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.
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.
LOl. Hi Dave. We haven't seen that Olsen "mugshot" in quite some time on this board. ;0)
http://www.queerty.com/22-million-in-q-television-trial-20080227/
$2.2 Million In Q Television Case
olsenh-1.jpg
Former Q Television executive Frank Olsen better start looking for work.
A California judge ruled yesterday that Olsen must pay his former employees $2.2 million in back pay. The network collapsed in 2006, leaving staffers in the dumps. A source close to the trial sent us a message about yesterday’s court appearance:
Olsen came with no one -no lawyer, no “friend”, no one. He claimed he has “nothing”. He also claimed to be on disability (whose is unclear) and having a hearing problem, which stopped court so we could wait for a listening device for him… Just so dumb!
…
They [sic] payroll owed came to $739k and with all the penalties it came to 2.2M. When our lawyer pointed to the box with the number in it, Frank waved his hand and said “I don’t have that money!” The judge said he was really sorry, but it was not a choice and that a judgment had been made against him.
The source also suggests that Olsen’s stashed his cash in an undisclosed, impenetrable location, which could very easily be someplace on his person.
Rotf!! Those are great.
I was thinking about why most Americans don't know that Gore should have been declared the winner of Florida in 2000, and given the presidency. We all know Bush won when the Supreme Court took the unprecedented step of stepping in and halting the recounts, thus handing Bush the victory. And many of us heard the news that came out years later from a study that concluded if the recounts had continued, Bush still would have won.
But what also came out, but didn't get much attention, was that if the ENTIRE state of Florida had been recounted, Gore would have won. He actually had a small lead in Florida.
The GOP did a fairly good job of getting the first part of the story out. Gore had pushed for recounts in those counties where he was already ahead - where there were lots of voting irregularities - where he believed he could pick up a few hundred more votes, which was all he needed to win Florida. He was only 219 votes behind at the time, and there were literally thousand of votes that had been tossed out. There were people in heavily Democratic precincts who were turned away from the polls in droves. There were all those hanging chads and the like. There was the question of the misleading ballots that caused thousands to vote for the wrong candidate. It's no wonder he demanded recounts.
But studies showed that if he had succeeded in recounting the contested counties again, he still would have lost. But another study showed that if he had only demanded that the entire state be recounted, he would have won. Why didn't he demand a recount of all of Florida? Because he didn't think he would win all of Florida in a recount. His mistake. And he was hardly going to make a big deal about it, since in all fairness he should have recounted the entire state, not just those counties where he felt he could win.
Of course the Supreme Court decided to step in and rule on the recounts. And on a vote of 5/4 right down party lines, they decided to stop the recounts, return to a previous count, and thus hand the Presidency to Bush who had just lost the popular vote by half a million. And for a short while, America woke up to the notion that justice really depends on who is dispensing it.
So the GOP pushed out the news that Gore's recount would not have changed the outcome, and Gore sat on the news that if he had been more fair and recounted the entire state, he would have won.
Personally I wish we would do away with the electoral college and go to a popular vote conducted on voting machines with paper documents that are checked later for accuracy. But if we did that, candidates would spend most of their time campaigning in the most populated states and ignoring the middle of the country, and the Democrats would win big time. So nobody is ever going to agree to that.
So we're stuck with a system that gave us Bush, with half a million fewer votes than Gore. And we almost had Kerry with three million fewer votes than Bush. Kerry almost won Ohio. If he had, he'd be President, despite losing the popular vote by three million. And look at Ohio. Electronic voting machines that were shown in tests to be easy to hack, and had no paper trail. Thousands complained that their Kerry votes changed to Bush when they pressed the button. But there was no way to prove it. No paper. The local GOP INSISTED that the machines be used. They blocked every attempt to get a paper trail. Some heavily Democratic precincts voted overwhelmingly for Bush. Some precincts had more Bush votes than they had voters. The man who created those voting machines openly said ahead of the election that he was going to deliver Ohio to Bush. What a mess! Meanwhile millions and millions of Americans continued to believe in the inherent fairness of the system, thinking that despite the enormity of what was at stake - all the power - that our voting system would never be tampered with because this is America. We definitely need a more tamper-proof system.
Well, I think the 2008 election is going to be a lot less depressing.
It's a screwy system, isn't it? Two senators per state, regardless of population. And people wonder why there is gridlock in Washington, or why unpopular things like the war manage to continue. That's because two thirds of the population can feel one way about something, but if the majority in half the states feel differently, it's a tie, regardless of how many people are in those states. Montana has as many senators as California.
And in the electoral college, each state starts off with two electors - one for each senator. Then they get more electors based on their population. Montana has three electors. (thank you for the map!) So, based on its tiny population, Montana has one elector, plus two. California has 55 electors. So based on its huge population California has 53 electors, plus two. That means voters in Montana have three times the individual clout as voters in California. Their population would give them only one elector, but they get three. While in California their population would give them 53 electors, but they get 55. It definitely pays to live in a state with a low population. Your individual vote is as powerful as three votes in California.
