StrangeSox

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 18, 2009 -> 09:40 AM) Exactly. Jon Stewart doesn't even have the sack to be who he is instead of hiding. Who is he? In my opinion, he's someone with obvious liberal leanings but still finds plenty of things wrong with both rep's and dem's. His biggest target, however has always been the media and he openly criticizes their shoddy work. He uses a nightly comedy show to point out absurdities and make people laugh. What is he hiding there? Who is he hiding behind? Should South Park not satirize anyone since they don't openly advance a political ideology, formulate bills and parties or do in-depth journalism? Or do they also lack sack? Did Carlin lack sack because he had obvious political leanings behind his comedy?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 18, 2009 -> 09:31 AM) He is as much of a journalist as any of the right wingers who gets lit up on a daily basis. If people want to make Rush Limbaugh out to be the face of the party, they shouldn't have a problem holding Stewart to the same standards. What is bulls*** is that the only reason he isn't held to any standards is because he is too big of a coward to admit to what his purpose is. Rush Limbaugh wants to be the face of the GOP/ conservatism. That's the difference, imo. TDS has a left-lean, but they make fun of everyone. Is South Park or SNL on the same level as Rush in your mind?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 18, 2009 -> 09:25 AM) For comedians who bring people onto their show to criticize them for actions they should have taken, when they, themselves, haven't take respective actions, I will say the samething about them. To me, that's the bulls*** line. That no one can be a critic unless they themselves have done the job. That's absurd. Stewart is not a journalist, so it is ridiculous to expect him to do things journalists should be doing. It is not ridiculous to expect journalists to be doing things journalists should do, and you don't need to be a journalist to call them out on it. That's like saying you can't be an art critic without being a better artist or a film critic without making a better movie. Again, Stewart's not immune from criticism. What he's not buying is that others are immune from criticism because he doesn't do something. You seem to accept their reasoning that they're immune from any criticisms.

I'd like for you to point out where he's said "well, I don't have to defend my ideas, I'm a comedian." He still puts his opinions out there and defends them. He doesn't use the fact that he's a comedian to make his ideas immune from criticism. He uses the comedy shield to stop his targets' deflections of "well, you don't do pulitzer-prize winning journalism on your satirical comedy show, so why should we?!" Again, he's just pointing out that its his job to satirize things and its their job to be journalists. Declaring that the satirist doesn't do deep, investigative journalism or hard-hitting interviews doesn't defend against the journalists not doing journalism.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 18, 2009 -> 07:56 AM) It sounds funny to defend guys like Limbaugh, Hannity, and the whole lot of them, but at least they are honest enough to say up front that they are trying to influence people's opinion. Guys like Stewart are the lowest form, because they scream about accountability towards others, then hide behind the comedy genre when someone wants to do the same to them. Get some testicular fortitude and at least be willing to stand up for yourself. Stewart's biggest target for criticism has always been the media. Their response is always "well, you don't do it!" He then correctly points out that he does a satirical comedy show while they're supposed to be a news organization with journalistic integrity. Yeah, he gets to hide behind the comedy shield because that is what he is -- a comedian. Comedians can be and often are political, but that doesn't make them journalists or reporters. It's not Jon Stewart's job to expose AIG's CDS mess or to do investigations of CEO's claims. It's his job to take clips out-of-context and poke fun at people. It's like the court jesters in Shakespeare's plays. Sometimes the only ones willing or able to speak the truth are those under the protection of a comedy shield. I don't take much comfort in Hannity, Limbaugh, etc. being "up front" about how much they're trying to influence opinion if they still lie and distort the truth. And before you say it, Stewart and Colbert are guilty of hyperbole and distortions, too.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 18, 2009 -> 07:10 AM) One of them is a fraud who says he runs a comedy show, but gets to push his political beliefs without accountability. Beck? It's a comedy show satirizing the news and current events. Of course his political beliefs are intertwined with that. Is South Park run by frauds because they're a cartoon which often has political or social messages? What about the Simpsons?

Yes, but condoms are still very effective in preventing the spread of HIV. There's no way around that. 100 people having sex using condoms are less likely to spread disease than 25 people having sex without condoms. And people are going to have sex. http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/publicati...et/fscondom.htm

Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose...

Yeah, that seems awful.

