Conservative talk radio called in all their chips to demand loyalists' support for 1/2 Hour News Hour, the Fox News Channel's "answer to The Daily Show," whose pilot, as we reported, aired Sunday night.
Limbaugh, who did a cameo appearance with Ann Coulter in a lead-in sketch, told the Ditto Heads: "The key is that it needs an audience."
It's the latest right-wing cause: " Korny Konservative Komedy: you vill vatch it." They've determined that what the right needs is a comedy show to promote their issues (the götterdämmerung of the Bush administration isn't funny enough, apparently).
Comedy has been working for liberals because comedians are writing with the comedy premise to be funny, not to promote something.
Keith Olbermann: "If you start out saying, ...this is going to be conservative comedy, or this is going to be liberal comedy, aren't you guaranteeing it‘s not going to be funny, because you‘re selling something, rather than trying to be funny? "
The whoremasters sounded desperate- pulling up his top, and flashing his ample orbs, Rush told his tricks: "I‘m going to be blatant here. ... in order for this show to have a chance of success, for these two pilots to be picked up and actually made into a regular series, with some substantive production values, and so forth, it needs an audience."
Michael Medved was pretty hard on most of the material, but defended the show as a mission, referring to it as a "cause."
"No, The 1/2 Hour News Hour doesn't count," Medved wrote in his blog, "as dazzling, deathless television, but if it fails -- particularly after the collapse of the Dennis Miller Show -- it will be a long, long time before right-wingers get another shot at entertaining our own troops via TV and demonstrating that conservatives do, after all, possess a sense of humor." (The italics are ours to show how the always-practical conservatives must justify this little piece of fluff not only as a political tool, but as a patriotically correct TV distraction for the troops).
After all that help, the heavily-promoted show did pretty well for Sunday night cable- way better than the preceding, Sean Hannity‘s Amerika. Known around Fox Plaza as .5HNH, the show drew just under a million and a half viewers- about a third of which was in the money demo, aged 25 to 54.
Unfortunately, getting the horse to the Konservative Komedy Korner couldn't make him stick around long enough to drink.
The audience peaked 11 minutes into the show. There were 648,000 younger viewers at 11 minutes after, and went straight down from there, reaching a nadir of 340,000 at the 27 minute mark, which doesn't bode well for getting that audience back next week.
Conservative flame blog Hog On Ice wrote: "Even in a world where the media are dominated by the left wing, you do NOT get twelve bad reviews to two good reviews just because you made fun of Hillary Clinton. This show SUCKS. You can't force your listeners to fill their eyes and ears with diarrhea every week until .5HNH becomes a success.
Great analysis. I wouldn't doubt that 1/2 the initial audience were liberals, some hoping for a train wreck, some taking a chance that there might be real comedy. Sadly, it wasn't either. In fact, it wasn't much of anything at all. The one thing it was, sadly, was not funny.
The numbers tell the tale. A lot of viewers tuned in who were not watching (It crushed Hannity's Amerika, although give Hannity credit, he is funnier, although a close friend insist that he is not doing an act trying to be the stupid-man's Colbert). But then everyone tuned out, and Oliver North's Illegal War Stories tanked. In the end, it appears that the 1/2 hour "Comedy" hour drove people away from Fox.
So it will get killed this week where they are just repeating the first episode against the Oscars. By the time the second episode runs in March, Its numbers will fall below Hannity as the liberal tune in factor will totally evaporate, and most conservatives won't tune in to watch something this unfunny just to "Stick it to the Man."
The one thing that could save it is becoming a comedy show instead of a polemic. But FOX has built the other 23.5 hours around that, so I wouldn't hold my breath. Thankfully, in a few months after FOX makes a token effort, this poor misshapen wreck of a show will be put out of its misery.
Posted by: JDB | February 23, 2007 at 02:30 AM
The point that FNC Ministers of Propoganda don't seem to get is that comedy is about being funny....on BOTH sides of any issue or event.
Some of SNL's best moments were with Phil Hartman and Darrell Hammond trashing Bubba, Al Gore etc. It doesn't matter what side of the fence you're on, as long as it's humorous in its premis.
And besides that, what in the hell is a news channel doing presenting a comedy show? Don't see MSNBC, C-SPAN, CNN, HDL etc doing anything like that, do you?
