For some bizarre reason, my conservative friends (and I use the term insincerely) on this board keep pestering me to comment about the whole CBS thing with Bush’s time protecting the skies over Oklahoma while Kerry was, y’know, apparently the one soldier in the entirety of Vietnam not being shot at. Politicians and supporters who swallow whole anything the Swifties say are suddenly demanding hearings because of the CBS reports. And people are throwing it in MY face like I’m the head of the Dan Rather fan club. Why they’re not throwing it in, say, Jerome’s face, since he’s a working reporter and–if it’s false–then it’s a commentary on the lack of quality of the Fourth Estate, leaves me mystified (and I again use the term insincerely.)
I didn’t comment on the story when it was released because, frankly, it didn’t interest me all that much. The debate barely interested me four years ago, and it certainly doesn’t now. Bottom line is that all the masterminds currently waging war in Iraq have never been under enemy fire themselves, period. So it’s of little relevance to me HOW they avoided it. They used all the powers at their family’s command to avoid enemy fire, period. And John Kerry didn’t do that, again period. So the basis of the argument is hazy to me at best.
Furthermore, truth to tell, I learned back in Journalism 101 that if a piece of information seems too good to be true, it usually is. So at best, I was leery of it. I still am. And if it turns out CBS was suckered, they should admit they made a mistake. If nothing else, it will put them several points ahead of the President, who lacks that capacity.
But trying to pretend that Bush’s dubious military service is somehow legitmized if the CBS story is indeed false is like saying that Piltdown Man being a hoax invalidates evolution.
PAD
• 
Den W. wrote: “I’m glad to hear you would call for Brit Hume’s resignation if he aired such an allegation, but, my point is, you are using an assumption that because Fox News shares your political ideology, that somehow means they operate on a higher ethical plane than the (admittedly) liberal CBS Evening News with Dan Rather. I don’t see anything to support that assumption. In fact, looking at the history Rupert Murdoch’s entire News Corporation (TV channels and tabloid newspapers) the word “ethical” hardly jumps out at me.”
You are making a false assumption. I do not believe Fox operates on a higher ethical plane. My point was that “if” Fox had done this instead of Rather and CBS, the majority of the media would be much more loud and direct in their criticism.
Your example of Sean Hannity is also comparing apples to oranges. If Rather had merely repeated (again) that Bush skipped his physical, etc., that would be repeating a prior allegation (which is what Hannity is doing). To put it differently, Sean has never brought out a video tape that he claimed showed the actual rape, only to have the tape be soundly rejected as a fraud. That is what Rather has done.
My point is not that Fox is more ethical than CBS, my point is that a lot of the media has a more liberal bias to start with, so they filter these stories through those glasses. I know some are upset with Rather, but the outcry is far less than it should be, especially with the revelation that CBS was in direct contact with the Kerry campaign. Sean Hannity never did anything like what CBS and 60 Minutes Wednesday have done.
Jim in Iowa
And if hannity lost, how long before they come after Josh Marshell, Eric Alterman, and other commentators whose views might be closer to your own?
What makes you think those commentators views are closer to my own? Didn’t your mother tell you what happens when you ‘assume?’
As for Hannity, you’re probably right. He has kept himself insulated from slander charges by making sure his statements are all along the lines of “she accuses him of raping her.”
My point, though, is not that he should be sued, only that just because someone is open about their bias doesn’t give them a pass to make whatever allegations they want.
Rather is a scumbag. I’ve been saying that for years and I certainly won’t defend him now.
“What makes you think those commentators views are closer to my own? Didn’t your mother tell you what happens when you ‘assume?'”
Well,yeah, that’s why I said their views MIGHT be closer to your own. Insufficiant ášš covering on my part?
And I remember what my grandpappy said about making assumptions–you make an ášš of you and…umptions. He was old.
eclark 1849
“On the other hand, consider this: A company upgrades it’s technology, thus eliminating many of the jobs it once had due to automation. It doesn’t have to pay as much healthcare, doesn’t have as much union trouble or conflicts, it’s complying with environmental regulations, fewer job benefits. You do the math.”
