Lang and O'Leary Exchange, CBC Newsworld
http://www.cbc.ca/programguide/program/the_lang_oleary_exchange
So here's the thing.
Over the holidays, I was looking for a bit of news on something, so I turned to CBC Newsworld, only to catch this Kevin O'Leary guy pustulating not just right wing blither blather, but hackneyed right wing blither blather.
I recognize O'Leary from the Discovery chanel, and know of him from Dragon's Den commercials. But all I really know is that he's some rich business guy. Which is okay, I don't automatically take a dislike to business people, even right wing ones. We all have our perspectives.
But what irked me was that CBC is publically owned, and they are subsidizing this bloviator a podium that he can well afford to buy on his own. With, amoung other people's, my money.
I find that loathesome.
But wait! There's More!
Like I said above, I don't automatically dislike someone who has been sucessfull in business just because they've been sucessfull in business. Hey, knock yourself out if that's what you want to do.
But O'Leary isn't a business person, per se. He's an entrepenuer, which is spin for speculator, which is spin for parasite. All he's done is buy and sell companies. Maybe he adds value to them. Maybe not. I know Matel inc., has thoughts on the subject.
For just Shipping and Handling, I can also tell you O'Leary serves on many boards and such of private equity firms, and it's difficult for me to understand how his "reports" on business are reliably free from conflict of interest.
But, if you act now, you can see the importation of Fox's "HANNITY and (colmes) " act, where O'Leary spouts outrageous outrageries and Lang looks on, nods and looks pretty.
So, if you've seen it, am I on track here? Or am I just an old crank looking for excuses to be upset?
You are on the money, and O'leary now has a new gig by Mark Burnett, called the Shark's Pond, or something like that, which is a steal from the Dragons Den, which is airing on Global this Friday...
Are those two questions mutually exclusive?
Yes, that is a false dichotomy.
Okay. Can this old crank looking for an excuse to be upset be accidentally on track here?
Yep,that show sucks and i resent the public'smoney being used to pay his wage and give us such stupid right wing rhetoric...
he actually says the following thought terminating cliche to guy on the new show, as indicated by the trailers...
"don't cry for money, it never cries for you".
WTH? it doesn't even make sense
And yet they think it is worthy trailer material.
Tommy you are right the show is shat and also very misleading about what real business people actually think and do.
Excellent observation, but I would add "most" to business people, as I have met business people, who do think like O'Leary, sadly.
True enough
Most of his activity revolves around vulture (ahem, "venture") capitalism.
He sure seems to be modelled on Don Cherry. Sad that CBC is reducing its business coverage to a clown playing to the far right.
He sure seems to be modelled on Don Cherry. Sad that CBC is reducing its business coverage to a clown playing to the far right.
Yeah, except Don Cherry was the Don Cherry of hockey, so I can see why that kind of tough guy character in a hockey context might be popular with sports fans (not that I'm a fan)
On the other hand, no one likes watching some bald asshole in a suit act like scrooge, the Monopoly Man, Bernie Madoff, and a 19th century industrialist thrown into a blender, especially after assholes like this guy are the reason why they lost their jobs, their houses, or their retirement savings.
And Lang and O'Leary is considered a hit.
I've only watched the show, if it can be called that, a few times. It's fun, because O'Leary is over the top and Lang is, well, Lang. But it's not really business news that a businessperson can use, unless you're simply in the money game. Meat puppets drive the new CBC, not information.
From what I understand, the CBC hired consultants for their TV operations. The consultants pushed the CBC towards a CNN format, with all the baggage that brings with such a move.
Lang and O'Leary will only grow, I suspect. Unless both are given larger roles.
Shouldn't there be a show called "Dragon Slayers" where people take these types out...metaphorically speaking that is
There was an interview with O'Leary in yesterday's Globe. He is Ms. C's favourite dragon. I'm partial to Brent. Despite it being primarily entertainment, I have a much better understanding of venture capitalism, marketing etc. since beginning to watch it.
I had an office mate in the mid-eighties who was a member of the IS. He read the Golbe business section religiously. His rationale " No thy enemy."
But what irked me was that CBC is publically owned, and they are subsidizing this bloviator a podium that he can well afford to buy on his own. With, amoung other people's, my money.
I find that loathesome.
Yeah well get used to it. That's how public programming works. Just because we pay your taxes doesn't give us veto power over CBC's programming decisions. The CBC isn't mandated to showcase just the opinions of people who can't otherwise afford to do it, or people whose opinions you don't like.