FNC...."WE DECIDE. YOU AGREE"
Posted by: Bill | February 23, 2007 at 08:08 AM
I agree that the show sucked. It is a piss poor excuse for comedy. It must get better or go away.
But how can anyone say that msnbc does not air comedy. What about Olberman? That show is the biggest joke on tv. He wins worst, worster and worstest news analysis program on tv and radio.
Posted by: chucks | February 23, 2007 at 08:56 AM
Well, Chucks, can you separate your disdain for the man from the stories on his show? If you focus in on the silly "worst" segment which is only his liberal opinion and not on any of the valid points he brings up in the other 20+ minutes of the show then what have you done? What about the items on the show that are flat out true and deserve scrutiny by any right thinking American? Shall we ignore them because we think the messenger is a lefty?
Posted by: cowpotpi3 | February 23, 2007 at 09:06 AM
I love this VedMed line:
(Answer to the question - Is this show worth 30 min of my time?)
"After watching the first two episodes of the show, my answer is an unequivocal "Yes" -- it's worth watching, worth supporting, even if the project is very much a work in progress which, along with a few laughs, delivers a few moments of embarrassing, unfunny, ineptitude."
So let me get this straight. Cons and Repugs are now supposed to watch this out of CHARITY? I'm pretty sure there's something better for conservative charity viewing - Daniel Eckstein (ICFJ) blubbering about the plight of poor and downtrodden jewish terrorists perhaps? Actually, I think an IFCJ infomercial might be better comedy. Nothing funnier than Eckstein getting his flappy tongue stuck on the roof of his mouth.
VedMed blathers on:
"I'm virtually certain that some mainstream or liberal critics (that's largely the same thing, by the way)"
Again with the conservative pathetic pansy-ass excuse for everything going wrong. This coming from a group who loves touting Personal Responsibility, blah blah blah.
The war ain't going bad - It's the America-hating MEDIA!
It's not a terrible attempt at comedy - It's those values-hating mainstream critics!
Occam's Razor says Iraq is a quagmire, and that shit ain't funny!
Posted by: mercifurious | February 23, 2007 at 09:19 AM
...and Fox laughs all the way to the bank!
Posted by: Duffman | February 23, 2007 at 09:21 AM
Chucks...Keith Olbermann's ratings are up 85% so you are sorta in the minority in your opinion of him. Bill Orally's ratings are way down. Yes, his audience is still bigger, but that is changing.
Posted by: sparky | February 23, 2007 at 09:27 AM
Duffy knowledge vaccuum alert.
Respect given only after evidence provided
Posted by: mercifurious | February 23, 2007 at 09:30 AM
..respect returned only after correct spelling
Posted by: Duffman | February 23, 2007 at 09:57 AM
this lame show is getting too much visibility. let's just stop talking about it and watch Penn & Teller's "Bullshit" instead.
Posted by: lukobe | February 23, 2007 at 10:03 AM
It does not surprise me that Olbermann's ratings are up or Oreily's are down. Nor do I care. I watch both programs a couple times per week. Both provide excellent analysis from their own points of view. It is my job to weed through the crap that both spew and decide for myself.
For the same reason I spend time here, SP, HA, and Malkins as well as others. Can't learn squat if you only pay attention to those who agree with you.
Here I have learned that I can't spell, I am forgettable etc. I have also learned that calling a certain senator dog derivative names offends people I do not wish to offend. So I have vowed never to do it again (and so far have been able to keep my word).
I also read another radio blog. It is national apparently and does little to satisfy my concerns and curiosities about local talk radio.
And as for being in the minority. Good grief, I am a Republican in western Washington. You think I'm not used to that?
Posted by: chucks | February 23, 2007 at 10:54 AM
heh..good point!
Posted by: sparky | February 23, 2007 at 11:01 AM
Chucks, earlier you trashed Olberman for being a joke...then you come back and state that you should listen to opposing viewpoints? Well which is it?
And be honest with yourself if you won't be honest with others. Michelle Malkin is by far a more trashy disgusting filth spewer than Olberman or any of the other lefties you are referencing. I say this because of her many hate filled words that feed the idiocy of her fans.