I have done the math. I get the same results. However, some CEOs and executive board do the same math, and come up with “move the dámņ plant.” Lots of factors go into it, and as I and others have stated, cost of labor is a biggie.
Those factories that get closed? They aren’t just old…they’re outdated, ancient in technological terms. It’s actually cheaper to turn them into parking lots (assuning you don’t have to clean up any groundwater/soil contamination) than it is to update them. Updating isn’t just installing some new do-hicky thingamabob…it has to be integrated into your existing equipment, your staff has to be trained, it has to be tested, etc. etc. Faced with all that, when it comes time to decide “upgrade” or “replace,” a lot of CEO’s go with replace. If you’re going to be forking over millions of dollars in capital investment, which is easier to sell? A grimy, old building with new machines, or a whole spanking new, gleaming, state of the art complex (which, obytheway, will save us it’s investment cost in labor and benes in 3 years since we’re building it in Mexico where we can buy labor for the cost of a SHOE).
That math is hard to argue with. We do have a crisis coming, and the only way to avoid it is to change our thoughts on what a decent wage is for a decent job. I saw someone mention $25K for a manufacturing job. That’s what you can make at McDonalds..about $6 an hour. I’d put an entry level union job at say an auto plant at $75K. Heck, I heard that apprentice butcher’s make $60K a year.
I’m not knocking anyone in those professions, since if they can get that wage, more power to ’em. But it makes me wonder how much longer our markets will continue to bear those high wages.
I saw someone mention $25K for a manufacturing job. That’s what you can make at McDonalds..about $6 an hour.
You need to check your math. $25K/ yr would be $12/hr, not $6. And with the exception of management jobs, McDonald’s jobs is not meant to support a family on. People who are trying to do so are looking in the wrong place for a solution.
It seems to me that most people who keep saying that wages are too low, didn’t pay attention in Business 101. If wages go up, the price of goods have to go up also in order to pay for the wage increase. Well, if the price of goods go up, then your wage increase becomes meaningless. It’s a vicious circle.
And if the price of goods goes up and your job is shipped to India, what then?
25,000/52=480.77.
480.77/80 oooo, I see my error. I figured an 80 hour work week. My bad. McD’s isn’t holding law firm hours…yet. And even though I failed my math, I’ll stick by my claim that most manufacturing/union jobs pay way more than $12 an hour.
If the input cost of a good goes up, the market price won’t go up if the demand isn’t there to support the higher price. The good just won’t get made, OR production will shift to a location where input costs allow for a positive profit margin. See, I really WAS paying attention in econ 101 =)
If the market were just composed of the US, there’d be no worries, as wages would/should increase on pace with costs. The problem is that the market for labor isn’t always local any more, and If BigAutoCompanyZ sees a $100 million price tag for that new plant in Cleveland, tied to an equal $100 million annual labor cost to run that plant, and can build the same plant in Mexico for $1 million, and $500K in annual labor costs, BACZ CEO is going to start reading “Spanish for Dummies” and learn what “villa” really means.
And if the price of goods goes up and your job is shipped to India, what then?
Then you find another job.
Den W. “And if the price of goods goes up and your job is shipped to India, what then?”
Eclark 1849 “Then you find another job.”
I just have to ask, when was the last time you lost a job and had to replace it? And how many jobs did you find were open to you that were close to your old salary level? I’ll give you my experience (after a good, cushy State job was phased out to make room to pay back a political debt). It took me over 2 years before I found more than intermittant contractor work. I didn’t starve, but I wasn’t exactly making progress toward security, owning a home, replacing my (at the time) 10 year old vehicle. And when I did find a job, it was at a lower pay scale (granted, I got some nice raises in quick succession to make up for it).
I consider myself fortunate. I have friends who lost 6 figure jobs who were forced to take 50% or more pay cuts. And I’m not even in an industry where we’re losing jobs overseas (one good thing about being a lawyer, you have to be physically present to do a good portion of your job).
