followed tags: 5
followed domains: 0
badges given: 0 of 4
member for: 407 days
- My bet is he goes independent and grabs some of the youtubers to start a channel. That or briebart hires him and starts a video news service.
I've heard this from several youtubers, but I'm having a hard time imagining it. I don't get the sense that O'Reilly had a passion for his message. I think he had a passion for the power it gave him to deliver that message.
It's hard to imagine youtubers going along with this kind of hostile behavior. Without the power of a network behind him, people are more likely to laugh at these kinds of antics on a youtube crew.
As other people have noted, O'Reilly's message is less attention-grabbing when the President of the US has already co-opted it.
There's some great advice here, so I'll go in a different direction. I believe that sometimes people just need a bit more information to take a different path. I don't know any of the circumstances of the person asking, so this is just general information.
- The gist of the letter breaks down “Do I try to do pursue something I love, or do I try to pursue something that will pay the bills? Be brutally honest.”
I could be a dick and say “find a job that fulfills both,” and leave it at that. Thought we both know if it was that easy you wouldn’t be asking the kinds of questions you’re asking.
I guess I'll be THAT person. I don't think it has to be an either/or type of thing, while I also realize the limitations and obstacles that lead to the question.
I also don't think the question is without consequence.
Just as a stark example, in the US, doctors have the highest rate of suicide of any profession. Lawyers are not far behind. There are a lot of reasons for that, but one among them is that people picked those professions because it was financially stable and not because they loved it. Once they got into it, they couldn't get out of it without turning their back on a huge investment, possibly disappointing a lot of people and starting over. For some people, that might have felt like no options for them.
There can be costs for choosing a life direction you don't care about.
There's a book called "Refuse to Choose!: Use All of Your Interests, Passions, and Hobbies to Create the Life and Career of Your Dreams" by Barbara Sher. It's a bit dated, but the principles are probably the same. I haven't read it, but I know her work. It's all about keeping your dreams alive while still living a practical life.
She talks about ways to brainstorm about finding a career that fulfills both the passion and the financial needs of the person. But when that's not possible, then it can still be a path to keep a dream alive by getting a good enough job that pays the bills but allows time to fulfill the dream on the side.
It only takes one great and actionable idea to find a new direction, so it could be worthwhile to seek as many ideas as possible for a career direction. Some ideas she gives is to have brainstorming parties where you invite your friends and family to give as many ideas on what you could do to find a way to monetize your dream.
Another idea might be to ask on a subreddit like r/findapath or r/careerguidance. Like most places on the internet, those places can be brutal, but they can be helpful too. If you don't get helpful advice the first time, you could post the question with different words under a different account and see if you get a different answer. I've seen similar questions get vastly different responses. It's the luck of the draw on who sees it at a given time.
Good luck with finding a path to your dreams!
snoo, you may be right. You're probably right. But there's not enough information in the article to be sure. That's why my first comment was that they're not clear enough in what they're asking.
But both of us are just guessing about the facts of what's happening there because there aren't enough to determine what's really going on. So I'll play devil's advocate with hypothetical facts that might have played the opposite way that your hypothetical facts played out.
I disagree with you about how towns are formed. Towns are formed when the area has something that people want. It's not the people providing the something. In this case, it's access to transportation and shipping. In other cases, it's a business, gold mines, oil fields, etc. When the reason for the town gets outdated as in the case of gold mines, for example, then it's up to the people still in the town to reinvent themselves if they want to stay. They might set up tourist attraction gold mines or other ways for the town to exist. In the case of Cairo, it's still at a geographically advantageous spot. They just need to find a way to make that more attractive to businesses.
You're making the assumption that if something was great, people would have already flocked to it. That's not always the case. They may not know it exists or don't realize that people are backing it. Businesses might be overlooking the port because they always have and don't see any reason to change.
It takes someone or a group to make the business case that the plan is workable. Then it takes advertising or publicity for other people to find out about it.
That's why business start ups are difficult and often require capital. Even if the business has a great product, they have to be able to convince enough other people that the product is good enough to invest in and then convince a whole bunch of other people to buy it.
It doesn't necessarily mean they don't have a good product. It might mean that they haven't convinced enough other people of it. There are a lot of good products out there that fail for lack of advertising and a viable business plan.
As for the corruption problem, that's less of a problem if they're dealing with businesses than if they're dealing with the government. With the government, there's no oversight. Businesses deal with corruption all the time, even overt corruption that can happen in foreign countries. That's not necessarily a deal breaker.
