Allow me a moment to be outraged at a Herald Sun headline again.
BONUS HUMBLE PIE
the headline cleverly screams. See how the first letter of each word make up the word BHP?
First issue with this: a CEO forgoing $7 million in profit has nothing to do with being humble.
I'm not going to look in the dictionary, but to me, humble means being understated, not going around telling people you have loads of money or whatever just because you do.
Second issue: if we take the phrase as a whole - that is, 'humble pie' as it's supposed to be used in context - it still makes no sense.
Is not the phrase 'eating humble pie' used when somebody makes an error, and is forced to apologise or atone for such an error? To me, the headline implies that Marius Kloppers has made a grave error in judgement, and is now atoning for it.
They further somehow make the link from his salary and bonus - which is a minute amount, when compared to the profits of BHP - to super funds taking a hit. What.
If anything, the man should be lauded, rather than made out to be in the wrong for making so much money.
I'm not sure whether the Herald Sun is supposed to be left wing or right wing, and it never really struck me as being particularly left or right (not that I ever bothered to really look into it), but I think it's fairly obvious that even if it's not left wing, it's definitely anti-right. Most of their stuff can be summarised as reading:
"How dare he make so much money when so many of us don't? Why don't all of us make millions of dollars? What did he ever do to deserve higher pay than us? It's not like he does anything anyway. Where's our free money?"
I don't really know what my point is, but it just really annoys me.
Word of the Day: Humble
Showing posts with label Herald Sun. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Herald Sun. Show all posts
Saturday, 4 August 2012
Tuesday, 8 December 2009
Blub
Blub. What an interesting sound to make.
I'll do it again.
Blub.
So, as you can probably tell, I'm fairly bored. I just wrote a letter to the Herald Sun, detailing why I think the AFL should just be a little bit flexible and give the biggest sporting event on Earth some space to weave it's magic.
I've also been making things for people, but people aren't co-operating with me, which makes it hard. It shall be done though.
I have also obtained a bag, so I don't need one for Christmas anymore. Now I'm really stuck. Maybe I'll just be a good chap and not ask for anything.
Oh, and I have jury duty tomorrow. I thought it'd be fun, but now it just seems like an inconvenience. Oh well. Hopefully it won't be as boring as sitting around at home, getting all arty and writing angry letters to dodgy newspapers.
Word of the Day: Jury
I'll do it again.
Blub.
So, as you can probably tell, I'm fairly bored. I just wrote a letter to the Herald Sun, detailing why I think the AFL should just be a little bit flexible and give the biggest sporting event on Earth some space to weave it's magic.
I've also been making things for people, but people aren't co-operating with me, which makes it hard. It shall be done though.
I have also obtained a bag, so I don't need one for Christmas anymore. Now I'm really stuck. Maybe I'll just be a good chap and not ask for anything.
Oh, and I have jury duty tomorrow. I thought it'd be fun, but now it just seems like an inconvenience. Oh well. Hopefully it won't be as boring as sitting around at home, getting all arty and writing angry letters to dodgy newspapers.
Word of the Day: Jury
Tuesday, 19 May 2009
Herald Sun...more like...Herald Biased!
I read an article in the Herald Sun today that exacerbated the animosity that I've been building towards this paper for quite some time.
Apparently, there's this woman who's likely to be bankrupted by a debt collecting agency, who is responsible for recovering $2000 of debt that she owes to a credit card company.
Just a bit of background on bankruptcy, for those of you that are less commercely-minded. It's pretty easy (or so I thought).
Step 1: After presumably reading terms and conditions, or having at least a working understanding of the term 'debt' and 'repaying', and signing a contract, said person takes out a loan for a given sum of money.
Step 2: After a predetermined period of time, as stipulated in the signed contract, the said person must either pay a set amount of interest or the capital in full. Failing that, they must at least pay a small, nominal amount. Which, in this case, would be about $100 a month.
Step 3: If even the $100 or so cannot be repaid each month, then, as per the contract, the company loaning out the money has a right, obligation and responsibility to recover the sum of money. This includes forcing someone into bankruptcy.
Step 4: Bankruptcy may include the selling of personal assets of said person to pay off the debt incurred, after which the rest of the money is the said person's to keep and do pretty much what they, except for starting a business and being a director, and other fancy, hardcore things which, given their money-management skills (or lack thereof), they probably shouldn't do anyway.
Anyway, this woman is being forced into bankruptcy over "only $2000". If it's "only $2000", why doesn't she just "pay it back"? If it's such a small amount of money, why make such a big fuss about it?
