Filed under The Public Square
Did anyone else watch the livestream townhall meeting with Pres. Obama on Facebook yesterday? I wish they had set up the online written newsfeed so it streamed also. It was stagnant and I couldn’t see anyway to make it update. Probably for the best, the initial comments were actually rather thoughtful, later ones that I managed to pull up looked to be more right-wing blather lacking actual content that could be considered an actual question or constructive statement.
I did not watch Obama yesterday. I was in and out of television viewing but did manage to see Donald Trump with Michael Isikoff (sp?) saying alot of bluff and blustery nonsense.
Isikoff asked him some point blank questions and The Donald did the infamous ‘ excuse me’ line way too many times and tried to push the questions off the radar.
The Donald was asked about his companies taking bankrupty 3 times in 6 years. The Donald then did his ‘excuse me’ tactic and tried to say that he was not running the company,so it was not him that took bankruptcy. Isikoff pointed out that The Donald was being paid $2 million IIRC for being the Chairman of the Board at the time.
The Donald replied – yeah, but the Chairman of the Board does not do anything.
What kind of logic is this? The companies that took bankruptcy had Trump’s name on them and he was the Chairman of the Board but he was not responsible. In what planet does this make sense?
With logic like that being swallowed by all the GOP minions – is it any wonder our country is in shambles whenevere these geniuses are in charge?
Isikoff also asked The Donald if he would provide financial disclosures if he runs for president. The Donald said we will all know in about two months.
Then The Donald took great offense at the estimated net worth Iskioff stated has been reported about Trump.
Then there was a diatribe by Trump himself of how wealthy and how many more billions The Donald is worth. But,of course, if he does run for president, he will have to divulge that information – huh?
All I kept thinking when The Donald was tripping all over himself about how much money he has is this old saying:
There are two things men usually lie about – it is how much money they have and how great their sex life is.
In all seriousness, I think The Donald is riding the Krazee Klown train throughout GOP fantasyland, get some publicity along the way, puff up his ego and then come out with some excuse for not running.
But I suspect the GOP establishment is really afraid of The Donald. And they have good reason to be – not because of The Donald but because there are so many birthers in their krazee korner of the GOP that will nominate Donald in a New York minute. And there goes the 2012 hopes for the White House.
indy, just an observation about “The Donald” and his holding the office of Chairman of the Board of the companies which went through Bankruptcy and which had his “name on them”. He’s technically correct that he has no personal responsibility for these companies’ Bankruptcies. While “Chairman of the Board” is a fine title, at most he held just as much power (legally) as any other member of the Board of Directors; one vote. Absent active malfeasance, whether by commission or omission, no Director will have any personal responsibility (liability) for actions of the corporation, taken by and through the officers thereof, who lawfully have the power to act in its behalf. While directors must, by resolution, approve of a corporation filing Bankruptcy, it is the responsibility of the officers to a) run the company on a day-to-day basis, and (as in this case) b) determine whether Bankruptcy is in the best interests of the corporation.
While I care not for “The Donald”, I felt it appropriate to grudgingly acknowledge the correctness of his statement (from a technical, legal perspective). If anyone has fault, it is the officers, who ran the companies; and the shareholders, who elected the directors who made the general policy to be executed by the officers.
Yes, I know legally he is correct – but I think morally and ethically, he is on shaky ground.
But what do I know? I am only a taxpayer that rich guys like to gouge.
But what I found so interesting is that I can understand companies taking bankruptcy once but when it happens 3 times – don’t you think it is time for the Chairman of the Board to ask some hard questions?
What happened to the infamous line – You’re Fired????
These were three distinct companies, correct? That’s how I interpreted it. If only one company, successive Chapter 11s, although uncommon, are not unheard of.
The way to fire the Chairman of the Board is for the shareholders to elect someone else (if Chairman of the Board is a separate office) or for the shareholders to elect different members of the Board of Directors (if the chairman is selected from the group of elected and qualified directors).
Announcing: Gary Johnson is throwing his hat into the presidential ring.
Any comments or are you like me – who is this guy and what is his angle?
Just like you, indy; the linked article was not too illuminating, nor comforting.
