Am I the only one who thinks Jon & Stephen have something up their sly little sleeves in returning to their shows?
1. These guys know really bad comedy. They can spoof really bad comedy. They can flop on demand.
2. Watch for digs at their corporate overlords. They’ll be subtle. But you’ll know ’em when they make ’em.
3. ZombieTV. They’re back! But with little blanderizers embedded into the back of their necks. Pod People cum (new meaning for) Podcasters.
Other speculations? Do we really think they’ll be anywhere near as funny?
Sadly, the winners will be the networks, who’ll flood the airwaves with more soulless, mind-numbing, writer-free ‘reality TV’ drek. The rest of us are all losers, one way or another. But let’s make the best of it! How about “Celebrity Animal Fights”? Erik Estrada versus a tiger, perhaps? Or for you righties, how about Tim Robbins versus a bull (from Durham, natch)?
I can’t wait until David Goldstein lays into Stewart and Colbert for their union-busting decision to cross the picket line, like he did when he called the BIAW “fascist bastards” for being anti-union.
I just know that David isn’t going to remain hypocritically silent, like he has so many times in the past. And I just know he isn’t going to come back defensively and say something lame, like “Well these things are totally different, and you know it!”
Now, let’s see if Goldy will grow a pair, and speak out, even when people he likes does wrong, or if once again, he’s going to turn the other way, because those doing wrong share his politics.
They could simply do short clips of Rush Limabaugh’s and Hannity shows, with a shot of Stewart or Colbert’s facial reaction to each ridiculous statement they make. Could be hillarious. No writers necessary – these Republican flag-bearers write their own comedy.
For example, I had to share this one: An opinion peace recently published in a Chattanooga paper about the 45 million + uninsured Americans, stating (essentially) that we should do nothing because at least half of them are illegal immigrants, and the other half are poor who don’t have to pay anyway, and a lot of other complaints about the “socialized medicine” which are blatantly false, and some complaints about the current system which contradict his own points. To top it off, the writer has a e-mail knickname of “jsbottomfeader”.
http://www.chattanoogan.com/ar.....119192.asp
Money, Money, Money, Money, Money, Money, Money, Money, Money, Money, Money, Money, Money, Money, Money, Money, Money, Money, Money, Money, Money, Money, Money, Money, Money, Money, Money, Money, Money, Money, Money, Money, Money, Money, Money, Money, Money, Money, Money, Money, Money, Money, Money, Money, Money
My guess is that ViaComedyCentral is forcing them back to work. I didn’t know until I read the article that they were both WGA members; it surprises me a little bit that they would cross picket lines.
I suspect the studio has a fairly large hammer over their heads.
Dave Reichert is already sending taxpayer dollars to get re-elected. To bad in his mailings he trying to claim credit for work that Norm Dicks did.
Franking spending:
Rep. Dave Reichert, R-Wash., ranked 16th among House members, spending $143,843.03. Rep. Rick Larsen, D-Wash., ranked 56th at $105,082.98.
Dunno about Stewart and Colbert, but I read that the the “big-three” late-night hosts had been paying their staffs’ salaries out of their own pockets while their shows were on hiatus. Not such a big deal for Leno and Letteman, who are filthy rich, but Jimmy Kimmel was looking at a decision over whether to let his people fend for themselves or go broke himself.
Do any of you Goldy supporters think he has the courage to have a character named General Mohammed Muslim on his show?
You and I both know the answer. No he doesn’t. Just another reason why I don’t respect him as a person.
@2 Unions are good for workers, and good for America. Unions built this country, and built the middle class. People like you would have nothing but for the 1900s union movement. You would be a fucking sharecropper or ditch digger living in company housing and eating out of a company store. You wouldn’t own a fucking thing without unions. Unions are the working man’s best friend. Republicans are the working class’s worst enemy. Republicans hate workers. This is obvious from the tax laws passed by the Republican-controlled Congress. The GOP Congress punished work by taxing earned income at double the rate of unearned income. That’s why I don’t work! Why should I work when I can get more money with less effort and pay lower taxes by inheriting money or gambling in the stock market? Work sucks, and everyone knows it! I don’t work, and I don’t produce anything! I’ve been prosperous ever since I quit working. I’m never going to work or produce anything ever again! I live like a Republican now.