Posted by: cowpotpi3 | February 23, 2007 at 11:29 AM
cpp3,
I do think that KO is a joke and an idiot. Does that mean I should not watch his program? Heck no!Does that mean KO is incapable of having occasional good points? No. Again, I stand by my post. Not everything that KO says is true. Not everything that KO says is untrue. Same goes for OReily. Not all lefties are liars. Not all Righties are honest. Each sees the world through their own eyes. All are preaching to their own choirs. Malkin is all those those crappy things you say she is because you picked the glasses you are wearing today. You see only that which you chose to see based on your own slant.
So I will continue to view all sides and come to my own conclusions. And yes, the glasses I wear see at a right angle. But they do not automatically reflect away that which comes from the left.
Posted by: chucks | February 23, 2007 at 12:06 PM
I think you compare apples and oranges chucks. Olbermann is only a joke to you because the right has no sense of humor that isn't based on putting down the left. You take yourselves so seriously that nothing can be fodder for anything entertaining on the right.
How do you respond to those leftists Hollywoodites actually poking fun at Clinton on SNL?
I'm guessing you think O'Reilly (Paris Business Review) is not a joke? Correct?
Well, I would be interested in hearing some of the "untruth" that you've heard Olbermann say. Can you do?
Posted by: joanie | February 23, 2007 at 12:36 PM
Come on Joanie. I have been watching Saturday Night Live since the days of Radner, Akroyd, Curtain etc. They skewered Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton and now 43. And did a fine job on all. Usually funny. I do not watch it too much anymore. Not by choice. I just can't seem to stay up past 11:00 anymore unless I am out of the house. Got old I guess. As for O'Reilly, he says he is fair and balanced and I believe that he believes he is. I just see that he leans my way more than some of the others. I 100% support his efforts to get a version of Jessica's Law passed in all 50 states. Other than that he is just more information.
Where do you get off suggesting that the right does not have a sense of humor? Good grief girl, we have to look at ourselves in the mirror every morning... pre shaving, hair combing, face washing, tooth brushing etc. If you were to see what I have to see every morning. No sense of humor my donkey.
Is it pick on Chuck day just because I watch too much tv and listen to too much radio. My only point for the day was variety. Not to knock KO from his pedestal.(Hey Freemont, this spell checker thing is pretty cool. Now we just need a grammar checker)
Posted by: chucks | February 23, 2007 at 01:21 PM
In response to Joanie, Chucks Burps:
As for O'Reilly, he says he is fair and balanced and I believe that he believes he is.
Joanie's not arguing whether Herr Falafeloofa is right/left fair/balanced (note: O'Reilly is a registered Repug)
The "Paris Business Review" is a reference to Herr Falafeloofa being a lying sack of shit.
(Not unlike Duffman pulling Ritter facts/conclusions from his nether-regions and then hoping no one notices his bluff)
Posted by: mercifurious | February 23, 2007 at 01:51 PM
I did not catch the "Paris Business Review" part. It is not anything that I have read thus I still do not get the significance. Forgive my ignorance on that point. Gotta know what she talking about to know what she is talking about.
Now I shall google Paris Business Review and Bill O and see whats up.
Posted by: chucks | February 23, 2007 at 02:00 PM
spell-check: passed, respect granted
..don't think she needs your clarification!
Posted by: Duffman | February 23, 2007 at 02:01 PM
http://blog.myspace.com/mercifuln8
Posted by: meisha | February 23, 2007 at 02:02 PM
Duffman: Thank you for your only useful quality - spellchecking
Meisha: Thank you for the promo. Drop me a line sometime sweety. XOXXX
Posted by: mercifurious | February 23, 2007 at 02:07 PM
Thanks merci. You did get my point.
chucks, SNL used to be funny IMO but hasn't been for a long time. Mostly because in the old days (chase, radner, curtain, lorraine ?, belushi, ackroyd, morris) they were breaking new ground and it was so topical and downright funny. Also, today the talent's not so great and the material is stale.
The point was that everybody got skewered. The point is that funny depends on comedy and not politics. Those guys, Stewart and Colbert make fun of everybody.
You guys on the right can't laugh at yourselves. What's with that?
Forget looking at yourself in the mirror. What's that got to do with anything here?
So, you default to name calling again. Thus, your dissing of Olbermann. You don't have to like him . . . but he's not a joke. The lying O'Reilly has had a whole book written about him and his lying
Yet, you have not posted one example supporting your contention that Olbermann lies . . .
Duffman, same with you regarding Ritter . . . we have two clear examples here of name calling without a single example supporting your slur.
I don't get why you don't see that.
