Charlie Rose

citymoments  01/24/2013 09:28 AM Report

McNerney graduated from New Trier High School in 1967. He attended Yale University, receiving a B.A. degree in 1971. At Yale he excelled in baseball and hockey. After graduating from Yale he worked for a year at both British United Provident and G. D. Searle & Company, then attended Harvard Business School, receiving a Master of Business Administration in 1975.

Boeing is a company which makes planes, does it make sense to you the CEO of such an entity ( with a $12m compensation) should have some technical qualifications in relation to engineering? Of course, McNerney can hire a chief engineer to advise him on technical matters. Then, how does a CEO who has no engineering qualification know which engineer is best qualified for the job? To hire another adviser to help him out on how to hire the best engineer?

http://qnpress.blogspot.com.au...

Edit Reply

citymoments  01/21/2013 01:05 AM Report

Philosophically Speaking.

http://qnpress.blogspot.com.au/

mikeanderson611  01/20/2013 12:05 PM Report

Gun control works exactly like Hate Control-Very Poorly! Gun Shows are the 'SpeakEasy' for firearms... No matter what the LAW says, you can get whatever you want if you have the correct change... I can't wait to see how the new The National Instant Criminal Background Check System database...After congress gets through passing the bill, it will become as complex, expensive and wasteful as the IRAQ/AFGANISTAN wars. Remember how well the 50-state voting database worked? It does not work! That is because each of the 50 states have 50 separate sovereign voting procedures which do not overlap.

Jaxson  01/19/2013 02:28 AM Report

I watched Pierce Morgan tonight and while I respect his right to his opinion, he doesn't have the right to fabricate facts.

1. The AR 15 is one of the most accurate target rifles built. There are, in fact match grade AR-15, as well as other match grade semi-auto weapons.

2. They are not sold with with 100 round magazines, they are sold with 10, or 20 round mags. And they are not machine guns.

If we are going to have a national debate about this topic, or any topic, I would expect both sides to appreciate the truth.

The man who shot Congress woman Griffin has so terrified classmates at college that he had been asked not to return to class. He was a known threat and nobody warned authorities. The Newtown shooter, according to one of his former special needs teacher had no ability to conceptualize pain, his or others. In fact he once burned himself with a soldering iron and never flinched. It has been reported that his mother intended to have him committed, he was enraged and that was the trigger event.

What can be done? School attacks have been increasing in other nations too. China has had several in the past few years, the gun issue while important, may be sidetracking us from the base issue, which really needs to be addressed.

Is this being caused by over population? By the faster pace of societal change? By the violent content of entertainment?

We have always has weapons, did we always have school attacks?

These are the questions we should be studying.

tabs  01/17/2013 06:35 PM Report

NCP3:

Yesterday one went to see "Zero Dark Thirty" which BTW was an excellent film, which depicted the Bin Laden operation as being a kill and not capture mission, which is exactly what one had previously thought. However one digresses, the point in mentioning this is that of the four or five movie trailers that were shown of upcoming films, EACH AND EVERYONE OF THEM were filled with gratuitous gun violence using full automatic weapons which reaped mass carnage. One of the films even stared Hollywood's Liberal icon Sean Penn. This sort of violent depiction glorifys killing which then desensitizes ones values about the sanctity of human life. So the question then becomes, why don't the Liberal Democrats confront this sort of violent depiction in Film, Television and Video games as they would most readily and vociferously clamour about a desensitized depiction of women and or miniority groups? Further why doesn't President Obama propose a Hollywood code admistered by a commitee much like the Hays Code of the 1930's. This would then insure that Hollywood executives comported themselves responsibily with regards to the use of gratuitious violence, which their self imposed and administered rating system fails to do. This common sense measure would go a long way in helping turn the tide of violence in America.

rtb  01/17/2013 05:19 PM Report

There is a hypocrisy of editorial deletion of comments. Just as this comment will be deleted, it will also be my last.

tabs  01/17/2013 04:23 PM Report

NCP2:

Mr Scarbourough's take on the Conservative Republican mindset ain't nothin new, and it ain't nothin that hasn't been addressed on several previous occasions, the second of which is as follows.

The following was e-mailed (including a Republican Congressman from Florida of Tea Party affililation) and was posted to various places on or about the date indicated (including this Board at a later date).