I have complained in writing about the Lang O'Leary program several times to the CBC, and have encouraged others to do the same.
There is a bigger issue here than just whether you like what they are saying. If you agree with the precept that we need to move to a more society oriented, equality-based system, one which also needs to be sustainable, then the Chicago School economic ideas being promoted by O'learey are about the worst thing possible for a society that needs to move forwared into a more socially responsible, greener world. If there were a stronger advocate who could effectively argue against O'Leary's points, then that would be fine, but Lang usually get's steamrolled.
O'Leary's premise that "only money counts" is pure Reagan/Thatcherism, and has been shown not to have worked over the past 30 years....yes, money and investment return counts, but it's also about society, employees, the environment and long term sustainability. People seem to have forgotten that some of the biggest corporations grew fastest in the past, when they employed those more wholistic values...IBM is an example.
The other O'Learyism, is that if government has something to do with it it must be bad. That's nonnsense! Consumer Report, a while back, did a survey on the results of De-regulation after Reagan...in almost all cases, after a brief drop in prices, consumer prices went higher than the pre-deregulation trend shortly after. With privatization it's the same thing. After the private companies have added in all sorts of sneaky charges (customer fees, service fees, read-the-meter fees etc), we end up with higher costs, worse service and worst of all no political accountability for many of the services that used to be public but are now private.
I would love to have public auto insurance in Ontario, it's a much better system in BC and Manitoba. Ontarioi had to cancel it's plans for a public system because it was feared that it would be challenged under NAFTA.
The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives (CCPA- I thoroughly recommend their monthly "Monitor" for those who haven't seen it) came out with estimates that the average Canadian get's in the region of $42K worth of value annually from taxes paid. This is significantly more than the amount paid by most of us. In other words taxes are often good value for money.
But try telling any of this to O'Leary. It's a shame that the CBC would put such a fossil on it's business program, just when we need Canadian Businesses to come up with new ideas for our changing society.
O'Leary puts a face on the ugly Canadian, he celebrates greed, ignorance and arrogance, all in all extemely offensive but then not surprising given that money is the measure of success in our society. The fact that CBC would promote him is a clear indication that their priorities have changed. This is just one of the reasons I have no respect for the CBC.
Edit: Well that was harsh, it would be more accurate to say my respect and support for the CBC has greatly diminished in the part few years.
Can't stand him most of all from that brit rip off Dragons Dunce. More drivel from cbc. Lang is a right winger anyway. She is all business as well. It's a complete farce and a waste of half an hour. Complaint going in.
From what I've heard of their pairing on CBC, I think their pairing on the old Report on Business Television was more professional and less "political."
An odd stance for a guy who has not one, but two shows on the CBC!
Well hypocracy has always been rightwingers strong suit. As long as the government is helping them it is OK. Like bailing out companies such as banks, allow them to go into defict(something any left government would be hung for in the media), subsidising oil. you know priorities.
Agreed thorin_bane, and you know the media is really complicit in this hypocrisy and crap spewing and other such classist shit.
Today on curling they had the audacity to refer to curlers that have won an cup or medal as "curling royalty", wth is with all this nonsense about rock royalty, fashion royalty, politcal royalty, etc etc.....they are really tryy to sew class divisions.
next thing ya know, O'Leary will be being referred to as "venture capital royalty"
"But O'Leary isn't a business person, per se. He's an entrepenuer, which is spin for speculator, which is spin for parasite."
I agree with you about O'Leary being a parasite, but dispute your definition of entrepenuership. Someone running a pizza parlor is a business owner, whereas an entrepenuer is someone more willing/able to apply innovation and higher risk in order to create for example, a chain of pizza stores. For me, entrepenuership is just taking the practice of self employment to a higher level, and requires 3 key criteria, namely creativity, risk exposure, and heightened energy expenditure (financial, physical & emotional).
"There is a bigger issue here than just whether you like what they are saying. If you agree with the precept that we need to move to a more society oriented, equality-based system, one which also needs to be sustainable, then the Chicago School economic ideas being promoted by O'learey are about the worst thing possible for a society that needs to move forwared into a more socially responsible, greener world."
IMO, what you seem to be suggesting is a socialist system in Canada. If so, I would counter that this country is already one of the most socialist countries on this planet, and becoming even more so, would be counter productive. Canadian society is one that subscribes to the concept of "Forced Egalitarianism", i.e everyone is equal, and where averageness seems to be the ultimate goal.
