Last Sunday (2/24), a technical glitch at WHNT caused the first story aired on '60 Minutes' to be missed. Viewers missed all but the final 5 minutes of a much hyped story dealing with this state's former Governnor. At first we (WHNT) thought the problem was on CBS' end. We soon discovered it was on our end.
We apologized, aired the story at 10pm and again the next at 6pm. We also put it on our website.
Regardless... the ever-so-tolerant, good peace loving liberals came unglued. Yes, some employees here even took death threats!
Enjoy!
(jaela2@yahoo.com) Thank you for blacking out the Siegelman story. Your clumsy attempts at censorship will now bring much needed attention to this story. Even more than 60 Minutes could have done on its own.
(TKwow@aol.com) Your partisan censorship of "60 Minutes" on Sunday night sounds like something more likely to happen in the former Soviet Union. Good luck renewing your broadcast license once Siegelman is exonerated and a Democratic administration is in power. Go climb up Karl Rove's ass where you belong. Disgusting!!!!!!
(tgbeachbum@yahoo.com) YOU ARE SO TRANSPARENT...and disgusting.60 Minutes signal failure????What a joke, you're a bunch of NAZI's
(hwbliz@mac.com) Your claim that your equipment failed at the exact moment the Seigelman story came on the air, streaches the limits of credibility
(kwgrlup@ndsupernet.com) Although i am many miles from your station, i do have friends and relatives in your area. What your station did with the referenced segment of 60 Minutes, regarding Don Siegelman, was shameful to put it mildly! The reason our forefathers created an exception in our founding documents for the fourth estate was to be sure OUR government was held accountable, NOT so that the media, who uses OUR airwaves, reports infotainment and trash, but reports to us what we the people NEED to know for our own good. To do what you did was a treasonest act to the people of your area, state and our country. You should lose the priviledge of use of the airwaves. My friends and family WILL see that segment! i will make sure of it. i and many others will be filing a complaint with the proper agencies. How do any of you sleep at night?! And you call yourself a "news" station! HA!
(GeorgeP922@gmail.com) What you did IS a step towards Facism You should be ashamed of yourselves.The public will always see you guilty in your actions.American media is supposed to be without bias and free.You are NOT State owned media!This is America, not China, North Korea, Cuba, Saudi Arabia etc.Actually the producers there have at least one exuse, they will go to jail.I can't wait till Congress prosecutes you.I don't accept your apology, tell the truth and forgiveness can begin.Shame on you.So many americans have died for freedom that you just crushed.
(sirgent77@yahoo.com) Will you reair that 60m story about the Gov...If not why not..Alabama the little USSR state...
(bkohatl@hotmail.com) What liars you are. Now We know what evil is.Hitler censored German Radio; Stalin censored Russian Radio and TV. The Bass Brothers want to Turn America into Nazi Germany. You see a Reporter for WHNT be sure and say Sieg Heil and Segregation Today, Segregation Tomorrow and Segregation Forever. A language all evil people understand. Now you know how Bob Riley, Judge Fuller and Pryor Stole the 2002 Governor's Election. Treason at WHNT
(imarhfc@bellsouth.net) Congradulations! WHNT made "the worst" on Countdown on MSNBC
(erik.anderson@furman.edu) your recent censorship of 60 minutes ...... is absolutely despicable. Think of the company you now find yourselves in: Pakistan, Russian, North Korea, Iran ... . Here's a tip: after rereading your copy (if you have one) of the U.S. Constitution, go to your local library (if you have one) and check out John Stuart Mill's classic work, On Liberty. Then go somewhere and hang your head in shame.
(jack.griffith@pobox.com) You are a bunch of partisan whores. Who paid -off you suck-ups to censor 60 minutes? What a joke. This is very typical for a pack of redneck Republicans. I hope the FCC pulls your license (after Obama is elected!!).
(clay.harris@gmail.com) You really do embarrass yourself. Blacking out the nub of 60 Minutes, while mocking Ted Kennedy. Would you do that to a Republican? Try at least to pretend that there's some objectivity there.
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Thursday, February 14, 2008
'Free' Money
If there is only ONE thing you can be sure of and bet your life on, it's this:
THERE IS NO FREE LUNCH.
That's right. EVERYTHING has a cost associated with it. Even stuff that is 'free' to you has a cost, even though you may not have had to pay anything for it.
If I buy you a newspaper, it still cost something. Namely, 50 cents out of my pocket.
If you're going to read it, it's going to cost you something as well. Namely, not watching the tv for the next 20 minutes.
THERE IS NO FREE LUNCH.
Moving on...
Just passed in Washington D.C. was the much-hyped 'Economic Stimulus' package. In an attempt to 'jump start' the 'slowing' economy, our lovely politicians have decided to send most people in this country 3oo or 600 dollars. Free and clear!
