Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Testing Over, Hulu.com to Open Its TV and Film Offerings This Week
By BRAD STONE
SAN FRANCISCO — Hulu.com, the long-gestating Internet joint venture between NBC Universal and Fox, emerges from limited testing on Wednesday to make its catalog of TV shows and video clips available to anyone on the Web.
The streaming-video site displays free, ad-supported shows and feature films from NBC, Fox and more than 50 media companies, including Sony Pictures and Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer.
On Wednesday, Hulu is also planning to announce that the Warner Brothers Television Group and Lionsgate will add content from their libraries. Hulu will also give sports fans highlights from N.B.A. and N.H.L. games, and full-length N.C.A.A. men’s basketball games from the last 25 years, the company said.
Hulu’s videos also appear on AOL, MSN, Comcast, MySpace and Yahoo. Over 5,000 Web sites have embedded clips from Hulu, the company said.
Hulu has so far failed to recruit two major television networks, ABC, a division of Walt Disney, and CBS. Jason Kilar, Hulu’s chief executive, said that he was still having regular conversations with executives at the two networks. But even without them, he said, the company has quadrupled the number of show titles in its library since testing began.
“We won’t stop until we have everything in terms of premium content. That is our mission,” he said. “I just think back to the fact that 24 months ago, there wasn’t anything online legally in terms of full TV episodes or films. In just 17 weeks, we have gone from nothing to over 200 premium titles.”
NBC Universal, a division of General Electric, and Fox, a division of the News Corporation, announced their joint venture to much fanfare nearly a year ago. The then-unnamed company was at first viewed skeptically by many in the industry as a desperate attempt to keep up with the Google’s YouTube, the dominant player in online video.
Recently, Hulu has received high marks from media and Web executives for creating an easy to use site with high-quality video and professional content attractive to advertisers.
Hulu has been in a password-protected testing period since October, but has slowly been inviting users to enter the site. Mr. Kilar said that more than five million viewers have watched Hulu videos in the last 30 days, and that 80 percent of the shows on the site are viewed at least once a week.
Hulu is experimenting with giving viewers a choice in advertising. During certain shows, viewers will be able to choose which commercial they want to watch — for example, whether they want to see an ad for Nissan’s Rogue S.U.V., Maxima sedan or Z sports car.
Some viewers will also be given the opportunity to watch a two-minute film preview before a TV show, and then skip all the other advertising breaks.
One challenge Hulu faces is building a predictable and stable library of content. To protect DVD and Web download sales, media companies often make TV shows and films available free on the Web for certain periods of time and then remove them. For example, there are 11 episodes of the TV show “24” on Hulu — beginning with episode 18 of the first season.
“If those episodes keep disappearing, they are going to have trouble getting people to go back and recommend TV shows on Hulu to their friends,” said Bobby Tulsiani, an analyst at JupiterResearch.
Serving Up Television Without the TV Set
By BRIAN STELTER
The “stupid computer” is a repeated target of the dimwitted office manager Michael Scott on “The Office.” But the show itself may be motivating viewers to put down their remote controls and pick up their laptops.
When the fourth season of “The Office,” an NBC comedy, had its premiere in September, one in five viewings was on a computer screen instead of a television. The episode attracted a broadcast audience of 9.7 million people, according to Nielsen Media Research. It was also streamed from the Web 2.7 million times in one week, the executive producer, Greg Daniels, said.
“The Office” is on the leading edge of a sharp shift in entertainment viewing that was thought to be years away: watching television episodes on a computer screen is now a common activity for millions of consumers.
“It has become a mainstream behavior in an extraordinarily quick time,” said Alan Wurtzel, the head of research for NBC, which is owned by General Electric and Vivendi. “It isn’t just the province of college students or generation Y-ers. It spans all ages.”
A study in October by Nielsen Media Research found that one in four Internet users had streamed full-length television episodes online in the last three months, including 39 percent of people ages 18 to 34 and, more surprisingly, 23 percent of those 35 to 54.
“I think what we’re seeing right now is a great cultural shift of how this country watches television,” said Seth MacFarlane, the creator of “Family Guy,” a Fox animated comedy that ranks among the most popular online shows. “Forty years ago, new technology changed what people watched on TV as it migrated to color. Now new technology is changing where people watch TV, literally omitting the actual television set.”
Although people are watching their shows, the networks are loath to release data about how many people are watching TV shows online and how often. The reason? Possibly because Internet viewers are worth only a fraction of the advertising dollars of television viewers.
“The four and a half billion we make on broadcast is never going to equate to four and a half billion online,” said Quincy Smith, the president of CBS Interactive.
The most popular television shows tend to be the most-viewed online as well. While the doctors and nurses of the hit ABC drama “Grey’s Anatomy” look a little pixelated on a computer monitor, episodes of the show have been streamed more than 26 million times on ABC.com in the last six months, adding the equivalent of two full ratings points to each telecast.
“Heroes,” “Ugly Betty,” “CSI,” “House” and “Gossip Girl” are among the other online hits, analysts say. Just how many shows are being streamed is unclear because there is no widely recognized version of the Nielsen TV ratings for the Internet yet.
Regardless of the content, the shift is forcing the networks to rethink the long-held axioms of network schedulers and advertisers.
In an address in January to television executives in Las Vegas, Jeff Zucker, the chief executive of NBC Universal, noted that NBC.com had measured more than half a billion video streams in just over a year.
"Our challenge with all these ventures is to effectively monetize them so that we do not end up trading analog dollars for digital pennies,” Mr. Zucker said, calling it the No. 1 challenge for the industry.
