Thursday, September 16, 2004
ANY DAY NOW...
Yesterday's post was INDEED a joke. I got a bunch of emails and a few people actually posted a few comments about the JOKE (i.e. "play on words", pun, parody) involving the CBS memos. I was trying to have a little fun at CBS's expense. Unfortunately, some people took too much of the very last memo. (Reminder: they were ALL fake, parodies, attempts at humor!)
So let me round up a few of the emails and comments (edited for length) -
Okay, folks...besides it being an attempt at humor...Here's the skinny:
Yesterday's post was INDEED a joke. I got a bunch of emails and a few people actually posted a few comments about the JOKE (i.e. "play on words", pun, parody) involving the CBS memos. I was trying to have a little fun at CBS's expense. Unfortunately, some people took too much of the very last memo. (Reminder: they were ALL fake, parodies, attempts at humor!)
So let me round up a few of the emails and comments (edited for length) -
Brian - "Wow, you really took a shot at your previous station there Greg! Is it just me, or are you regretting having to leave Charleston?"
Ron - "...some of them were funny, but that last one tricked me a little. I can't decide if you're pulling another fast one on us. You have educated me in the past about reading carefully. Did you mean it?"
clegal341 - "I agree whole hearted on the one that was given to you. My ears tell me it doesn't make sense. I remember what they said about the station and it (so far) hasn't come true."
blakecin - "That Rather thing wasn't funny (the story, i mean). But you put a good spin on it until I saw the last part of the notes. I don't get it."
Anonymous post - "RAOTFLMAO! When are we gonna hear where you are going! I know I find the fact that he speaks gggggerman intersts me to no end..."
Another Anonymous post - "Gee, we aren't bitter are we?...not every opportunity is for everyone...sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. Buck up, suck up, get over it, and move on."
Still another Anonymous post (don't you people have names?) - "I read your blog whenever I get the chance...i thought the whole piece was pretty funny so I didn't think anything about it...No matter what anyone says, they made a big mistake...I've moved to XM since."
Okay, folks...besides it being an attempt at humor...Here's the skinny:
- I am not bitter about anything. It's a rough patch for myself and my family, but I'm an optimist and things will get better. I've bounced back before, and I have a lot of faith in God and things will work out. Job had it tougher.
- I am not going anywere right now. I have a few more days of freedom before our new child arrives (she's 3 centimeters as of today). I had an early window of opportunity shortly after I left, but my wife and I decided not to make a major move until the new baby was at least a month old...that would be October, folks. I thought that would make sense with some people, but they apparently haven't tried to move with a 8.9 month pregnant woman before. I didn't want to chance it.
- I have listened to the station occasionally, but not at great length outside of weather and traffic reports. I don't care what they're doing. I AM beyond it and my main concern is my future and my family. Like anyone, I'm curious sometimes...and I still have people there that I care about (hey, Tank!) and it's always good policy to know where good people are and what they're doing.
- It was a joke! None of the memos were real! I did a little research on the dates for a couple of them...like the one allegedly from Dan Quayle, and the New Coke parody (primarily because I was drinking a Diet Coke at the time I wrote them). All you have to do is put a few key words in Google and you can come up with a whole slew of information like who was in charge of marketing at Coca-Cola in 1985. This is the point! If I (and a bunch of other "pajama journalists" and bloggers) can do it...then surely the almighty powerful resourceful CBS can do a little research on it...the point is: WHY DIDN'T THEY!!!
- Some of you should have spotted the humor. As a member of the vast-right-wing conspiracy, why would I...good member of the conservative movement...include any reference to the oft-repeated bashing of a great American like Dan Quayle? THAT should have tipped you off...especially because it was the first "memo"...
- I find it highly interesting that the only comments people have about the whole post is the LAST one...I really thought the others were pretty good. It took me a whole hour and a half to write them and I put a lot of thought into them. I surely thought the "Monica" one would get the most attention because of the "gyno" part and the cigar. I thought it was a little too blue, but decided to hit "publish" anyway. I didn't think twice about the last one. Just goes to show you how something seemingly small can become something big. Hey, that might also be the point with CBS!
Thanks for the thoughts...thanks for the comments...thanks for the emails. Even as I write this, more are coming in...so the final word is this:
IT WAS A PARODY...MEANT AS HUMOR.