It's from the Huff Post, so consider the source, but... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/17/c...f_n_175865.html Again, these are retention bonuses, not performance bonuses. And now some of them aren't with the firm. Makes perfect sense. This is some sort of bizarro-world socialism: transfer of wealth from the middle class and poor to a wealthy elite via taxation. I'm liking Grassley's idea that they resign or commit suicide more and more.

What's great with the whole housing market meltdown is that homes going for $150k in Bolingbrook have $5 or $6k a year tax liabilities.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Mar 17, 2009 -> 12:29 PM) ^^^ I think CKnolls had a post detailing all of the campaign contributions Dodd got from them...

QUOTE (Cknolls @ Mar 17, 2009 -> 11:07 AM) I remember that one. That was a classic moment.

This made me laugh: Grassley to AIG execs: Resign or commit suicide

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 17, 2009 -> 09:26 AM) Cheap? Not from what I know, talking to people in other areas. Really depends on where you are, apparently. http://www.city-data.com/forum/chicago-sub...ook-county.html Cheapest: South Barrington 5.227-7.151 Inverness 5.227-7.456 Northbrook 5.337-6.184 Northfield 5.442-6.252 Glenview 5.541-6.763 Burr Ridge 5.550-5.926 Hinsdale 5.551-5.936 Most expensive: Country Club Hills 12.420-12.760 Ford Heights 21.52 It's more than DuPage. http://addisonadvantage.org/Property%20Tax%20Rates.htm It seems like the wealthiest areas (ie, highest property values) have far lower tax rates.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 17, 2009 -> 09:36 AM) If AIG wasn't throwing away taxpayer dollar, I could care less. Let them be stupid. But, since we now own a big chunk of AIG, they report to us. And us doesn't want these losers who caused a part of this mess getting paid millions as a result. I am 100% in favor of the near-100% tax on AIG trader bonuses idea. So am I, as long is there aren't some unintended consequences I don't know about. I usually like to hear the criticisms of an idea like this since I don't know much at all about corporate taxation or contract law.

BTW, these are retention bonuses, not performance bonuses. I'm really beginning to hate corporatism. These business models are proving just how bad they are for the economy as a whole (but great for the individuals getting $1M to stay at AIG!)

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Mar 16, 2009 -> 04:25 PM) Ummm... (trying to think of an example......) So like someone made money on something that was illegal? Then they go back and correct for some loophole? I mean, I can read what you're saying here but it's still not sinking in. Here's the thing. Whether or not people like it, these people made their performance targets and are now due their bonuses. If there really is a way that this could be made "illegal", then they're not doing it, and they are not doing it on purpose, while running in front of the cameras talking about how assholish this is. Again, all for show. If they COULD do something about it and they are just screaming in front of the cameras, this once again is nothing but political posturing (as I've said many many times now - run in front of the cameras, talk about how bad they all are while telling them privately "we got 'cher back".) Making bankers and all these people boogeymen is nothing but a straw man's arguement anyway. A lot of this money (100M+, I think) is going to people in their financial services department; aka, the guys responsible for sinking the world economy via the CDS. What possible performance mark could they have met? $X billions of dollars from the government? % taxpayer ownership of AIG? It's not making them out to be boogeymen if they're receiving millions of dollars for causing billions of dollars of problems.

Unfortunately for us taxpayers, AIG wrote these fantastic contracts for their upper-level people that resulted in bonuses under pretty much any circumstance. They are contractually required to pay them and the government couldn't change these as a requirement of the stimulus money.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Mar 16, 2009 -> 02:27 PM) He played a pretty good CF for the Cubs. What's the difficulty of playing CF at US Cellular vs. Wrigley?

I think its a little ironic to see any baseball fans calling another sport boring. That's the number one complaint about baseball.

Going to Puerto Rico in late April. I think I'll miss the spring break crowd though.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 16, 2009 -> 07:41 AM) Looks like it fits in exactly with what Obama has said. Stem cell research is fine, with cells from already "discarded" or non-viable material, but you can't actually destroy life for that purpose. Where is the issue here? To get embryonic stem cells, you have to destroy an embryo. This amendment prohibits funding of any research that destroys an embryo.

Well, it say that the funds available in the "Omni-bus" package are off-limits. Where does the NIH get most of its funding from? It could be a non-issue.

The Bush administration violated Federal statues. That's what is different. Do none of you remember that big report that came out last summer showing just how pathetically political they made the DOJ? http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/law/ju.../doj_07-28.html