NEWS FLASH ...Lions Eat Republicans

Fri, 12/23/2011 - 11:45 — tabs

"Here in the Colosseum we call em as we see em." Tom Waits

Jesus said, "When in Washington DC one should be as wise as a Serpent and as meek as a Lamb." To that end the Republican House (Tea Party) have marched the football down field on two different occasions now (Debt Ceiling, Payroll Tax Cut). On both occasions they were stalled out at 4Th and Goal. So what should they have done, gone for the Touchdown on PRINCIPLE or kicked the Field Goal, taking the points and field position for November 2012 election? If one were to make an analysis of strengths and weaknesses, they would come to the conclusion that the Republicans do not control the Senate nor the White House, therefore the House alone does not have the offensive line to push the ball over the goal. Second the House Tea Party should realize that the American people understand the position that the Republicans in the House are in, and that is one where they have limited ability to rectify deficit spending and budget issues Thus the Republican House should have put PRINCIPLE aside for the moment and gone for the points in order to WIN THE GAME in November of 2012. Being able to implement the Tea Party agenda is the goal and NOT THEIR PRINCIPLES. So what has the House Tea Party done on two different occasions on 4Th and Goal, but stuck to principle and fumbled the football of public opinion away which is tantamount to the Christians being fed to the Lions. Being a meal for the Lions is not what the Tea Party members of House were sent to Washington DC to do. Strike two on the Tea Party, as they are now risking defeat in the 2012 elections by a fed up American electorate."

SharkswithfrikingLazers  01/17/2013 04:11 PM Report

Yes, Obama was VERY DRAMATIC:

"Hinna, a third-grader -- you can go ahead and wave, Hinna. That’s you -- (laughter.) Hinna wrote, “I feel terrible for the parents who lost their children…I love my country and [I] want everybody to be happy and safe.”

And then, Grant -- go ahead and wave, Grant. (Laughter.) Grant said, “I think there should be some changes. We should learn from what happened at Sandy Hook…I feel really bad.”

And then, Julia said -- Julia, where are you? There you go -- “I’m not scared for my safety, I’m scared for others. I have four brothers and sisters and I know I would not be able to bear the thought of losing any of them.”

In the letter that Julia wrote me, she said, “I know that laws have to be passed by Congress, but I beg you to try very hard.” (Laughter.) Julia, I will try very hard.

THEN THE THREE KLEENEX FINISH:

Grace’s parents are here. Grace was seven years old when she was struck down -- just a gorgeous, caring, joyful little girl. I’m told she loved pink. She loved the beach. She dreamed of becoming a painter.

And so just before I left, Chris, her father, gave me one of her paintings, and I hung it in my private study just off the Oval Office. And every time I look at that painting, I think about Grace. And I think about the life that she lived and the life that lay ahead of her, and most of all, I think about how, when it comes to protecting the most vulnerable among us, we must act now -- for Grace.

The neanderthal NRA responds by attacking the security for Obama's children?

Guns, Gays and God and Guns are the hair-trigger point for our neanderthals.

SharkswithfrikingLazers  01/17/2013 04:00 PM Report

Was the nation’s heart broken by the horrific, senseless violence that took place at Sandy Hook Elementary School?

Is it hard for the nation to fathom that 20 beautiful first-graders were gunned down in a place that's supposed to be their second sanctuary. That six members of the staff were killed trying to save those children?

Although faith in polls is at an all time low since Nate Silver I will give you the benefit of the doubt Joe and agree that the nation has changed its mind.

Richard_DeBiase  01/17/2013 03:49 PM Report

Any attempt to reduce gun violence has to start with ending the Drug War. The Obama Drug War has been more violent than anything we have ever seen before.

RichardDeBiase.com

tabs  01/17/2013 03:44 PM Report

Thirty years ago one was talking to an diminutive, elderly Jewish man, when he started to tell one about the fully automatic weapons that he owned. One thought, "Why in the world would he want to own those weapons?" Then one saw the numbers tattooed on his forearm, and one fully understood as the words "NEVER AGAIN" came to mind.

The following were previously posted to this Board:

The Liberal Abdication Of Moral Responsibility

Fri, 07/27/2012 - 08:31

"American Society promulgates the use of violence as a means of resolving ones problems. At the core of the Liberals abdication of moral responsibility is their blaming inanimate objects for this malaise instead of dealing with the core causality. To the Liberal mind it is as if an inanimate object supercedes an indivduals responsibility as it has control over the actions men take. Further passing more Gun Laws serves as political theater rather than a useful recourse in solving the core issue of violence. This in the end is just more Liberal delusional thinking, hypocrisy and or just plain being disingenuous."

12/18/12. After Newtown:

"Here is something that people should consider as being a partial causality of the recent tragedy's. With the current economic malaise and the dysfunctionality of the political leadership in the nation there is UNCERTAINTY in the air which causes stress, fear, and anxiety which trickles on down to the more fragile members of society who are less able to have effective coping mechanisms and as such become more reactive to such uncertainty."