What this country needs is "more" inhabitants with passion, drive, and personal initiative. More people not afraid to stand out, and who in fact relish it. If "more" Canadians placed a higher priority on excellence for themselves, and lived less vicariously through the success or failure of our hockey team's, we might someday have a nation of people as great as the country itself.
While I am most certainly right wing with regard to business matters, left of center is best for social issues. Afterall a country is only as great as its ability to take care of those people less fortunate.
I like Amanda Lang, but I absolutely can not stand O'Leary. I think he brings down the credibility of the show, and CBC made a huge mistake having him on, just like they did with having that Kory Tenecke fellow weigh in on Power and Politics.
IMO, what you seem to be suggesting is a socialist system in Canada. If so, I would counter that this country is already one of the most socialist countries on this planet, and becoming even more so, would be counter productive. Canadian society is one that subscribes to the concept of "Forced Egalitarianism", i.e everyone is equal, and where averageness seems to be the ultimate goal.
That's a myth used to rile western Canadians who are told to believe that being born on third base(with the oil and gas) is the same as hitting a home run in terms of economic competitiveness. And western conservatives tend to believe whatever it is corporate lackies feed them. Afterall when theyre being robbed blind on oil royalties and profits siphoned off from under their feet at a frenzied pace, they have to tell them something.
Canada used to be an aspiring social democracy in the 1960's and 70's. That all changed beginning about the time that Milton Friedman praised Bank of Canada governor Gerald Buoey for his speech on monetarist monetarism in 1975. Since neoliberal ideology became the way in Canada, the country's gross national debt has skyrocketed and foreign ownership and control has become a significant feature of the Canadian economy.
I would say that Canada more resembles a rightwing Libertarian's dream come true. That is, Canada has become a group of loosely affiliated provinces governed by weak and ineffective central government Ottawa. Supranational corporations love dealing with weaker territorial governments than strong central ones. And this is essentially what successive colonial administrativeships in Ottawa have created on the advice of neoliberal ideologues in the US and Canadian rightwing think tanks and as favours to Bay Street and marauding international capital. If there is socialism in Canada today, it is socialism for the rich. And it's time to get the rich off welfare.
Gotta go with Fidel on this.
ME too if this is socialism I have no idea what a libertarian dream would be. Though I do think we are now heading into a totalitarian government. At least for an industrialized nation. Obviously this posters knows nothing of any eurpoean countries if he/she thinks canada is socialist. The only thing they can point to these days is healthcare...go figure the one thing all canadians love and it socialism given the chance to flourish.
I agree Boom Boom, Kory the Tory gets on my nerves almost as much as Evan. Evan letting him say what he wants without question and always allowed the last word makes Evan worse in my books. An enabler as it were. I thought Tim Powers was POS but this guy makes him look moderate. The right plays down and dirty without respect or worrying about lying. We have to concern ourselves about appearances because our people expect us to hold a standard while theirs support them even when facts tell them how corrupt they are. Stunning.
I like Amanda Lang as a reporter and a fill-in anchor (and not just because she "looks pretty"), but this kind a program calls for a debate between opposing viewpoints. Judy Rebick debating Clair Hoy worked in that regard. The Lang and O'Leary Exchange doesn't.
I don't like O'Leary either, but he said something the other night that I think some of us would agree with. O'Leary said he is critical of this government's decision to subsidize Bombardier to the tune of so many billion dollars. As for myself, I like the idea of subsidizing a Canadian company, and they should have supported Nortel with strings attached. A Bombardier spokesperson said that Bombardier receives certain defence contracts, and that governments around the world subsidize defence research and development anyway. But I think that most economists would say that funnelling too much money into one basket is not good in terms of diversified economy and that concentrating investment in one most likely hurts job creation in other sectors. I can understant that as well as the moral issue of funding guns as opposed to butter end of the economy.
And then O'Leary said something startling. He said that most multi-billion dollar earnings corporations are looking to get out of North America and mainly due to the financial crises. That doesn't sound very promising. Or, perhaps it's an indication that there will be, has to be, significant change to the financial system and even western world monetary system driven by Friedmanite monetarist-monetarism itself. Michael Hudson says that this will have to happen within the next ten years, no doubt about it.
Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
I agree with Scott P, Amanda Lang has got something convincing going on in that I am more interested in business news when she is delivering it on The National, or subbing in on the main. No airs of a jerky Bay Street suit who argues for the hell of it.