2011 Commencement Speakers
Especially feeling sorry for the graduating Seniors at tOSU.
Here’s a reminder of how screwed up the world is today – Rutgers University paid Snooki $2,000 more than they will pay their commencement speaker.
Check out who their commencement speaker will be and then shake your head and say WTF…..
OK, I’m going to argue that the distinction here does indeed make a difference. Snooki’s fee was paid by the Student Programming (Board?) (Association?), a student organization on campus that indeed does receive money from the fees part of “tuition and fees” paid by students. The charge of the SPB/SPA is to present programs of interest to students in particular, and to the University community, in general. I’m not aware of how it works at Rutgers, but in my experience, there is a modest admission charged for these events, the funds from which are used for other SPB/SPA activities. The University, as the University, directly pays not a dime of the fee.
Commencement speakers, OTOH, are paid directly by the University. Some schools are fortunate to have funding available for this purpose from donors; at many places, this is a budget item, included in the annual budget of the institution, and paid from its general funds. No admission is charged, and anyone can come who wants to come, within space limitations.
To say Rutgers paid Snooki more than it will pay Toni Morrison (which will p.o. the younger as she would have been quite exultant to have Ms Morrison as a Commencement speaker, having taken a seminar on her writings) is factually not correct. Rather, the Rutgers SPB/SPA decided it would pay the fee for Snooki out of funds allocated it (and make a little money, too), via (I suspect) a check drawn on the organization’s separate bank account, signed by its Treasurer (and President, one would presume). Ms Morrison will receive a check, I’d venture, from Rutger’s general bank account, signed by the Bursar (or maybe the Provost) of the University, with the countersignature of the University President.
Sorry about the length of this; it’s just that I become agitated when an action is attributed to an entity that was in fact performed by a separate entity within the entity.
I knew Snooki’s fee was paid by another fund but if it is student fees – then isn’t the University ultimately responsible for how those funds are spent?
My only point was that somehow in the crazy mixed up world Snooki is paid more than Nobel and Pulitzer Prize winner is mind boggling.
Kinda like the Trump is the the Chairman of the Board but not held responsible but yet when the PR hits about the company – it is his name – and the name of Rutgers University that catches the mud in the face.
You’re right – and I should have stated that the University was not paying Snooki but another funding source within their walls.
I stand corrected. this is why I’m glad you’re on this blog – you legal types keep us all honest, huh?
Actually, indy, it depends on how one defines “University” as used in your question appearing in the first paragraph. I’ll try to explain this statement so it might make sense to someone other than me.
Since the great student uprisings in the late 1960s, many colleges and universities have a governing body of sorts that are in charge of allocation of funds from student fees to various student organizations. As I’m most familiar with KU, I’ll use it as an example.
At KU, a certain sum of money is given to the Student Senate for such allocation. The Student Senate consists of students elected by their peers to represent their interests. Organizations apply for funding, and after debate (sometimes perfunctory; sometimes lengthy and quite heated), there is a vote on the amount and, in rare cases, restrictions on the use of the allocated funds. The organizations then receive the funding, to be used by them as they wish, so long as consistent with the formative documents of the organization, with the contents of the application, and with any restrictions imposed. The University Administration does not get involved unless there is misuse or unlawful use of the funds and the Student Senate takes no action against the organization; the funds are embezzled; or, the proposed activity creates a threat to the security, safety, etc., of the student body as a whole, faculty, staff, administration, university property, or any combination thereof. Otherwise, the University, by and through its administrators, has nothing to do with these things.
So, if by University, you mean a body such as the Student Senate, the answer is “yes”. If, however, you mean the University as the monolithic entity represented by its administration, generally the answer is “no”.
The offspring inform me that both Carleton College and Colby College follow the same general model hereinabove set out. I suspect, but really don’t know, that this, in general, is how it’s done most places.
