On Beck, Byrnes smeared CO solar energy company as "socialist"
SUMMARY: On Fox News' Glenn Beck, Tracy Byrnes baselessly asserted that Namasté Solar Electric Inc. -- the company whose president introduced President Obama at the signing of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act -- has a "progressive, maybe even socialist, internal structure," and during her report, on-screen text falsely claimed that "all employees are paid the same." In fact, according to Namasté's website, "starting salary depends upon experience."
On the February 18 edition of Fox News' Glenn Beck, Fox Business Network reporter Tracy Byrnes baselessly asserted that Namasté Solar Electric Inc. -- the Colorado solar energy company whose president introduced President Obama at the February 17 signing of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 -- has a "progressive, maybe even socialist, internal structure." Byrnes made her assertion after stating that "all Namasté employees, no matter what their job description, are on the same pay scale," while on-screen text during Byrnes' report falsely claimed, "All employees are paid the same." In fact, according to the company's website, "starting salary depends upon experience, includes a generous health insurance plan, profit sharing, and 6 weeks Paid Time Off each year," and job applicants are asked to describe in their cover letter their "compensation goals, both at the beginning and over time." While CNN.com reported on July 17, 2008, that Namasté "[e]mployees, no matter what their job description, have the same pay scale," that does not mean that "[a]ll employees are paid the same."
After Byrnes asserted that "[f]or many of us taxpayers, it seems odd, ... or maybe it is coincidental, that the president of the United States would choose a company with this type of progressive, maybe even socialist, internal structure," host Glenn Beck responded, "Maybe, maybe. I don't want to say socialist, because there's a big difference, apparently." Media Matters for America has previously documented Beck (multiple times), other Fox News media figures, and others using the word "socialism" to smear Obama, the recovery plan, or Democrats in general.
From the February 18 edition of Fox News' Glenn Beck:
BECK: President Obama signed the spending bill in Colorado yesterday, but here's the interesting thing: solar power company -- the solar power company in the backdrop. Fox Business channel Tracy Byrnes is here. She has more. Hi.
BYRNES: How are you, Glenn?
BECK: Well, I'm -- I'm pretty good, Tracy. I --
BYRNES: You're all -- you're all socialist up -- fired up over there.
BECK: Well, you know, I got up this morning, and I read about this solar panel, because somebody in my office said, "You know, why did he pick this solar panel company?" And so we started doing some research.
BYRNES: Right. And it's really interesting, right? OK, so when President Barack Obama signed the $787 billion economic stimulus package into law in Colorado on Tuesday, he chose to have the CEO of Namasté Solar Electric introduce him.
Now, "Namasté" is a greeting of respect in Sanskrit. Now, the company Namasté will most likely benefit from all the president's energy incentives that are stuffed into this plan. This 2-year-old company needs all the money it can get. It can barely keep its 55 workers onboard.
But it's not just the company's financial distress that's got people thinking. It's these collective in-house rules of this solar company that are making people wonder why the president decided to associate himself with it.
So to start, all Namasté employees, no matter what their job description, are on the same pay scale, and a portion of everyone's salary goes to charity. Hmm. All major decisions are made by a consensus of all the company employees -- all 55. And everyone gets six weeks vacation a year. It's no wonder the company is struggling and needs financial assistance. But for many of us taxpayers, it seems odd --
BECK: Unbelievable.
BYRNES: -- or maybe it is coincidental, that the president of the United States would choose a company with this type of progressive, maybe even socialist, internal structure, Glenn.
BECK: Maybe, maybe. I don't want to say socialist, because there's a big difference, apparently. OK, thank you very much, Tracy.
Of course, but let me say this. So what if they were run as they say they were? This would be apparent to the employees, and then they could either choose to be employed by said company, or choose to NOT be employed by said company. But, this doesn't matter, because they don't do things as Fox says that they do.
I'd also be willing to bet, poll all of the employees of that company, and I guarantee you that the vast majority of them enjoy working for that company, and like their jobs a lot. It sounds like a pretty good company if you ask me. 6 weeks of paid vacation? That ain't bad right there. Profit sharing? Not bad either.
The screen shot says "vacay"? On a "news" show?
They sure do. It's simple. If the company is not run like a tyrannical dictatorship, it's doomed to fail.
"Portion of salary goes to charity" is probably the typical donation to the local United Way foundation or some similarly subversive organization.
You're probably right about that. Each year, the United Way comes to my job and requests that we make a monthly monetary donation directly from our paychecks. If this is what Fox is talking about, they're really stretching the truth.
No one is required to give money to charity. Period. Forcing employees to do so is illegal.
What this refers to I believe is , as stated on the companys website, "Namaste Solar Electric is dedicated to making a holistic, positive impact in our community and our world. An important contribution toward this goal is through our ongoing corporate responsibility program which donates 1% of company revenues to the community annually."
