In a recent post, Being a Pundit, Newscaster and Analyst , Jon Stewart eviscerates the CNBC financial "geniuses" in a classic clip. I guess Joe Scarborough needs to be added to the clip. He does what the CNBC "geniuses" have done just before the collapse of major banks. Scarborough talks GE up in what Jason Linkins of the Huffington Post called an "infomercial." The clip can be seen above, but here is the transcript:
SCARBOROUGH: The thing is, while Jack's children and grandchildren are disappointed in GE's stock level, I'm actually excited for my children and grandchildren. This is how recessions work and this is how the market turns recessions around, into rallies, because I'm going to start investing heavily in General Electric because they've actually created things over the past twenty-five years. It is not some Wall Street organization that just shuffled around money and played shall games. And Mike, we know the future for General Electric, it's our parent company, I know. I'm just saying, that's the type of company I can build an economy on over the next twenty-five years. There are so many other companies that are collapsing because they don't have the fundamentals right.
BARNICLE: You know what the key to what you just said is? GE makes things.
SCARBOROUGH: They make things. America has stopped making things, for the most part. GE makes things.
Look closely at Jack Welch's face, as he buries it is his coffee cup. He doesn't even believe Scarborough's sales pitch. Scarborough appears as a shameless storytelling idiot. It is obvious that GE is tanking and the fact this once great company became the likes of a big investment bank that produces products on the side is precisely the reason their stock is down to $7.41 and rapidly decreasing.
Joe Scarborough conveniently leaves out the fact that GE essentially became a financial institution. GE, in fact, became a "Wall Street organization that just shuffled around money and played shall games." This is a very crucial detail; instead Scarborough focuses on the lesser fact of the production of GE. The production aspect has been a secondary gig for years, as they made fat fees with GE Capital.
Scarborough just might be what Zbigniew Brzezinski said of him. Perhaps he is "stunningly superficial" or just plain stupid. If not, little is more distasteful than using your platform to pitch favors. The only problem is we don't believe the seemingly "stunningly superficial" Scarborough. Come to think of it, maybe he isn't. GE owns NBC Universal, including MSNBC.
Showing posts with label Joe Scarborough. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Joe Scarborough. Show all posts
Monday, March 9, 2009
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Being Personally Responsible
If anyone knows me or have read anything that I have ever written, I am all for personal responsibility. I remember getting into big trouble as a consultant with a large city government for insisting that communities be personally responsible for their own neighborhoods. Change begins with each of us on the smallest of levels. Trash in our neighborhoods is not a small thing. As does love, respect begins at home. But when I heard Joe Scarborough and Peggy Noonan this morning on "Morning Joe" talking about personal responsibility it had a particular divisive and partisan ring.
"Barack Obama is going to be talking about Republican themes of personal responsibility and cleaning up the vacant lot next door," said Joe. Are democrats not personally responsible? Who lives among vacant lots? Peggy Noonan chimed in some time later with the same pejorative buzz word, as if either of them actually knows what President-elect Obama will say, "Yes, he's going to talk about personal responsibility, like cleaning up those vacant lots in your own neighborhood."
By then I was livid. There is no doubt that this disparaging "vacant lot" had not only a derogative anti-Democratic tone, but was used pejoratively to indicate African Americans. Such words are incredibly disheartening especially considering the past eight years where vacant lots in and of themselves did not add to the financial crisis currently rocking America. What about President Reagan's notion of laissez-faire economics that many believe has brought us to our current financial crisis? What about those who bankrupted banks and mortgage companies escaping in golden parachutes that landed in pristine gated communities? The financial crisis had more to do with these and less to do with vacant lots. Who will be held personally responsible for these things?
Financial institutions received welfare the likes that vacant lots will never see in thousands of lifetimes. Vacant lots had nothing to do with water boarding. Many Americans are asking that the current Republican president take personal responsibility for torture. Many are insisting that the incoming president charge him with war crimes. (I am not.) Yes, we all need to take personal responsibility but divisive partisan buzz words and tones will not unify us and will not get to the heart of what's needed to turn this country around. We need bi-partisanship and personal responsibility from everyone with respect for differences. Derogative buzz words strike the absolute wrong chord in this difficult time America now faces.
"Barack Obama is going to be talking about Republican themes of personal responsibility and cleaning up the vacant lot next door," said Joe. Are democrats not personally responsible? Who lives among vacant lots? Peggy Noonan chimed in some time later with the same pejorative buzz word, as if either of them actually knows what President-elect Obama will say, "Yes, he's going to talk about personal responsibility, like cleaning up those vacant lots in your own neighborhood."
By then I was livid. There is no doubt that this disparaging "vacant lot" had not only a derogative anti-Democratic tone, but was used pejoratively to indicate African Americans. Such words are incredibly disheartening especially considering the past eight years where vacant lots in and of themselves did not add to the financial crisis currently rocking America. What about President Reagan's notion of laissez-faire economics that many believe has brought us to our current financial crisis? What about those who bankrupted banks and mortgage companies escaping in golden parachutes that landed in pristine gated communities? The financial crisis had more to do with these and less to do with vacant lots. Who will be held personally responsible for these things?