Some people pay for episodes via Apple’s iTunes Store and Amazon’s Unbox service, but many more appear to be watching streams of free, advertising-supported episodes on Web sites. In a closely watched effort, NBC Universal and the News Corporation are about to introduce their joint streaming site, called Hulu.
One piece of good news for the networks and advertisers is that viewers are more likely to remember ads on the Internet versions of TV shows, partly because the commercials are less numerous and more demographically aimed online, according to many studies.
For the moment, at least, conventional wisdom holds that the television and the Internet will essentially merge in the foreseeable future. Already, the hardiest of online viewers are letting PC screens replace their TVs altogether. Others are merely letting broadband connections supplement their digital video recorder.
About six months ago, Peer Gopfrich, a screenwriter in Los Angeles, bought a high-resolution liquid-crystal display TV screen for his living room. Around the same time, he discovered that the television networks were offering some shows online in a high-definition format, so he hooked an old computer up to his TV monitor and started streaming. Mr. Gopfrich’s computer became a free and seemingly endless source of on-demand television.
“All of a sudden, we could watch pretty much every popular show we wanted, when we wanted, in high definition in our living room,” he said.
Mr. Wurtzel has found that most consumers — at least 75 percent in his studies — prefer to watch higher-quality versions of episodes via their trusty TV sets. They make distinctions between dialogue-driven comedies like “The Office,” which are better suited to laptops and iPods, and special-effects-laden dramas like “Heroes,” which look better on a big screen, he said.
For a variety of shows, the Web proves valuable as a time machine, permitting users to catch up on missed episodes. The Web site for “Jericho,” a show that was canceled by CBS but revived last year because of Internet-savvy fans, had roughly 1.3 million video views in the first week after the show’s second-season debut on Feb. 12. Less than half of those views were of the premiere episode; the rest were from viewers catching up on the first season or sharing clips.
In addition to tracking the episode views, CBS measures the amount of online conversation happening about shows.
“We’re still midstream,” said Nina Tassler, the president of CBS Entertainment. “We’re still learning about people’s behaviors and we’re still learning about what shows really resonate with an online audience.”
Other consumers use the Internet to discover new shows. Jason Kilar, the chief executive of Hulu, heard rave reviews of the NBC comedy “30 Rock” last year but never took the time to watch the show until he could stream it online. After one episode, he was hooked.
“After I put my kids to sleep and I have a few minutes to spare, I’m able to catch up on the show,” he said. “It provides an opportunity to both sample and consume content without having to schedule the DVR, without having to think about the on-air schedule.”
For the time being, broadcasters are harnessing the audience interest in different ways. Hulu content is widely distributed on MySpace, Yahoo, AOL and a variety of other sites. Similarly, CBS has chosen to syndicate its shows across a range of sites called the CBS Audience Network.
ABC, a subsidiary of the Walt Disney Company, has been more guarded with its content, making episodes available for streaming on only its Web site. Mike Shaw, the president for sales and marketing for ABC, said ABC.com has served up more than 220 million ad impressions, or views, in the last six months, up 188 percent from the same time period a year earlier.
And in the last month, all the broadcast networks have added classic series to their Web sites, making shows like “Star Trek,” “MacGyver,” “The A-Team” and “I Dream of Jeannie” available online. For companies that have sold all their available advertising space, tapping into their show libraries creates new opportunities.
“We would love to have more inventory,” Patrick Keane, the chief marketing officer at CBS Interactive, told reporters last week. “The advertisers are raring to go.”
I may be wrong, but I believe Wave is already a preferred supplier for Intel's iTPM.
It's probably just about revenues.
As more boards get migrated to non-free, in theory, more people shuck out cash...
Alea,
I don't understtand why Ihub decided to change this board to members only. I paid for a subscription for some added features, but this move by the administrators of the site certainly doesn't appear to be a gain for anyone.
I truly appreciated your moderation as well as your intellect.
AA
Keeler, this statement is good example of how much false information is out there: "Mr. O'smelly telling us that ZERO U.S. veterans are living as homeless people without a bed to sleep in." Some newspapers and web sites create lies on purpose and they get spread around as fact.
I saw the whole thing and here is what really happened.
Bill commented on a John Edwards campaign statement which claims that 200,000 veterans were homeless due to the (Bush) economy . Bill did NOT say that there ZERO homeless. He said the cause was addiction and mental illness. The next night he reported on the false attacks against him using complete cilps and articles. They were not out of context. The VA tries to help these people and is a trajic problem. I believe Bill is supporting legislation to help this situation.
He is one annoying guy but if you can stand to watch the program or the Fox cable channel, you would probably find it to be much more balanced than claimed.
Some on the far left (SP's) will use the "fairness doctrine" to prohibit free speech after they win control of the White House and Senate. Dick Durbin already tried.
micro59,
I tend to agree with you and have gone through exactly what you are going through at one time, we removed them all and replaced them, guess what? the replacements were worse than the ones we threw out. Like you I have no canadate in this race.
I do disagree about the electorial college being thrown out, that would give all power to 3 or 4 states without the possibility of smaller states being involved.
I know you were not expecting me to appear but I want to expose some thoughts about others to the debate.
What did you think about the debate?
When the debate was on, Tim Russert ask Hillary and Obama "If you pull the troops out and Al Quaeda establishes bases in Iraq would you send troops in to protect our interest? Obama in essence, said "YES".
So, there are Iranian sponsored Al Quaeda bases there now and if the troops are pulled out, Iran will replace our troops with their troops with Al Sadr's help and move to take controll of the entire middle east. Obama is going to accept defeat for now and ask our young soldiers to do this all over again with a much stronger enemy???What an Idiot!
