The Path to 9/11

Posted by on . 8 comments.

(1)
So they are airing it after all, the arrogant sons of bitches.

There’s only so much I’m willing to take from a corporation, and these guys have not just crossed the line, they’ve crossed over into a parallel universe.

I can’t imagine why they think it’s good business to offend 50-60% of their consumer base. Offend, is of course, too mild a word, but all the words I know would be too mild. The English language has never been put to the need to come up with a word to describe such behavior. Whatever word or phrase someone comes up with to nail this behavior right on the head, it would have to include in it the meanings of arrogant, misguided, heinous, contemptuous, evil, hypocritical, stupid as all hell, Cheneyian.

I have never before been moved by a corporation to solemnly pledge to boycott all their products for the foreseeable future. But there’s always a first time, and these guys sure found the right button to punch inside me.

So henceforth – and until such time as all the bozos responsible for this decision have been ousted from the company, suitably tarred and feathered and hopefully also deprived of their retirement benefits – there will be no more Disney or ABC or ESPN or any of their corporate spawn in my future. Or that of anyone who lives under my roof.

(2)
I cannot believe that the capital markets will not punish the colossal stupidity of this corporate behavior.

Unless the market as a whole opens significantly higher, I confidently expect Disney stock to open lower than its $29.58 Friday close. It had closed on Wednesday at $29.48. Didn’t move much on Thursday or Friday after this story broke. Trading volume wasn’t much higher than normal either. Look for both things to change tomorrow.

I confidently expect a loud chorus of stockholder outrage. And a slew of stockholder lawsuits to go with the libel suits that many are confidently predicting.

Comments

  1. InTheMiddle says:
    September 10, 2006 at 7:07 pm

    Glad to see someone condemn Disney et all for a movie that hasn’t even been shown to the public yet….reminds me of when the movie The Passion of the Christ came out. Now I know who that liberals like you are willing to condemn anything when not having any knowledge of the subject. Gee, did you go to the middle east and suddenly know how to solve the whole crisis too? I will definitely laugh if you censor this comment…free speech, right?

  2. matt says:
    September 10, 2006 at 7:20 pm

    Glad to see someone condemn Disney et all for a movie that hasn’t even been shown to the public yet

    a+ for talking point fidelity. f for idiocy.

    the film was sent out for review. people who saw it reported the lies contained.

    Now I know who that liberals like you are willing to condemn anything when not having any knowledge of the subject.

    what knowledge are we lacking?

    I will definitely laugh if you censor this comment…free speech, right?

    this comment will be preserved for all eternity right where it is. we’re laughing at your abject stupidity. free speech, right?

  3. sarabeth says:
    September 11, 2006 at 7:09 am

    It seems to have opened at $29.70.

    What do I know?

    Maybe the current chairman (former Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell) and CEO (Robert A. Iger) will be voted chairman and CEO for life?

  4. InTheMiddle says:
    September 11, 2006 at 7:21 am

    The desperate censorship of this is not the sign of a healthy, confident political party. It is the sign of a movement that is literally fighting for its life. The Democratic Party is like a wounded animal that has been cornered and is lashing out in self-defense.

    Its grip on legitimacy is so fragile it can be devastated by a made-for-TV movie.

  5. matt says:
    September 11, 2006 at 7:32 am

    The desperate censorship of this is not the sign of a healthy, confident political party.

    please learn the definition of censorship before you use the word again. you’re embarrassing yourself.

    It is the sign of a movement that is literally fighting for its life. The Democratic Party is like a wounded animal that has been cornered and is lashing out in self-defense.

    Its grip on legitimacy is so fragile it can be devastated by a made-for-TV movie.

    so now it isn’t about the merits of their claims, but the standing of their organization?

    maybe you weren’t paying attention when CBS was planning to run their Reagan miniseries a few years ago, but don’t let that stop your expert analysis.

  6. InTheMiddle says:
    September 11, 2006 at 10:42 am

    Censorship: The act, process, or practice of censoring.

    Thus, to explain it to simple minds: The Dems want to censor the movie, or parts of it. That is a process, therefore, censorship applies.

    The point that you didn’t get because you are so caught up in liberalism vs. conservatism is that the Dem’s feel the movie could ruin their political future. A dramatic tv movie should have not effect on any powerful party, unless it was weak. The Dems are weak–even some of them admit it–and this would hurt them.

    And what does the Reagan miniseries have to do with it? You assume I am a Republican because I disagreed with you? I love these little liberal sites that shun themselves from the other side of the fence and mud sling. It shows how close-minded you are. It especially shows since you condemn every conservative newspaper/tv news station there is.

  7. matt says:
    September 11, 2006 at 2:54 pm

    Censorship: The act, process, or practice of censoring.

    ha. you must have missed the day in elementary school where they taught that you can’t define a word by using that word. only governments can censor anything. a loosely aligned group of democrats can’t censor anything, which you should know because you called it:

    he Democratic Party is like a wounded animal that has been cornered and is lashing out in self-defense.

    Its grip on legitimacy is so fragile it can be devastated by a made-for-TV movie.

    The point that you didn’t get because you are so caught up in liberalism vs. conservatism is that the Dem’s feel the movie could ruin their political future.

    and?

    when people make legitimate criticisms about democrats, that’s all in the game. i do it quite often myself. when one of the big three networks contracts a hack to make shit up, that’s something that people on both sides of the aisle should oppose. and some of the most determined dem bashers did just that (brent bozell, bill bennett, etc)

    And what does the Reagan miniseries have to do with it?

    the right exploded with bile over that, also before it was shown. they even stopped cbs from showing it. maybe you aren’t bright enough to see that parallel.

    You assume I am a Republican because I disagreed with you?

    i could care less what party you claim. you arguments are what troubles me. who cares if the dems are “weak.” what are they “weak” on? ethics? governance? their portrayal in the librul media?

    I love these little liberal sites that shun themselves from the other side of the fence and mud sling. It shows how close-minded you are. It especially shows since you condemn every conservative newspaper/tv news station there is.

    see, the funny thing is that you are either obviously new here or are incapable of spotting patterns. i don’t care about someone’s bias, unless it alters the facts. everyone is entitled to their point of view, but not their own facts. this is something abc doesn’t get, and they’ll pay a price for that.

  8. sarabeth says:
    September 11, 2006 at 3:21 pm

    Correction: Disney actually opened at $29.40 it seems, and moved up soon thereafter to the $29.70 I reported earlier. Closed at $29.77.