So it is not charity through their salary. I believe it is illegal for a company to require charitable donations be taken from employee's salaries.
The company can only survive off of the government. That's a great free enterprise!
Like half the banks on Wall Street, eh?
Sure is. Ask the CEOs of any of the companies listed here:
http://www.ndia.org/MembershipAndChapters/NDIAChapters/Pages/corpportal.aspx
How about Halliburton?
Do you know that the comic book villian Hate-Monger is a clone of Hitler with Hitler's brain transplanted in it? So it looks like you are comparing Libertarian Hate-monger to Hitler. I am not sure that is right.
Didn't know and don't care. I found that image and thought it aprapos. I assume that poster knew all this about "Hate-Monger" when he/she picked that handle.
should be "apropos" of course.
Dude, it says right on the cover not to reveal his true identity. Now you've ruined it.
You are mistaken, I know the real reason the fantastical four fought each other!
Wallace Wood from the early days MAD magazine, I believe. I don't think I ever saw that one, but I remember his Wonder Woman parody well.
Jack Kirby was my hero.
Slightly OT, but think about this next time you hear some righty whine about the fairness doctrine and who's trying to eliminate free speech.
Criminalizing dissent? RNC protesters face felony terrorism charges
Democracy Now's Amy Goodman talked to Luce Guillen-Givins who is one of the first people ever to be charged under the 2002 Minnesota version of the federal PATRIOT Act. Guillen-Givins and 7 other members of the group RNC Welcoming Committee — also known as the "RNC 8" — were formally charged with conspiracy to riot in furtherance of terrorism.
However, criminal complaints filed reportedly do not allege that members of the RNC 8 personally engaged in any act of violence or damage to property. "Instead, authorities are seeking to hold the eight defendants responsible for acts committed by other individuals during the opening days of the Republican National Convention," reports Democracy Now.
Forget socialism, that is totalitarianism. Welcome to the gulag where you are guilty of thought crimes.
Even in your world, you must understand the difference between peaceful protesting and rioting.
You think "dissenters" can just do whatever they want in the name of dissent?
Bruce, read the paragraph. It says they're trying to charge the 8 people for stuff OTHER people did.
RNC welcoming committee are probably loons, but surely, even in your world, you must understand the difference between personally performing acts of radical protest and being charged with somebody else's acts.
But then again, you did vote for a guy who went after Saddam Hussein when Bin Laden attacked us. Go figure.
"You think "dissenters" can just do whatever they want in the name of dissent?"
You think "free marketers" can just do whatever they want in the name of of the free market? It's the same principle, Bruce, except that one group of terrorists have a ton more money than the other.
In both instances, clearly the answer is "no". I have never said that free marketers can do whatever they want.
I work for a regulatory Federal agency for crying out loud.
Responding to yours and Mary's post above, I am familiar with the story since it happened in Minnesota. Law enforcement infiltrated this group and had been monitoring their intentions for some time. It was their belief that the group would be committing illegal acts during the convention. I'm unclear based on the story if the "other" people were deemed to be acting on this groups orders or not. If they were separate unrelated incidents then I agree they have no relevence to this case.
I'm not expecting a conviction in this case based on the evidence that has been made public, but I also don't believe this group was planning on playing tiddlywinks in the parking lot either.
Listeniing to Amy Goodman during the RNC, it was pretty obvious that the police were arresting and harrassing innocent people, some were reporters just trying to document the event.
This makes me think back to the prevenative arrests made at the GOP convention that included members of progressive groups there to peacefully protest. The right are all ways saying we do not respect the Constitution but what does this show about respect for the first admendment of the Constitution by the right.
I find it funny how Beck acts as though he cant understand why Obama would want to associate himself with a company like this.
GET A CLUE BECK! (which btw, if you take off the BE and add PRI... it would be an accurate descriptive word for the guy)
I'm pretty certain Obama sees this company as the epitome of how companies should be. No greedy CEO's, equal treatment amongst its employees, giving back to the community/charities, AND an industry that will ultimately help with new energy sources.
I hope they get tons of money in federal contracts to help continue to grow their business and to provide solar energy to anyone who wants it!
Why tell the truth? Shouldn't a news channel have some responsibility for what they polute the air with.
Since when is the term "socialist" a smear? Socialism is what this country should have more of....as has been proved by the mess that laissez-faire capitalism has caused us.
God is a socialist: he maketh the sun to shine on the just and the unjust together.
Just wait until Fox finds out that the stock market encourages shared ownership of companies.
From each according to their contribution, to each according to their share of ownership! Forward the worker! [our stock option plan]
Not to mention that the Health Insurance system that they are fighting so hard to preserve is the corporate version of what they claim to fear from "Socialized Medicine".