@8
I can not imagine that Goldy would NOT want such a person. BUT … is there one? The sheer corage it would take to parody the Mad Mulims as the Gen does Radical Rightism ,… can ou imagine anyone with that sort of gonads?
There’s a real question here as to whether the majority of the viewing audience will be able to discern the difference between “good” comedy, “bad” comedy or a spoof of either one. The average TV viewer sits down in front of the damned thing, pops open a cool one, and puts his brain in standby mode. If people could tell the difference, why the hell are we all letting ourselves be coerced into paying more and more for “the life ComCrapstic”, with hundreds of channels “high-definition” repetitive dreck?.
If there was some guy who played a character called General Mohammed Muslim, who mocked right of center Muslims, David would have him on his radio show? I don’t think you really believe that. Just be honest about it. I would have more respect for you. There’s no way he would do that. You and I both know that.
Will just said on 710KIRO, at 11:52 AM, that Switzerland has a much lower violent crime rate due in large part to it being populated by mostly white people.
BS at too many to acknowledge:
Nevermind. His moniker,BS, says it all.
Funny how that works!
I have not felt the need lately to pray, but BS has reminded me:
Jesus,
Please, save me from your followers. Deliver me from their evil grasp. (Preferably near a Starbucks).
AMEN!!
Many thanks to “BS” for posting in #12 an explanation of the point he was attempting to make in the incomprehensible gibberish he posted in #8. Now we know that he’s not brain damaged, simply full of shit.
16
I would argue he is no longer full of shit. He has left it all over this blogs comment threads.
16
Actually, I tend to believe he is both brain-damaged and full of shit. The two conditions are not, unfortunately, mutually exclusive.
BS might be on qualudes too.
I’m disappointed in Colbert and Stewart. I don’t want to be a Pollyanna, but I think it has less to do with money than the fear of losing fame and stardom. Out of sight, out of mind.
I can’t see the shows being anywhere as funny, but they must be better than Fox’s Half Hour News Hour or BS’s dreadful General Mohammed Muslim routine.
John Moe gets the last laugh: “(Jim McDermott could) run naked through downtown Seattle shooting random strangers, and eaten a baby koala — live on television — and he still would have received at least 62 percent (of the vote in the 7th). Seattle likes liberals.”
Actually, that’s not funny. It’s vicious slander or libel. Koala Killer McDermott would receive at least 70 percent. Seattle loves criminals.
I am not full of BS. I am not brain damaged. I happen to be one of the most respected room regs in my AOL politcs chatroom.
BS
Hey, man, there’s nothing wrong with being brain-damaged and full of shit. If that’s what you are, just embrace it. Hold your head high and shout to the heavens: “I’m brain-damaged and full of shit, and I’m proud of it.” You’ll feel better.
BS at 22:
BS says:
This qualifies you for what exactly? What prerequisites do you need to be a room reg on AOL? I imagine a computer, too much time on your hands and an over-inflated opinion of one’s self importance is all you really need for this “job”.
Nice attempt at obtaining credibility. Just more BS from BS.
ROFLMAO!
@8, @12 Goldy has a radio show and you don’t, neener neener!
@21 Of course it’s funny, and it’s true, too. The fact that McDermott could run naked through downtown Seattle shooting random strangers, and eat a baby koala live on television, and still receive at least 62 percent of the vote in the 7th, proves HOW BAD Republicans are!
26
NEWS FLASH……..
Read all about it….
Roger Rabbit hates dogs and Koala bears.
RR, does is really prove that? Or is it more likely that this is subconsciously going on between the ears of Seattle voters … “Duh, all I know is his name is familiar to me, and that I’m a Democrat, and he’s a Democrat, so I guess I should vote for him.”
By the way, RR, you’re an “investor,” right? So I take it you only invest in socially responsible companies? I want.. no, I DEMAND a listing of your holdings!
28 Believe it or not, a bunch of us folks in the 7th actually LIKE what Jim McDermott is doing…especially the stuff that gets you wingnuts’ knickers in a knot.
A recent poll showed that 93% of people who illegally take shopping carts off of grocery store property are Democrats.