Financial institutions received welfare the likes that vacant lots will never see in thousands of lifetimes. Vacant lots had nothing to do with water boarding. Many Americans are asking that the current Republican president take personal responsibility for torture. Many are insisting that the incoming president charge him with war crimes. (I am not.) Yes, we all need to take personal responsibility but divisive partisan buzz words and tones will not unify us and will not get to the heart of what's needed to turn this country around. We need bi-partisanship and personal responsibility from everyone with respect for differences. Derogative buzz words strike the absolute wrong chord in this difficult time America now faces.
Monday, January 5, 2009
Being Zbigniew Brzezinski II
Last week Zbigniew Brzezinski, former National Security Adviser to President Jimmy Carter, made some very astute comments about the Israeli and Palestinian conflict on “Morning Joe.” Today, without the presence of Dr. Brzezinski, Joe Scarborough sought to elevate his position, after being skillfully shown the weakness of his argument last week, by citing a number of news sources and people for whom legacy and moving forward with the same agenda may mean more than just about anything.
Dr. Brzezinski called Scarborough "stunningly superficial" in the discussion. Youtube and bloggers latched on to this phrase. But in my first post here of Dr. Brzezinski's segment on “Morning Joe” I did not focus on Scarborough's words. In fact, I did not even repeat the "stunningly superficial" quote in the body of my post. It was simply insignificant as I listened to the reason, intelligence, and fairness of Dr. Brzezinski's words. I included the video here but did not highlight this little phrase that lit up the blogosphere. Scarborough was simply not the issue.
This morning Scarborough sought to do a bit of revisionist history of last week's show, by adding the voices of others with some skin in the game, be it legacy or some kind of liberal hawkishness, which is akin to conservative hawkishness—a hawk is a hawk, to perpetuate a certain agenda. Scarborough sought to use others to elevate himself and his position. But he did not rationally rebuff Dr. Brzezinski's argument; he mainly said these people agree with me so I must be right. This made me wonder about our inability to simply look at ourselves and say, "You know, I may be wrong. Let me look at this differently." Or, present a rational dissent. A flurry of others who agree with our point of view does not make a dissent rational.
Instead of coming back with Dr. Brzezinski around the table and presenting arguments that would bolster his position, Scarborough simply chose a litany of others with vested interest to justify his lack of knowledge. Dr. Brzezinski sent him to school. Scarborough said nothing different that would make Dr. Brzezinski’s words irrelevant or less than. He instead used his daughter, Mika, as a proxy to rectify his bruised ego and battered image. This is a good reason not bring the good Dr. back.
Scarborough’s litany of people and flurry of news sources to bolster his position may have taken stands that have indeed brought us to this moment. (And, quite frankly, to look back nostalgically what could have been or point forward with accusing fingers does little good anyway.) Whenever we are in search of others to bolster our position when there vested interest by others this can always be found. But it does not make our position best or fair and balanced.
Our not admitting to failed policy, hawkishness, and international strong arming, will have to be considered if we are to be true brokers of peace. Scarborough's reaction today seems all too familiar. My only hope is that we sincerely look anew at all issues involved in the Israeli and Palestinian conflict with fresh eyes for peace and justice. Otherwise, we will continue to do the same thing with a litany of others who support our position and expect a different result. This is irrational. It also does very little in challenging ourselves to be more responsible, accountable, and equitable.
Dr. Brzezinski called Scarborough "stunningly superficial" in the discussion. Youtube and bloggers latched on to this phrase. But in my first post here of Dr. Brzezinski's segment on “Morning Joe” I did not focus on Scarborough's words. In fact, I did not even repeat the "stunningly superficial" quote in the body of my post. It was simply insignificant as I listened to the reason, intelligence, and fairness of Dr. Brzezinski's words. I included the video here but did not highlight this little phrase that lit up the blogosphere. Scarborough was simply not the issue.
This morning Scarborough sought to do a bit of revisionist history of last week's show, by adding the voices of others with some skin in the game, be it legacy or some kind of liberal hawkishness, which is akin to conservative hawkishness—a hawk is a hawk, to perpetuate a certain agenda. Scarborough sought to use others to elevate himself and his position. But he did not rationally rebuff Dr. Brzezinski's argument; he mainly said these people agree with me so I must be right. This made me wonder about our inability to simply look at ourselves and say, "You know, I may be wrong. Let me look at this differently." Or, present a rational dissent. A flurry of others who agree with our point of view does not make a dissent rational.
Instead of coming back with Dr. Brzezinski around the table and presenting arguments that would bolster his position, Scarborough simply chose a litany of others with vested interest to justify his lack of knowledge. Dr. Brzezinski sent him to school. Scarborough said nothing different that would make Dr. Brzezinski’s words irrelevant or less than. He instead used his daughter, Mika, as a proxy to rectify his bruised ego and battered image. This is a good reason not bring the good Dr. back.
Scarborough’s litany of people and flurry of news sources to bolster his position may have taken stands that have indeed brought us to this moment. (And, quite frankly, to look back nostalgically what could have been or point forward with accusing fingers does little good anyway.) Whenever we are in search of others to bolster our position when there vested interest by others this can always be found. But it does not make our position best or fair and balanced.
Our not admitting to failed policy, hawkishness, and international strong arming, will have to be considered if we are to be true brokers of peace. Scarborough's reaction today seems all too familiar. My only hope is that we sincerely look anew at all issues involved in the Israeli and Palestinian conflict with fresh eyes for peace and justice. Otherwise, we will continue to do the same thing with a litany of others who support our position and expect a different result. This is irrational. It also does very little in challenging ourselves to be more responsible, accountable, and equitable.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)