You may be right that Cairo's business case is inadequate for funding. It may also be the case that there's not enough expertise in the town for anyone to have put up an adequate business case. It may just take someone with the expertise to see the value in it and advertise it adequately.
As I'm watching the government events lately and the counter-reactions that have been happening, I've become acutely aware that sometimes it just takes people to have knowledge of a problem, understand how it affects them and then to mobilize around the solution.
In the case of Cairo, it may be that there's not a solution or it may be that people haven't mobilized around the problem. There are not enough facts in the article to know either way.
I'm not sure if you're responding to me, but I'll try to answer your question based on the article.
- What value does the Cairo area bring to a potential employer?
According to an embedded article, Cairo was a thriving town because of its geography.
- The port district will spur job creation and promote economic development in Southern Illinois by creating new foreign trade opportunities in the state, officials announced Thursday afternoon during the signing ceremony of the bill along the Ohio River in Cairo.
- Given its location as a hub on the inland river system at the confluence of the Ohio and Mississippi Rivers, railroad lines and Interstate 57, Cairo is well-positioned to take advantage of increased shipping activity that is expected as a result of the establishment of the new district, Quinn noted.
Cairo is uniquely situated between two rivers. It was a shipping hub. They hope to transform the town back into a shipping hub. The governor of the state signed a bill to designate the town as a port authority, but there were no funds that went along with the designation.
The town doesn't have to attract one potential employer if it can create a plan to become a transportation hub. The movement of goods through the shipping lanes and through the port could allow more job opportunities. They could attract funding if the plan to become a transportation hub is viable.
- On a side note, I'm curious to whether you could expand on this... I'm fairly young and don't understand which 3 channels you're referring to. On-air? On the television?
The major broadcast news channels on TV were ABC, NBC and CBS. If you watched any of them, you'd get roughly the same news. They were all sponsored by roughly the same corporations.
There's a video of Bernie Sanders in 2003, talking to some high school students about politics. (How does he not look younger 14 years ago? Was he born old? At least he's not aging at all. :p)
He was talking about how the news media has a slanted view of the news. It's the news that the major corporations want to tell you. One of the main channels was owned by GE at the time. He was talking about how GE only wanted people to hear its version of events. At that time, he told the students to watch Fox News once in a while to get a different perspective.
Today, if you watch CBS this morning, CNN, MSNBC and Fox News on the same day, you could think you're living in different countries.
A couple weeks ago, Fox News was concentrating on a story of a 14 year old girl who claimed she was raped in the school bathroom by a 17 year old man and an 18 year old man who were illegal immigrants and going to school with her. Fox News reported that the 18 year old had a criminal record while CNN claims he does not.
None of the other news channels aired that story that I saw. CNN has a print story about it with a very different narrative than Fox News. The story has morphed into the girl allegedly giving consent.
Different media outlets have widely differing views on what they want to stress in the news.
Polarization is caused by people watching different narratives with different agendas.
As a side note, comedy is the same. I was watching an interview with 2 of my favorite media people, John Dickerson and Stephen Colbert. When asked what news they read daily, Colbert mentioned the Reddit front page, HuffPo, NY Times, CNN (all of Trump's fake news sources) and a slew of liberal media. Apparently, none of his jokes come from the other side.
It's not super clear what they're looking for in this situation.
- Corruption has been a big problem here. Cairo has also struggled with a lot of racial tension over the years.
If they were given funds to become a port authority, wouldn't the money just land in the hands of the people who put them in this position again?
If they had a workable plan, they could attract business to help them. But it would have to be a benefit for both sides.
- The bit that interests me the most is the inclination around 4:50 that the divide can be traced to "1987, when the Federal Communications Commission did away with the so-called 'Fairness Doctrine'."
I don't buy it. Imagine if that doctrine were in effect today. Every news channel would have to come up with a way to appease that rule. Who would be the arbiter?
When it was just the 3 main channels, they all pretty much went the same way.
If it's true that the amount of people viewing the main news channels create the divide, based on market share, the country would tilt much more toward the left. The only main channel that goes toward the right is Fox. The conglomerate that owns Fox isn't near as big as the next two biggest competitors. Media ownership wiki
I looked up the Fairness Doctrine It only requires that an opposing viewpoint be aired, not that it be given equal time. Under the Fairness Doctrine, I can imagine the networks reporting something like, everyone hates Trump. . . except his family.