In your face!
seattle jew….i wasn’t aware that YOU worked for FREE.
when did that happen?
BS @ 28
Demand this! (Grabbing crotch)
Who the fuck are you to DEMAND anything? Tell you what, I DEMAND that you banish yourself from this blog. Spread your bullshit over at AOL. Who the fuck uses AOL anymore? Pimply faced adolescents?
Fuck off!!
And to stay on topic both Colbert and Stewart are funny as hell. Can’t wait for the shots they fire at management.
30
Cite your source. AOL polls don’t count.
Asshole!
About those shopping carts:
They’re not registered Democrat or otherwise.
BUT they do VOTE Democrat….sometimes twice!
King County Elections: Vote early and often!
34
You desecrate your moniker. You would hate Sam Adams if you were to meet such a fellow. Sam was a freethinker who actually believed that evidence and reason matter. You do not. Republicans squawking about electoral fraud is priceless.
Remember how I said Goldy lacks the courage to speak out against someone of his own party when they do something he disagrees with? Notice his silence regarding Stewart and Colbert crossing the picket line? Told ya so.
Umm- Republicans have already gotten in trouble for claiming election fraud when a certain Republican AG for Washington investigated and FOUND NO FRAUD!
So if some idiots (see 34 above) want to go around claiming fraud after all that has happened in the AG scandal – I would like to refer tham to the esteemed REPUBLICAN AG, John McCay, and what he said about the lack of evidence for fraud in the Governor’s race.
Republicans with moral integrity, like McCay, get shafted by the corrupt republicans in the Bush administration. Too bad the republican trolls who populate this site don’t have the moral integrity on one McCay.
Washington used to have a proud republican moderate heritage (Dan Evans and others) but the party has been hijacked by vindictive right wing types and I, for one, am through with it.
@27 Eating the koala bear wasn’t MY idea, or Jim McDermott’s idea …
All I’m saying is, Republicans are SO BAD that EVEN IF McDermott DID eat a koala bear on TV, people would still rather vote for him than any fucking Republican. And that’s absolutely true.
@30 And you’re proud of the fact that 7% of all Republican shoppers are cart thieves?
@28 “RR, you’re an ‘investor,’ right? So I take it you only invest in socially responsible companies?”
Hell no. I invest in companies run by Republican scumbags that I want to see go out of business! It’s a win-win, you see — if they go broke, that’s great, and if they prosper, I make money too.
“I want.. no, I DEMAND a listing of your holdings!”
Fuck you. I’m not your financial advisor! If you want to know what I’m investing in, pay me! Otherwise, do your own fucking stock research.
Other than the fact it’s well known on this blog that I started buying National Oilwell Varco over $100 per share ago.
My portfolio is energy-heavy, but I don’t own any oil majors, because they own very little oil; they’re primarily service providers now — 90% of the world’s oil reserves have been nationalized, and you can’t buy shares of governments.
Instead, I loaded up on shares of companies that design, build, and sell/lease oilfield equipment. The really fat gains in these stocks have already been made, but they’re still okay investors for 10% to 15% returns, especially going into an environment where it’ll be hard to make a dime.
The stock market will be tough in 2008 because stocks overall don’t rise much (if at all) when corporate profits are declining and the economy is slowing. Many investors will focus on capital preservation next year, but not me. I want stocks capable of producing 40% to 50% gains. I’ve got some ideas, which I’m not about to share with jerks who want to throw me in a concentration camp or make rabbit stew out of me! Fuck you Republican assholes, do your own research and self-education, that’s what public libraries are for.
It wouldn’t do you any good if I did tell you, anyway, because there’s vastly more complexity to this game than merely picking stocks to buy. There’s no such thing as a “hot stock” tip, only timely ideas. Timing is everything, but nobody can time markets or individual stocks, and it’s not even enough to understand the company’s financial picture (although you have to be able to do that) — the critical element is having a well-tuned intuition based on psychological insights into human behavior. This isn’t business, and it isn’t math, it’s poker — you gotta know when to hold ’em, and when to fold ’em. I couldn’t explain how to do that if I wanted to, all I can tell you is that I’m good at it. A lot of it comes from experience, making mistakes, and learning from your mistakes, so the best thing to do is start playing the market with fairly small sums that you can afford to lose and place bigger bets as your confidence in your analytical skills and gut instincts grows.