Think about it. Healthy people are paying their premiums, which are used to pay for treating unhealthy people. If you take care of yourself and don't have any health problems, you never get any benefit from all those premiums you paid in. If you do get sick, the Insurance Company Bureaucrats decide what they will pay for and what they won't. On top of that, if they don't want to sell you insurance, they don't have to.
Now, how is that any better than "Socialized Medicine"?
The comments of Byrnes and Beck are out of context and par for the course.
They are DISGUSTING and these folks are WAY OUT OF LINE.
If we we're indeed a socialist nation, Beck and Fox would be out of jobs as they serve absolutley NO useful purpose!
Chris
Beck is a Drunk...Beck is a DRUNK.....BECK IS A DRUNK! You do not listen to drunks! You do not listen to even his airhead guest either!
Beck is also a drug addict.
Mind you, he says that he's no longer druggin', but with any NA program, you learn that once you're a drug addict, you're always a drug addict.
So, what does the right have to offer other than blowhard drug addicts behind a microphone (Limbaugh, Beck)?
Those of us who are old enough to remember the Soviet Union remember PRAVDA and the disinformation campaigns.
<b>"There is no law, rule or regulation against slanting the news,"</b> [William McDaniels, Esq. of Williams and Connolly representing Fox News] told the judge. {related to law suit of Jane Akres and Steven Wilson, investigative journalists)
What the Hell is wrong with conservatives?
Why do they have a problem with working people having co-ownership of the company they work for? It's just common sense to empower people on the job, it creates happy employees and happy employees are productive employees. Instead of breaking one's back for the greater wealth of another, this business model that Namaste' has nurtured, feeds that great American principle of equality. Very cool stuff, really. Just imagine if the majority of companies viewed themselves as good stewards of the communities they serve. Living wages, good healthcare and profit sharing for the majority of workers would go a long way to ameliorating the viciousness of this very recession.
And all you conjobs who say this company can't make it without government assistance ought to shut your pie hole until you're willing accept that no company gets by without government assistance in one form or another. No bid contracts to Haliburton, huge subsidies to defense contractors like Blackwater, Paulson's handout to the banks. Get over it, already. Or better yet, give it all back. Give back your public education you damn socialist. Give back your commute to work on socialized roads, you damn socialist. Give back your grandparents' social security checks, you damn socialist. Just give it all back and get after it on your own. Go start your own country, your way.
In the end, the problem with conservatives is their need to be dominated, controlled, told what to do by a father knows best figure. They fear taking ownership of their own lives. They would rather be rewarded for being obedient to the movement than risk seeking fulfillment in an environment that doesn't conform to their narrow worldview.
And all the while buying into the myth that they "did it all themselves" with no help from the government.
*applause*
Nice post!
You are confusing the meaning of equality. Equality is not equal pay, equal say, etc. Equality is a level playing field where anyone can compete and succeed. Life is full of winners and losers. This site is a perfect example of the losers in our society. They can't make it on their own so they need the government to step in.
This company cannot come close to making it without massive government subsidies (in the name of global warming, oops, I mean "climate change." (http://www.drroyspencer.com / http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/press_releases/monckton-response-to-gore-errors.pdf / http://icecap.us/index.php / http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=83947f5d-d84a-4a84-ad5d-6e2d71db52d9 ) In fact, every solar company, wind energy (http://www.unt.edu/cedr/windenergy.pdf), ethanol/biofuel business is a massive failure, a waste of time and money, and a prime example of what is wrong with government spending today. The University of Minnesota just released a study and it was reported in the liberal rag Start Tribune: http://www.startribune.com/local/38839542.html?elr=KArksUUUU
Wrong. Many, in fact, most companies survive just fine without government subsidies. You list a couple of the favorites from the left, Haliburton, Blackwater and the banks. Institutions such as those are not the economic engine that drives this country. Small business is what drives this country. http://web.sba.gov/faqs/faqIndexAll.cfm?areaid=24 (within the link you will find many reports to substantiate all facts listed therein).
Ignorance on display: "Give back your public education." First, that is impossible. Second, the property taxes my parents paid funded my public education. In addition, I am a home owner and my property taxes are paying for other peoples children to receive a misguided public education as my ex and I have elected to place our daughter in a private school. Finally, there is no enumerated right to an education in the Constitution. Public education is a joke anyway. I have an idea, lets throw more money at the problem -- the forever solution of the LibTards -- more money please. http://mises.org/story/2216
Ignorance on display: "Give back your commute to work on socialized roads." Roads are a neccessary function of the US Government under the Constitution. See Article I Section 8. http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articlei.html Roads are required so that the US Postal Service can deliver the mail, and as such, building of roads and infrastructure relating thereto is considered a legitimate function of government, one of the few our government engages in today, you moron.