Except there's a problem: THERE IS NO FREE LUNCH.
Where does the government 'get' the money it's going to send you?
There are 3 ways that happens.
First, government could simply print more money! But that leads to inflation.
(Simple explanation)
Government can tax us. Of course, raising taxes means that the money comes from someone and then given to another. If your long, lost uncle left you and your brother each $50,000 dollars, it is ridiculous to think that your brother would actually only get $10,000 dollars more than you if it were divided 60/40.
Finally, the government can borrow the money. Going back to the long, lost uncle analogy, imagine the same uncle borrowing $600 dollars from the bank, giving it to you and then dying... leaving you to pay back the $600 (with interest) to the bank.
Don't get too excited about the 'free' money you'll get in May. Sure, it's nice. But it's far from free.
THERE IS NO FREE LUNCH.
That's right. EVERYTHING has a cost associated with it. Even stuff that is 'free' to you has a cost, even though you may not have had to pay anything for it.
If I buy you a newspaper, it still cost something. Namely, 50 cents out of my pocket.
If you're going to read it, it's going to cost you something as well. Namely, not watching the tv for the next 20 minutes.
THERE IS NO FREE LUNCH.
Moving on...
Just passed in Washington D.C. was the much-hyped 'Economic Stimulus' package. In an attempt to 'jump start' the 'slowing' economy, our lovely politicians have decided to send most people in this country 3oo or 600 dollars. Free and clear!
Except there's a problem: THERE IS NO FREE LUNCH.
Where does the government 'get' the money it's going to send you?
There are 3 ways that happens.
First, government could simply print more money! But that leads to inflation.
(Simple explanation)
Government can tax us. Of course, raising taxes means that the money comes from someone and then given to another. If your long, lost uncle left you and your brother each $50,000 dollars, it is ridiculous to think that your brother would actually only get $10,000 dollars more than you if it were divided 60/40.
Finally, the government can borrow the money. Going back to the long, lost uncle analogy, imagine the same uncle borrowing $600 dollars from the bank, giving it to you and then dying... leaving you to pay back the $600 (with interest) to the bank.
Don't get too excited about the 'free' money you'll get in May. Sure, it's nice. But it's far from free.
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Guilty as sin! Why bother with a trial?
I asked this question to some co-workers the other day, involving an upcoming murder trial:
If you were on the jury right now and had to decide 'guilty' or 'not guilty' after hearing the opening arguments ONLY... how would you vote?
The over-whelming response: GUILTY.
Look, we all KNOW the guy did it! And we all know that the defense attorney is out to accomplish one thing: Keep the guy from getting 'the big stick.' It's a win for them if their client gets life in prison.
The accused is guilty! AS SIN! He knows it, the judge knows it, the prosecutor knows it, the jury will know it, my co-workers know it... and I know it.
So why am I the only one to take the same hypothetical question and say I'd vote 'not guilty?'
'That's pretty crazy, especially if you KNOW the guy did it!' you might say. But not at all. In this country, something very important has to happen (or at least 'should' happen) in order for someone to be found guilty: The government (prosecution) must PROVE that the accused did what they are indeed accused of. The burden of proving guilt lies soley with the prosecution! If you can't be convinced by FACTS that the defendant is guilty, then you MUST vote NOT GUILTY.
Is it better for a guilty man to go free rather than have an innocent man go to prison?
Some would say no... but would be quick to change their mind if they were the innocent man looking at life in prison.
If you were on the jury right now and had to decide 'guilty' or 'not guilty' after hearing the opening arguments ONLY... how would you vote?
The over-whelming response: GUILTY.
Look, we all KNOW the guy did it! And we all know that the defense attorney is out to accomplish one thing: Keep the guy from getting 'the big stick.' It's a win for them if their client gets life in prison.
The accused is guilty! AS SIN! He knows it, the judge knows it, the prosecutor knows it, the jury will know it, my co-workers know it... and I know it.
So why am I the only one to take the same hypothetical question and say I'd vote 'not guilty?'
'That's pretty crazy, especially if you KNOW the guy did it!' you might say. But not at all. In this country, something very important has to happen (or at least 'should' happen) in order for someone to be found guilty: The government (prosecution) must PROVE that the accused did what they are indeed accused of. The burden of proving guilt lies soley with the prosecution! If you can't be convinced by FACTS that the defendant is guilty, then you MUST vote NOT GUILTY.
Is it better for a guilty man to go free rather than have an innocent man go to prison?
Some would say no... but would be quick to change their mind if they were the innocent man looking at life in prison.
Wednesday, January 2, 2008
What's really ridiculous about illegal immigration...
Welcome to 2008.