I would hope that the someone will expose this lame brain for what he is. This guy is dangerous to the whole world. After Iran takes over Iraq and the middle east when we run out of energy I would bet he would say............BUSHE'S FAULT. Hillary sorta hem hawed around but basically said the same thing.
bf
Whooeee. (edit) No posts here in 29+hours, while the SP is diving. What's up?
AA
Infineon Launches Windows Server 2008-compatible Trusted Computing Managment Server Software Suite for Complete Enterprise Security
Visit us in Booth #66 at the Microsoft Windows Server 2008 Launch
Technology Media
http://www.infineon.com/cms/en/corporate/press/news/releases/2008/INFAIM200802-047.html
February 27, 2008
Microsoft Windows Server 2008 Launch, Los Angeles, California – February 27, 2008 – Infineon Technologies (FSE/NYSE: IFX), a leading supplier of integrated circuits and supporting software for secure computing and communications devices, today announced the Trusted Computing Management Server (TCMS) software suite for central management of Trusted Platform Modules (TPM)-equipped PCs in enterprise environments.
The TCMS software suite can be bundled with Infineon’s TPM Professional Package Software V3.5 for a complete hardware and software solution for enterprise professionals to safely protect their client data.
The Infineon TCMS software enables enterprise customers to easily deploy and manage TPM-equipped PCs, enabling a fully “trusted computing” experience for the user. Targeting medium and large companies, this software suite allows enterprises to take full advantage of TPM-based security on a heterogeneous PC infrastructure, which enables central management of Microsoft Windows®-based clients within the enterprise. The upgraded version of the TPM Professional Package software offers users the same user interface, despite the heterogeneous TPM hardware they may have on their PCs. Hardware can either be an Infineon TPM or a qualified 3rd party Trusted Computing Group (TCG)-compliant TPM.
“HP has been a leader in TPM adoption by providing the HP Embedded Client Solution as a standard feature across many of our business desktop and notebook PCs,” said Carolyn Bosco, Worldwide Security Marketing Manager for HP Business PCs. “The Infineon TCMS will now allow HP customers to seamlessly integrate and manage HP security solutions through their central IT management infrastructure.”
Microsoft is pleased to be working with Infineon to expand the offerings for Windows Server 2008 customers,” said Ward Ralston, Group Technical Product Manager for Windows Server Marketing at Microsoft Corp. “Our industry partners play an essential role in ensuring that our customers have the best technology foundation available and Infineon’s TCMS software suite helps deliver valuable new functionality to our joint customers.”
“Security continues to be a growing concern for professional PC users especially for notebook users,” said Josef Kohn, Product Manager of Infineon Technologies North America. “As a leader in security and with over 15 years of security expertise, Infineon understands the importance of data security from a hardware and software perspective. With the new Professional Package Software supporting TCG-compliant TPM hardware and the TCMS as the central management solution, this will allow corporate customers to efficiently deploy and manage TPM based security applications.”
According to a study of US market research company IDC, today more than 150 million notebooks and desktops are equipped with a Trusted Platform Module (TPM). IDC also anticipates the TPM market will increase to more than 250 million pieces shipped in the year 2010 alone. This equals an attach rate of more than 90 percent of all notebooks and desktops.
Sales Partners
Infineon will sell the TCMS software suite via sales and service partners in North America with plans to expand to Europe, Japan and other regions. If you are interested in being a sales or service partner, please visit www.infineon.com/tpm for more information.
Availability
The Infineon TCMS software suite will be shipped in Q2 2008. The suite is currently being tested and piloted by various customers.
Infineon is showing its Trusted Computing Management Server (TCMS) software suite for central management of TPM-equipped PCs in Booth #66 in the Partner Pavilion at the Microsoft Windows Server 2008 Launch.
About TCG Specifications
The Trusted Computing Group (TCG), with more than 100 member companies, is a not-for-profit organization formed to develop, define, and promote open standards for hardware-enabled trusted computing and security technologies, including hardware building blocks and software interfaces, across multiple platforms, peripherals, and devices. TCG specifications will enable more secure computing environments without compromising functional integrity, privacy, or individual rights. The primary goal is to help users protect their information assets (data, passwords, keys, etc.) from compromise due to external software attack and physical theft.
The Group was formed as a successor to the Trusted Computing Platform Alliance (TCPA), which was founded in 1999 by Compaq, HP, IBM, Intel and Microsoft. TCG has adopted the specifications of TCPA and will both enhance these specifications and extend the specifications across multiple platforms such as servers, PDA's, and digital phones. Further information on Trusted Computing Group (TCG) is available at www.trustedcomputinggroup.org.
About Infineon
Infineon Technologies AG, Neubiberg, Germany, offers semiconductor and system solutions addressing three central challenges to modern society: energy efficiency, communications, and security. In the 2007 fiscal year (ending September), the company reported sales of Euro 7.7 billion (including Qimonda sales of Euro 3.6 billion) with approximately 43,000 employees worldwide (including approximately 13,500 Qimonda employees). With a global presence, Infineon operates through its subsidiaries in the U.S. from Milpitas, CA, in the Asia-Pacific region from Singapore, and in Japan from Tokyo. Infineon is listed on the Frankfurt Stock Exchange and on the New York Stock Exchange (ticker symbol: IFX).
Information Number
INFAIM200802-047
Interesting that IDENTIPHI is their distribution partner....
http://www.infineon.com/cms/en/product/channel.html?channel=db3a304317a748360118194690b821d7
For product sales and support inquiries please refer to the following Infineon certified TCMS sales and support partner:
IdentiPHI inc.: http://www.identiphi.net
Name: Chris Cahalin
bell Title: Manager of network operations
Company: Papa Gino's & D'Angelo Grilled Sandwiches, in Dedham, Mass.
http://www.networkworld.com/bestproducts/2008/022508-best-five-favorite-products.html?page=5
Weby: Who to elect...