Ignorance on display: "Give back your grandparents' social security checks." First, I know this is a foreign concept to you, but I cannot take something from one person and give it to another. Second, my grandparent's have a right to their private property. In this instance, you are speaking about money they earned through their labor. However, the government makes a claim against that private property for social security, takes it by force and then allegedly will give it back at a later time. Although, that is questionable because our trusty Congressmen and women have used the Social Security Trust as a slush fund (both Repukes and LibTards). Frankly, I do not agree with Social Security, at least how it is viewed by retirees today. Harvard Economist Martin Feldstein has estimated that Social Security reduces total private savings by nearly 60%. If anything, it should be used as a safety net, like its original intent, but with all things government, over time the original intent is perverted and exploited. Nonetheless, anyone who has paid one red cent to Social Security should, upon retirement, collect the same...it is their private property.
Ignorance on display: "Go start your own country, your way." I am afraid anyone wanting socialism is the one who should leave and start their own country. This Republic, founded on democratic and capitalistic principles, was around a long time before you and your socialistic desires, so it is you and all your little minions that see the world as you do, who can leave, find a little island where you can live as a egalitarian society. By the way, take all the downtroden welfare bums and whoever else you can with you, and those of us who are actually pulling the cart, not riding in it, will remain.
As for the company subect to this piece, solar is a bust in the residential market -- run your own numbers and see whether it makes sense to make an investment in solar: http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=pWKShknjJFBt7sOTCJre_SQ
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/dec/30/installation-companies-see-business-tumble-xcel/ Hmmm, interesting, the liberal Rocky Mountain News states they are all paid the same too. Uproar -- better start the letter writing campaign. Riiiiiiiiiiight, as if that will happen.
I'd like to know why MMFA uses the word "smear" in the title of this post. I don't consider calling something "Socialist" a "smear," and I'm sick of the almost universal acceptance in the media and politics that "Socialist" is a negative term. What's next- "Obama Smeared As Liberal on News Program?"
What the media and polticians need to be called out on is their use of "Socialist" as a brainless buzz-word meaning "Bad." They need to be forced to define what they think Socialism is and why it's bad. Then they need to be asked if they think Public Education, pollution controls, and the Interstate Highway System is "bad."
Excellent point, thanks.
It's a smear if the term does not apply.
It's a smear if the term does not apply
Actually, no, and it's why I'm glad jjamele raised the point (except that they beat me to it): It's a smear if a negative term does not apply. I don't imagine that anyone would consider an underserved compliment a "smear."
Which only reiterates the point that the word "socialist" is taken by too many - including, it appears, the folks at MMFA - to be inherently negative.
That's a good point. If you really looked, you'd probably find that the most common business model resembles a dictatorship of some kind. I don't hear these Free Marketeers whining about that.
Socialism requires some sort of collective or government ownership
It doesn't really. You can have small-scale or local socialist enterprises. You also can have socialist programs on a national scale without either collective or government ownership. Consider a national health care system. Recall that Social Security and Medicare were each in their turn regarded as "socialism."
In the past there have been calls for a guaranteed national income, supported by such classic non-socialist liberals as Hubert Humphrey and George McGovern. That certainly would be a "socialist" program.
Socialism doesn't have to be all or nothing, "government ownership or bust." It can operate on a small or partial scale within a broader context.
Because it proves that Obama is a socialist. A good president should only support companies that are run as a hierarchy, with no or little vacation, no benefits and preferably pay minimum wage to a sizable portion of the workers. That's the American way!
This has been said in some way by others but it bears repeating:
Let's see.
- all on the same pay scale;
- a portion of everyone's salary goes to charity;
- major decisions are made by consensus;
- everyone gets six weeks vacation a year.
And this is bad because...?
(Oh, and don't anyone bother with any "'cause they need government aid" crud when we are surrounded by an industry of hierarchically-organized, bonuses-for-the-top-dogs financial institutions crumbling like sand castles in a storm surge.)
"And everyone gets six weeks vacation a year. It's no wonder the company is struggling and needs financial assistance."
Actually, that probably has VERY little to do with it. Most companies could easily organize themselves to give employees 6 weeks of vacation a year if they wanted to.
But that would of course be very bad to tell Americans, so thanks Fox News for keeping up the charade.
WOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!! more guilt by association even if no one can find the guilt!!!! Isn't it a democracy with free enterprise as the basis.So the owner of the comapny can run it anyway he wants as long as laws aren't broken.Treating all emplyees the same..equal pay thats fair and substantial enough that most(or all) emplyees contribute to United Way,participation in decision making,,wow bet the emplyees aren't complaining!!!Why would this be criticized at all in the media? Is it newsworthy in any way?Just the same old destroy /attack partisan campaign mode reporting from FOX!!!Make it seem really bad /suspicious and link Obama to it!!!!Maybe they will find that Bill Ayers works there!!