She has a classic 1940's air about her like Kathrine Hepburn or Babe Bennett (!)
Strong sisters reading the news, about time!!!
Peter makes me all sleepy like. He only perks up when Claire Martin shows up and even then its tepid. "ha ha here's claire..."
I like all of the subs actually, specifically Mesley, the dapper "Ben" that appears every once in a while and of course - Hanomansing!
Now if they would only draft Hebert...
Vancouver CBC got Tony Parsons from Global TV, and he has replaced Hanomansing on the 6pm news cast with Gloria, so one wonders what Hanomansing is going to be up to, other than just field reporting.
O'Leary needs to bugger off, he is just feeding at the taxpayer's trough that he professes to hate happening so much. Apparently it is non-applicable to himself.
But then Peter and Wendy need to too.....
I think a better idea than subsidizing Bombardier directly would be for the taxpayer to be a better customer of Bombardier. It achieves the same ends-- protecting jobs, promoting and protecting a home grown world leader in technology, and at the end of the day, we'd have something tangable to show for it, like a high speed rail line, with Bombardier rolling stock.
I have a 2003 Bombarder 380 skidoo. Last winter was so mild, I only put 2 km on it - and I usually put on 1,500 every winter.
Thinkin on the high speed rail line benefits for the west......
what do you think tommy?
About five years ago, I was surplussed from my position in the Quality Assurance department in the plant. While I know I provided value for what I did, and I allways did more than was asked for me, a decision was made that all hourly people should be hands on, adding value to the product.
And that's the way you do things when reality rears it's ugly head. You have to make sure everyone is adding value. Putting, more than taking, might be another way of looking at things.
Trouble is, our entire economy in the last twenty years has been fantasy based. I'm not sure how or why those tough old bastards in manufacturing allowed control of the economy out of their hands and into the hands of speculators, but they did.
So, in the reality based economy what you see is a slow recovery. Inventories have been cleared, and the next step is to slowly pay off the "bubble" of debt created by venture capitalists who have "flipped" reality based industries to create artificial value.
This is going to take a long time. Longer than anyone dares say.
In the mean time, what have we done? We've established that large elements of the fantasy based economy, like Fanny Mae, Freddie Mac, etc., are "too big to fail". They know that they can do what they want, and if it all goes bad, WE will pay the piper.
But we don't get to call the tune. There's been no serious new regulations as of yet in any financial juristiction. Like it or don't, we are living in a "global economy", yet there's no global consensus on how these financial too big to fail business are to be regulated.
So, the parasitic fantasy based economy is still supreme.
We narrowly avoided another Great Depression by the skin of our teeth. Next time, and it will be in the next decade, we cannot possibly be so lucky.
TP:
"Trouble is, our entire economy in the last twenty years has been fantasy based. I'm not sure how or why those tough old bastards in manufacturing allowed control of the economy out of their hands and into the hands of speculators, but they did."
They really had no say in it, TP. People went from investing in trusted stocks to equity ventures that paid the most. Suddenly there was no allegiance. It became a competion among money managers to see who could provide their clients with the best returns...and devil take the hindmost. Unfortunately, our pension funds, yours and mine, also became part of this game, so we've been doing it to ourselves for some time now (the Chicago School's thinking blessed it all) and we don't know how to get off. You will see some attempts to solve the riddle in thanks's offerings in other threads. We will have to (painfully) dump the global perspective and regain sovereignty over the use of our investment (retirement) funds. It will mean coming to terms with the historical processes that got us here...and with Pogo's famous declaration about the location of the enemy camp.
We sure as shucks aren't gong to shake that "parasitic fantasy based economy" without understanding the extent of our dependencies and the precariousness of the welfare state as a whole.
Dragon's Den - Canada's GONG show - as for Kevin - rude & now boring - I wouldn't go into business with him even if he was the last person on earth
double sorry
biggest open jackass at the CBC...I am sure there are more like him just not on air or putting their views forth. He makes cherry seem almost normal.
It's a strange show. O'Leary tells Amanda Lang that he's worried she doesn't have enough of her portfolio invested in China. KO says China is where it's at financially. Lang says, "Oh, no the US economy will miraculously climb out of the doldrums. O'Leary just laughs that comment off and points to a dead snail's pace economic growth in the US and affecting Canada for years to come.