I agree with you that the issue is who would serve the country better: Hillary or Obama
And in the end that is exactly how it should be. I don't know who of the two would do a better job; Nobody does until 20/20 kicks in ... and with that I don't mean the ABC TV show...
We all have or will make up our own personal opinion based of perception and fact. That's is why they campaign.
The discussion should be a lively one and the decision will be as it will be. But, to throw in the frankly outdated (we are no longer living in the 17th century, no?) religion issue is, in my very personal opinion, either a throw back into the middle ages or a closing of the eyes facing realities.
Shoudn't we all have learned by now?
Awk
The problem between the two senators is that we don't know who is the more competent or (electable). They are both essentially untested and unknown. Both have exceptional academic records. Oboma does have an older American set of experiences closer to the people which is one of the factors that makes him charismatically Lincolnesque. Clinton HAS functioned at the center of power in Washington, Little Rock, and Internationally for a long time.
However, Both have minimal records of achievement as leaders of their movements, as proponents of truly new solutions. What will Oboma DO when his dream of bringing people together which worked at Harvard, and worked a little in Illinois, doesn't work in a chronically, historically fractured continental nation state where Montana and Massachusetts have little in the way of common values now, if they ever did.
Clinton is a great question mark as well. It takes the leadership of a village and she hasn't successfully demonstrated much on her own. Her health campaign was a leadership disaster. Her campaign thus far has not exemplifed great leadership and organization from the top. Her "voice" comes and goes..... and her themes have had a wonky edge Bill could pull off, but Hillary cannot.
The Republican senator also is hard to read as to his preparation for leadership. The son and grandson of four star admirals -- A kind of text book courage as a political prisoner, a mavarick who could not get his party to follow on things he thought crucial. These all point to an unusual man, but not necessarily one who can lead the free world through the momentus issues of the next decade.
There is no rational, scientific, quantitive way to know and choose a candidate. That's why we rely so much on proxies. Party, military service, ability to fund raise, and an intuitive sense of how the person feels and relates to the common man. Does the person collapse in a crisis? All three seem to have met that test!!! Is he more likely to help the situation or hurt it? Take your pick on the can't withdraw/must withdraw continuum. Do I want to listen to this person every day for the next eight years....THE CRITICAL HIDDEN DICISIVE FACTOR IN AMERICAN POLITICS. (Bush won over Gore and Kerry on this one alone). Well there I know my answer.... Nobody really LIKES listening to Hillary. McCain we have heard for a long time and he has nothing inteserting to say. Obamo is the nation's host in chief. Think we can deal with him on the pulpit for four years.....and then see if we have crucified ourselves on a cross of gloss and words -- no silver or gold only well strung cliches. Only way to discover what's in the box is to buy and open it.
,t
Awk, well stated... Imagine not having such superfluous hyperbole. Evolving into... a less dogmatic species. As Ibelieve that is the origin. I'm not so sure we (humans) could act without our biases. I like my personal biases...!? and yet am in no way condoning this behavior as it does make for a mediocre level of entertainment... Thinking out of the box (something I enjoy. Is refreshing too. A new or actually less/nondogmatic way of being)or stated as being more fair before saying a bias has served me well. Looking at both sides prior to stating my point of view is something I am unsure any large enough percentage of the populous may be able to fathom. The herd is good...? huh? lol! Yet one could state; we are our biases, opened and revealing... our simple yet complex humanity. Your point is more stated to say "it would be nice without". I am (bias here stated lol!)unsure if "we" can achieve that state of nirvana in the current human form...) R.
waverider: The Messiah...
At times, as an alien looking in, I do not understand what the religion discussion is all about. It sometimes reminds me of the AtomicBob crowd when they refer to the "fat boy"; It's utterly useless and, really, totally off the subject.
The other day I talked on the phone with a Spanish friend of mine. She favored Hillary Clinton because she thought it was a bout time that a women came to power.
I disagreed with her. Upon asking me why I said:
"...To me it is not important whether the candidate is a women or a man, whether the candidate is black or white and that I would hope the electorate would look at it in the same way..."
What I did not mention it that telephone conversation was that "...I would also hope that the electorate would elect the most capable candidate independent of his chosen religion..."
By the way, there were ample comments about how pious GWB was and he played that card very subtly during his election run... and what do we have now?
Orda, re: "Where's the outrage on the right targeted at the right?"
I think the answer is that there is a LOT of right on right outrage, but it just isn't prominently displayed by the talking heads. But it is embodied by folks like me. Allow me, please......
I have been a Republican my whole life. Not so much that I "loved" everything about the GOP, but that they were the "anti-socialists", the anti-democrats. The (much) lesser of evils, if you will.
I began to get severly disappointed with them some years ago, but still they seemed a better choice than going "socialist". They put "W" up as "best choice" eight years ago. I held my nose, but little did I know then.
I am now so disgusted by the party I will probably not even bother this November, or simply "throw my vote away" in a protest fashion on some third party.
I honestly believe history will judge "W" as the worst president of modern times, if not ever. For so many reasons I won't even bother to start typing the long list. I'm not sure if despise is the best word for describing my feelings toward him, but it is close.
Remember, this is coming from the mouth of a Republican, or maybe I should say tentatively former Republican.