Just took a look at my numbers for 2007: based on today’s closing prices, total household wealth is up 12.03% for 2007, which I think is pretty damn respectable considering I’m a passive, mutual fund investor.
The keys to building wealth is having the discipline to make periodic contributions, keep investing no matter what, and take the long view. Don’t buy into these guys trying to make you “rich” using their “proven system.” If anybody had a sure-fire way to make money in the stock market, they ain’t dumb enough to share it with the public. Those guys who tell you they have a “proven system” are liars. They’re selling books, tapes and CDs to enrich themselves, not you!!
Remember, the whole point of having money is that you have more money than most everybody else. Otherwise money would be meaningless.
Of course, I was right about oilfield services stocks when I started buying them in 2005; this proved to be one of the 2 hottest sectors of the stock market in 2006 -2007, the other being companies selling basic commodities (steel, coal, copper, etc.).
The runup in oilfield services stocks is perfectly logical in retrospect. The oil industry disinvested during the 1980s and 1990s, when crude prices were relatively low, because they had neither the incentive nor the money to build new drilling platforms, undertake expensive exploration projects, etc. But world demand kept growing, existing oilfields are depleting, and political instability in several oil producing regions ratcheted upward with negative implications for supply — and voila, the demand curve crossed the supply curve and bang! crude prices spiked and the industry rushed to invest in new production. And Roger Rabbit was sitting there waiting for them to come to the parts counter, and I’ve been selling them everything from offshore platforms to drillships to drilling rig leases to drill bits to drilling mud! At huge markups … because suddenly there isn’t enough of this stuff to go around.
It’s kind of a no-brainer that when day rates for offshore drilling platforms doubled, the stocks in the companies that own and lease this platforms would also double.
All of this is crystal clear in hindsight. The problem is foreseeing it before Wall Street and other investors do. The fact is, I didn’t foresee it. I didn’t buy these stocks because it seemed a logical thing to do; I bought them because my gut instinct told me to do it. That’s the reason I got in ahead of almost everyone else, and made the big profits.
It’s very, very important to understand this: You’ve got to know the industry and the company; you’ve got to understand its business, and its financial statements, and so on; you’ve got to do plenty of research so you can make an informed guess about how much money the company is going to make in the future — these things are essential, BUT THEY ARE NOT ENOUGH! By the time the factors that cause a stock’s price to rise can be seen or deduced, other investors have seen it or deduced it too, and they’ve already bid it up. You’ve got to get there ahead of them, and the only mechanism that allows you to do that is intuition, or gut instinct, or whatever you want to call it. This isn’t science, it isn’t business, it isn’t math, it’s fucking INSTINCT and the foundation of that kind of instinct is an understanding of psychology that allows you to predict herd behavior.
This concept of the “herd” is very important in stock investing, because stocks don’t move due to the buying and selling decisions of a couple other guys who make the same decisions you do. Stocks move because of, and only when, the great mass of institutional and individual investors — or, at least, enough of them — ACT AS A HERD. Only the herd has enough buying or selling power to move the price of shares in any but the very smallest companies. All the numbers can look great but that stock isn’t going to do a fucking thing until the herd acts. Until then, it’ll just squat there. YOU MAKE ALL YOUR MONEY IN THE STOCK MARKET BY PREDICTING HERD BEHAVIOR.
I can’t teach this to anybody. You humans are at a disadvantage because you don’t live close to nature like I do. I have a built-in advantage by being a rabbit because I’m better tuned to the herd than you are. I better be, or I’m gonna get run over! We rabbits are always aware of what’s going on in our environment. We have to be — if we aren’t, we’ll get run over by a car or eaten by a hawk! I know all about herds. That’s why I can do this better than most people running mutual funds or investment departments of banks and insurance companies, and way better than most amateur investors! Yet, I don’t have a research department, a mainframe computer, or a bevy of analysts at my beck and call, and I sure as hell don’t have any inside information. I DON’T NEED ANY OF THAT STUFF. I understand herd behavior, and that’s what makes me good at this game.
@44 I made 25% on my stock portfolio in 2007 (with 1 more trading day to go).