Randi just said that we have more people living in poverty today than we've had in thirty-two years. I think that is inexcusable.
Posted by: joanie | February 23, 2007 at 02:23 PM
don't think I'm guilty of name calling or slur (that's a real stretch); if so it was not intended, as I would not presume to 'classify' someone...but I would have an opinion of them formulated on my understanding of the 'facts' such as they are 'presented' to me...
Posted by: Duffman | February 23, 2007 at 02:44 PM
'Randi just said that we have more people living in poverty today than we've had in thirty-two years. I think that is inexcusable.'
Seems like you 'run' with the 'facts' you choose...was sufficient data/sources presented to you to back this up...
Posted by: Duffman | February 23, 2007 at 02:49 PM
OK, I just read the Paris Review thing. It was funny. Good gotcha.
It goes back to what I have said in the past. Politicians lie. Johnson lied, Nixon lied, Ford lied, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, 43 etc all lied. They all lie to get into office and will continue to lie to stay there.
Our beloved tv and radio folks are the same. If it is not a blatant lie, than it is twisted to the point that it suits the hosts position. Randi may be correct that more people are living in poverty today than in any time in the last thirty two years. To take the rights slant to the story, how many of those people are illegal immigrants? Or how many jobs have the illegal immigrants taken that those people in poverty could have taken? How many of those people have DVD players, cable tv, computers, ipods etc. How many of those people dropped out of school or took drugs to get where they are. It is inexcusable that so many people are living in poverty. We provide good schools. We provide job training and we provide safety nets for people in need. We even give employers tax incentives to help them hire people off of welfare.
No child in this country should go hungry or without basic medical care. But damn it, dad needs to get a job.
Oh, did Randi mention that more people of all stations own their own homes now than ever before.
It is all perspective.
Is the glass half empty, half full, or just poorly designed.
Posted by: chucks | February 23, 2007 at 02:51 PM
Duff, you're funny! At least I gave a source . . . so your defense of no sources is that I only gave one?
hahahaha ha thanks for a good laugh!
Posted by: joanie | February 23, 2007 at 02:51 PM
.but I would have an opinion of them formulated on my understanding of the 'facts' such as they are 'presented' to me...
Yeah, we know. You think Ritter's conclusions were not accurate, yadda yadda yadda. Again, not unlike O'Reilly, pulling claims out one's ass, and hoping no one will notice.
Still waiting on these facts/conclusions, Duffy..
que: jeopardy theme
Posted by: mercifurious | February 23, 2007 at 02:52 PM
Just for your Duff . . . (I went to her website and got her source which makes two sources for me . . . keeping track?
"U.S. economy leaving record numbers in severe poverty"
Hmm, do I have to research everything I pass on? If I tell you where I got it, shouldn't that be enough? It is certainly more than you give me. . . :)
Posted by: joanie | February 23, 2007 at 02:55 PM
Ouch! did I hit a bit of a nerve...
lo ciento mucho
Posted by: Duffman | February 23, 2007 at 02:55 PM
I'm not the one 'hung up' on sources; I welcome everything you say (and filter it accordingly)...you always make for good reading (& thought)...
Posted by: Duffman | February 23, 2007 at 03:02 PM
Funny how Chucks re-directs the focus here:
OK, I just read the Paris Review thing. It was funny. Good gotcha
As if the people who implimented the "gotcha" were the key, and not the lying sack of shit. This is why I never trust a word this goon emits.
By the way Spellmeister Duffman, I hope you've enjoyed our demonstrations of source citation.
It's easy, really:
Claim:
"Bill O'Reilly is a lying sack of shit"
Source:
Transcript Excerpt from Fox News Channel Broadcast
The O'Reilly Factor, April 27, 2004.
O'REILLY: Now if the [Canadian] government -- if your government harbors these two deserter [sic], doesn't send them back ... there will be a boycott of your country which will hurt your country enormously. France is now feeling that sting.
MALLICK: I don't think for a moment such a boycott would take place because we are your biggest trading partners.
O'REILLY: No, it will take place, madam. In France ...
MALLICK: I don't think that your French boycott has done too well ...
O'REILLY: ...they've lost billions of dollars in France according to "The Paris Business Review."
MALLICK: I think that's nonsense.
Posted by: mercifurious | February 23, 2007 at 03:06 PM
merci, I can only repeat . . . this is why Bush is a two-term president who lied us into a war and continues to kill . . .
