From: Ron Ward <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > If you've ever listened to the program or tuned in to the web cam, he is > telling the truth, there is a 22" cinema display and apple servers next to > it that would be nothing but free advertising. One word from Rush about > buying a product, and his listeners buy it. Sales of that bed he refers to > jumped almost 200% after he formally endorsed it and said he used it at his > home. That's a proven fact with every sponsor he's had on his show. Not a > single one has lost money on advertising with him. It has nothing to do > with one's political philosophy, it's about making money for the > shareholders and getting the most bang for your buck and Jobs seems to be > missing the boat here. This is not a political endorsement or an > endorsement of the Rush Limbaugh program or his philosophy, just my honest > opinion about doing something that makes good business sense.
It seems to me that the claims about advertising are being made by Rush Limbaugh himself & thus, should be subject to scrutiny as would *anyone* with a profit motive -- if the claims were unequivocally true, rather than his own self-serving rhetoric, *everyone* (who didn't have a problem with his politics, or, who didn't allow such a thing as principles to guide their business decisions) would be advertising on his show and he would be wealthier than even Ted Turner. But, his complaint seems to be laced with a rather large dose of (unintentional?) irony -- we expect, no, we demand (now that people are waking up to Enron, World Com and Arthur Anderson scandals in the news each morning) that corporations behave responsibly and not make every single decision based purely on profit motivations. Yet here Apple is being harassed to pander to the lowest common denominator, and allow every decision it takes to be driven by the profit motive (perhaps even the shareholders agree with allowing Jobs to take a principled stand against a particular show). Of course, it could very well be that Rush Limbaugh has no such expectation of corporate responsibility, in which case it wouldn't be an ironical statement for him to make (though, it would still be self-serving). We've seen where pure profit takes corporations, and, by extension, us -- what comes to mind?: - workers on banana plantations are sprayed indiscriminately with [known] carcinogenic pesticides & herbicides *while* they are in the plantations (both the European and American banana cos); - exploitation of workers as under-paid, slave labour by Nike (which still hasn't cleaned up its act, even after the **** hit the fan over a decade ago); all the cos that contract out their clothes/etc. manufacture to Chinese factories, knowing full well that some of them subject their workers to sub-human working conditions; the use of slave labour in the form of prisoners by US companies *in the US itself* (yes, AT&T calling. Would you like some information on our company's services? Yes? Great, can I have your credit card #. Thanks, now it's time to do some of my own shopping."); - Enron & World Com's accounting shenanigans resulting in a stock market in free fall, wiping out billions on paper (& realised since many are jumping ship) are but a few of the purely profit-driven wrongs that come to mind (then, there's Monsanto that for decades has been, and *continues* to be, involved in violations of environmental and human rights law around the globe & in their own backyard); TOBACCO -- it's not a product that has a beneficial bone in its dead body, yet it persists *purely* for the benefit of the shareholders in those companies, not for those addicted to it. You may, or may not agree with the assessment of the preceding list of "crimes" as being profit driven (or actually verified depending on who's spin doctors you believe), but, taken as a whole, they are a disturbing lot indeed (& this is but a minor part of things... how many cos are involved in illicit activity & don't want things to get out into the public realm (all the cos that have been prosecuted for illegal activities yet the settlements keep things under wraps so no-one knows what goes on -- the double standard is disgusting. A doctor accused of even the slightest hint of impropriety can have his career and life destroyed. Royal Dutch Shell BP (just using their name b/c they're so deeply connected with the "former" Nigerian dictatorship) can be convicted of crimes against humanity yet get away with nothing more than a minor fine & a complete government-assisted cover up (which major US company was convicted of dealing with the enemy (released through an access to information request) but didn't have this info come light until this past month? (& their claim is unverifiable because the information is being withheld by the government)... there are supposed to be thousands of such hidden prosecutions (for all practical purposes, such prosecutions are probably just part of the cost of doing business for these companies... profit ahead of principles)). I guess deny, deny, deny, deny, and then when you get caught, quickly say, "sorry, but it wasn't my fault. Really!!!" is the way to go (for politicians and for corps). Let's not do something as honourable as take responsibility for our actions. (Monsanto (how many decades did they deny, deny, deny), PCBs, 1000s of its workers, 1,000,000s exposed, countless dead humans & even greater # of unquantified animals 1000s km away from point of use; tobacco -- no, smoking doesn't kill..., after 40 years, well, ok, it's harmful, but people choose to become addicted so it's ok, 100,000,000s exposed, 1,000,000s dead, $100,000,000,000s (perhaps even trillions) in profit, a scant few $1,000,000,000 in fines/settlements & the ability to continue peddling death unfettered (& without compensating health insurance for the medical costs associated with treating all the illnesses caused and aggravated by smoking). (I would consider the continued legality of the sale of tobacco *less* of an evil if the smokers who "choose" (& those few who actually do choose) to smoke would also be required to pay for their own health care, rather than leaning on the rest of society to do so) [whoops, there comes smoking again... that'll get me going every time] Anyway, my big long, blistering (& blustering?) response to Rush Limbaugh's comment comes down to this: I think it is rather funny (& sad) to see someone criticising a corp for making a decision (whether or not said commentator disagrees with the stand because it affects him/his business personally is a different point) that is *not* purely profit driven in light of the fact that corporations should not be purely motivated by profit at *all* costs (without the shareholders paying the ultimate price themselves) (or perhaps it *is* profit driven because it could be that the bulk of Mac users are not of the political stripe that is represented by Rush Limbaugh & appearing on his show might throw Apple into disrepute with its customer base... since educators & artists & academics tend to be more left of centre than to the right of it ;). Well, this is now going a little too OT away from Apple & Rush Limbaugh's whinging that Apple isn't advertising with him (after such self-serving complaining, why would any self-respecting company advertise with the guy). I guess a long response is what happens when you switch over to digest mode to stay away from e-mail ;). Eric. -- G-List is sponsored by <http://lowendmac.com/> and... Small Dog Electronics http://www.smalldog.com | Refurbished Drives | -- We have Apple Refurbished Monitors in stock! | & CDRWs on Sale! | Support Low End Mac <http://lowendmac.com/lists/support.html> G-List list info: <http://lowendmac.com/lists/g-list.shtml> Send list messages to: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To unsubscribe, email: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For digest mode, email: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subscription questions: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Archive: <http://www.mail-archive.com/g-list%40mail.maclaunch.com/> Using a Macintosh? Get free email and more at Applelinks! <http://www.applelinks.com>