I hate to say it but Kevin O'Leary does speak the truth from time to time. It's obvious from Amanda Lang's facial expressions that she is gauled by what KO says half the time. I wish she would speak up in those moments and say what's on her mind. I think she knows her stuff but should let us know that she does at the same time. She's making KO look good for some reason imo. She's too damn polite. She should unload on him. Ratings would soar.
Its like what chomsky says. A lot of the time the right tell you what the think and do, he mentions the washington post. While the more centrist media does infotainment and distraction. "Why do they hate us" mame.
Doesnt mean its what we want but they tell the people in power the ideas they should all share, even if mainstream calls it fringe it really isn't.
Einstein already said something about the unsustainability of "predatory capitalism", but I like my formulation. "Competition is for losers."
When oh when will the CBC realize that this is a much better show without Kevin O'Leary. It is such a pleasure to watch this show when O'Leary is away and Amanda has another co-host. There is intelligent discussion and opinions and it is possible to watch the entire show without havin to listen to O'Leary's constant harping and totally stupid commentary. Thank heavens for the PVR so I can fast forward pretty much everything Kevin says. Without it I would have to stop watching this show.
Must we be continually subjected to O'Leary's constant drivel about government intervention and corporate taxes. Maybe the government wouldn't feel the need to intervene in the markets so much if it weren't for vermin like him who will do anything to anyone to make a buck. We will be much better off when we get rid of the O'Leary's of this world who think that everything and everyone exists simply for their profit and exploitation. It's also embarassing to listen to some of the stupid questions he asks the guests who appear to be too polite to call him a jackass.
Perhaps the CBC has taken the US model of controversial and shock TV and this program is supposed to be more "entertainment" than serious news or discussion. Either way I think you could find someone more "entertaining" than O'Leary. He is just "nauseating".
You should see the interview Buckner did with this marshmellow. He got all cry baby because he remember the ONE SINGLE DAY in his life he worked for someone else. He was in a shop and at the end of the day the shop keeper told him to clean the gum off the floor. Well kev-o up and quit.
This from the same guy who argues to use people however you can. He sure didn't like it.
Is this where Canada's welfare losers hang out? Kevin O'Leary is more interesting than the entire tribe of communist hacks who populate the rest of the CBC, and the jealous dumb bells here who envy him. You'd like to get your own greedy paws on his money though, eh?
...Aaaaand that's BobbyB done. Thanks for dropping by.
You never let us have a troll to play with.
You never let us have a troll to play with.
I love it when the scare mongers start calling eveyone who likes a balanced view "communist", guess most of them aren't too creative and don't like to think too hard so throwing out this phrase is a no brainer. If Bobby finds Kevin so interesting there are several places he can watch him or there are now a myriad of "Reality Shows" which is just mostly ass&*les on parade which he might also find interesting because they are just more of the same.
As for being jealous of all his money, having money isn't a bad thing. How you get it might be.
O'Leary got his fame being a big mouth, unfortunately it's not a new concept. It just amazes me that there are people who still find it interesting. He has no idea what he's talking about half the time and he never let's facts get in the way of his opinions. If you find loud and arrogant interesting, I guess he's right up your alley.
BTW he loves the "communists" - China is his new BFF.
Exactly peejay(china) lang is a lightweight who loves the states, not very objective just a Continentalist, and certainly isn't leftwing. Has she ever advocated nationalizing anything even nessesities. So its like Colmes and Hannity. Or our very own Dumbass Trump to stink up the joint at the CBC. Bobby B would be the first one of these idiots crying(as he does in his post) about the leftwing bias on the CBC. If it was then how does O'Leary, Evan Soloman, Cherry, Rex Murphy, Andrew Coyne etc etc etc have their jobs. Can't fix stupid I guess.
This show is another replacement for something worthwhile with pure entertainment with side order of propaganda.
Bring back counter spin and inside media
O'Leary has now made his way to the Discovery Channel and fixing the environment by "commercial" means.
You'd like to get your own greedy paws on his money though, eh?
Yes, but only to equitably redistribute it to those comrades in need.
I'd be fine if we taxed the crap out of that (epithet of choice) so he had nothing left-- a new O'Leary bracket at 100%.
You mean you are not on board for the world citizens paying for a fleet of remote controled ships spewing out salt water steam into the clouds to cool the atmospere to the tune of several trillion dollars, Sean?
O'Leary liked it because; "it is such a simple" solution.