To kick off the new year, a new law is now in effect in Arizona. Any business that is found to have knowingly hired an illegal worker is subject to punishment which can range from probation all the way to a 10-day suspension of their business license. A second violation will result in having their license revoked permanetly.
Apparently in addition to businesses running their day-to-day operations, they must now be in the business of verifying someone's legal residence in this country.
I was under the impression that job belonged soley to the federal government.
The problem with illegal immigration isn't the millions of people being here illegally. It's with the government having made something illegal and then lacking the gumption to enforce its own laws. Rather than actually catch those in the country illegally, the feds sit back and do nothing while politicians, always pandering for votes, debate over amnesty, guest worker programs and the like. The states then take it upon themselves to burden businesses with the task of verifying a person's legal residence. But it's not up to McDonald's, Lowe's or Pep Boys to do the federal government's work!
Laws needs to be enforced or they need to be taken off the books. Unenforced laws are useless and pointless.
To kick off the new year, a new law is now in effect in Arizona. Any business that is found to have knowingly hired an illegal worker is subject to punishment which can range from probation all the way to a 10-day suspension of their business license. A second violation will result in having their license revoked permanetly.
Apparently in addition to businesses running their day-to-day operations, they must now be in the business of verifying someone's legal residence in this country.
I was under the impression that job belonged soley to the federal government.
The problem with illegal immigration isn't the millions of people being here illegally. It's with the government having made something illegal and then lacking the gumption to enforce its own laws. Rather than actually catch those in the country illegally, the feds sit back and do nothing while politicians, always pandering for votes, debate over amnesty, guest worker programs and the like. The states then take it upon themselves to burden businesses with the task of verifying a person's legal residence. But it's not up to McDonald's, Lowe's or Pep Boys to do the federal government's work!
Laws needs to be enforced or they need to be taken off the books. Unenforced laws are useless and pointless.
Monday, December 24, 2007
Three MORE Cheers For Guns!
Two days before Christmas, Paul Crabtree had some last minute Christmas 'shopping' to do.
His girlfriend/friend/whatever, Elizabeth Holt, also had some 'shopping' to get done... so she went with him.
Unknown person #3, accompanies Paul and Elizabeth to fight the holiday crowds and the trio sets off to get gifts and spread holiday cheer.
How did they fare?
It turns out, they skipped the malls, the traffic and the crowds. Instead they went to an apartment complex, armed themselves with knives and broke into someone's home.
Those were bad decisions. But then it got much worse.
The resident of the apartment was home. And armed. With a gun.
What's the old saying? 'Never bring a knife to a gunfight?'
I'll give you 3 guesses as to who came out on the short end of the stick here, and the first two don't count.
When Crabtree took a slug from the gun, Miss Elizabeth Holt and the other unnamed person decided they got the wrong apartment and got the heck out of dodge. They left Mr. Crabtree at the apartment to discuss things more in depth with the resident.
Rest easy. The good guy (apartment resident) is alive and kicking and gets to enjoy Christmas of 2007.
As for Crabtree? He's forever on the 'Naughtly List' and enjoying a dirt nap. His two accomplices, Elizabeth Holt and the unknown person... they're on the run. For now.
The good news in all this? There's one less criminal you have to worry about breaking into your home and doing you and your family harm. There are two other criminals who will think twice (hopefully) before doing something like this again and will be caught soon.
And lastly... the guy at home who fended off the intruders... He's alive.
Thanks to his gun.
I can only imagine how this scenario might have turned out had our hero only been allowed by government to be armed with a knife...
His girlfriend/friend/whatever, Elizabeth Holt, also had some 'shopping' to get done... so she went with him.
Unknown person #3, accompanies Paul and Elizabeth to fight the holiday crowds and the trio sets off to get gifts and spread holiday cheer.
How did they fare?
It turns out, they skipped the malls, the traffic and the crowds. Instead they went to an apartment complex, armed themselves with knives and broke into someone's home.
Those were bad decisions. But then it got much worse.
The resident of the apartment was home. And armed. With a gun.
What's the old saying? 'Never bring a knife to a gunfight?'
I'll give you 3 guesses as to who came out on the short end of the stick here, and the first two don't count.
When Crabtree took a slug from the gun, Miss Elizabeth Holt and the other unnamed person decided they got the wrong apartment and got the heck out of dodge. They left Mr. Crabtree at the apartment to discuss things more in depth with the resident.
Rest easy. The good guy (apartment resident) is alive and kicking and gets to enjoy Christmas of 2007.
As for Crabtree? He's forever on the 'Naughtly List' and enjoying a dirt nap. His two accomplices, Elizabeth Holt and the unknown person... they're on the run. For now.
The good news in all this? There's one less criminal you have to worry about breaking into your home and doing you and your family harm. There are two other criminals who will think twice (hopefully) before doing something like this again and will be caught soon.
