Oprah Winfrey has announced that she is ending her show after its 25th season. You can see why she's doing it: one of the wealthiest people in America, with $2.6 billion to her name, Ms. Winfrey hardly needs to keep showing up for a job that must be getting a little repetitive by now. Moreover, she still has a massive media empire with properties like O Magazine to keep the money rolling in. And with the termination of her show, she'll be launching her very own cable network, OWN.
Of course, it remains to be seen whether her empire will remain intact after she leaves broadcast television. For all the complaints about the declining viewership of the Big Four, they have many times the audience of the Discovery Channel, which is helping Ms. Winfrey launch her new property. Memories are short in the media business. Will women continue to buy her magazine if they aren't spending their weekday afternoons watching her show?
Copyright © 2010 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
Oprah's audience waits for instructions.
Her instructions: Vote for me in 2012!
Movertyperguy,
According to the The Boondocks episode "The Return of the King", Oprah will become president in 2020, so 2012 will be too early for a presidential run.
If Oprah is still a Chicago resident though in 2011, she could run against Mayor Daley in the 2011 election.
She will move to California and become Barack Obama's Vice Presidential pick in 2012.
She has a mansion in Mendicito, CA.
She will not stay in Illinois, since Obama can wrap up those electoral votes himself and he'll need to establish a beachhead in California to guarantee their 55 electoral votes. He has Hillary locking up NY's 31 electoral votes for him (plus he's neutered ... uh, er ... Hillary).
This is Barack Obama's Hail Mary Pass to win re-election. It's his only chance ... lock up the black vote and the big electoral states on the coasts and hope for the best.
He's lost the interior of the country permanently by lying to them on tax increases, bailouts and mandatory insurance, so the strategy that got him to the Presidency in 2008 won't work again.
He's going to lose the Congress in 2012, and the investigations will begin with lots of people going to jail, so he's moving now to create whatever buzz he can.
Won't work. He's James Earl Obama II ... if he's lucky.
I'm just hoping that by 2012 Movertyperguy is no longer addicted to crack.
I just hope by 2012 movertypoguy has a job.
"I just hope by 2012 movertypoguy has a job.
The 20 million other Americans who are currently underemployed or unemployed are going to be a continual pain in the ass to the Barack Obama administration - which has done nothing to stimulate employment in the United States.
Maybe he should get to work on the economy instead of galavanting off to Asia so he can bow down to his masters.
In the meantime, here's your buddy Chris Matthews calling Obama "Carter-esque" and his panel of fellow uber-liberals agreeing with him that this Presidency has failed:
http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/checker.aspx?v=GdqGqG8z8z
Mover is most likely unemployable. I have interviewed guys like him before. It's pretty apparent he can keep the crazy down even for a interview.
They're waiting for their corporate-sponsored going away present.
Ha! Oprah gives away a pile of G6s and Pontiac goes bye-bye.
While not a perfect analogy, you can look at what happened to Howard Stern when he left the open airwaves. He did not have the same iconic position as Oprah, but much of what he did was must-hear water cooler fodder. Then he moved to satellite radio, and while it was remarkably lucrative for him, he was also now relegated to a much more limited (though rabidly fanatic) audience.
I haven't kept up with him since but I remember reading that he was irritated that he was no longer part of the national conversation.
Well, it's clear what happened. That horrible Sarah Palin goes on the show and -boom- it's all over.
I'm fairly certain we'll soon learn how George W. Bush has a hand in this, as well.
No, no, it was Fox News that drove her off the air.
There's an excellent chance that Dick Cheney is behind this. I'm sure that news will break, soon.
Now that you mentioned it, it's so obvious. Fox did her in because Oprah didn't invite on That Old Cranky Guy Who Likes Loofah/Falafel and her name ended up on the Mad Professor and Lifetime Member of the John Birch Society's chalkboard scrawl as being the precursor to the Great Eggo Shortage of 2009. Duh!
And Dick Cheney? I thought they deactivated him?
George who?
Queen Sarah has a way of sucking the intelligence right out of the audience of her, err, admirers.
She is convinced that Sarah Palin
is the AntiChrist, and plans to
ride out the End Times in a Palace
perched atop a remote mountain peak
in the Rockies.
Do you think OWN will offer Sarah Palin a talk show?! I mean Oxygen thrives on shows like Bad Girls Club... !
Oprah is ending the Simpsons?
sssssshhh... the Simpsons are from the Evil Empire Network. We don't talk about them in mixed company...
;)
What, no mention of the giant, still-unfolding AGW leak scandal? I'm disappointed.
My favorite email chain is the one where they share various ways to dodge Freedom of Information Act requests. Just good, solid science folks.
You won't see anything on this in the American media.