Companies have responsibilities. To their shareholders, to other customers who do not expect preferential treatment, to employees who rely on the income of the company to feed their families. Where do they stop if they allow this woman to not pay back her $2000? What about the guy with $3000 in debt? $5000? $10000? Soon people will be taking out loans, without the expectation of ever having to pay it back. Conversely, who would be willing to lend out money? Conceivably, even if they did, it would be at a much higher interest rates to people who actually repay the money, as these bad debts would have to be covered.
If companies have a responsibility for their side of the contract, why shouldn't this woman? This woman would have, or at least could have, read the contract before she signed the contract to use the credit card. Even if she can't pay the money back, she should at least show some sense of responsibility, and not make it out like it's the credit card company's fault that she's in danger of being bankrupted. Nobody likes being in that situation. It's not a happy place to be. But it's not all bad. After she pays off the $2000 with the money she gets from selling her car or house, this woman has no debts to speak of, and can do what she likes with the money. I would pity her situation, and I think it's alright to ask for pity or charity in that situation. All I ask is for her to be man enough (or whatever the expression would be here) to just say "Okay. I stuffed up. Can you go easy on me?" and not "This is all the credit card company's fault." Not everybody's made of money, but everybody should be able to live within their means, and be responsible for the consequences when they don't.
The reporting of this article shouldn't have happened in the first place. The journalists who did this piece are misinformed and have no respect for the law and common sense. The language used was completely biased towards sympathising with this woman. That's probably why they're working for the Herald Sun.
The only reason I read the Herald Sun is because my family gets it. Oh, and the fact that it actually fits on a table. If The Age could be read on the dinner table without causing five car-crashes and two tornadoes, I'd be right there.
Word of the day: Debt
Apparently, there's this woman who's likely to be bankrupted by a debt collecting agency, who is responsible for recovering $2000 of debt that she owes to a credit card company.
Just a bit of background on bankruptcy, for those of you that are less commercely-minded. It's pretty easy (or so I thought).
Step 1: After presumably reading terms and conditions, or having at least a working understanding of the term 'debt' and 'repaying', and signing a contract, said person takes out a loan for a given sum of money.
Step 2: After a predetermined period of time, as stipulated in the signed contract, the said person must either pay a set amount of interest or the capital in full. Failing that, they must at least pay a small, nominal amount. Which, in this case, would be about $100 a month.
Step 3: If even the $100 or so cannot be repaid each month, then, as per the contract, the company loaning out the money has a right, obligation and responsibility to recover the sum of money. This includes forcing someone into bankruptcy.
Step 4: Bankruptcy may include the selling of personal assets of said person to pay off the debt incurred, after which the rest of the money is the said person's to keep and do pretty much what they, except for starting a business and being a director, and other fancy, hardcore things which, given their money-management skills (or lack thereof), they probably shouldn't do anyway.
Anyway, this woman is being forced into bankruptcy over "only $2000". If it's "only $2000", why doesn't she just "pay it back"? If it's such a small amount of money, why make such a big fuss about it?
Companies have responsibilities. To their shareholders, to other customers who do not expect preferential treatment, to employees who rely on the income of the company to feed their families. Where do they stop if they allow this woman to not pay back her $2000? What about the guy with $3000 in debt? $5000? $10000? Soon people will be taking out loans, without the expectation of ever having to pay it back. Conversely, who would be willing to lend out money? Conceivably, even if they did, it would be at a much higher interest rates to people who actually repay the money, as these bad debts would have to be covered.
If companies have a responsibility for their side of the contract, why shouldn't this woman? This woman would have, or at least could have, read the contract before she signed the contract to use the credit card. Even if she can't pay the money back, she should at least show some sense of responsibility, and not make it out like it's the credit card company's fault that she's in danger of being bankrupted. Nobody likes being in that situation. It's not a happy place to be. But it's not all bad. After she pays off the $2000 with the money she gets from selling her car or house, this woman has no debts to speak of, and can do what she likes with the money. I would pity her situation, and I think it's alright to ask for pity or charity in that situation. All I ask is for her to be man enough (or whatever the expression would be here) to just say "Okay. I stuffed up. Can you go easy on me?" and not "This is all the credit card company's fault." Not everybody's made of money, but everybody should be able to live within their means, and be responsible for the consequences when they don't.
The reporting of this article shouldn't have happened in the first place. The journalists who did this piece are misinformed and have no respect for the law and common sense. The language used was completely biased towards sympathising with this woman. That's probably why they're working for the Herald Sun.
The only reason I read the Herald Sun is because my family gets it. Oh, and the fact that it actually fits on a table. If The Age could be read on the dinner table without causing five car-crashes and two tornadoes, I'd be right there.
Word of the day: Debt
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)