I am disgusted with how the extreme right has taken the party hostage. How they waste precious time and effort squabbling over things like stem cells and abortion, and such. Take whatever position you like on abortion, but if you tell me it's one of the top five most important issues - let alone THE number one issue - then you are to me a one issue candidate that I cannot entrust with my vote.
I'm old enough to remember when the GOP used to be the party that stood for smaller government, less meddling. It's a distant memory, now.
Sorry I don't have time to edit this post and present it in a better thought out, clearer form, but I wanted to say that I really believe there is a great deal of outrage of many Republicans toward the GOP. I'm sure I'm not the only one that is totally disgusted with the party and its leaders. I think the coming elections may well prove my point.
They had their chance and they squandered it with petty nonsense, ineptitude, partisan bickering, and hypocrisy.
Yes, some of the right are VERY outraged. They just don't have the stage to show it......until November.
Regards,
D&O
A couple of platitudes in U.S. politics:
"Never overestimate the intelligence of the voters."
"the pendulum swings both ways." The first got us where we are. But whenever the party in power goes to the extreme, it forces a move to the opposite.
The growth in registered Independents over the past several election cycles suggests how "fed up" many are with both parties. Independents will decide this election. Independents are more likely to vote for the candidate that most supports positions that are important to them.
I don't know the demographics of the Independant voter, but I'd wager that they are: more educated, earn more money, are fiscally conservative and socially moderate. Who they gonna vote for?
Just a reminder. This isn't the board for posts which are basically conversation cyanide or malicious insinuation.
BF. That's two strikes. In case you didn't notice, the Democrat supporters managed to keep the NYT McCain story off the board.
Discussions of principles are fine. If you choose the primrose path, it is your choice, not mine.
csl,
This one is for you (see below). I think there's a certain amount of legitimacy to the critique. I particularly liked the paragraph about the New Jerusalem.
I suspect that what the rest of the world wants is an America which is a leading participant in the conversation, but also one that has respect for other ways of being. The United States system is not THE answer. It is AN answer to the ideals of a West which has been fighting for its liberties for millenia. And out of which the US sprung.
Every now and again, I hope there will appear a US President who plainly reveres Pericles and the Athenian invention of the ideas of democracy and freedom, Magna Carta, the common law, Galileo, Locke and the Enlightenment, Smith and Darwin and their ideas of society and change (to list but a few important actors) every bit as much as they revere Washington, Jefferson, the US Constitution and Bill of Rights, Lincoln and King.
I'm not sure Obama gets past the "Not Invented Here" phenomenon which somewhat limits the scope of the vision he outlines.
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/dominic-lawson/dominic-lawson-obama-must-beware-of-turning-into-a-cult-787298.html
Hi alea,
I understand Obama'a personal attraction and it is not an unimportant quality in a candidate for president. I am much more concerned with policies. My concern is that many of his supportors don't really know much about him and are blindly supporting him. I do want to like my president, whoever it might be.
On the other subject, I find modesty about one's own ability is an attractive personal quality.
Hilarious. Thanks.
:)
Hi Orda
The joke I posted was from a comedian named Emo Phillips. He has written a couple about our political parties, as well.
Republicans:
I am not a Republican- but I am saving up to be one.
Democrats:
When my grandmother was very old, she had a stroke. After we got her to the hospital, the doctors informed us that her heart was beating strongly, but that her brain was dead. We all realized that we had a very difficult situation on our hands. After all, we never had a Democrat in the family before.
http://www.emophilips.com/home/
Be sure to check out the Random Emo Logic Generator
The only hope for the little Bush is the Truman hope. Truman DID go out of office almost as low in the mind of Americans as GWB so BF has a bush to hold onto. However, HST was the ultimate middle class president and ultimately, his values were America's values and America came to greatly admire him and his steadfastness. Of course, Bush is not exactly a middle class American.
Bush's problem is that EVERYBODY including his Republican successor is willing to say that his strategy and execution of his foreign policy is flawed, and the lack of any domestic policy beyond reducing taxes in the face of the biggest war time deficits in history cannot bode well for his future reputation.
I've followed American politics for over 50 years. I remember Truman speaking on Television. I campaigned for Adlai as a teenager. Keeler is right! Obama's charisma is a combination of something intangible he exudes like Jack Nicholson, and a reflection of a generational change in American political beliefs.
The Democratic party seems to have moved to the left and some will be horrified. In reality, the arguments of the so-called Moral Majority have failed to solve the problems of the mass majority created by globalization and corporate oligarchy and people are demanding something, anything different -- the road not taken.
The right calls universal health care socialism. It ain't
The right insists this is a Christian nation. It ain't
The right call bringing the troops home dishonerable. It ain't
The right has said that it's our way or the highway. It ain't
It's the American way for the fed up to rise up once a generation and it's a generation since Bobby, Martin, and John!
Those of us who graduated in the early 60s were called socialist and communists because we picketed Woolworths and demanded a better America. Today, they are doctors, lawyers, corporate executives -- hardly socialists, mostly free market capitalists and moderate Republicans. Where do those folks go who are socially tolerant and economically conservative?
The Republican party of Theodore Roosevelt and Nelson Rockefeller is gone. McCain is all that's left of that party right now and he has no economic policy which can create jobs or hope. He is tied to Arizona's Goldwater Republican history.
Obama is too much of a blank slate. I don't know what his foreign policy will be like. He appears, to me, naive and idealistic about the Middle East. Still, the man has a degree in International Relations from Columbia so he can't be without some understanding of the complexities. I will not hold his Minister's beliefs against him until I see more evidence that they inform his actions. The Mafia may well have elected John, but Bobby didn't give a hoot!
