News that makes us laugh, cry, or both

erik · Post by **erik** » Thu Sep 03, 2009 5:37 am

Maxus wrote:Caught this on the news at work today when I was taking a breather.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp ... 7#32665867

While I don't disagree with the general message, I honestly cannot stand Keith Olbermann there and I don't think I would enjoy watching his show any more than I could enjoy the crap on Fox News. It took a lot of resolve to actually make it all the way though that clip.

Ganbare Gincun · Post by **Ganbare Gincun** » Thu Sep 03, 2009 5:45 am

I'm rather fond of Keith Olbermann myself. Not as much as Jon Stewart, but he's still pretty informative and entertaining.

Maxus · Post by **Maxus** » Thu Sep 03, 2009 6:01 am

clikml wrote:
Maxus wrote:Caught this on the news at work today when I was taking a breather.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp ... 7#32665867
While I don't disagree with the general message, I honestly cannot stand Keith Olbermann there and I don't think I would enjoy watching his show any more than I could enjoy the crap on Fox News. It took a lot of resolve to actually make it all the way though that clip.

MSNBC at that time of night is downright snarky. But it's more reasonable than the shit on Fox. At least they're able to provide what looks like documentation.

But where I work...Well, the two TVs I know about are always on a news channel of some sort (Part of the janitor crew in the US Army Corps of Engineer's district office. Good benefits, I'll say that for it). If I'm going to be a room for a while, I put it on the Weather Channel. It's non-objectionable and I don't need people crossing a floor I've just mopped to keep flipping it from Fox to MSNBC or whatever else (aside from safety, it DOES leave a mark even after it dries. And with that admission, I just realized I care about making things look shiny.)

Maj · Post by **Maj** » Thu Sep 03, 2009 6:08 am

clikml wrote:I honestly cannot stand Keith Olbermann there and I don't think I would enjoy watching his show any more than I could enjoy the crap on Fox News. It took a lot of resolve to actually make it all the way though that clip.

Agreed. I used to watch both Fox and MSNBC, but lately, I just get more and more tired of the same snarky asshattery being displayed on both sides. It's like the two networks are there just to antagonize each other. I prefer the Daily Show and the snarky comments and summations of people here.

Draco_Argentum · Post by **Draco_Argentum** » Thu Sep 03, 2009 7:52 am

In related news Toccata is awesome. I like Sky's rendition.

Heath Robinson · Post by **Heath Robinson** » Fri Sep 04, 2009 10:28 pm

http://scienceblogs.com/notrocketscienc ... istake.php

This... explains a little.

Crissa · Post by **Crissa** » Mon Sep 07, 2009 5:18 pm

Look, I don't watch Olberman, either.

But you'd be hard-pressed to find any of the points he made in error.

Didn't we have a long argument already where it was pointed out that the liberal component of MSNBC was only a minority of their coverage?

-Crissa

Meikle641 · Post by **Meikle641** » Tue Sep 08, 2009 4:48 am

http://yro.slashdot.org/story/09/09/07/ ... a?from=rss

Clearly Project Chanology has been hitting them hard as of late.

tzor · Post by **tzor** » Tue Sep 08, 2009 12:57 pm

Battle Under Way Over Prize Money Donated To Kids

Kathy Cox, the state schools superintendent, won $1 million on the Fox TV game showAre You Smarter Than A Fifth Grader? When the episode aired, Cox pledged to give her winnings to three public schools for the deaf and blind — but her husband filed for bankruptcy, and now the creditors say the money belongs to them.

This only proves Shakespeare's attitude toward lawyers. Taking money from deaf and blind children. How low can you go?

CatharzGodfoot · Post by **CatharzGodfoot** » Tue Sep 08, 2009 5:41 pm

tzor wrote:Battle Under Way Over Prize Money Donated To Kids

Kathy Cox, the state schools superintendent, won $1 million on the Fox TV game showAre You Smarter Than A Fifth Grader? When the episode aired, Cox pledged to give her winnings to three public schools for the deaf and blind — but her husband filed for bankruptcy, and now the creditors say the money belongs to them.
This only proves Shakespeare's attitude toward lawyers. Taking money from deaf and blind children. How low can you go?