And then there's the winner-take-all situation. If every state divvied up their electors according to the percentages of votes their candidates got in that state, it would be far more representative of the popular vote. But most states award all their electors to whichever candidate won the majority in their state. So, for example, if Bush won the majority of votes in Florida in 2000 (which he didn't, if the entire state had been recounted) then Bush wins all of Florida's 27 electoral votes. On last recount he was ahead in Florida by just 219 votes. Then the Supreme Court stepped in, struck down the last recount, restored the previous recount which put Bush ahead by over 500 votes, and Bingo. Bush won Florida's 27 electoral votes, and he's President. If the entire state had been recounted, Gore would be President. So there you have it. If Gore had won Florida by as little as one vote, he would have gotten all 27 electoral votes, and HE'D have been President. The winner-take-all system manages to throw out all the votes of those who voted for the losing candidate, and give them to the one who won the state. In states like California and Texas that means that easily ten million votes can be given to the candidate that the voter voted against. No wonder Bush could become President despite getting half-a-million fewer votes than Gore nation-wide.
And of course not all states have winner-take-all. Right now the GOP is pushing to get rid of winner-take-all here in California. With 55 electoral votes, we're the big prize. The GOP says "it's only fair" that the votes are divvied out to all the candidates. So if Bush won 35% of the votes in California in 2000 they say he should have gotten 35% of the electoral votes. Sounds fair. But the GOP isn't pushing to change any red states like, say, Texas, where they too have winner-take-all. They're just pushing to split the vote in California which has a reliable Democratic majority. So in their ideal world, the votes of minority Democrats in Texas would still be given to the Republican candidate as always. But the votes of Republicans in California would now go to the Republican candidate. Analysts have said that if the GOP manages to get rid of the winner-take-all in California, there are only a very few circumstances when a Democrat could EVER be elected President. Could the GOP pull it off? Would the majority of Democrats in California fall for the GOP trick and vote for it? Would they believe it to be "only fair" to split the state's electoral votes while other big states with Republican majorities remain winner-take-all? It all depends on how good a tv ad that the GOP runs. So far it looks like Californians are on to the latest GOP trick to steal an election. But you never know. They voted for Schwarzenegger, which was against their best interest. And he's still popular with Democrats. So anything could happen.
But can you imagine if we did away with the Electoral College system and went to a popular vote? Candidates would fly right over the fly-over states, and campaign on the heavily populated coasts. And can you imagine if the number of Senators from each state was determined by population?
Well, it will never happen. Too many states have too much to lose. But it's interesting. States like Rhode Island and Nevada with their relatively dinky populations get two extra electoral votes just for being states. And California, with it's humongous population also gets two extra electoral votes. So if you're from a dinky state, your vote has more clout. And you get as many senators as the big states, too.
Why do you think I liked it so much?
Lol. Just kidding. I loved your stuff. But thanks for posting my stuff too. I'm so proud!
Well, at least Marilyn Monroe is there.
It's really exciting, isn't it? What a change from the past.
I've watched some more footage from that debate, and I just can't shake the feeling that Hillary and Barak have come to some kind of an understanding about a joint-ticket. Perhaps they've agreed that whoever loses will be the other's Vice President. Or maybe I'm just seeing what I want to see.
;0)
Hi Jimsky,
It's a cinch. Each states' total electors in the Electoral College is equal to its number of members in the House of Representatives, plus one for each of its two US Senators, divided by the inverse of the average IQ of the state's residents, plus one elector for each backward state, minus one elector for each state between your state and the geographical center of the country, plus one elector if your state has a low population made up predominantly of religious conservatives provided they believe Noah really existed, and he managed to stuff two of every kind of animal including dinosaurs onto the arc.
Some states are winner-take-all - the candidate who gets the most votes in that state gets all the state's electors. That means, for example, the number of Californians who end up voting for the candidate that they did not vote for exceeds the population of most of the mid-west which voted for the other idiot. Every 4 years millions and millions of Americans vote for the candidate that they voted against.
And then there's the often forgotten fact that the electors do not have to vote for the candidate they are assigned to. Electors are actual people, and thus can be quirky.
Here's a cartogram of how the US looks state-by-state according to its electors. Note how many of the small states are not so small after all.
Now, the delegate system for the primaries is based more on population. That's why it is used only for the primaries, and abandoned for the election. To just count the popular vote in the presidential election could mean that nobody would bother to campaign in the heartland. For example, the entire middle of the country could vote for someone like George Bush, but Al Gore could be elected because he was popular in the more heavily populated coastal states. We certainly wouldn't want that!