As opposed to the other solution, put forth by O'Leary and his team of scientists, of building a big deflector sheild made out of 9 trillion little lenses to deflect the sun rays, at a estimated cost of 17 trillion, or so. This shield would orbit around the planet. No mention made of space debris, or the yearly meteor showers and how it would impact the shield. Nor actually anything rational.
But...I suppose we could take heart though, at least O'Leary acknowleges there is global warming occuring and fixing it needs to occur.
Not so fast Remind-- He has identified a concern for global warming and is trying to figure out a way to make money from it-- doesn't mean he actually believes in it...
True enough.....
Doubting Thomases
No just stealing from peter to pay paul :)
O'Leery sounds like he is of the same mentality of those who might see an oil spill as a windfall opportunity to make money. Bogus green technologies, environmental disasters, it makes little diff to them where profit is concerned.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FhE57NFuYxE
He describes himself and starts to cry about the one day he HAD to work. Complete narcissist. And yes anything for money Fidel.
Cute video. Too bad his experience didn't humble him but only made him a bitter self absorbed man. To use words he'd understand
"Kevin, you add no value". Too bad the CBC can't see that.
Hope he never loses his money, he doesn't have any redeeming qualities to fall back on.
I have a feeling he may be one of those people with a swiss bank account. Though we probably will never know as the feds don't look like they want that list to be published too bad. Now spending some time in jail would be humbling for this pompus ass.
The CBC kinda surprises me by still having Craig Simpson on HNiC. He and Jamie Sale left their spouses because of battle of the blades. I guess they are having some problems with these couples getting to intimate during their skates. If it breaks up another marriage will they continue with it? I mean it goes against the whole wholesome family imagine they are trying to cultivate for HNiC-you kjnow cuz right whinner Cherry says so.
You're dissapointed that CBC is publicly owned and giving O'Leary airtime? Since when is CBC a exclusive platform for the "poor guy?" Maybe we should exclude short people, and what the hell, lets exclude women too! You're just jealous that your're not some (smart) rich business guy!
Disappointed, at the risk of a spelling flame war, is one of the mildest words that could be used to describe ones thoughts about Kevin O'Leary appearing anywhere. And while there's plenty of smarts and a few people in business around here, no one to my knowledge would ever admit to being rich, especially during fundraising week.
Right is Right is a troll and is now banned.
Yep,that show sucks and i resent the public'smoney being used to pay his wage and give us such stupid right wing rhetoric...
CBC News Network is funded by cable subscriber fees and commercial advertising. Unlike the CBC's main television network, the channel cannot directly receive operational funds from the corporation's public funding allotment - although it does benefit from synergies with other CBC services, such as the ability to share reporters and programs with the main network.[1]
One of my guilty pleasures is Dragons' Den. I refer to O'Leary as Ms. C's boyfriend.
I don't know ..I think it's good for Canadians to see the true side of the cut throat neocon business man...They might even learn something ..and Lang seems to always take the side of the union worker or the common folk so you see the heart felt emotional side contrasting with the evil "give me all your money, at all cost" side of O'leary.
Blow torching unions and salting the earth the workers stood on...if a lefty started talking blow torching and salting they wouldn't get the time of day and right wing intellects (if there is such a thing) and basket cases would be screaming criminal charge till they were hoarse. So yeah I think it's good for Canadians to see the kind of snakes that rip off their pension and investment money....
Of course this could backfire on the CBC...when the newly converted simpleton conservative follower looks at the CBC as a waste of tax payer money that should be sold for a profit...following the - money at all cost philosophy.
I must admit that I'm not an anti-business socialist'.
People should have the freedom to become as wealthy as they like...I don't see anything fundamentally wrong with selling a service or a good.
But it's HOW someone becomes wealthy that I have a problem with.
If your obscene profit margins can only be sustained at the cost of those who are only enjoying mere crumbs from the financial pie and your wealth is from the capitalization of poverty,I have a problem.
I also find that many businesses (banks,insurance firms,petroleum giants,credit vendors and big pharma need not be mentioned) are more dishonest and crooked than say 30 years ago...There is alot of scamming going on.
I'd also like to point out that the economy,our debt and our enemic job market can and should be blamed on the top 1% who continue to receive subsidies(welfare) and tax cuts and see their profits multiply with each and every quarter of every year while continuingly down sizing,outsourcing and laying off employees.