They have no idea how to fit these facts into their narrative.
Just like you never heard anything about Al Gore claiming the core of the Earth is "millions of degrees" hot.
Facts aren't in their game plan.
You expect anyone to believe a Murdoch paper? He, and anything he owns, has no credibility.
So .... once the New York Times reports on these emails, then you'll believe the story?
Well Calvin ... I guess you'll have to come out of your cocoon now and address the issue on the merits instead of using your Obama-tactic of attacking the messenger:
New York Times
'Hacked Emails New Fodder For Climate Dispute"
“This is not a smoking gun; this is a mushroom cloud,” said Patrick J. Michaels, a climatologist who has long faulted evidence pointing to human-driven warming and is criticized in the documents.
"Some of the correspondence portrays the scientists as feeling under siege by the skeptics’ camp and worried that any stray comment or data glitch could be turned against them."
Cleary, these "scientist" kiddies don't understand how science is supposed to work. A scientists work is supposed to be under seige. That's how good science occurs and how charlatans and fraudsters are exposed.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/science/earth/21climate.html?_r=1&hp
I think the only threat to the climate is the noxious fumes you emit from your mouth. Please, movertypoguy, save the earth and stop breathing! You're our only hope.
The bit I liked best was when Phil "hide the decline" Jones explains how they can get round the Freedom Of Information Act, and then implies that the VC (head of the university) is on board. I can't help but think that might be a career-shortening move. Though I may speak for many who have laboured in a British university when I say how delightful it would be to see a VC in pokey.
The CRU has lost all credibility. From one of the incriminating emails:
"Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis.
Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address. We will be getting Caspar to do likewise."
They're trying to eliminate the paper trail of deceit and scientific fraud they've profited from handsomely.
From another email ... discussions about how to use Obama-like Alinsky tactics to get journals not to publish papers that had inconvenient data. This passage is quite chilling and shows the depth to which these folks are going to cover up the scientific fraud that supports their profit:
“This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a solution to that – take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board. What do others think?”
“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.”
“It results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. I’ve had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere. Another thing to discuss in Nice !”
So, there is an obvious coordinated conspiracy among seemingly otherwise reputable scientists to "freeze out" any science that might cast doubt on AGW theory. They will brook no dissension and are using illegal methods to harm scientists who might report to peer review journals any data that cast doubt on the science.
This is what happens when a society has become so corrupt that information itself is toxic. George Orwell couldn't even imagine the depths of these liberals' evil.
Grow up Mover. You see conspiracy where there is none. So asking people not to submit papers to journal is a conspiracy? Do you think your polemics convince anyone?
Please do us all a favour and never use the word "Alinsky" again.
It ends with a plaintive whimper.
On a different tack, why do people complain about "Obama-like Alinsky tactics"? Aren't they essentially the same as Thomas Jefferson tactics, which y'all are inoctrinated to view as above reproach?
why do people complain about "Obama-like Alinsky tactics"?
We're not complaining. We're just calling them out.]
Obama-Alinsky-type tactics seek to win debates through use of subterfuge, attacking the messenger, threatened violence and fear tactics, ridicule ... anything except winning a debate on its merits.
Thomas Jefferson was our third President and wrote the Declaration of Independence. He's widely viewed as a great American.
Saul Alinsky on the other hand only wrote Rules For Radicals and is widely derided as a moron who had to resort to underhanded violent tactics to gain power since his ideas sucked.
Are you suggesting that Thomas Jefferson didn't resort to violent tactics to gain power? I mean, I know he didn't fight himself, but he did urge everyone else to fight, didn't he?
Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence. He did not invade Great Britain - nor did he ever advocate that sort of violence. He did not attempt to overthrow the legitimate government ruled by King George.
He urged his fellow countrymen to defend their independence (yes, by violently killing those who invaded us).
Violence in the defence of one's freedom is hardly the same as Bill Ayers performing terrorist bombings of the Pentagon in order for his comrade-in-arms Barack Obama to eventually become President.
Or do you not see the difference? Is it too nuanced and subtle for you?
Have to disagree with you there. Adams himself later pointed out that a full third of the American colonists were Loyalists, and another third neutral. Claiming the British invaded the colonies is like claiming the United States is invading Guam or the District of Columbia.
Plus, Jeffersion was a crackpot hypocrite. Every real American knows Hamilton was the Man.
There seems to me to be a difference between an a logical argument backed up with violence and a false claim which uses a threat of violence to persuade.
Considering that Thomas Jefferson was urging people to fight for standards and a process rather than his own personal power, I think there's a legitimate difference between himself and some others. He still had to win a fair election afterward, at the least.