Comments:
<< Home
Greg,
They weren't funny. I'm sorry to tell ya, they are about as funny as claiming the sky is blue. Quayle was dumb, new coke was bad, Clinton was a perv, and that new guy sucks bad. You are right, all he wants to talk about is TV, motorcycles, and the weather. I can't take it. I never listen to that station any more. The crabby old man who does the morning show is a blatant racist and the guy in the afternoon should be doing easy listening somewhere. It's terrible. I don't see how anyone considers it "fun." Boring is much more like it. Thank goodness for football season, I've moved to ESPN radio 910.
Keep your chin up, I'm sure the jobs picture will improve once Kerry wins in November. But I wonder why you haven't taken one of Bush's McJobs, yet? Do you still see fewer jobs, increased poverty, and more uninsured as a "booming" economy?
Karl
They weren't funny. I'm sorry to tell ya, they are about as funny as claiming the sky is blue. Quayle was dumb, new coke was bad, Clinton was a perv, and that new guy sucks bad. You are right, all he wants to talk about is TV, motorcycles, and the weather. I can't take it. I never listen to that station any more. The crabby old man who does the morning show is a blatant racist and the guy in the afternoon should be doing easy listening somewhere. It's terrible. I don't see how anyone considers it "fun." Boring is much more like it. Thank goodness for football season, I've moved to ESPN radio 910.
Keep your chin up, I'm sure the jobs picture will improve once Kerry wins in November. But I wonder why you haven't taken one of Bush's McJobs, yet? Do you still see fewer jobs, increased poverty, and more uninsured as a "booming" economy?
Karl
Come on Karl, that last one was pretty damned funny (Although some may say dark and serious and that’s ok too).
I often wondered why Karl would be an avid listener to conservative talk and yet remain a bleeding heart socialist…could it have something to do with another 19th century Karl? Hmmm. How long should it take for the Bob’s, Rich’s, Karl’s, and Eric’s of the conservative audience world to hear something that resonates within them and for them to start changing their stripes. I guess some people, who have the freedom to choose, will choose government tyranny over individual freedom and responsibility. I don’t get it but maybe I need a graduate degree to grasp the concept first, eh comrade Karl?
In all seriousness Karl, I want to offer up a reading suggestion for you since I know how you feel about trade and how it effects employment. Check out the book called The Choice by Russell Roberts. At 113 pages and written in a fictional format (more specifically, a fable) you can blow through this one in a couple of hours. There are some very important lessons to be gleaned from that book. If you’re going to argue your positions you at least have to familiarize yourself with the entire issue on all sides.
McJobs; ha! Those jobs are for kids. Now a Wal*Mart greeter on the other hand, that’s inspirational.
Anonymously,
Joe from Summerville
I often wondered why Karl would be an avid listener to conservative talk and yet remain a bleeding heart socialist…could it have something to do with another 19th century Karl? Hmmm. How long should it take for the Bob’s, Rich’s, Karl’s, and Eric’s of the conservative audience world to hear something that resonates within them and for them to start changing their stripes. I guess some people, who have the freedom to choose, will choose government tyranny over individual freedom and responsibility. I don’t get it but maybe I need a graduate degree to grasp the concept first, eh comrade Karl?
In all seriousness Karl, I want to offer up a reading suggestion for you since I know how you feel about trade and how it effects employment. Check out the book called The Choice by Russell Roberts. At 113 pages and written in a fictional format (more specifically, a fable) you can blow through this one in a couple of hours. There are some very important lessons to be gleaned from that book. If you’re going to argue your positions you at least have to familiarize yourself with the entire issue on all sides.
McJobs; ha! Those jobs are for kids. Now a Wal*Mart greeter on the other hand, that’s inspirational.
Anonymously,
Joe from Summerville
Joe,
You simple Republicans just don’t get it. Almost nothing you say can be trusted. The problem is that you have no core beliefs. If, for example, Republicans truly believed in fiscal responsibility, then the Republican controlled Congress wouldn’t be building up record deficits (or the President would veto spending bills). Or if Republicans truly believed in national sovereignty, thousands of American kids wouldn’t be getting maimed and killed to advance the Republican policy of nation-building. How can I trust a political party that is currently enamored with their ability to buy votes? Or one that uses fear mongering to advance their foreign policy agenda?