The MAJORITY in the country doesn't want to fight over religion, gay rights, immigrants who are their lawn care folks, their cooks, and their roofers. They want jobs in new industries. They want to see their kids in college. They want to believe that Yes WE Can.
The most remembered book of my childhood in the 1940,s was a little Golden Book about a little train engine that kept saying I Think I can....I Think I Can!!! Well, until I change my mind.... I Think he and we Can!!!
aleajactaest,
I am un able to locate the article and therefore I must apoligize for speaking of something that I can't provide a thread to.
Think I will Say so long for now.
Have goo evening.
bf
orda,
Something that always seems to amaze me is the number of republicans serving time(derservidly so) and democrats seem to be above the law. I refer you to the scandles of Pelosi, Feinstein, Reid, Jefferson, Clintons Burger etal. The investigations seem to just stop and there is never an explanation.
bf
This is something else I object to
the whole notion of "Blame America First." It's a red herring. This is simply a right-wing talking point/slogan, meant to deflect the spotlight from their spurious actions and to stop conversation cold. Sort of like someone dropping an anti-semitic charge or a Hitler reference in conversation.
First, are you saying America is never to blame? For anything? Ever?
Second, it's NOT un-patriotic to question your government, in fact, it's almost required as an American. Somewhere that's gotten lost.
Third, I'm fairly tired of people wearing their religion and their patriotism on their sleeve. To me it looks awfully contrived. To constantly use this as a cudgel smacks of demagoguery.
I can be patriotic and/or religious privately. And I don't need to use them against people or to judge them by it. We certainly could use more separation of Church and State...just as our Founding Fathers intended. They were, for the most part, deists. Ones who believed in a personal and private relationship with god or whatever they tended toward.
And as the point was wonderfully made in the joke goin fishin posted, which minutely fragmented segment of Christianity should hold sway?
Hi Orda,
Great points! I think you almost provided a dictionary quality example of what it means to be hypocritical. They continue to prey upon the uneducated voter as a means of covering up their logical fallacies. If you're too dumb to see the error, no one will call me on it....
One of my most favorite recent examples is Mr. O'smelly telling us that ZERO U.S. veterans are living as homeless people without a bed to sleep in. Wonders never cease, but his twisted and tortured logical method of trying to escape from the corner he put himself in was so convoluted you almost needed a road map to make any sense of it all.
I want to live long enough to see history judge this guy, it might be entertaining. Maybe he will be viewed as the most damaging "patriotic" voice in the history of modern american media hypes. After all, if you are a "true" patriot and selflessly patrol your self anointed "no spin zone" to protect us all from bogey men everywhere, then there has to be at least one republican behavior in the last ten years worthy of your ire??? What a sad commentary on how far the journalistic community has fallen. Sorry, did not mean to offend every jounalist on the planet, but no other professional media group was willing to claim him. :)
Keeler
Keeler
Look, it's not so much
that I'm singling out republicans because I know politicians of all stripes have been part and parcel to corruption. The thing that I object to is that the right seems to have a bullhorn and a hypocrisy. The echo chamber of Fox news, O'Reilly, Rush, Ann Coulter, et al hammering away at "the left" while Bush, Ted Haggerty, Gingrich, Delay et al are guilty of as much if not more scandalous behavior is nauseating. Hammering away at Clinton for eight years over his infidelities and pushing impeachment was ludicrous. Especially in light of what came after him and the egregious behavior that followed. Where's the outrage on the right targeted at the right?
Blue Fin, You humor me. Whether or not he is out of office does not mean the decisions of his first seven years are at the broad brush of your personal hisrotical perrogative excluded from historical analysis. The clock of the processing the decision making abilities does not begin with their exit from said role. Just want to make sure the proposition you make is clearly understood.
Let's see, by your own logic Steven Sprague's decision making can not be scrutinized until he leaves his position of authority. Are you sure you want to go there? Or are you so far down the road on the right that you are failing to see that scholars have already judged it's current leader as a dismal failure. Easy for you to discredit their analysis(all 336 historians at once!), you've done it at least twice tonight by my count. But if as a young kitten you keep your eyes and thinking process closed to alternative realities until November, I am truly afraid you'll wake up to find a demaocrat as your next president and in an amazingly startled voice yell out "how the hell did that happen"?
Please do stop by for a polite and brief "we told you so" session. I am quite sure our leading historian (going fishin) will provide you with plenty of reading material for which to come to an understanding of why the rest of this country of ours has rejected your premises.
Until then, by all means keep on humoring me, it helps to pass yet another god forsaken midwestern late season snow storm from.....
Keeler
Hi BF,
I thought you were working for me on the Jimmy Carter question? And now I find you going AWOL and listening in to a whole different conversation. BF, this will not do.
The people I was thinking of were Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. Here's a story to remind you of the context.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/11/AR2008011102000.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
Hi Alea,
Very nicely stated, what I enjoy the most about entrenched positions is their inability to identify seeds of change. Two individuals can look at the same social phenomena and see multiple outcomes. Although no one can predict future outcomes with any degree of certainty, we can look at exit polling data and extract voter sentiment.
The crux of my earlier posts in the last two weeks and tonights exchange is simply that the seeds of change have already been planted. One only needs to look at the economic disconnect to see that this factor alone carries the power of a motivated electorate seeking a different approach and maybe a new vision to take on america's problems.
It in many ways reminds me of the Reagan-Mondale election. Mondale was a decent person, excellent track record but could not hold the tidal forces of political change at bay. America was emerging from a generation of perceived failure on both domestic and economic policies on the watch of the democratic party. America believed the Reagan revolution needed another term to get the job done, and remember the first two plus years of Reagan's first term were an unraveling of the stagflation of the late 70's. It really did not matter who the democrats put up against Reagan, it looks like McCain has drawn the same very short sacrificial lamb straw. The Electoral vote outcome in November will not be the landslide of 84, but it appears that if 4-8 red states swing it will be a decisive win no matter how Bill O'irrationality spins it.