The whole 'Dragon's Den' show epitomizes our financial and social woes and from what I see when it comes to 'news'programs,it's corporate lawyers and business elites with a soap box to pervert public opinion.
Look no further that the U.S. where alot of Congress members APOLOGIZED to BP during the Gulf disaster.
As much as I think people should be free to accumulate wealth,this corporate supremacy of the last 30 years needs to be regulated.
CBC Newsworld,like our elected members of Parliament,need voices of INTELLECTUALS and less self serving corporate elitists.
OLeary (patronizingly as usual) "try life without cash".
Lang's fast retort "Try cash without life, dude".
Frankly I don't know how Lang remains sane having to work with that pretentions, condescending boor whose one code in life is to get as much money as possible regardless of scruples. He's a pig.
I have seen the Lang and O'Leary show, and at first I too thought it was loathesome... but then I heard Lang's retorts to O'Leary and I thought it seemed more like "a way to show how silly the Uber Right is".
So many of the Randcid Right's [I just thought that one up] standard lines are being shown to be utterly false, and this is, or could be, a showcase for exploding those myths.
Like what?
- nuclear is safe
- chemicals are not toxic
- CO2 is all good
- EMF does not affect human health
- evolution is
- oil is all we need
- pain is never really so bad, and nobody actually goes to bed hungry.
[too many to list]
O'Leary is being taken to task for his treatment of Chris Hodges in the Occupy Wall Street interview on the Lang O'Leary Exchange.
Here's the actual interview on YouTube. Thanks Maysie!
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/olearys-nutbar-remark-breac...
Thanks for that, kn. I can testify that Kirk LaPointe has also heard about it by telephone. Tone of voice can be so much more indicative of outrage.
They wouldn't do anything about Don Cherry calling them pukes or the thousands of complaints about the "Vote Compass" but at least they did something about O'Leary.
Let's hope they fire the bastards when the public understands that far, far worse waits in the wings in the form of Pierre Karl Peladeau. Check out what those people have to say about the CBC every night in a continuous, propagandistic rant. But maybe the CBC's attempt at assuaging conservative public opinion will work to stave off destruction. Or did you think that CBC programming for the right was a product of a recessive gene that has somehow found its way into a community with many artists...all of whom know that conservatives in power means the death of artistic aspirations.
I think there is, and has been for a long time, an orchestrated campaign to deliberately alienate the CBC's target audience to the point that they stop watching the CBC, thus the CBC's opponents can say, "see nobody wants the CBC" and it will make it easier to eliminate.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/olearys-nutbar-remark-breac...
Frankly, I blame the producers and management more than I do O'Leary. After all, a snake is a snake.
But what were the producers thinking putting someone with no journalistic experience behind the microphone doing interviews? No one would have tossed O'Leary into an operating room with a scapel in his hand. The fact that this is not seen in the same light points to the ignorance of the people who are running the CBC.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/olearys-nutbar-remark-breac...
Frankly, I blame the producers and management more than I do O'Leary. After all, a snake is a snake.
On behalf of snakes everywhere, I am outraged by the comparison.
@ Rebecca
Ooookaaaaayyyyy.....
Let's pick something that's not in the Chinese Calendar, like bottom-feeding suckerfish. Too bad they aren't carniverous predators, and they serve a useful function.
All comparisons so far are too high on the taxonomy of life.
Get down.
I think there is, and has been for a long time, an orchestrated campaign to deliberately alienate the CBC's target audience to the point that they stop watching the CBC, thus the CBC's opponents can say, "see nobody wants the CBC" and it will make it easier to eliminate.
I don't know. The CBC seems like it could be to valuable as a scapegoat. Get rid of it, and you'd also get rid of alot of things you could blame on it.
The campaign by Pierre Karl Peladeau in league with the Steve's den is aimed at elimination of public programming, period. It is ideological anathema, an insult to their sense of right and wrong. Fear for our future.
I don't think I've ever mentioned this, but for some reason, rabble gets a significant amount of complaint email addressed to the Lang and O"leary exchange. I suspect that this thread might be why. That or in our heart of hearts, we share the same political motives.
Sorry, I'm even slower than usual today, CF. Who receives the complaints, and what is the tenor of those complaints?
rabble's editor gets emails and people use the contact form (top right of your screen) to complain about the show in all manner of ways. Usually: Leary is a blowhard, etc. But they're not addressed to rabble. They're addressed as if to the producers of the show. And it happens frequently. It confused the bejeezus out of the staff for awhile.