This is not to say that Jefferson is perfect. Obviously the founding fathers should never have allowed slavery, much less hereditary slavery.
Hmm. Well, its true that Thomas Jefferson never responded to any Freedom of Information requests.
Not the first time these people have been in trouble:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZTBiMTRlMDQxNzEyMmRhZjU3ZmYzODI5MGY4ZWI5OWM=
...Now begins the fun. Warwick Hughes, an Australian scientist, wondered where that “+/–” came from, so he politely wrote Phil Jones in early 2005, asking for the original data. Jones’s response to a fellow scientist attempting to replicate his work was, “We have 25 years or so invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?”...
...Roger Pielke Jr., an esteemed professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado, then requested the raw data from Jones. Jones responded:
Since the 1980s, we have merged the data we have received into existing series or begun new ones, so it is impossible to say if all stations within a particular country or if all of an individual record should be freely available. Data storage availability in the 1980s meant that we were not able to keep the multiple sources for some sites, only the station series after adjustment for homogeneity issues. We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (i.e., quality controlled and homogenized) data.
The statement about “data storage” is balderdash. They got the records from somewhere. The files went onto a computer. All of the original data could easily fit on the 9-inch tape drives common in the mid-1980s. I had all of the world’s surface barometric pressure data on one such tape in 1979.
They'll never produce the data. Some dog somewhere always ate their homework. That's why no serious scientists view this work as reliable.
Scientists such as Al "The Earth Is Millions of Degrees" Gore of course, dispute this ... but practicing scientists regard people who refuse to have their work peer-reviewed as quacks.
CRU has forfeited all credibility with this latest release and it proves why they've refused to allow independent scientists to see their data. It's widely regarded as faked, and now these emails tend to prove those assertions.
Case closed.
Warwick Hughes has a doctorate in Nutology. It looks like he wrote his website in digital crayon. He's one step from falling off the edge of his own flat earth.
'I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal'
Same email to be found in White House, except it says "Fox news is not a real news organization."
It's amazing how exactly similar the tactics are, isn't it?
double rawr. or rawr rawr.
The Protocols of Kenya?
Unless the 'hacked' emails were smuggled out in Sarah Palin's uterus, The Atlantic isn't interested.
And if the emails were smuggled out in Sarah Palin's uterus, The Atlantic would declare that they were really smuggled out in Bristol's uterus.
Expert in gynecology? Or starting a new job as a TSA "inspector"?
Don't be too harsh on the Atlantic for not covering the AGW email scandal. The AGW is the main pillar in the environmentalist religion. Seeing it collapse must be devastating. They need some time to adjust.
"Seeing it collapse must be devastating. They need some time to adjust.
They're huddling. They've gone to ground to figure out a way they can ignore this so their cognitive dissonance can continue. Plus, they're busy cleaning out their mailboxes of any more incriminating emails that might be in there. That takes some time.
Trust me ... they've invested too much emotion in this to allow mere "science" or "evidence" to sway their thinking. Billions of dollars are now also on the line.
Grants, careers ... tenure. That's what is important to them.
How do you keep all the voice in your head straight? A Glenn Beck style chalkboard?
Bill,
How can you be so unengaged in the debate that you're still using high-schoolish Alinsky tactics. Go read Andrew Sullivan. I'm sure he's more your style of blogger.
I mean, don't you have anything substantial to add to the debate ... or just name-calling and shoot-the-messenger? Are those stale tactics the only arrows left in the Liberal quiver? That's pretty limp, dude.
Sheesh, we really have to eliminate the junior varsity from positions of influence in this country and 2010 seems as good a time as any to do it.
I like to humor myself, particularly when I'm dealing with crazy people like you. You're immune to any reason, logic, or fact, because you never account for the possibility that you're responsible for your particular situation, or that Obama/Democrat/liberals are not the root of all evil(s), or that you're just plain wrong. Whatever anger you're feeling is mostly misplaced, and one wonders how much your personal situation has contributed to fueling your absurd, paranoid, cranky, and heated rhetoric. I've read through many of the links you've contributed, and, to put it frankly, you engage in a lot of hyperbole that doesn't match the "evidence". I'm also reminded of the fact that anyone that tries to rally other people around such causes as impeachment, when all Obama is presently guilty of is making decisions that you don't agree with, and doesn't fall anywhere within the scope of high crimes and misdemeanors, is a fool who has no patience for democracy, or for listening to someone else's POV. Obama has been charged with the difficult task of fighting two wars he didn't start, and righting the economy in the midst of a recession he didn't cause. If you're looking for someone to blame, point the finger at yourself. Too many Americans got cocky and stupid, and like a gambler on a roll, thought they could have it all. The party's over, and President Obama, and to a lesser extent, a squabbling, do-nothing Congress, have been elected to try and fix the problems, as best they can. It's not something a bomb thrower, like yourself, can actually understand and appreciate, because it would never occur to you to actually engage in thought, speech, or action that would contribute to rectifying your personal situation, or that of other people. Like any lazy fool, you would much rather find someone to blame, and as they say, if it isn't God, then it must be you.
