18 Comments Add your own

• 1. Mike Carroll  |  July 7th, 2008 at 10:21 am

  There are several phrases that come to mind re Bill Moyers but national treasure isn’t one of them.

• 2. Pat Cunningham  |  July 7th, 2008 at 10:38 am

  Mike: I’d be surprised if it were otherwise. You’ve got your national treasures (I shudder to think whom), and I’ve got mine.

• 3. Mike Carroll  |  July 7th, 2008 at 1:02 pm

  George Will and Charles Krauthammer immediately come to mind.

• 4. Pat Cunningham  |  July 7th, 2008 at 1:18 pm

  Mike: Well, you could do a lot worse than George Will, I’ll admit — and, by God, you have, with Charles Krauthammer. He is pathetic. On countless occasions, he has written columns that are laughably inaccurate and illogical. Let’s take, for example, one of his recent offerings. I’ll let Matt Yglesias merely scratch the surface: http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/07/the_difference_4.php

• 5. Mike Carroll  |  July 7th, 2008 at 1:30 pm

  Nice try Patrick but no banana.
  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/03/AR2008070302451.html

• 6. Pat Cunningham  |  July 7th, 2008 at 1:49 pm

  Mike: I’m trying to figure out why you’ve provided a link to the same Krauthammer column to which I already indirectly linked through the Yglesias piece. I’m also trying to figure out if you actually buy all the crap Krauthammer was selling in that column. I’m also trying to figure out your banana metaphor.

• 7. Pat Cunningham  |  July 7th, 2008 at 2:42 pm

  One more thing, Michael: Krauthammer likes to remind us every once in a while that he’s a trained psychiatrist. And under that aegis, he sometimes declares that certain people with whom he politically disagrees are mentally ill. He’s done it to Howard Dean, Al Gore and others. Now, you or I can joke about Dean or Gore or jocularly question the mental stability of others on political grounds, but neither of us brings a doctor’s credentials to the table. Krauthammer does — and conspicuously so on some occasions. In so doing, he dishonors both of his professions, doctor and pundit. It’s like the time that Republican Sen. Bill Frist, a physician, presumed to diagnose Terri Schiavo on the basis of a years-old videotape. It turned out, of course, that Frist was wrong — medically and politically. His license should have been yanked, and so should Krauthammer’s (if he still has one) when he dares to commit malpractice in his column or his TV commentaries purely for political purposes.

  This is the guy you consider a national treasure, Mike. I would have expected higher standards from you for such a distinction.

• 8. Mike Carroll  |  July 7th, 2008 at 3:34 pm

  I hate to let this go but I am involved in some serious business meetings at the moment which prevent a decent response. Perhaps we can pick this up at a future date. Remember, I am pumping $ into ss for you.

• 9. Pat Cunningham  |  July 7th, 2008 at 5:15 pm

  And don’t think I don’t appreciate it. Keep your nose to the grindstone. I need the dough. Speaking of SS, if I thought McCain was going to win in November, I’d be worried about him and your other pals screwing up the program with their privatization schemes, but that ain’t gonna happen. So, labor on, Dude.

• 10. Menlo Bob  |  July 7th, 2008 at 6:35 pm

  As usual Moyers cooks the books and leaves out as much as he puts in as the PBS ombudsman Michael Getler has noted. Recently he said this of Moyers:
  “As readers of this column know, I’m not a fan of “balance” as a journalistic yardstick. There are stories that have no real balance to them and knee-jerk dedication to it can be misleading and produce a false equivalence for viewers. But I’ve also made the point that on many occasions the absence of any balance can also be journalistically misleading.”

  For example; Moyers said that the oil companies were getting back into Iraq after those oil fields had been nationalized. As if the oil companies were taking over the oil fields. Truth is that the fields are still nationalized and the Iraq oil ministry was accepting bids from any oil company in the world to develop new oil fields. The top US oil company is Exon Mobil and only ranks 14th in the world and even they aren’t assured of anything.

• 11. Kaus  |  July 8th, 2008 at 11:29 am

  I suppose Pat would be in favor for continuing the oil for food fiasco pre 2002. Oil money going directly into Saddam’s hands instead of the evil Oil companies…

  Exxon Mobile earnings were less in 2008 then 4th qtr 2007. Earnings release is July 31…can’t wait to see how much the EVIL oil companies don’t make this quarter.

  By the way, Shell and BP both declined to bid on contracts because they are too risky. Shell and BP are NOT USA companies. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3879839.stm

  Moyers journalism is a sham.

• 12. Milton Waddams  |  July 8th, 2008 at 2:56 pm

  When you refer to earnings, are you talking revenues or profits? My understanding is that the big oil companies have been buying back stock, which should lower profits in the short term. This will increase profits per share, making investors happy.

• 13. Pat Cunningham  |  July 8th, 2008 at 3:07 pm

  Milton: Earnings are after-tax profits.

• 14. kaus  |  July 8th, 2008 at 8:20 pm

  Since Pat doesn’t understand this about buying back stock, I will explain it to you.
  Milton, buying back stock means that the company earnings are now split among fewer shares, meaning higher earnings per share (EPS).
  Since XOM posted lower EPS in qtr1 2008 than Q4 2007, I question the direct impact of higher prices at the gas pump.

• 15. Pat Cunningham  |  July 8th, 2008 at 8:25 pm

  Kaus: I understand buying back stock. The gentleman asked whether earnings were revenues or profits. I told him.

• 16. Kaus  |  July 8th, 2008 at 9:08 pm

  He asked nothing. He made a statement. “My understanding is that the big oil companies have been buying back stock, which should lower profits in the short term”.

  Wrong…wrong wrong. EPS theoretically goes up when companies buy back stock.

• 17. Pat Cunningham  |  July 8th, 2008 at 9:13 pm

  Kaus: Read the first sentence of Comment No. 12, and then tell me again that “he asked nothing.” Do you have a reading disorder or something?

• 18. Kaus  |  July 8th, 2008 at 10:06 pm

  Comment number 15…..Pat does NOT understand buying back stock.

Leave a Comment

Name Required

Email Required, hidden

Url

Comment

Security Code:

Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed