Even though Facebook is a well recognized company it is really not that big or profitable yet Mrs. Sandberg was paid over $26 million last year.
I think it is a legitimate question to ask (I realize most of you don’t care but I’m annoyed that she makes so much for running a small company). Here is a woman that helps run a company (she isn’t even the ceo) that reported a little over billion dollars in pretax profit in 2012. The company isn’t really that big, it only employs about 3,000 people. Yet Sheryl Sandberg was paid over $26 million dollars last year. Well lets compare her to another famous executive for Ford. Alan Mulally is the ceo of Ford. His company reported over $5 billion in profit for 2012 and his company employs well over 200,000 people world-wide yet he was only paid roughly $21 million dollars. I realize she works for a well-recognized company that many of us use on a regular basis but you could say the same thing about Mulally. You could also say that Mulally was instrumental in saving the Ford Motor Vehicle Company from certain destruction. So what has Miss Sandberg done to justify her many millions in compensation? I have no problem paying top talent for delivering results but I just don’t see how she is worth more per year running a smaller company than Mulally while he also is generating more profit at a much bigger and more complex company.
So Jason Collins comes out as the first openly gay to play professional sports, my reaction is WHO CARES! The media are the ones that have made this a so-called sensational story by trying to figure out who would be the first and the reaction that would follow. My question is besides gay people is this really a big deal to the rest of us? I could understand why gay people might think this a big event but why does the media think the rest of us should care? The only plausible answer that I can come up with is that this might be another case of the media trying to create the news instead of reporting it. I didn’t bother to read the story on SI’s website (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/magazine/news/20130429/jason-collins-gay-nba-player/?sct=hp_t11_a1&eref=sihp) because like the title of the article indicates I don’t really care enough about the story to read the whole article. That being said I sort of got the idea after reading some of the excerpts from the story that maybe someone in the media pushed him to come out, you know kind of like when a salesman gets you to buy something you really didn’t want. I imagine some editor at SI thought this would be the biggest story in sports for some time so they were really wanting to find some player to come out and also speculating about the reaction. The real question is why the sports media is so obsessed with this topic? Having said all of that I have no doubt that it is a huge deal for Jason Collins so I wish him the best.
It’s a bold statement but I believe it is accurate because Fox News has accumulated so much influence with people on the right that they never get their news from any other source. This has allowed people on the right to hold positions that would never be tolerated if there was no Fox News. Examples of the Fox Effect would be the House republicans almost causing the country to default two years ago. There is no way this happens if Fox News isn’t there to provide an echo chamber for many of these hard liners. Perhaps one of the best examples of the Fox Effect was the war in Iraq. The Bush administration was able to blow off the naysayers for years while its war plan to fight the insurgency failed miserably. One of the primary reasons was that Bush’s base only watched Fox News so they always got some spin like “you always hear the bad but never the good happening in Iraq”.
Perhaps the single most important consequence of the Fox Effect is that it is destroying the republican party because republicans have begun tailoring their national message to fit Fox News (trust me when I say that Mitt Romney won the people who watch Fox). At first this seems like a smart move but further review finds that making your message to fit only Fox News means that as a party you will be permanently relegated to 2nd tier status. Another way of putting it would be to say that republicans wont win another national election again so long as they continue to tailor their message to only Fox News because as influential as it is it is still not representative of the entire country. In closing, I would say that Fox News is the natural response to a national media that is normally left of center, republicans leaders need to remember that to be a national party you have to appeal to more than people who only watch Fox. Republican voters need to remember that they should try get their news from more than just Fox, that way maybe they would not have been so surprised about the outcome of last year’s presidential election. For the record I do watch Fox News and lean conservative.
Why do Americans continuously send politicians to Washington that support free trade when we are one of the few countries that actually truly believe in it. Everyone else says they do to make us feel better about the fact that we have the world’s dumbest trade policies so they can keep taking advantage of us. The fact of the matter is that the 2008 economic crisis was because of our moronic trade policies (the Chinese and others invested their obscene profits made from exporting goods to the US in US backed government securities which had the effect of artificially lowering mortgage rates in America thereby creating the housing bubble).
Is it fair to trade with China when we all know they artificially lower their currency to make their goods cheaper here? Well, one might argue that we get the Chinese to finance our obscene budget deficit that runs over a trillion plus every year. Fair enough, but does anybody really believe that we are getting good value for that extra trillion we borrow to finance our own governments horribly inefficient operations? Also if the Chinese pretty much get open access to our market then why don’t we get open access to their market? If an US auto manufacturer wants to export cars to China they have 3 choices. First, they can export the cars from the US and pay a steep tariff that will double the price of the vehicle. Second, they can export the cars in parts that would then be assembled in China ( they call them knock down kits). Or finally, if they want to build the cars in China they are forced to partner with a Chinese competitor who then has the chance to get a free education on how to build cars to Western standards. Does any of this sound like it is Free Trade? Not to me it doesn’t and it begs the question as to why Americans put up with it? I know this for sure we can’t continue these destructive policies for long because America is on its way to becoming a second world nation because of these policies.
by conversation and driven by my personal artistic passion, I
French President Hollande inspecting French troops in Afghanistan.
