Having followed the recent troubles of Hostess, I thought I would point out a few things about that story which aren't getting the emphasis they might deserve.
First, before I get into that, I hate to see Hostess go for several reasons, chief among them that Hostess is a storied company with a long history of employing people, making a profit for its owners, and achieving that by providing a service the general public wants. In short, doing what a company is supposed to do in a capitalist economy (like we used to have). I also hate the thought of nearly twenty thousand jobs lost. Not that I mind seeing people who just insist on striking, even if the company goes under because of it, out of work. Unfortunately, those morons are taking down a lot of other jobs with them. I am firmly against them (the strikers) being able to collect unemployment, but sadly, I don't get to run the unemployment office (darn it).
By the way, while the failure of Hostess may mean that the people it employs are thrown out of a job, there are going to be a lot of other people also out of work because of this. Oddly, I've heard and seen little to no talk in the media about all of the suppliers Hostess used who will either have to close their doors, or cut back on the number of their employees. The ripple effect on the job market of the sudden disappearance of Hostess will be huge. It's almost as if the media is trying to hold back on the gritty details to avoid embarrasin…, nah, that couldn't be it.
When this story first broke, it was perfect in so many ways for the media. After all, here was a big company trying to break a union by holding the threat of liquidation over their (the workers) heads. Apparently, the general media liked this one because the general consensus was that Hostess could actually concede to the demands of the union and still keep going, if only they would. In fact, most of the stories I saw were framed around the concept that this was a battle between the underdog workers and heartless corporate raiders whose main goal was to crush the workers. Nobody seemed to take Hostess's saying it would have to liquidate seriously.
Proving that the leftist media is nothing if not agile and quick thinking, after Hostess did make good on its promise, and file for liquidation when the union refused to come to terms, the press took a little different tack. I say little because the stories went from management trying to crush the workers to management carving up the company rather than do anything for the workers.
What I found pretty interesting about all of this was that the trend was to say that if only Hostess had worked at it a little harder they and the union would have been able to "iron out" their differences and Hostess (and its workers) would have lived happily ever after. This was of course disproven (with little detailed coverage) when a federal bankruptcy judge ordered them all back to the bargaining table to take another bite at the cookie. And what happened then? The union still refused to make concessions. Personally, I think this proves the worker's union was the one crushing management, not the other way around, but suddenly, when the truth has reared its ugly head, we seem to be switching away from serious coverage of Hostess and back to Elmo being outed as a pedophile (again).
Say, on the subject of Elmo being charged as a pedophile, do you suppose Jim Henson's widow is going to "come out" in Elmo's defense? She certainly wasn't shy about voicing her opinion and the position of the Muppets concerning gay marriage, so I think she should clear the air and let us know if she is for or against adult men having sex with underage boys. I would make some kind of joke here about Tickle Me Elmo, but frankly there's nothing funny about sexual predators.
Another thing being downplayed in the media lately is the Republicans calling for a select committee to investigate what happened in Ben Ghazi. In fact John McCain has been getting pretty worked up about this issue; If only he had been this excited during the 2008 election. Anyway, he has called for a select committee to look into the events in Libya and find out what happened. Personally, if congress has time to investigate Roger Clemens, I don't see why they can't block out a space in their busy calendar to find out what happened the day Americans were killed in an attack on American Consular property. Of course, Harry Reid had an answer for the request. I'm going to paraphrase here, but the answer (to me) sounded like "drop dead". This by the way is the same Harry Reid who spontaneously blurted out he wouldn't work with Mitt Romney if Mitt won the election.
So let's see, post election, Hostess is dead, GM still hasn't paid back (and never will) all of the money the federal government sunk into it to "save" it, and companies, particularly medical manufacturers are laying off employees at an alarming rate. Additionally, not only can we not seem to get the facts about what happened in Libya, but the majority leader in the Senate has come down clearly and openly against looking into the matter. Oh, and don't forget that we are about to go off the "fiscal cliff" in a couple of months or so and the deficit is still growing. I could go on, but you get the picture.
Boy, I hate to say this, but I guess there is one place where I could agree with The Barack. If, during the next few months, he were to say that the guy who was President for the most recent term left the country in a big mess, I would have to say the evidence is solidly on his side.
Bruce Kreitler is the author of Obamageddon (the Culmination of the Progressive Looting of America) and posts this and other articles at BruceKreitler.com.