Cute economic theories rarely stand up in the light of the real world. Just ask Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Samuelson. Maybe you should read his new paper in which “he acknowledges that trade may not always work to the advantage of the American economy. Samuelson's insight is that if a low-wage country like China suddenly makes a major productivity leap in an industry formerly led by the United States, the result can be a net negative for the American people. Although American consumers may benefit via low-low prices at Wal-Mart, their gains may be more than outweighed by large losses sustained by laid-off American workers”
http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=8521
As for my own ideas on “free” trade, one thing seems obvious. Free trade must include the free flow of both capital and labor between trading partners. Certainly SC can have free trade with NC because workers can freely move between the two states. But the US cannot have free trade with Mexico unless Mexicans are free to move into the US to work and vice versa. Here again the Republicans are inconsistent, as they want to put the military on the border to prevent this "free" flow of illegals. In reality, labor is not as free to move as capital and therefore capital has a greater advantage. If allowed, capital will always move to countries where civil rights do not exist for labor and there is no corporate liability or responsibility. In other words, where life is cheap. What advantage is there for American labor to be free to move to this poisoned environment to work? Much like Bush’s tax cuts, the advantages of such a “free” system will not be felt throughout the American economy but will be retained by those who already hold the capital. There will be large gains for a few at the cost of opportunity for the many.
In essence what you argue, Joe, is that there is no economic disadvantage to profit from slavery. Should the availability of cheap cotton outweigh the moral injustice of the plantation lifestyle? That’s the question you need to think about. A consistent moral belief system will not allow “free” trading with such partners. In my opinion, retaliatory intervention by our government in the form of trade barriers and tariffs is justified in these situations. Of course these are questions a typical Republican believes are best left to be answered in the WTO and not in the US Senate.
Post a Comment
You simple Republicans just don’t get it. Almost nothing you say can be trusted. The problem is that you have no core beliefs. If, for example, Republicans truly believed in fiscal responsibility, then the Republican controlled Congress wouldn’t be building up record deficits (or the President would veto spending bills). Or if Republicans truly believed in national sovereignty, thousands of American kids wouldn’t be getting maimed and killed to advance the Republican policy of nation-building. How can I trust a political party that is currently enamored with their ability to buy votes? Or one that uses fear mongering to advance their foreign policy agenda?
Cute economic theories rarely stand up in the light of the real world. Just ask Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Samuelson. Maybe you should read his new paper in which “he acknowledges that trade may not always work to the advantage of the American economy. Samuelson's insight is that if a low-wage country like China suddenly makes a major productivity leap in an industry formerly led by the United States, the result can be a net negative for the American people. Although American consumers may benefit via low-low prices at Wal-Mart, their gains may be more than outweighed by large losses sustained by laid-off American workers”
http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=8521
As for my own ideas on “free” trade, one thing seems obvious. Free trade must include the free flow of both capital and labor between trading partners. Certainly SC can have free trade with NC because workers can freely move between the two states. But the US cannot have free trade with Mexico unless Mexicans are free to move into the US to work and vice versa. Here again the Republicans are inconsistent, as they want to put the military on the border to prevent this "free" flow of illegals. In reality, labor is not as free to move as capital and therefore capital has a greater advantage. If allowed, capital will always move to countries where civil rights do not exist for labor and there is no corporate liability or responsibility. In other words, where life is cheap. What advantage is there for American labor to be free to move to this poisoned environment to work? Much like Bush’s tax cuts, the advantages of such a “free” system will not be felt throughout the American economy but will be retained by those who already hold the capital. There will be large gains for a few at the cost of opportunity for the many.
In essence what you argue, Joe, is that there is no economic disadvantage to profit from slavery. Should the availability of cheap cotton outweigh the moral injustice of the plantation lifestyle? That’s the question you need to think about. A consistent moral belief system will not allow “free” trading with such partners. In my opinion, retaliatory intervention by our government in the form of trade barriers and tariffs is justified in these situations. Of course these are questions a typical Republican believes are best left to be answered in the WTO and not in the US Senate.
<< Home
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