Keeler
aleajactaest,
You said: "many people said Obama should play the race card in South Carolina."
I was not privy to who said that could you enlighten me?
bf
Hi x-point,
I certainly understand your point.
I'll give you a counterpoint. After losing New Hampshire, many people said Obama should play the race card in South Carolina. That way, he could take the black vote, win the state and knock Hillary Clinton onto the back foot.
I watched carefully to see if he did that. Because I was interested to see if he was willing to go there. It was a kind of litmus test of whether he was the kind of candidate I might believe in. In the way that Jesse Jackson was not.
Well, he didn't. Not that I saw. In fact, he has consistently disavowed it. This is a man who, in my view at least, clearly believes in the principle of homonoia.
The Oath at Opis
“Now that the wars are coming to an end, I wish you to prosper in peace. May all mortals from now on live like one people in concord and for mutual advancement. Consider the world as your country, with laws common to all and where the best will govern irrespective of tribe. I do not distinguish among men, as the narrow-minded do, both among Greeks and Barbarians. I am not interested in the descendance of the citizens or their racial origins. I classify them using one criterion: their virtue. For me every virtuous foreigner is a Greek and every evil Greek worse than a Barbarian. If differences ever develop between you never have recourse to arms, but solve them peacefully. If necessary, I should be your arbitrator. You must not consider God like an autocratic despot, but as a common Father of all; so your behavior may resemble the life siblings have in a family. On my part I should consider all equals, white or blacks, and wish you all to be not only subjects of the Commonwealth, but participants and partners. As much as this depends on me, I should try to bring about what I promised. The oath we made over tonight’s libations hold onto as a Contract of Love”.
Or put another way:
"We are one people; we are one nation; and together, we will begin the next great chapter in the American story with three words that will ring from coast to coast; from sea to shining sea --
Yes. We. Can."
May I chime in?
As an alien observer of this "religion" debate I must say that it has always baffled me how great of an importance the belief of the candidates has on the voting result.
Where I grew up we have a clear separation between church and state. I always thought, and still do, that religeous beliefs are a private matter. A personal matter.
Not expecting an answer... just chiming in. Back to lurking...
Hi alea,
What I was saying is that I can see a reason in this behavior to question Obama's philosophy.
Obama is a great orator and very intelligent, but he is also a politician so I would not expect to catch him in any overtly racist statements unless it is due a mistake ala Trent Lott.
And really, in spite of what I suspect was the impression given, I am not saying that he is a racist. I am saying that his admiration and support of a racist is going to be a problem for him in the general election. And it should be!
Racism is a real phenomenon throughout the world, and we in this country have been doing a very admirable job of combating it for quite a while now and I don't see reason to suddenly stick my head in the sand when I see a presidential candidate cosying up with a racist just because now it is black racism. It is just as ugly and as reprehensible as the white variety. Let's hear what Obama has to say about this.
Bottom line: he should have distanced himself from this man and his teachings. It would have been the right thing to do.
And alea, a question please. Do your Christian friends consistantly preach hate towards Moslems? If so you may want to do a little soul searching yourself. ;)
Regards,
x-point
Blue Fin
Read the article-they were asked to judge his presidency up to that point. (Dec. '05) The question was in his presidency so far, where would G. W. Bush rank among all presidents.
Hardly an attempt to see into the future. It was a comparison to the past, which is the baliwick of historians.
Hi keeler,
Nice post.
One thing I learned during a period when the manufacturing industry in my country essentially disappeared: as John McCain said, the jobs don't come back.
The period of transition isn't easy. And in my view, the only way to find a way out the other end is through entrepreneurial activity. You can't protect your way out of the economics of change. You can invest in education, training and innovation. And you can limit the individual harms via social policies, if you choose and can afford to do so as a society.
But the future is an undiscovered country. And eyeballing it, at times, can be a scary thing to do.
goin fishn,
Don't you find find it somewhat suspect that historians are judging history that is still in the future??? Very Hard for me to understand, as he is not out of office yet... so much for objectivity, HUH?
bf
I believe there was something in his not to distant past that restricted certain individuals from participating in certain activities he was involved with. Of course those references may be some what hard to find following history revisions following his presidency.I'll look and see what there is available.
bf
Hi Blue Fin
Carter is probably in that bottom tier of presidents-maybe even not too far from George W. Bush, but, a racist he is not.
He opposed some of Israel's policies against Palestinians, and got called an anti-semite because of it.
We all know that you reference is probably the utmost authority on history .. now please refer us to a credible reference.
bf
BF, Call me a foreigner, but what did JC do that was like WW?
Hi Blue Fin (edit)
Keeler is referring to this. It's not a whisper.
(edit)Almost forgot the link
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/profile/story/9961300/the_worst_president_in_history
George W. Bush's presidency appears headed for colossal historical disgrace. Barring a cataclysmic event on the order of the terrorist attacks of September 11th, after which the public might rally around the White House once again, there seems to be little the administration can do to avoid being ranked on the lowest tier of U.S. presidents. And that may be the best-case scenario. Many historians are now wondering whether Bush, in fact, will be remembered as the very worst president in all of American history.