Duff . . . sources are important . . . what more is there to say? :(
Posted by: joanie | February 23, 2007 at 03:09 PM
Hey, you're on a new shift now . . . ? Nice to talk during the daylight!
Posted by: joanie | February 23, 2007 at 03:11 PM
I'm not the one 'hung up' on sources
True. Your hang up is more about spouting-off your fat yap without backup.
Duffy - love the way you're trying to spin, swerve, and dodge the inevitable BS mack truck.
Ritter? Facts? Conclusions? Still waiting for you to reclaim your manhood.
Posted by: mercifurious | February 23, 2007 at 03:13 PM
C'mon merci, you don't have that long to live! Anyone on the right supporting their claims? Oh gosh . . . you do dream, don't you?
Duff, might you surprise me someday and actually know what you're talking about? :)
Posted by: joanie | February 23, 2007 at 03:17 PM
merci,
What do you want me to say? I acknowledge that O'Reilly got caught in a lie. It was a good (even very good) gotcha. And if I am a goon, I assure you that I am a harmless goon. The worst that I might do is share a thought or opinion. Unlike some posters here, I recognise that even I can be wrong. you prove me wrong on anything and it is ok. Learned years ago to listen to all sides including what I don't want to hear.
Posted by: chucks | February 23, 2007 at 03:21 PM
chucks . . . who are listening to that you don't want to hear?
fill me in . . . did you listen to Randi? Everything she says is sourced. Everything. What could be better than that if you want to be informed?
Posted by: joanie | February 23, 2007 at 03:26 PM
chucks . . . are you listening to Rachel Maddow right now?
Posted by: joanie | February 23, 2007 at 03:28 PM
And if I am a goon, I assure you that I am a harmless goon.
No, O'Reilly is the goon. You noted earlier:
Both (OR & KO) provide excellent analysis from their own points of view.
Yes, his point about France losing billions from his boycott (lie) according to the "PBR" (lie) was EXCELLENT analysis.
Chucks, why would you trust someone's analysis - anyone's - who compulsively lies like this?
Posted by: mercifurious | February 23, 2007 at 03:49 PM
No Randi in the last two days. And again, I in no way doubt what you said. Perhaps foolish of me, but I believe what you posted. You have never done anything to make me doubt your postings. But by my not having heard the program, I just asked the questions.
Poverty is real in this country. No debate from me on that. What is the solution to poverty? Who is responsible for poverty? Kids need food, a place to sleep and a place to learn.
Dad needs to get a job and feed his kids. The kids need a good education so they can get jobs when the time comes. How many of the poor are single moms with young kids? How do we fix that?
joanie, we have been fussing over poverty in this country since the great depression. We thought that Pres. Johnson had the cure with the Great Society. How do we get people to work?
Damned if I know the cure. But the professionals can't seem to fix it either.
Blame Bush. But that still doesn't fix it. Maybe if we get a D president, it will be fixed.
Oh wait, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter and Clinton could not get it done.
Neither did Nixon, Ford, Reagan or the two Bushes. What can we do?
I personally will just continue with charitable contributions and maybe take up praying.
Posted by: chucks | February 23, 2007 at 03:51 PM
As my favorite President said. "trust but verify".
Hey, I have lied a few times in my life. That is why my first wife fired me.
I had just read the French Review posting for April 1, 2004 and it was funny. I may have fallen for it myself if joannie had not schooled me first.
Posted by: chucks | February 23, 2007 at 03:57 PM
Note: Herr Falafeloofa and KO provide entertainment (once in a while) but not analysis. The McGloughlin Group fits this mold too. Other than that...
Unbiased Information:
National Security Archive
Real News and Analysis:
(no 24 hrs of Anna Nicole/Jacko crap)
McNeil Lehrer
Point Set Match.
Posted by: mercifurious | February 23, 2007 at 04:01 PM
Throwing hands up in the air and blaming people for not getting jobs doesn't fit it.
Jobs are now overseas . . . thanks to a damn Dem named Clinton.
What do we do? We use tax money to make sure there's a safety net for all people, chucks. That's what we do.
We quit giving huge subsidies to corporations and give them to people - dads, moms, children - none of whom are perfect - but we give them a place to live, food to eat and an education.
That's what we do, chucks.