And it would have been a hell of a lot more than that if our biggest holding, Starbucks, hadn’t lost half its value in the last year. It’s closer to 40% in the portion of the portfolio that I was actively trading.
Here’s a technique to try with a Roth IRA (and I recommend a Roth IRA for everyone who has an earned income, that is, the average working stiff).
Start a Roth IRA with a mutual fund outfit that offers a good variety of funds. (Fidelity, Vanguard, and American are the 3 biggest outfits.) Pick four funds to work with: a balanced fund, an aggressice growth fund, and international fund and a solid plain vanilla growth fund. Invest equal amounts initially into each fund. Then plan on making contributions each month (within the legal limits for total amount) to your Roth IRA. This technique works really well if you have the ability to link your bank account to the Roth IRA so that fund purchase amounts can come directly out of your checking account and buy shares, say once per month. The idea is to be on sort of a schedule so that at about the same time each month you make a purchase in your Roth IRA. The key is to purchase whichever of the four funds that has the lowest value at the time. If you make your periodic purchases based on buying whichever fund has the lowest value, you are forcing yourself to buy low. That’s have of the equation for success in the market: buy low and sell high.
Over a long period of time, this strategy will produce good results but nobody can guarantee that you’ll be a gazillionaire at age 59. This little simple strategy has worked very well for me, and I offer it to anybody who cares to use it, free of charge.
Very impressive, Roger. Since 1996, I done an average of 12.75% annually, which is pretty damn good considering the crappy times of 2001 thru 2003. Had some losses there, but overall the wealth is growing nicely. Just need a few more years and I’ll be ready for retirement.
I don’t like mutual funds, don’t own any, and I’ll tell you why.
First of all, the vast majority of mutual fund managers who actively manage their funds underperform the market. So, if you insist on buying mutual funds, you should buy only index funds. That way, you’ll at least make a market return, which is more than most fund managers make. There are tons of studies and statistics backing this up.
Another reason is because mutual fund managers use your money to advance their interests, not yours. And they have all kinds of agendas besides making money for YOU. On the other hand, there’s no immediate consequence for them if their decisions lose money for you, so there’s nothing to stop them from doing things for reasons other than growing your investment. For example, they want to attract additional investors, so they dress up the fund’s portfolio by getting rid of unpopular stocks and buying popular or trendy stocks. This is exactly backwards from what they should be doing. But they have a powerful incentive to do it because the fee structure is based on the amount of assets under management, not the rate of return. This is horseshit. They can do that with their money if they want to, but I’ll be damned if I’ll let them do it with mine.
And then … the fees. For starters, mutual fund fees eat part of your profits that otherwise would compound your returns. And the more actively the fund is managed, the higher the transaction costs are. Now let me ask you this — do your mutual funds PAY YOU when they lose money for you? They should, because they sure as hell CHARGE YOU when they make money for you! But in fact, they keep right on charging you fees even when their management isn’t worth a plugged nickel because they’re making nothing or losing money for you.
The biggest problem of all is that mutual funds have to invest A LOT of money, which restricts them to a limited list of stocks they can invest in — generally, the same big-caps all the other institutional investors own. The small growth companies where the best profits are simply can’t absord all the cash that big institutional investors have to park somewhere. They HAVE to put your money in slow-growing big-cap stocks because those are the only companies with enough outstanding stock to absorb that much capital.
Mutual funds are for suckers, and that’s why I don’t own them. But you don’t have to take my word for it; read this article:
http://seekingalpha.com/articl.....tual-funds
Once again, if you INSIST on putting your money in mutual funds, then put it ALL in no-load index funds, and choose the fund(s) on the basis of who charges the lowest fees.
Stock investing is not for everyone. You’re swimming with sharks! So you’d damned well better know what you’re doing. But individual investors have significant advantages over institutions and professional money managers because you have much more freedom of action than they do. As noted above, they’re locked into investing in a narrow selection of stocks. And you CAN beat the market — but it’s certainly not a given that you will, and you won’t do it by randomly throwing darts. You MUST know what you’re doing! If you can’t or won’t do it properly, then follow the standard advice of putting your money into a diversified selection of portfolio of CDs, index funds, and other “investment grade” vehicles. That won’t produce the kind of returns I get, but you won’t lose your ass, either.