As the US begins to focus more on Asia and less on Europe there is a new reality for the people of Europe that they are defenseless. Couple the US pivot to Asia with the fact that the economic crisis has forced many european governments to slash budgets and you have a situation in Europe where it is hard to see how they can defend themselves. One might ask who exactly the enemy is they should be defending against? While the answer is not necessarily obvious like it was during the Cold War there are capability gaps in european defense that need to be addressed. First, europe is already within range of Iranian missiles so it would seem that missile defense should be a priority. It also begs the question of why the US should be considering paying to provide europe with a missile defense? The only possible answer would be to defend Europe in case the US strikes Iran but to me that should still mean that Europe should pay and not the US. Europe also has no ability to project real power around the globe. I dare say that they would even be hard pressed to be able to protect their interests abroad should they be threatened by even the most feeble of opponents. Also Europe needs some credible military capability to at least be able to conduct operations with the US when it is in their interest too. From enforcing future no fly zones or combating terrorism or piracy Europe should have some ability to at least be a contributing partner to future coalitions. Lastly Europe should be thinking of ways to intervene (not miltarily) in collapsed european states in the near future. Sooner or later if the situation does not improve in countries like Greece or worse Spain the EU will have to consider how they might deal with countries where the national government ceases to function effectively. No, it has not come to that yet but if the economic crisis does not resolve itself soon it would be foolish to think that it could not happen.
Sec. of State was in China recently where he called China to do more to control North Korea.
Here we go again, it is like a broken record that we seem to hear every time North Korea acts up over the last 10 years. Republican and democrat alike, even so-called experts like former Gov. Bill Richardson seem to think that China should do more to control the loons in North Korea. The argument goes that China has great influence over the North Koreans economically so the North should listen to the Chinese. Lets assume for a moment that is is true, then why does China never seem to use this influence to get Pyongyang to act in a more reasonable fashion. The answer is simple, the Chinese find the North Koreans acting provocatively useful to worry the US. The fact that the North Koreans are a major headache for the American diplomatic and security professionals (and I use that term lightly) is a good resource for the Chinese to have while trying to go about their own business. No, I don’t think the Chinese put the North Koreans up to these latest provocations by the North Koreans but in general the fact that the United States, South Korea, and Japan all have to focus way to much time, money (defense spending to counter North Korean threats), and energy probably suits the Chinese just fine. Think about it, in any scenario that the US has a crisis with China in the future the US will have to account for the lunatic North Koreans in their calculus on how to handle the situation. So if our politicians could recognize that it’s not really in China’s interest to control North Korea then they could actually spend their time trying to develop a more sensible approach to the North Korean question instead of always rolling out the same old tired line that China needs to exert influence over the North Koreans blah, blah, blah.
in China for talks on North Korea | euronews, world news
“President Obama campaigned on gutting America’s missile defense, and he has kept his promise.”
Word accidentally leaked out today that the pentagon secretly assumed that North Korea does in fact have the capability of putting a nuke on a missile. This flies in the face of the myriad of statements by defense officials in the past that routinely dismissed the idea that North Korea had developed nuclear capable missiles. To say that this a complete game changer for America’s policy towards the rogue state is an understatement because now there is the very real possibility that North Korea could lob a missile to the west coast of the United States. Sadly, it also shows how little trust you can put in our elected officials. Remember, many of these same democrats running the pentagon and the Obama administration have been telling us for years that missile defense was a uneeded waste of tax payer dollars. I have no doubt that our missile defense programs have been executed in a completely inefficient fashion because that is par for the course for the pentagon because politicians secretly like it that way. Unfortunately just because it was developed in a wasteful manner does not mean it was not needed.
To be frank the Obama administration has done such a bad job of handling America’s missile defense that it has had to overrule its own reverse of the Bush administrations’ missile defense policy. Read this excerpt from a piece from www.forbes.com .
“The U.S. could have already had those 14 more interceptors in place, along with another 10 in Europe next year. The Bush administration deployed the first ground-based interceptor (GBI) in 2004, and had planned to deploy a total of 54. In 2009, Obama pulled the plug on that plan, and cut GBI deployment to just 30.”
To say that the Obama administration is incompetent on missile defense would be an understatement. The fact of the matter is that he and his administration are down right dangerous.