And, yes, there will always be poverty . . . maybe . . . but it doesn't have to be the highest. There is a difference between 5%, 15% and 32% . . . especially when we are funding a war for oil and overpaying Haliburton.
But, citizens who keep voting for warmongers and corporate subsidies will never be part of the solution.
That's what you can do. Choose your candidates better.
Posted by: joanie | February 23, 2007 at 04:04 PM
No Joanie. We do not give them a place to live. We provide them with an opportunity to get an education. We provide them with the opportunity to get a job. All those evil corporations provide us with jobs so that we the people can pay taxes and support our government an our families.
You went to the same public schools I went to. Maybe different dist but basically the same. We get out of bed and go to work. We pay our bills and buy our stuff. The stuff we buy helps others work and buy more stuff.
I am more than willing to help anybody I can to move up in life. But not those capable folks that wont help themselves.
I have had some great jobs in my life and some that really sucked.
But never was I unable to find a job. Maybe it is because I got a modest public education.
But, the kids still need food and that we shall provide.
Posted by: chucks | February 23, 2007 at 04:21 PM
Maybe chucks it was because you and I are of a post war boom time when jobs were plentiful. Ever think of that?
You are representative of a whole group-think that will forever believe you did it all yourselves.
I got a job in high school for a company that is struggling to survive today. I went to college for $160 a quarter. I lived at a time of prosperity which resulted from a war boom . . . we were still benefiting from Roosevelt and Johnson's social programs. You took it but you don't want to let others have it . . . shameful.
You did it at a time when companies had ethics and provided reasonable healthcare and good pensions.
You did it at a time when employment with one company was pretty standard and you got the gold watch at the end.
You did it when employment in manufacturing was possible as opposed to serving up french fries.
and you did it when a janitor could afford to rent a house just like I did.
No, you didn't do it all by yourself. And you are very arrogant to think you are so much better than those who can't do it by themselves today.
And your Christian charity isn't worth a dime . . . and Jesus would not defend that statement you made. He was a poor man.
Goodness is a matter of heart . . . not bean counting or coaching. You either want to take care of people and let all people live a decent life or you want to blame them.
Well, the right seems to find the most satisfaction name calling the left, so I guess there's no reason to think it would stop at politics.
You are a mean-spirited group of people. With your way of thinking, we'll have 50% poverty pretty soon. I wonder when it will stop, chucks.
Perhaps when one of your own can't find a job or afford college. Or has no parents because they got born to parents too young . . . might be closer than you think, hmm?
Posted by: joanie | February 23, 2007 at 04:41 PM
You would rather see money go to Haliburton and overpaid CEOs than see a regular guy get a break . . . or a kid have a place to live and an education. shameful!
Posted by: joanie | February 23, 2007 at 04:42 PM
Excuse me Joannie. The dynamics of the whole damn world have changed sense we were kids. When we were kids, our dads worked and our moms stayed home. The companies did not give sh*t. Our fathers fought hard for every dollar they got. Unions, strikes etc.
Now dad and mom are both working. That almost doubled the work force. But did not double the jobs. That brought down pay I am sure.
What Christian charity are you talking about? I give heavily to food banks. I want to feed the kids. Is that a Christian thing or a human thing?
Never said that I did it all by myself. But I will say that I used every tool given to me. Mostly the help of some wonderful teachers.
You paint the right with a very broad brush. It would scare me if you treated everybody that way.
Those pensions given so freely (fought for by our fathers) have been the downfall some businesses.
We now must put $ in 401k plans and budget our retirements.
I am not a mean spirited group of people. I share to a fault I am told. I believe in giving and helping.
But dad still needs to get a job and feed his family.
Posted by: chucks | February 23, 2007 at 05:15 PM
...and here I thought only O'Reilly bloviated...
Posted by: Duffman | February 23, 2007 at 05:16 PM
chucks . . . my mother never stayed at home. She worked from 7AM to 7pm. I got myself and my brother out the door to school at 9 years old.
Posted by: joanie | February 23, 2007 at 05:21 PM
Pensions were not the downfall of business. Poor management and including pensions as assets of a corporation were their downfall. All corporate decisions.
Pooling money should never be a detriment to a company. It is simply a pool of money that managed well should have netted gains over time.
You find excuses for corporations - which overpay CEOs who manage badly.
What is that all about? Where did you get such a loyalty to The Man?
Posted by: joanie | February 23, 2007 at 05:24 PM