From time to time, after hours, I kick back with my colleagues at Princeton to argue idly about which president really was the worst of them all. For years, these perennial debates have largely focused on the same handful of chief executives whom national polls of historians, from across the ideological and political spectrum, routinely cite as the bottom of the presidential barrel. Was the lousiest James Buchanan, who, confronted with Southern secession in 1860, dithered to a degree that, as his most recent biographer has said, probably amounted to disloyalty -- and who handed to his successor, Abraham Lincoln, a nation already torn asunder? Was it Lincoln's successor, Andrew Johnson, who actively sided with former Confederates and undermined Reconstruction? What about the amiably incompetent Warren G. Harding, whose administration was fabulously corrupt? Or, though he has his defenders, Herbert Hoover, who tried some reforms but remained imprisoned in his own outmoded individualist ethic and collapsed under the weight of the stock-market crash of 1929 and the Depression's onset? The younger historians always put in a word for Richard M. Nixon, the only American president forced to resign from office.
Now, though, George W. Bush is in serious contention for the title of worst ever. In early 2004, an informal survey of 415 historians conducted by the nonpartisan History News Network found that eighty-one percent considered the Bush administration a "failure." Among those who called Bush a success, many gave the president high marks only for his ability to mobilize public support and get Congress to go along with what one historian called the administration's "pursuit of disastrous policies." In fact, roughly one in ten of those who called Bush a success was being facetious, rating him only as the best president since Bill Clinton -- a category in which Bush is the only contestant.
The lopsided decision of historians should give everyone pause. Contrary to popular stereotypes, historians are generally a cautious bunch. We assess the past from widely divergent points of view and are deeply concerned about being viewed as fair and accurate by our colleagues. When we make historical judgments, we are acting not as voters or even pundits, but as scholars who must evaluate all the evidence, good, bad or indifferent. Separate surveys, conducted by those perceived as conservatives as well as liberals, show remarkable unanimity about who the best and worst presidents have been.
Historians do tend, as a group, to be far more liberal than the citizenry as a whole -- a fact the president's admirers have seized on to dismiss the poll results as transparently biased. One pro-Bush historian said the survey revealed more about "the current crop of history professors" than about Bush or about Bush's eventual standing. But if historians were simply motivated by a strong collective liberal bias, they might be expected to call Bush the worst president since his father, or Ronald Reagan, or Nixon. Instead, more than half of those polled -- and nearly three-fourths of those who gave Bush a negative rating -- reached back before Nixon to find a president they considered as miserable as Bush. The presidents most commonly linked with Bush included Hoover, Andrew Johnson and Buchanan. Twelve percent of the historians polled -- nearly as many as those who rated Bush a success -- flatly called Bush the worst president in American history. And these figures were gathered before the debacles over Hurricane Katrina, Bush's role in the Valerie Plame leak affair and the deterioration of the situation in Iraq. Were the historians polled today, that figure would certainly be higher.
goin fishn,
Wouldn't that also apply to Jimmy Carter?
bf
Good lord, Keeler
Now that is a weighty tome.
After studying the Afican American history that I have, I can understand where Michelle Obama is coming from when she says she is proud of her country for the first time. For the first time, 143 years after the end of slavery, a Black man is on an equal footing in national politics with White opponents. What a historic time.
Unfortunately, some people would like to continue the politics of race. Too bad.
BTW-
Have you seen the newest IHSA sport?
Keeler,who is whispering....?
"Given the nature of the past eight years. Some are already whispering, while others are shouting, that the Bush Presidency might go down as one of, if not the worst, U.S. Presidency in our nation's history. How kindly will history look back upon that which we in the present hold in such disdain. Look at Bush's currnet popularity polls to see what the data shows, it does not look good to say the least.
erhaps you could elaborate on you statement,"
Would that be the slime America first group?
bf
x-point- a racist in the White House?
It has already happened
Woodrow Wilson-from Wikipedia:
While president of Princeton University, Wilson discouraged blacks from even applying for admission.[36] Princeton would not admit its first black student until the 1940s.
Wilson allowed many of his cabinet officials to establish official segregation in most federal government offices, in some departments for the first time since 1863. "His administration imposed full racial segregation in Washington and hounded from office considerable numbers of black federal employees."[37] Wilson and his cabinet members fired many black Republican office holders, but also appointed a few black Democrats. W.E.B. DuBois, a leader of the NAACP, campaigned for Wilson and in 1918 was offered an Army commission in charge of dealing with race relations. (DuBois accepted but failed his Army physical and did not serve.)[38] When a delegation of blacks protested his discriminatory actions, Wilson told them that "segregation is not a humiliation but a benefit, and ought to be so regarded by you gentlemen." In 1914, he told the New York Times that "If the colored people made a mistake in voting for me, they ought to correct it."
(edit2) By the way, x-point. I appreciate you making the case!!! :)
And I accept, but without sufficient context to become judgemental, the point you are making about what would happen if the skin colours were inverted. All the same, I guess the histories do make a bit of a difference, as goin suggests. Black Churches are what they are because they have a pretty harsh experience behind them. Just as the Synagogues haven't forgotten the Holocaust.
People don't just go from being genuine victims to easy-going cultural egalitarians in a generation. Oppression leaves its mark. Lest we forget.
X-point.
Maybe it is because you are actively looking for the double standard? You have obviously already made up your mind which is your right. You should not be shocked to see that others here will simply point this fact out to you. Alea's reply was simple, and to the point. I only hope it made sense to you. For you see, I have seen President Bush's minister smirk. I could never vote for someone who supports an smirker.
Keeler
Followers
|
29
|
Posters
|
|
Posts (Today)
|
0
|
Posts (Total)
|
5140
|
Created
|
10/07/03
|
Type
|
Premium
|
Moderators |
Volume | |
Day Range: | |
Bid Price | |
Ask Price | |
Last Trade Time: |