead was a damningly hysterical and tragic indictment of how business journalists, specifically from CNBC, blew the coverage of this economic crisis, how they cheered on large businesses -- which are now receiving mucho bailout bucks -- and that the CNBC staff are no better than the "losers" who made bad home loan decisions. (Video link here.)
Even the normally optimistic Brian Williams is so down in the dumps these days that at the end of his NBC Nightly News broadcast last night, he put out a call for viewers to send in feel good stories about folks who are doing good things for others so that he could report on something positive for a change.
Yes, it's gotten that bad.
Columns like Maureen Dowd's yesterday, detailing the obscene pork (8,000+ items including funds for "pig odor research," "catfish genetics research" and a tattoo removal program for gang members) in the proposed federal budget -- pork which Senator Obama said he'd eliminate when he was campaigning for president, but now that he's the Commander in Chief, he and his people are saying that the pork in this proposed budget is President Bush's fault, not his -- just make things feel hopeless.
Then I saw Jon Stewart. Thank God for Jon Stewart. I don't normally tune into The Daily Show, despite the constant pleadings of my friend Gayle who's a major Stewart fan. I usually watch local news at 11 p.m. and then go to bed. But I digress . . . Jon Stewart was supposed to have as a guest the now infamous CNBC analyst Rick Santelli, he of the much-ballyhooed rant against the Obama administration's housing bailout proposal and how it would reward bad behavior and help people who bought more house than they could afford, people who Santelli called "losers" who made bad decisions.
But Santelli canceled his Daily Show appearance. And I'm so glad he did.
What Stewart & Co. aired instead was a damningly hysterical and tragic indictment of how business journalists, specifically from CNBC, blew the coverage of this economic crisis, how they cheered on large businesses -- which are now receiving mucho bailout bucks -- and that the CNBC staff are no better than the "losers" who made bad home loan decisions. (Video link here.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)