I also can't take anyone seriously who thinks that somehow "throwing the bums out" will fix everything, and the totems they pick to represent this "movement" are borderline idiots, at best, who are incapable of acknowledging the limitations of their ability to tackle problems that require a modicum of humility, cooperation, and intelligence, and that can't always involve saying "No" (or even "Yes"). If you really believe that a change in the powers that be will somehow magically transform this country one way or another, then you're engaging in a level of wishful thinking that will be sure to disappoint you, over and over again, and will give you false assurances that won't be backed up what the rest of us on terra firma call reality.
As I keep reminding myself, I read Megan's posts above to be informed, and the discussions below to be entertained. Much of what I read is laughable, anyway, because the people writing it, particularly you, are so full of themselves (and we know what that substance you're so full of is) they can't see much farther than the next comment line. You really believe that "this is the place for you", even though most of your odious personal beliefs correspond very little to what Megan is preaching, which is, read the data, find the truth. You are the kind of fool that constantly insists on dragging the cart before the donkey, as though this is something natural, and right, and that everyone should agree, evidence to the contrary, that the one should follow the other.
My suggestion to you is step off, or expect to step in the line of fire. If you can't respond, then that's your rhetorical weakness on display. The idea that anyone can reasonably "debate" any issue, particularly when every issue, including Oprah going off the air, becomes a personal tirade against Obama/liberal/Democrats, is laughable. Since you have nothing to say, that hasn't been said before, a thousand times better, why are you bothering to say it? Since you're not adding to the discussion, and you have no insight that you can contribute, why bother posting your comments? Do you really believe that you're going to convince anyone of anything? Are you that naive? I already know your opinion, and your opinion is boring. If anything, your personal snipes (high-schoolish Alinsky/Obama tactics, Liberal quiver, pretty limp, dude, blah, blah, blah) are no better or worse than the zingers I throw at you, unless, of course, I forgot, you're completely in the right, and everyone else is, duh, wrong.
Here's a thought: I'll stop attacking you for saying foolish things, if you stop saying foolish things. Capiche?
We now return to our regularly scheduled programming after this Public Service Announcement.
"... when I'm dealing with crazy people like you."
Really Bill? More attacking the messenger?
Clearly you have nothing of substance to contribute to the debate.
Wow Mover. You quoted 8 words in a rather 785 word post so you can play the wounded victim. His post tore you apart.
"I'll stop attacking you for saying foolish things, if you stop saying foolish things."
Typical liberal: When you find speech you disagree with, you attack it, try to hurt people. Beat them. Try to shut them down. You want to eliminate free speech by force.
Here's my reply to your offer: Attack me all you want. You won't shut down my speech. And when you want to make it personal, you just let me know.
(Silence.) I am in awe of the power of your speech. (Faints dead.)
Typical liberal: When you find speech you disagree with, you attack it, try to hurt people. Beat them. Try to shut them down. You want to eliminate free speech by force.
Me? Not a liberal, at least not in the sense you mean. I thought Alinsky's book was mediocre, for that matter. I still disagree with you, attack you, beat you, and pray daily that you'll shut down, shut up, or just generally shut it one of these days. And yet, I haven't touched your free speech at all. I've just posted some mean comments on a website, because I enjoy making fun of people who are acting like idiots.
The way movertypoguy sees it, the title of this post actually reads "Oprah Winfrey Ending the Most Successful Television Show Ever, and Not Only Is Obama and the Liberal Media Elite to Blame, Obama is Screwing Up This Country So Bad He Deserves Impeachment, or Something". I think I'm beginning to see things your way, movertypoguy, especially when I put on these dark, thick glasses.
Bill,
Your blind hatred has evolved into an obsession.
You have Movertyperguy Derangement Syndrom.
You really should seek the services of a good psychiatrist. They can help you with your problem.
Standard convention is to name the disease after the person that has it. I'm pretty sure I don't have what you have.
If you want to see something of the super-duper software that is the basis for the proposition that the world should spend gazillions on Fighting Global Warming, study the travails of poor Harry. It also has entertainment value.
http://www.neuralnetwriter.cylo42.com/node/2421
A source for the Poor Harry stuff.
http://di2.nu/foia/HARRY_READ_ME-0.html
I wish you all the best Oprah Winfrey.
Thank you for sharing.
Regards
Tomm
3d Movies