Anyway, the simple way to remember it is that the popular vote is meaningless. In 2000 Bush won the presidency with half a million fewer votes than Gore. And if Kerry had won Ohio in 2004, he would have won the presidency with three million fewer votes than Bush. That's how we like things in America. We call it Democracy.
Hey Jeffsky,
I just visited your blog. I'm in awe! It's fabulous. Sorry it's taken me so long to get there. I tried once before and something happened. Anyway, I love it.
http://floristguy.blogspot.com/
Great music! Don't you just love the guy acting as the conductor. (music conductor, not train conductor. lol) All those talented musicians playing those difficult instruments. But who do you watch? The guy waving his arms and dancing about.
Great video. A little slow, however. It allowed viewers to focus occasionally. That's ok, but not if watching Bush. We never view him in anything less than 60X fast-forward. ;0)
I guess we're just not mad as hell.
Lol. Yep. But as you said, Caroline is for Obama too. Bobby Kennedy Jr. came out for Hillary. Well, perhaps "came out" isn't the best choice of phrases here.
Hey, me too, Jeffsky. And thanks.
Don't know what to expect any more from Super Tuesday. Obama's got momo. But I must say after the recent debate with Hillary I'm feeling a lot better about him.
ROTF! And everyone's jaw drops, and they keep saying, "It's Walter Chronic!".
Lol. True. But I wonder if I'd still have to pay taxes while in a gay concentration camp. That wouldn't be fair. ;0)
HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAaaahahahahahahahahaha!
Me too! Things are looking up!
I hear Hillary is determined to make Florida's delegates count. Lol. Can't blame her. And it's hard to argue that all those people should be disenfranchised because of party rules. Of course, they're the ones who gave us "hanging chads", so I say go ahead and punish them. lol
But Teddy was furious because Hillary didn't acknowledge JFK as the one who was responsible for making MLK's dream become law. Insiders say Teddy "blew a gasket" when she credited LBJ.
Get yourself a quart of Häagan-Dazs strawberry cheescake, and eat every bite of it in one sitting. You'll feel much better. Oh, and make Kamryn watch.
Lolol.
McCain declares Baghdad market safe.
That's why we get along so well, Deb. We both don't understand each other.
And still dropping. ;0)
Wasn't that disgusting? We could tell, even though we watched it in fast-forward.
He was a better actor than Reagan, so why not give it a try?
Hiya, Debsky! Guess what. We had another close encounter of the fourth kind. Remember the Daly City fish fall? (The one Jeff thinks never happened?) Welllll...........
I was on the roof the other day repairing our weather vane the day after a big storm. And when I finished and started back over toward the ladder, all this bright color caught my eye. There, sitting on the edge of our roof was a huge macaw, similar to the one in the picture below. I couldn't believe it. I mean, here it was... another gray day in Daly City.... cold..... windy..... hardly the tropics..... and there's a big ol' macaw sitting on our roof looking at me.
Then I heard this loud screech. It was another one somewhere close by, and the two started calling back and forth to each other.
Well, to make a long story short, there were three of them. Some guys regularly bring them down to Mussel Rock and allow them to fly free for exercise. But that day the wind caught the youngest one and carried him up the canyon toward our house. So the others followed. I guess they felt lost, and when one of them saw me on the roof he decided to come over.
I just stood there talking to it for a few minutes, not wanting to approach any closer and possibly frighten it away. Then I heard some people calling to it from the street. They had driven up the hill hoping to find their birds. So I invited them into the back yard. Really nice guys. The first two birds came down and landed on his arm without much hesitation. It took about an hour for the youngest one to decide to leave a nearby tree. And good timing, too, as a thunder storm was approaching.
The guys thanked me, and took the birds back to their car riding on their shoulders. Obviously those birds were well cared for. They're huge!! With those tail feathers they must be almost three feet long. And he told me they live to be 80!
I tell you, there's never a dull moment in Daly City!
I respect Caroline a lot too. As for Teddy's backing Obama, well, word came out that he was "furious" with Hillary for giving credit to Lyndon Johnson for being the political force that pushed the civil rights legislation into existence. It was JFK who started the ball rolling.
Wasn't that HORRIBLE?! They have no shame on Fox.
I hear it was really depressing. Someone described the audience as "funereal".
The problem was that he wasn't capable to begin with. ;0)
lololol!
Now I really DON'T know what you're talking about. lol.
I agree with you. And the tone sure was better yesterday between Hillary and Obama. After a debate like that I could almost believe again that the two would make a dream ticket.
You think I'm kidding. But it's true. We don't just yell at the tv set when Bush is on. Sometimes we jump all the way out of the chair. It's no wonder the cats won't enter the tv room until the news is over. ;o)
Lolol. Are you REALLY surprised? ;0)
It's true. Some Republicans have good ideas. ;0)