Ricardo_Amaral  01/17/2013 02:21 PM Report

I forgot to mention that my screen name at the Elite Trader is: SouthAmerica.

.

Ricardo_Amaral  01/17/2013 02:17 PM Report

Joe, I enjoy watching your show early in the morning it is entertaining.

I understand that the 24/7 cable world needs to grab anything they can to fill so many hours on the air.

First I want to clarify that I am against gun control and I explain why on the postings that I made at the Elite Trader Forums over the years.

A few days ago I summarize some of my postings about gun control and I posted the info at the enclosed web link:

http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=3717060&highlight=gun+control#post3717060

January 7 2013

SouthAmerica: Here is the reality check regarding “Gun Control” that is missing in all discussions that is going on today including the politicians, the US government, the clueless Americans who are in favor of “Gun Control”, and also the clueless mainstream media in the old USA.

All this people are living in a world that is long gone, and they are not even aware of what is happening in the world of the 21st century and the technological advances in 3D printing that makes the subject of “Gun Control” an obsolete discussion and worthless discussion – and a real waste of time.

The explosion in 3D printing technology already makes it possible for people to print a guns, and other weapons with their new 3D printing technology. It is here, and this new technology it will become more refined at the speed of light, because there's a lot of demand for that sort of thing.

Governments will not be able to control the advances of this new technology even if they give their best shot. The cat is out of the bag, and 3D printing is bringing a new revolution in manufacturing into the privacy of your home.

As we have this explosion in the sales of 3D printers as the prices come down, and the new technology becomes mind boggling with major advances in the materials that it will be available to be used on these 3D printers to create anything you want – the result is that these 3D printers will become at the speed of light just another gadget that people will attach to their home computer.

In a nutshell:

You will be able to 3D print many weapons that you want right on your home with no background checking, gun license, and all the bureaucracy that goes along with gun ownership today. If anything in the coming years it will become easier for anybody to get a gun and other sophisticated weapons.

By the way, I am against "Gun Control".

Here is a taste of what is happening today regarding 3D printing:

(check the above web link for you to see the videos related to 3D printing)

*******

PS: As long as you know that the subject of gun control covered by the US mainstream media and by the politicians it is nothing more than an exercise in wasting time, then it is O.K., we can use the debate as entertainment.

Remember 3D printing is here to stay, and the technology is going to explode in the coming years like wildfire. And if the US government tries to regulate that industry, then they just move the development to other countries and the technologies of tomorrow would be developed by other people than Americans - that would be a move that would make America fall even faster behind in the world of innovation of the 21st century.

Good luck with your TV show.

REMant  01/17/2013 12:20 PM Report

Scarborough is a neocon and I trust he will be enlightened in the months and years ahead like the rest of them, for there is nothing extreme about these views as I will presently show.

The president's remark tho that one life (or even 86 or 151 lives) is worth half-a-billion dollars indicates to me that we should require chief executives (as well as talk show hosts) to have had a course in cost accounting.

Yesterday's announcement was a charade, a sideshow, intended, like George Bush's fulminations after 9-11, only to save face. Not only are the measures being considered insignificant, especially the executive orders, and not cost-effective, they are unconstitutional. And it doesn't matter what the polls say unless the ppl are willing to amend it.

The 2nd Amendment says "arms" not firearms, nor any particular type of arm. Any other construction is plainly unconstitutional, as is the Federal govt's attempt to overreach the states in this matter. And as Gerry, when the amendment was debated, pointed out, that the original exclusion for freedom of conscience could be used to exclude people from keeping arms based on religion, the same argument can surely be made with respect to mental health. Can you imagine Eric Kandel deciding who should be allowed to have weapons or not?

The fact that "arms" were used by militias does not constrain the imperative clause, which clearly says the right "shall not be infringed." But the fact of the matter is that the militia were the whole body of the ppl, and there was no clear distinction made between public and private at that time, tho it was becoming so with the introduction of the idea of contractual "rights" by the Whigs. Militia duty like posse duty, watch and other duties were a holdover from feudal obligations in a time before bankers, police, standing armies and divisions of labor, when the monarch relied on the ppl directly for defense of the realm. They were never considered synonymous with standing armies despite the fact that they began to use special firearms, and indeed both Hamilton and Madison in the Federalist were at pains to make the distinction in arguing against fears that the Constitution's army clauses could prove tyrannical.