@31 Not me. I don’t work at all. I get paid for not working.
Why the fuck should I work to make some goddam Republican rich?
I prefer to live like a Republican and get paid for not working.
More accurately, get paid for other people’s work. Because that’s what capitalists do.
@48 A Roth is not automatically better than a standard IRA. It depends on individual circumstances. An IRA lets you compound pre-tax money, but it’s taxed as ordinary income at the far end. A Roth is funded with after-tax income, so you’ve got less to invest, so it compounds slower, but it’s taxed less (or not at all) when you withdraw it years from ow. A lot depends on what tax bracket you’re in now, and what tax bracket you’ll be in after retiring. However, if your marginal tax rate is 25%, you’re giving up an awful lot of upfront capital and compounding effect to get tax savings in the distant future. Another problem is that laws can change and Congress may, by the time you withdraw from your Roth, take away some of its tax advantages. You should never trust Congress farther than the next election. I have a strong bias in favor of traditional IRAs, and have no money in Roths.
If you put $1,000 in an IRA, compound it at 5% a year for 25 years, and pay a 25% income tax rate on it, you’ll take home $2,539.77 in Year 25.
If you earn $1,000, pay 25% taxes on it, put the remaining $750 in an IRA, compound it at 5% a year for 25 years, and pay no taxes on it, you’ll take home $2,539.77 in Year 25.
You can figure this out yourself on a calculator.
What this means is that a Roth does not produce inherently superior after-tax returns than an IRA, other things being equal. But the Roth’s returns are less certain. That’s because it’s unlikely Congress will ever make people withdrawing savings from IRAs pay more than the ordinary income tax rate on those withdrawals. But most Roth withdrawals are untaxed, and there’s at least SOME temptation for a future Congress to tinker with THAT. So, you run the risk of the Roth ultimately getting less favorable tax treatment. Maybe you don’t see that happening on the foreseeable horizon, but how do you know what Congress might do 20, or 24, years from now?
A bird in hand is better than a bird in the bush. The deduction you take this year for your IRA contribution made in this tax year is a deduction a future Congress can’t take away from you because it’s a fait accompli.
There’s another reason why a Roth might be inferior to an IRA. What if, in the early years of the IRA, you make a serendipitous investment? Let’s say you buy a stock that increases 10 times in value. (This is not hypothetical; even at today’s depressed valuation, our Starbucks stock is worth more than 10 times what we paid for it; a year ago, it was worth 20 times what we paid for it.) If you put the whole $1,000 in an IRA, you’re compounding gains from a base of $10,000. But if you put $750 into a Roth, you’re only compounding from a base of $7,500. Guess which retirement fund will have more money in it 20 years later?
If everything else was equal, a 25% tax rate would eat up enough of the IRA’s principal that the final take-home numbers would still come out equal. But suppose you manage your IRA withdrawals in such a way that you can take them when you’re in a lower tax bracket? Then you come out ahead of the Roth, because there’s no way to manipulate the tax rate on your Roth withdrawals to a rate lower than 0%.
The bottom line is that when you put your money in an IRA instead of a Roth, you have a larger pool of funds to invest, and you have MORE CONTROL and MORE PREDICTABILITY with regard to the ultimate taxation of your tax-sheltered retirement savings. If I’m in a 25% bracket, I’d rather have the deduction today than a pig-in-a-poke decades from now. But if your current income is in a lower tax rate, it might be a different story. The Roth is a better bet if you reasonably believe the withdrawals would be taxed at a higher rate than the original earnings. For most people, the reverse is true, making a Roth a generally inferior tax deferral vehicle.
erratum @57 should read:
“If you earn $1,000, pay 25% taxes on it, put the remaining $750 in a Roth, …”
Roth or Traditional – it’s a matter of opinion for most folks as to which they prefer. I lean towards the Roth, but I didn’t convert my previous Traditional IRA into a Roth. I figured the govt. might reneg on the tax free promise on the Roths.
Mutual funds or individual issues? Hmmmm…that’s a choice, too. It depends on whether you want to be a stock trader or not. I did some trading in the past, but it never worked out too well. Haven’t had much luck in real estate either.