That is pretty sick. On the other hand, it's not reasonable that people should be able to give away all of their wealth to avoid paying off their loans. I mean, think of it this way:
[*] I owe a friend a dollar
[*] I give a dollar to a homeless person
[*] I tell my friend that he can't have the dollar because I gave it to a homeless person, and stealing from the homeless is a terrible thing to do.

IGTN · Post by **IGTN** » Tue Sep 08, 2009 5:52 pm

Yeah, but the woman isn't the one filing for bankruptcy; her husband is.

So it's more Jim owes you a dollar. His wife Jill has a dollar you want to give to a homeless person. You demand that dollar from her to settle Jim's debt.

CatharzGodfoot · Post by **CatharzGodfoot** » Tue Sep 08, 2009 6:34 pm

IGTN wrote:Yeah, but the woman isn't the one filing for bankruptcy; her husband is.

So it's more Jim owes you a dollar. His wife Jill has a dollar you want to give to a homeless person. You demand that dollar from her to settle Jim's debt.

Actually, she signed for a number of his leases. So it's like you tell Jill that if she buys Jake a cookie, you'll pay her back if Jake doesn't have the money. Then while you're walking down the street, Jake says he doesn't have the money, Jill asks you for the money, and you tell her that she can't have it because you're about to give it to a panhandler.

tzor · Post by **tzor** » Tue Sep 08, 2009 8:01 pm

Let’s consider this in another way; she was on a show in a capacity that would not technically allow her to collect money (if she had then that would have put her in legal trouble) so instead she donated any potential prize winnings to a charity. In short, short of a technical legal loophole which at the same time could not only get her arrested on criminal charges, but also have the IRS breathing down her back come income tax time, FOX instead of awarding the money directly to the charity, choose instead to give it to the debt collectors instead. This is clearly a major faux pas on the part of FOX and seriously jeopardizes anyone who wants to run a charity oriented game show.

CatharzGodfoot · Post by **CatharzGodfoot** » Tue Sep 08, 2009 10:21 pm

tzor wrote:Let’s consider this in another way; she was on a show in a capacity that would not technically allow her to collect money (if she had then that would have put her in legal trouble) so instead she donated any potential prize winnings to a charity. In short, short of a technical legal loophole which at the same time could not only get her arrested on criminal charges, but also have the IRS breathing down her back come income tax time, FOX instead of awarding the money directly to the charity, choose instead to give it to the debt collectors instead. This is clearly a major faux pas on the part of FOX and seriously jeopardizes anyone who wants to run a charity oriented game show.

I had not noticed that part, and that does seem rather sleazy on the part of FOX, although it doesn't seem much different from an employer garnishing wages (in fact it sounds exactly like garnishment and it's quite likely that FOX could be required to make the payment to the creditors).

Neeeek · Post by **Neeeek** » Tue Sep 08, 2009 10:30 pm

tzor wrote:Let’s consider this in another way; she was on a show in a capacity that would not technically allow her to collect money (if she had then that would have put her in legal trouble) so instead she donated any potential prize winnings to a charity. In short, short of a technical legal loophole which at the same time could not only get her arrested on criminal charges, but also have the IRS breathing down her back come income tax time, FOX instead of awarding the money directly to the charity, choose instead to give it to the debt collectors instead. This is clearly a major faux pas on the part of FOX and seriously jeopardizes anyone who wants to run a charity oriented game show.

Um...Your situation is flawed (well, it's actually just bullshit). The only legal way a creditor could collect on those winnings, ever, is if she was entitled to keep the winnings at some point. If she could not have ever collected on them, and instead the game show was used to determine how much or which charity the money went to (which was how the Celebrity Poker thing worked, by the way), the winner has no role in the payment of the prize, and no creditor could attempt to go after the prize.

If you want to be pissed at someone about the school, be pissed at A) the husband for fucking up so bad, and B) the woman, for cosigning with him. The lawyers are doing their job, doing it correctly, and the result is the correct one. Just because what she wanted to do with the money is a good cause doesn't change the fact that it's not her money.