I think, Eclark, you’re getting fixated on the short term, and not seeing the long term. For any given individual, losing a job isn’t all that big a deal. But take that and expand it to a whole industrial sector, or a town, or a state, and you’re going to have a growing pool of labor that can’t find a replacement job within their field. These folks are going to be forced into career changes. And let’s face it, are we really generating a net increase of jobs? The metrics we use (new unemployment claims) really doesn’t tell me anything. For one thing, what’s “new?” Never filed a claim before? That doesn’t count folks who are forced to take short term jobs to get by, and end up filing once or twice a year. It doesn’t tell me how many people who filed last month are still unemployed.
And when the President or the Dept. of Labor announces “400,000 new jobs created last month,” it tells me nothing about the quality of those jobs, or compare them to the jobs we lost.
My impression is that there are fewer quality (as in, support your family, make a career out of it work) being created than there are being lost. So that pool of people forced to take 2 or 3 McDonalds level jobs keep growing. Which makes it much harder, when you job packs up and moves to India, to just go out and get another job. It might be more accurate to say “move back in with your parents to save rent, and put in your Ap at Borders, plus pick up hours at the GAP. Oh, and what’s the employee discount at Best Buy these days?”
Then you find another job.
And once all of the jobs in your field have been sent to India what?
Get a blue vest and learn how to say, “Welcome to Wal-Mart” without wanting to slash your wrists?
Gotta love the title of Sean Hannity’s book:
Deliver Us from Evil: Defeating Terrorism, Despotism, and Liberalism
Just makes you scream “fair and balanced”, doesn’t it? 🙂
As for job losses, well, the facts seem to show that the jobs currently being added are of lower pay and have lesser benefits than those jobs lost over the last few years.
So if you think losing 1 million jobs that pay $15/hour that are eventually replaced by 750,000 jobs that pay $10/hour is a good thing… well, I can’t help you there.
Hello everyone. Sorry I’ve missed this vibrant debate this week, especially since PAD saw fit to include me in his into to this topic I can die happy now, even if he was asking why you weren’t throwing the Dan Rather affair in my face:)
Anyway, I am afraid PAD is no longer correct.
As of last Thursday, I am no longer a working reporter.
As of last Thursday, I am now a working editor!
Not just AN editor, either. THE editor, of an entire paper, in the Scranton area.
I’m on Cloud 9 , which has helped me put in over 80 hours this week while I get caught up, learn a bit about my added responsibilities and break in a new writer to take my position.
“I guess it must be a hard blow to those of you questioning Kerry’s service that the Navy came out and said his medals were awarded properly.”
If questions were truly answered… then why was a blow hard?
Congratulations Jerome!
I have some faxed emails from 1972 you may be interested in. Never too early to score that big scoop.
You know, I lived in Scranton a few lifetimes ago. Sadly, what I remember most was the gigantic car graveyard. Seriously, there were like 120,000 wrecked cars sitting in the woods, like they’d filmed the last 20 minutes of The Blues Brothers there.
Anyway, the people there were nice. Again, congrats. Do you make them call you “Chief”? Could you say stuff like “Great Caesar’s Ghost!”? Do you walk around in a worn fedora? I’d do all those things which goes a long way toward explaining why no sane person would ever put me in a position of responsibility.
Bill,
Thanks for the congrats, and also:
1.) Thanks for the offer of the faxed e-mails. But I think I’ll pass for now. Word from the (former) Reagan Democrats in this area is that Bush A.) has had Osama Bin Laden on ice somewhere since Sept. 12, 2004 and is waiting to unveil him in October to guarantee the election and B.) will also “suddenly find” the WMD, which they tell me the CIA has planted. Now THOSE are stories:)
2.)We’re doing a bit better on the parked cars thse days, but I remember what you are speaking of:)
3.)I was just laughing with somebody the other day about “Don’t call me Chief!” and “Great Caesar’s Ghost!”. Which is either really funny or really scary:)
Don’t have the fedora yet, but the fact that I am considering it…and have done the others…what were you saying about “No sane person would ever put me in a position of responsibility”? Guess you have to move to Scranton, then:)
Thanks again for the kind words!!
Unless Rather signs off each night with “vote for Bush”, he’s going to be accused of a liberal bias.