Commercially-minded Whigs like Defoe - something of a social-climber and scoundrel like Voltaire - who defended William's standing army, were clearly afraid of an armed populace as much as Charles II, and tho in addition making the argument that the militia idea was outmoded by technological advances and the need to fight foreign wars, nevertheless passed a law allowing Protestants to carry arms for self-defense, if not Catholics. Toland, whom Defoe wrote against, on the other hand, defended the republican idea that the monarchy was best supported when it was, as was said at another time and place, "of the people, by the people, and for the people".

Americans in the revolutionary period held both ideas: for example, Mason spoke of militia as the best defense of freedom, but Jefferson, as he had in the Declaration, for a right to keep and bear arms. They meant the same thing, but were set in two different vocabularies, just as the colonists in 1774 had appealed both to natural rights, and to the king as if the Glorious Revolution had never happened.

Madison, like his mentor, was quite clear in calling his proposed amendments "private rights," despite the mention of militia as used in his home state, doing so in both notes and letters. And ten days after its introduction, Federalist Tench Coxe wrote: "As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow-citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms," wording approved by Madison.

Mason was uttering a commonplace when he declared in his state's convention: "to disarm the people was the best and effectual way to enslave them," predicated not only on the experience of Lexington and Concord, but of a century of repression in the home country. Before events at Saratoga changed the course of the war, Colonial Under-secretary William Knox suggested that dealing with America would require His Majesty's govt to establish a state church, a standing army, and a governing aristocracy with unlimited taxing power, and that "The Militia Laws should be repealed and none suffered to be re-enacted, & the Arms of all the People should be taken away,... nor should any Foundery or manufactuary of Arms, Gunpowder, or Warlike Stores, be ever suffered in America, nor should any Gunpowder, Lead, Arms or Ordnance be imported into it without Licence..."

And it is clear that everyone meant by "free state," a republic, or commonwealth, as had Hotman and Nedham, in the strict sense of a government of, for, and by the people, not merely one with a mixed constitution. The English Parliament, in the act forming the Commonwealth of England in 1649, declared that "England is confirmed to be a Commonwealth and Free State and shall from henceforth be Governed as a Commonwealth and Free State." The post-WWI German states were to adopt similar language, as had the Imperial free cities.

In the republican view it was the king who rebelled against his realm by attempting to assert absolutism and "reason of state," not his subjects against him. It was termed the "French disease." This is in part why altho they were one with Locke against divine right, they still embrace the importance of family, and Real Whigs and Tories have often been indistinguishable, and contract viewed with suspicion. The evidence is that they were correct, for as the market economy grew, the monarch looked increasingly to commerce for support, Harrington's fanciful notion of redistributing wealth to the aristocracy notwithstanding. And as the commercial society evolved, talk was less about the "ancient rights of Englishmen," than liberties granted by the crown.

However, republicans have never believed that freedom was alienated by the Constitution's adoption, nor the prerogatives of states except as strictly enumerated. And there is a considerable irony that when speaking in a rights context one is implying that there must be an higher power denying them, which is in fact exactly the argument used by the Federalists against attaching a bill or declaration of rights to the Constitution in the first place. We can extend this reasoning today, and suggest that if government were closer to the people, divisiveness would be less, and presumably shootings as well.

Yale President Timothy Dwight, a Federalist, who lived through the Revolution and the early national period, wrote in his Travels in New England, "to trust arms in the hands of the people at large has, in Europe, been believed...to be an experiment fraught only with danger. Here by a long trial it has been proved to be perfectly harmless.... If the government be equitable; if it be reasonable in its exactions; if proper attention be paid to the education of children in knowledge and religion, few men will be disposed to use arms, unless for their amusement, and for the defence of themselves and their country." "The difficulty here," he added, "has been to persuade the citizens to keep arms, not to prevent them from being employed for violent purposes."

Jefferson copied this passage from Beccaria's influential Essay on Crimes and Punishments into his copybook: "False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils, except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm those only who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Can it be supposed that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, the most important of the code, will respect the less important and arbitrary ones, which can be violated with ease and impunity, and which, if strictly obeyed, would put an end to personal liberty - so dear to men, so dear to the enlightened legislator - and subject innocent persons to all the vexations that the guilty alone ought to suffer? Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. They ought to be designated as laws not preventive but fearful of crimes, produced by the tumultuous impression of a few isolated facts, and not by thoughtful consideration of the inconveniences and advantages of a universal decree."

Tho given the Chief Justice's ideas, Congress could tax guns out of existence. If the president's men are going to act as they have the past four years, I really wish they would try.