Crissa · Post by **Crissa** » Wed Sep 09, 2009 5:15 am

Well, the money is already pledged. They don't have much of a standing to take her earnings that have already been pledged. Basically, the three schools are also her creditors.

His creditors do not have any higher standing than hers.

-Crissa

Neeeek · Post by **Neeeek** » Wed Sep 09, 2009 7:05 am

Crissa wrote:Well, the money is already pledged. They don't have much of a standing to take her earnings that have already been pledged. Basically, the three schools are also her creditors.

His creditors do not have any higher standing than hers.

Depending on what happened when, they probably do, actually. If the pledge was made before the bankruptcy, the earlier creditors are only most likely to get paid first, rather than automatically paid first as would be the case if the pledge was made after the bankruptcy.

Crissa · Post by **Crissa** » Thu Sep 10, 2009 4:40 am

Order of operations only applies to things after bankruptcy.

She made the pledge before he filed, but the show has not paid out the earnings, hence the creditors trying to insert themselves.

-Crissa

Heath Robinson · Post by **Heath Robinson** » Fri Sep 11, 2009 3:58 pm

http://www.number10.gov.uk/Page20571

Long deserved recognition of the thoroughly awful treatment that our nation extended to one of its greatest. Should he have been treated differently then perhaps Britain would have Silicon Valley today.

Maxus · Post by **Maxus** » Tue Sep 15, 2009 1:00 am

Patrick Swayze died today.

2009 has been a bad year to be a celebrity, I'll say that.

Also, I never knew how much my family really liked a few of his movies. Evidently Ghost is something both my parents will stop whatever they're doing and watch.

Crissa · Post by **Crissa** » Tue Sep 15, 2009 2:57 am

50,000 unorganized wingnuts march after the most-watched cable news channel organizes and advertises their march 24/7 for a month, and they hit the front page.

Contrast that to 100,000 anti-war protestors in DC in 2002, without any media support or presence getting only a mention in local section of the news with a few titillating photos.

Compare, contrast, and read the links.

-Crissa

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Tue Sep 15, 2009 3:04 am

Maxus wrote:Patrick Swayze died today.

2009 has been a bad year to be a celebrity, I'll say that.

Also, I never knew how much my family really liked a few of his movies. Evidently Ghost is something both my parents will stop whatever they're doing and watch.

Not to belittle a mans death or anything (seriously, not belittling his death at all) but why do celebrity deaths matter to anyone but their family and friends? I mean, I can understand "damn, I liked him, no more movies with him," but "Oh my god this breaks my heart he was such a great actor..." (not here, but on other sites), seriously, I don't get it.

But then again, when some one asks me my favorite actor or actress, or whatever, I'm usually at a loss...

Absentminded_Wizard · Post by **Absentminded_Wizard** » Tue Sep 15, 2009 4:16 am

It'll be interesting to see how much hype Swayze's death gets. On the one hand, like Michael Jackson, he died relatively young. However, unlike Michael Jackson, he was a clearly recognizable figure* but didn't have the kind of huge impact on popular culture that MJ did. I guess this is where we find out how celebrity-obsessed our culture really is.

*I thought Ghost was an enjoyable movie, but I'm not obsessed about it.

Neeeek · Post by **Neeeek** » Tue Sep 15, 2009 4:49 am

Absentminded_Wizard wrote:It'll be interesting to see how much hype Swayze's death gets. On the one hand, like Michael Jackson, he died relatively young. However, unlike Michael Jackson, he was a clearly recognizable figure* but didn't have the kind of huge impact on popular culture that MJ did. I guess this is where we find out how celebrity-obsessed our culture really is.

Swayze's death is also less surprising. He'd been fighting off cancer for a long time now. Jackson just up and died one day.

Gelare · Post by **Gelare** » Tue Sep 15, 2009 5:09 am

Maxus wrote:Also, I never knew how much my family really liked a few of his movies. Evidently Ghost is something both my parents will stop whatever they're doing and watch.

Oh shit, that's where I've heard that name before! Well that's a shame. Ghost is a fantastic movie - I was just about to buy myself a copy, actually. Gotta love Unchained Melody.