And lastly... the guy at home who fended off the intruders... He's alive.
Thanks to his gun.
I can only imagine how this scenario might have turned out had our hero only been allowed by government to be armed with a knife...
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
Before you sign...
Scenario 1: You're going through 9 pages of paperwork with the bank for the approval of your loan. At the signing, you:
A: Get a short synopsis of each page and then sign where the loan officer tells you to sign.
B: Read and scrutinize through each section, asking questions before you sign anything.
Scenario 2: You are about to sign the contract for your new job. When it comes time to sign your contract, you:
A: Go ahead and sign it. You're certain it says exactly what you agreed it would say.
B: Read and scrutinize through each, making sure everything is correct before you sign at the bottom.
Although entirely different scenarios, the importance of each doesn't change. You have to know, understand and agree to all the terms when you're entering into something that requires your signature.
Sure, going through those nine pages at the loan signing will take an extra 20 to 40 minutes as you read over everything... and yes, you're eating into the loan officer's lunch break. But this is important because once signed, it's fixed.
And re-reading the contract with your about-to-be employer before signing it may make you appear to be a bit paranoid, but if something is wrong and not in your favor, you want to catch it BEFORE you sign.
Home loan. Employee contract.
Important things.
They really don't compare to a hill of beans when it comes to imposing a federal law, right? Once something is law, we're all bound to it and can face severe punishment if we don't comply.
On Wednesday, December 19th, the Energy Bill was signed into law by President Bush.
The bill was about a foot in height and had about three thousand five hundred pages.
Ask yourself: Do you think any member of Congress or President Bush read all 3,500 pages?
Me neither.
That strikes me as irresponsible.
A: Get a short synopsis of each page and then sign where the loan officer tells you to sign.
B: Read and scrutinize through each section, asking questions before you sign anything.
Scenario 2: You are about to sign the contract for your new job. When it comes time to sign your contract, you:
A: Go ahead and sign it. You're certain it says exactly what you agreed it would say.
B: Read and scrutinize through each, making sure everything is correct before you sign at the bottom.
Although entirely different scenarios, the importance of each doesn't change. You have to know, understand and agree to all the terms when you're entering into something that requires your signature.
Sure, going through those nine pages at the loan signing will take an extra 20 to 40 minutes as you read over everything... and yes, you're eating into the loan officer's lunch break. But this is important because once signed, it's fixed.
And re-reading the contract with your about-to-be employer before signing it may make you appear to be a bit paranoid, but if something is wrong and not in your favor, you want to catch it BEFORE you sign.
Home loan. Employee contract.
Important things.
They really don't compare to a hill of beans when it comes to imposing a federal law, right? Once something is law, we're all bound to it and can face severe punishment if we don't comply.
On Wednesday, December 19th, the Energy Bill was signed into law by President Bush.
The bill was about a foot in height and had about three thousand five hundred pages.
Ask yourself: Do you think any member of Congress or President Bush read all 3,500 pages?
Me neither.
That strikes me as irresponsible.
Friday, December 7, 2007
Trumping Contracts
Suppose you work for a multi-million dollar company and have a contract that states the terms, conditions, the salary and the salary increases of your employment.
When the contract was drawn up, you and the company both agreed to the terms. Each side was happy because they felt that they were getting the better end of the deal.
Two years into your employment, the company falls on hard times. Sales are down, the projections are off, etc.
It's unfortunate for the company, but luckily for you, YOU have a signed CONTRACT that specifically states that you still get your raise/bonus from the company. Right?
Not so fast.
The Federal Government steps in.
The government 'suggests' that instead of the company giving you your 15% raise next week, it should 'freeze' your salary right where it is.
For the next FIVE YEARS.
How 'bout them apples?
So when the government 'steps in' and 'suggests' to banks and mortgage companies they should 'freeze' their interest rates so that people who bought houses they can't afford won't have to foreclose or sell their homes when their interest rate increases.... You should be equally miffed as well.
When the contract was drawn up, you and the company both agreed to the terms. Each side was happy because they felt that they were getting the better end of the deal.
Two years into your employment, the company falls on hard times. Sales are down, the projections are off, etc.
It's unfortunate for the company, but luckily for you, YOU have a signed CONTRACT that specifically states that you still get your raise/bonus from the company. Right?
Not so fast.
The Federal Government steps in.
The government 'suggests' that instead of the company giving you your 15% raise next week, it should 'freeze' your salary right where it is.
For the next FIVE YEARS.
How 'bout them apples?
So when the government 'steps in' and 'suggests' to banks and mortgage companies they should 'freeze' their interest rates so that people who bought houses they can't afford won't have to foreclose or sell their homes when their interest rate increases.... You should be equally miffed as well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)