And, at KU, the Student Senate recommends the dollar amount of the various fees to be charged for support of these organizations, but the Administration makes the final decision on the total amount. One year, the recommendation was, in part, $1.50 to SUA (Student Union Activities, think SPB); $1.00 to the Student Senate to pay its rent, etc.; $15.00 to the Athletic Department, to subsidize the purchase of student season tickets for football and men’s basketball, as well as free admission to women’s basketball games for students; $0.50 to the University Orchestra, so students could go to concerts for “free”; and $2.50 to the Jayhawker, the yearbook, to pay its office rent and clerical staff. There were other things, but I have forgotten them. The administration trimmed a small amount (less than $5.00) from the aggregate request (IIRC, this included a $0.50 reduction in the amount going to subsidize student tickets), and that was that. The fight was on in the Senate over how to handle the reduced amount, which resulted in almost the entire cut being absorbed by the subsidy, causing the cost of student tickets to increase some $30.00 (combined).
An interesting item in that list of commencement speakers was Newt Gingrich selected to be the speaker at Eureka College – Ronald Reagan’s old college.
Hmmm…..do I smell an election coming soon?
Noticed that; at least, Newt was a Professor of History (IIRC) at some institution of higher learning for a while, so there exists a small chance his address will not be totally political. A very small chance, to be sure.
Can I get you to bet on that one???
IIRC, it was in that history professor job that Newtie proclaimed in a classroom lecture that women were unfit to serve in combat because, “in the trenches” (WTF?) women would be prone to get unnamed infections, and thus could not reliably serve alongside their male counterparts.
So… the history professor thingy… not much hope there.
Newt is an unnamed infection.
of the twat
fnord – thanks for the chuckle………
Something to consider. http://kmandla.wordpress.com/2011/04/22/a-failure-of-logic/
Note the first comment; the commentator speaks the truth.
Here is what I have found on Gary Johnson – the former NM Governor who announced his presidential 2012 run as a Republican.
I realize this is Wikipedia source – but most of the other articles I’ve seen are shortened versions of the same information.
I have to ask how does this guy think he will win the nod from the Republicans when he is for legalizing marijuana and he is not known as an Evangelical pro-life and against gay marriage? And he is anti-war….??
If this guy can help curb the spending without firing anyone from their job – then I applaud him. But I just wonder how much of a fighter will he be against the current crop of entrenched GOP presidential hopefuls?
And he has not mentioned the birtherism issue once – that I can find. And he does seem to put the blame on both parties for the financial mess we are in.
Will the current GOP eat him alive before he gets off the truck?
Quote of the day:
“Marriage is the cornerstone on which our society was founded. For those who say that the Constitution is so sacred that we cannot or should not adopt the Federal Marriage Amendment, I would simply point out that marriage, and the sanctity of that institution, predates the American Constitution and the founding of our nation.”
Soon to be former Senator John Ensign (R) Nevada
I found this interesting article about the C Street House -remember that place?
When I hear John Ensign’s name, my mind goes to the wondering about the C Street House Gang. There’s alot of informative reading in this article.
I had almost forgotten that Ensign’s affair would have probably not been blown up so high if it had not been for another C-Street member – Mark Sanford – that Applachian Mountains hiker that must have took the wrong turn and somehow ended up in Argentina when he told everyone that he was hiking.
Hmmmm……look at the list of the characters in the C-Street House gang and tell me again how the Constitution should be chagned to protect the sanctity of traditional marriage? With cheerleaders like these guys – I think they best just not mention the sanctity of traditional marriage ever again.
they do not seem to be the best cheerleaders for anything but what the title of this article calls it – the Frat House for Jesus.
I know, I know…..these folks will simply fall on the old argument that they are imperfect Christians and use that free pass card their God gives them for when they mess up.
Don’t get me wrong – I do believe in forgiveness and redemption – but some of these folks act like that free pass card is something they deserve because they are God’s favorite.’
The real trick is to see how any of these imperfect Christians would treat President Obama if he acted like they have . I suspect all of them would be the first ones to demonize Obama and not even allow Obama – a fellow Christian by his profession – the use of any free pass card.
Why is it always those who point their finger at someone else seems to be the ones doing the dirty deeds behind the curtain? And woe be unto you if you look behind that curtain and see them doing it – then you’re the heathen.
Don’t forget that Jerry Moran also lived there, and Sam Brownback went there for bible study and spiritual counseling. Anyone else wonder what they learned there?
Things that make you go “hmmmm….”
Heres’ a good list to check out…
Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.
Join 124 other followers
Sign me up!