When I watched it, I didn't focus so much on the fairness doctrine. But maybe this piece goes along with it. I focused on the part with the interview with Sean Hannity (that he is now mad about) that had Koppel saying that Hannity was bad for America because people like him have "attracted people who have determined that ideology is more important than facts."
One of the reasons I was less convinced about the fairness doctrine is because Koppel also interviewed the head of the NY Times. He thinks he's being fair. I don't agree. Would the FCC judge it differently? Probably.
This piece is even better where Hannity and Koppel agree that journalism is dead and that the opinion page of the paper as analogy for the news channels have become the front page.
When people are discarding facts in favor of ideology, that leads to people who are arguing based on emotions instead of facts, which leads to polarization. Magazine shows have taken the place of the news. Without facts in journalism on the major news channels, people don't have a fact based or logic based system to create their own ideology.
I saw this yesterday at Reddit and was annoyed when I read it.
The government could be sending pre-filled forms where they have to show their hand instead of making taxpayers guess what was sent in. That would eliminate the guesswork of collecting paperwork to substantiate an item that they already know about and you're fine with.
The tax preparation companies can't even come up with a good reason that it would be bad for the taxpayer.
To add more insult, 70% of taxpayers are eligible to prepare their taxes for free under an existing government program, but only 2% have used it. Most don't know about it or don't want to take the chance of getting it wrong. If the government sent pre-filled tax forms, that wouldn't even be an issue.
It looks like the author is making a call to arms that this is the breaking point moment that everyone knew was coming.
- It might feel as though we're going over old ground here, and we are. Microsoft just keeps letting us (and you) down, time and time and time again.
It's time for things to change, but will Microsoft listen?
Maybe people will get fed up. But it's more likely to happen if there's one big problem instead of many tiny niggling problems.
- So if it was up to me, children would be covered until 18 at least with a CHIPS-type program. It's a moral obligation to take care of those who can't take care of themselves for me. That would still leave the market to develop solutions and provide other options (which I don't think will look similarly to what we do now; it's unsustainable).
If the ACA was not sustainable, then Trumpcare as drafted so far will also be unsustainable. They're basically the same system. The only difference is in the amount of tax credit and how much the insurance companies can charge.
In this video , rep. Tim Ryan says that in Ohio, the head of the Ohio hospital association says that 1 million people may lose their coverage under the new Trumpcare as drafted at this point and 25% of hospitals will close.
If it's unsustainable to have insurers pull out of the market, it will be less sustainable not to have hospitals to give care at all.
Looking at a study the GAO did that was released in 2013, the factors of the growth of health care costs are the aging population, more people seeking health care under the new insurance programs and technological advancements in health care.
- Federal health care spending is expected to continue growing faster than the economy. In the near term, this is driven by increasing enrollment in federal health care programs due to the aging of the population and expanded eligibility. Over the longer term, excess cost growth (the extent to which growth of health care spending per capita exceeds growth of income per capita) is a key driver. Slowing the rate of health care cost growth would help put the budget on a more sustainable path. There is general agreement that technological advancement has been the key factor in health care cost growth in the past, along with the effects of expanding health insurance coverage and increasing income, but there is considerable uncertainty about the magnitude of the impact that the different factors will have on future health care cost growth.
Neither the ACA nor the proposed Trumpcare plan touches on these issues.
Hoping the market would develop solutions on its own when the healthcare industry is a monopoly is unrealistic. There's no incentive for the market forces to work.
The similarity of health care to Comcast is that they're both monopolies. The difference is that people can walk away from their internet service. People cannot walk away from health care. Their lives literally depend on it.
- I don't think the government is my friend. I think they are in the pockets of a lot of people. I think that if I can remove them from my life as much as possible it increases my liability and risk personally, but that is a cost I am willing to pay. So I don't want them in healthcare.
I'm curious how far you go with this philosophy. In this video , Obama talks with Bill Maher (could Bill Maher be any more in love with Obama?) about all the ways that government has socialized a number of institutions. Schools, prisons, retirement (social security) and elder health care (medicare) are some examples. Are you willing to allow the privatization of schools and prison? As Obama notes, if prisons are privatized, there will be a bigger incentive to incarcerate people. If schools are privatized, the rich will become the only people who can afford going to school, creating an elite class and an uneducated one.
Are you in favor of privatizing schools and prisons?
You mentioned single payer health care which is basically government sponsored health care. Are you in favor of single payer health care? If so, wouldn't this be more government intervention, not less?