The Palm Beach Post reports an interesting episode today.
Apparently, some gal, wearing only an open robe (you can sit and imagine this for a moment)....drove up to the gates of Lion County Safari, and then drove through without stopping. Naturally, you can guess they've got a few lions in the park.
According to her....after they got the vehicle stopped.....she spoke out about terrorists coming to kill the animals.
The guy in charge of the lions....stated that the woman did seem to be unstable, then added: "She was wearing a robe that wasn't even closed."
The park guys somehow got her cornered and then got her back out to the main gate...hoping the cops would come....but they got there too late. She took off.
I sat and paused over this story. To be kinda honest, I've wanted to work at a Safari park my entire life. I always thought it'd be the place to hang out and just look sharp in a Jungle-Jim safari hat. But this episode makes me desire the job even more. Imagine....standing there....and some gal in a open robe drives up. Yep, you don't have things like that happen at the Pentagon or in Bama like that.
Tonight....somewhere in Florida....there's some gal all worried (probably out of meds too) over terrorists coming to the local safari park. I'm guessing one of her kids probably told her some story....which got her all confused, and then set off this strange event. It could only happen in America.
Thursday, 14 October 2010
No More Polarizing
Up until moving to DC....I used to spend two to three hours a week listening to NPR. They have a couple of shows that were worth listening.
Negatives? Yeah, there are a couple of issues that always bothered me. Science Friday used to average one show a month on global warming, which I got to a point of disbelief, and later became amused at the number of ways they answered a question without a scientific answer. Then came the political news shows where they advocated some group of a unusual nature....with questions that always made the group look really good, but then you could always guess which group would get the tough questions.
This week....an e-mail came out to NPR employees here in DC....with implications over the Jon Stewart comedy rally coming up shortly. I was kinda amused by NPR HR's warnings to the staff:
- NPR journalists may not run for office, endorse candidates or otherwise engage in politics. Since contributions to candidates are part of the public record, NPR journalists may not contribute to political campaigns, as doing so would call into question a journalist's impartiality.
- NPR journalists may not participate in marches and rallies involving causes or issues that NPR covers, nor should they sign petitions or otherwise lend their name to such causes, or contribute money to them. This restriction applies to the upcoming John Stewart and Stephen Colbert rallies.
- You must not advocate for political or other polarizing issues online. This extends to joining online groups or using social media in any form (including your Facebook page or a personal blog) to express personal views on a political or other controversial issue that you could not write for the air or post on NPR.org.
- NPR journalists may not serve on government boards or commissions.
The one that caught my eye...."polarizing issues" might destroy any creative sense left in the NPR staff. I suspect that HR and the journalists are discussing this at length....and maybe NPR is giving the hint of downsizing, and this "polarizing" might be a good way to anchor folks back into the 1970s mentality that they started out with.
The fact that HR is warning them over their online chat groups....indicates that management has gotten tired of explaining to congress why certain employees can say a bunch of stupid stuff....and thus get away with it. In January, it's likely now that the Republicans will control the House, and will have a strong hand in the Senate.....and in this time of budget cuts which will come....NPR might be a place to carve off five percent of the budget and let some of the more expensive journalists go.
Just a humble observation.
Negatives? Yeah, there are a couple of issues that always bothered me. Science Friday used to average one show a month on global warming, which I got to a point of disbelief, and later became amused at the number of ways they answered a question without a scientific answer. Then came the political news shows where they advocated some group of a unusual nature....with questions that always made the group look really good, but then you could always guess which group would get the tough questions.
This week....an e-mail came out to NPR employees here in DC....with implications over the Jon Stewart comedy rally coming up shortly. I was kinda amused by NPR HR's warnings to the staff:
- NPR journalists may not run for office, endorse candidates or otherwise engage in politics. Since contributions to candidates are part of the public record, NPR journalists may not contribute to political campaigns, as doing so would call into question a journalist's impartiality.
- NPR journalists may not participate in marches and rallies involving causes or issues that NPR covers, nor should they sign petitions or otherwise lend their name to such causes, or contribute money to them. This restriction applies to the upcoming John Stewart and Stephen Colbert rallies.
- You must not advocate for political or other polarizing issues online. This extends to joining online groups or using social media in any form (including your Facebook page or a personal blog) to express personal views on a political or other controversial issue that you could not write for the air or post on NPR.org.
- NPR journalists may not serve on government boards or commissions.
The one that caught my eye...."polarizing issues" might destroy any creative sense left in the NPR staff. I suspect that HR and the journalists are discussing this at length....and maybe NPR is giving the hint of downsizing, and this "polarizing" might be a good way to anchor folks back into the 1970s mentality that they started out with.
The fact that HR is warning them over their online chat groups....indicates that management has gotten tired of explaining to congress why certain employees can say a bunch of stupid stuff....and thus get away with it. In January, it's likely now that the Republicans will control the House, and will have a strong hand in the Senate.....and in this time of budget cuts which will come....NPR might be a place to carve off five percent of the budget and let some of the more expensive journalists go.
Just a humble observation.
The Meet the Press Puzzle
"The media is changing so rapidly that websites, like you guys do every day, do two things. Number one, it allows us to reach audiences that may not be watching Meet The Press. I’m just saying, it might be a different demographic."
