OK, I just have to say my peace about this whole Cramer vs. Stewart thing.  Honestly, I do not understand why some things get so much "buzz" (the Internet is going wild over this right now), but whatever.  Here's a shocking idea: Perhaps it evolved into a cooperative publicity stunt between CNBC and Comedy Central.  Just a possibility.  (Hey, I work in marketing-- it's my nature to always look for the money-making agenda behind everything.)

Anyway, I think everybody agrees that Stewart pretty much ripped Cramer a new one, and most people with any insight see that Stewart brought to light a very valid argument.  I've seen a lot of people not so much taking up the charge for Cramer as being very snarky toward Stewart and calling him a hypocrite (I suppose that's bound to happen when you absolutely cream someone in a debate), but more on that later. 

Anyway, the bottom line of Stewart's argument was this (and if you don't agree, then I really don't think you watched the entire interview or listened very closely to what Stewart was saying, or you got distracted by other points of contention that are not central to the argument):  If CNBC is going to call itself a news channel (you know, a media outlet guided by the basic principles of objective, researched journalism) then their shows and their TV personalities need to be guided by those principles.  When those CEO's came on to Cramer's show and, as he is now in agreement, lied to his face, he would have researched their claims.  Instead, he allowed personal feelings to make him "take their word for it."  That is not good journalism.

I fully respect and appreciate that Cramer wants to make his show entertaining.  Financial news is boring as hell.  But Jon's point was that, if you are going to position yourself on a serious news channel, and claim to be someone with some authority to provide sound financial advice, then at the very least, you've got to first have the journalistic chutspa to back it up.  Once Cramer's got that, he can throw stuff between his legs, yell, and press the buttons on his sound board 'til the cows come home.  But don't give me the impression that you are someone I should turn to for financial advice (and if you disagree that's what he is doing, just watch the opening credits: "In Cramer We Trust") if all you want to do is entertain me.  Seriously, just have the balls to call a spade a spade.  

( Read more... )

I am trying to figure out what to bring to the office x-mas party on Friday.  Behold the lethal combination of food that is already on the sign-up sheet:

Current Mood: amused
Current Music: Linkin Park

From CNN:

"Lately, [McCain] and Governor Palin have actually accused me of -- get this -- socialism," Obama said. "It's kind of hard to figure how Warren Buffett endorsed me, Colin Powell endorsed me, and John McCain thinks I'm socialist."

Obama said he simply wants to give the middle class a tax cut.

Powell came to Obama's defense after endorsing the senator from Illinois.

Powell said he had grown tired of McCain's negative campaigning and that the American people would prefer to focus on issues like education, infrastructure and the economy. He specifically slammed Palin's allegation that Obama's tax plan is socialist, calling it misleading.

"Taxes are always a redistribution of money. Most of the taxes that are redistributed go back to those who pay them -- in roads and airports and hospitals and schools," President Bush's former secretary of state said. "And taxes are necessary for the common good, and there's nothing wrong with examining what our tax structure is or who should be paying more, who should be paying less.

"For us to say that makes you a socialist, I think, is an unfortunate characterization that isn't accurate."

 

Jake and I had a good conversation last night.  In political conversation with two people lately-- my mother, and another lady who is conservative and 10 years younger-- I've heard the comment that they really don't like Obama's plan to "redistribute the wealth."  I wasn't aware of what a big deal that statement was to some people.  Apparently my understanding of it is a bit different from theirs.  Both of them basically said this:  "I've worked hard all of my life, and so has my husband.  It's not fair for the government to take away MY money and give it to people who just sit on their asses."

( Read more... )

 Thank goodness there is only one debate to go.  I am really tired of hearing McCain talk.  Almost as tired as I am of hearing Bush attempt to do the same. 

At work today, we mistakenly received a piece of mail and didn't realize it wasn't meant for us until we had opened and read it.  It was from someone in India.  Inside was a money order and a completed order form that read "Save the Cows!" across the top.  The flyer detailed how for $75, $125, or $350, you could "adopt" or sponsor a cow so it would get enough to eat.  On the back was a photo of a skinny, depressingly sad looking cow with its ribs showing.

I still can't decide if it is appropriate for me to laugh or be sad about this.  I really, really cannot stand to see animals suffering, so it does make me extremely sad.  However, perhaps it's because I come from a country where we eat cows regularly, but something sinister inside me makes me want to laugh at this. 

I am always so incredibly intrigued by how people in different countries and cultures around the world have such different priorities, values and beliefs about the way things are and the way they should be.  I briefly searched for "save the cows" on the Internet and didn't find much.  But I did find an article where someone pointed out the hypocrisy of India's concern for its plethora of cows, while their people don't seem to get nearly such nice treatment.  For example, apparently if an Indian has more than two children, they are "punished" by being ineligible for public employment, school admission, housing loans and elective office.  And they're considering placing bounties on women who get abortions.

That sure puts a lot of the back and forth of this US presidential election into a new perspective.

There is a great quote by Martin Luther King, Jr. that Senator Obama could have used last night when he was talking about the United States' responsibility when it comes to moral issues in places like Darfur.

"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."

I am hoping the fact that John McCain finally pushed me past a breaking point last night is a sign that this election is sealed and delivered. I have tried really hard, for quite some time now, to exercise tolerance, civility, and respect for the other side. But last night, John McCain showed nothing but disrespect, arrogance, snideness, and a complete disregard for actually trying to have a debate ( Read more... )

For the love of god, Obama did NOT say that we should all-out attack Pakistan, you stupid dummy dumb dumb!!!  Either you are too old, too stupid, a bad listener, or EXTREMELY ballsy about taking a person's words out of context when they were just said in the same room 3 minutes earlier!!!

At least Obama has the balls to answer a question with a straight answer, unlike your running mate, who simply repeats "We should not hesitate" and "We should not blink" over and over.

Or you, who says, "I think all three should be priorities."  

Way to always take the easy way out, and vilify others who don't, you old stupid ass.

God, somebody put McCain in a home.  Please.  

( Why this election is so important to me. )