-- President Obama to black journalists today
I sat and paused over this statement. The statement was designed to say that there are differences between blacks and whites over the President's performance....and his indicator says that blacks basically don't watch Meet the Press.
I thought about this statement for a while. To be kinda honest, I haven't watched Meet the Press more than five times over the past decade. Most of the guys I associate with....would readily admit the same thing.
Given a choice of watching Leave It to Beaver or Meet the Press.....I'd pick the Beaver every time. In fact, I'd watch the cartoon channel, reruns of Mission Impossible from the 1960s, and even college football involving Navy and Army....before watching Meet the Press.
How many blacks watch it nation-wide? I'd bet on less than four thousand. How many white guys.....probably less than sixty thousand. Out of 300 million, it's a pretty lousy guess of mine....but it's an elite bunch of journalists and dimwits who probably waste their time watching Meet the Press.
If anything here....folks who need to understand the President's accomplishments....had best watch each week's run of Meet the Press.....to grasp any real historical value. Otherwise, stick to NFL football highlights and World War II movies when Meet the Press comes on.
-- President Obama to black journalists today
I sat and paused over this statement. The statement was designed to say that there are differences between blacks and whites over the President's performance....and his indicator says that blacks basically don't watch Meet the Press.
I thought about this statement for a while. To be kinda honest, I haven't watched Meet the Press more than five times over the past decade. Most of the guys I associate with....would readily admit the same thing.
Given a choice of watching Leave It to Beaver or Meet the Press.....I'd pick the Beaver every time. In fact, I'd watch the cartoon channel, reruns of Mission Impossible from the 1960s, and even college football involving Navy and Army....before watching Meet the Press.
How many blacks watch it nation-wide? I'd bet on less than four thousand. How many white guys.....probably less than sixty thousand. Out of 300 million, it's a pretty lousy guess of mine....but it's an elite bunch of journalists and dimwits who probably waste their time watching Meet the Press.
If anything here....folks who need to understand the President's accomplishments....had best watch each week's run of Meet the Press.....to grasp any real historical value. Otherwise, stick to NFL football highlights and World War II movies when Meet the Press comes on.
The Houses You Don't Want
What makes this episode with the state attorney generals interesting....is that if you were a prospective buyer, and had just bought a foreclosed house....and some guy shows up in three weeks to put legal papers on you....demanding you leave because the house was wrongfully seized by the bank and illegally sold.....how would you cope with this?
I could see lawyers working sixty hours a week across the state of Florida....trying to grasp who did what and put legal requests into various courts.
Why would any idiot for the next three months even buy a foreclosed house? It'll be like the black plague or some house where the wife shot the husband. The houses without foreclosure? They will be like magnets, drawing the crowd over, and perhaps increasing the price of the house by another $10k because folks refuse to touch foreclosed houses.
2011 promises to be a great year for lawyers, and a lousy year for bankers.
The Problem over Blame
For about the 99th time, I've had to sit and listen to some journalist (this time, I think it was on an MSNBC show) use the "blame Bush" logic in defending something. I think for the first forty times (mostly all in 2009), it worked for me. After about sixty occasions....the logic is kinda dulled up.
I sat and pondered over this.
When President Adams (Dad) took over after Washington....did folks in DC sit around and puff up Adam's period by talking over the negative dynamics of Washington's administration and the economy?
When President Jackson took over after President Adams (Junior)....did folks in DC sit around and puff up the Jackson era by talking over the negative dynamics of Adam's administration and the economy?
When President Lincoln took over after President James Buchanan.....did folks in DC sit around and puff up the Lincoln era by talking over the negative dynamics of Buchanan's administration and the economy?
When Ike arrived to take over after President Truman.....did folks in DC sit around and puff up Ike's era by talking over the negative dynamics of Truman's administration and the economy?
It would have been interesting to have CNN or MSNBC around in McKinley era....after Democrat Grover Cleveland leaves office. In those days....high tariffs were the standard....with democrats constantly against them, and Republicans for them.
I'm pondering if there is ever a limit to this "blame" game....say four years? Or would you have to extend this out to eight years, to get the proper mileage out of a good blame?
I sat and pondered over this.
When President Adams (Dad) took over after Washington....did folks in DC sit around and puff up Adam's period by talking over the negative dynamics of Washington's administration and the economy?
When President Jackson took over after President Adams (Junior)....did folks in DC sit around and puff up the Jackson era by talking over the negative dynamics of Adam's administration and the economy?
When President Lincoln took over after President James Buchanan.....did folks in DC sit around and puff up the Lincoln era by talking over the negative dynamics of Buchanan's administration and the economy?
When Ike arrived to take over after President Truman.....did folks in DC sit around and puff up Ike's era by talking over the negative dynamics of Truman's administration and the economy?
It would have been interesting to have CNN or MSNBC around in McKinley era....after Democrat Grover Cleveland leaves office. In those days....high tariffs were the standard....with democrats constantly against them, and Republicans for them.
I'm pondering if there is ever a limit to this "blame" game....say four years? Or would you have to extend this out to eight years, to get the proper mileage out of a good blame?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)