home

Freedom of Speech: Freedom of Protest

With the resignation of Brendan Eich as CEO of Mozilla after protests, both within and without the Mozilla organization, led, yet again, to mass confusion about the most basic principles of free speech rights. Today, a new shunning, this time of anti-Islam activist Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who was to receive an honorary degree from Brandeis University, will no doubt add to the confusion.

It so happens I agree with the "shunning" of Eich but disagree with the shunning of Hirsi Ali (I am pretty strongly anti-organized religion.) But my personal views on the relative merits of these actions is really not to the point -- free speech rights include the right to criticize and yes, shun.

Let me give the most obvious example that in fact everyone agrees with this conception (that non-state actors can shun, boycott, protest, etc. anyone for their speech) - imagine an accomplished person in any field espousing the view that interracial marriage should be outlawed. Who do you suppose would protest in defense against calls for removal of such a person from a position of public leadership? No one, that's who. And therein lies the point - we all agree that lines can be drawn. We often disagree with where the lines are drawn.

Let's discuss the line drawing on the flip.

When it comes to non-state actors, I think it is clear that everyone would draw their lines differently. The trick to getting folks to agree with your line drawing is to have a sufficient group of people to agree with your line and to have them act in a way that establishes your line. It really is as simple as that.

I can accept that folks disagree with where a line is drawn, indeed we engage in disagreement in all aspects of line drawing in any manner and number of things. Why is this treated differently?

Let's go to our resident Slate contrarian who predictably disagrees with the idea of line drawing (except when he doesn't), Will Saletan (I choose not to pull up Andrew Sullivan for the simple reason his arguments are consistently too dumb to address):

That’s the argument: Each company has a right—indeed, it has a market-driven obligation—to make hiring and firing decisions based on “values” and “community standards.” It’s entitled to oust anyone whose conduct, with regard to sexual orientation, is “bad for business” or for employee morale. The argument should sound familiar. It has been used for decades to justify anti-gay workplace discrimination. [Emphasis supplied.]

I hope we can all recognize how supremely stupid this argument is. Indeed, Saletan does not realize that this argument completely contradicts his point. Setting aside the fact that gay rights activists fought for legal protections against workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation, the fight against Eich was precisely an attempt to set new norms and "community values." That is its precise purpose. It is part of the battle to win hearts and minds.

Here is a simple test for a Saletanista - was the 1955 Montgomery bus boycott something you would support? After all, it was a private enterprise that was shunned for its views on segregation. Or how about the shunning of South Africa during the apartheid era?

Saletan wrote:

It used to be social conservatives who stood for the idea that companies could and should fire employees based on the “values” and “community standards” of their “employees, business partners and customers.” Now it’s liberals. Or, rather, it’s people on the left who, in their exhilaration at finally wielding corporate power, have forgotten what liberalism is.

Someone has forgotten something here with out question. I submit it is Will Saletan.

Predictably, with the help of Ross Douthat, Saletan goes even further down his rabbit hole:

Douthat offers this political deal:

In the name of pluralism, and the liberty of groups as well as individuals, I would gladly trade the career prospects of some religious conservatives in some situations—not exempting myself from that list—if doing so would protect my own church’s liberty (and the liberties of other, similarly-situated groups) to run its schools and hospitals and charities as it sees fit.

Would you, Dear Liberal Reader, accept Douthat’s deal? Would you let conservatives run their own companies and organizations by their own rules, even if it means removing a gay CEO?

I hate to break it to Saletan, but that's not a deal Douthat gets to offer. You see we have these pesky things called laws (I'm think of two in particular, the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment and the Civil Rights Acts) that limit the ability of employers to discriminate on the basis of race, sex, origin, etc. There has been (and continues to be) a great fight about whether those protections should extend to sexual orientation.

Now if Saletan wants to stand against gay rights, then let him say so clearly. He claims to be a supporter of gay rights. (His continued diatribes against women's privacy rights make his claims of "support" for women's privacy rights humorous at best.) Does he want to stop pretending? Because the way to protect gay rights is by enacting laws that do that. Not demanding "free speech rights" for bigots that include being safe from criticism, protest and shunning.

Here's how we know Saletan is full of it:

Maybe someone will come forward to testify that Eich treated gay and straight couples differently outside the context of defining marriage. But it’s striking that so far, despite all the uproar, nobody has. [Emphasis supplied.]

As I suspected, this is a dispute about line drawing, not "free speech rights." To Saletan, opposing gay marriage is no big whoop. Just as opposing women's right to choose is not a big whoop. But imagine for a moment this:

Maybe someone will come forward to testify that Eich treated [interracial] couples differently outside the context of defining marriage. But it’s striking that so far, despite all the uproar, nobody has.

Would Saletan write those words? I submit he would not. Why? Because opposition to interracial marriage is now beyond the pale of community norms. The hope of gay activists is that opposing gay marriage will be viewed in the same way opposing interracial marriage is now. It's that simple.

Post Script: Regarding the Hirsi Ali shunning, I recognize that community norms do not agree with my anti-organized religious views, but the reality is the support Hirsi Ali will receive will come largely from anti-Islamists, not anti-organized religion people like me. If her statements were anti-organized Christianity, I'm pretty sure Ali Hirsi would not be receiving the Fox News martyr treatment.

< Tuesday Open Thread | Steven Colbert to Replace David Letterman >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Also the fact is that in the community of (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by ruffian on Wed Apr 09, 2014 at 01:31:56 PM EST
    Mozilla's workers and, more importantly to the bottom line in this case, users, gay marriage already is accepted as a community norm. If corporate money is free speech, so is my money as a consumer. Companies can keep their CEOs that cost them money if they want...I would think they are idiots though.

    I have conservative friends who tell me it is wrong to boycott Koch industry products - free speech! I think they have things backwards.

    As a free speech extremist... (none / 0) (#2)
    by kdog on Wed Apr 09, 2014 at 01:41:54 PM EST
    it even took me awhile to realize boycotting speech is itself speech.

    And if you don't like what the pc police are up to with any particular boycott you can always boycott the boycott, and boycott the boycott of the boycott, and on and on and on.  Let freedom of speech ring, and let the consequences of free speech ring.  

    Speaking of non-state actors only...the state cannot and should not punish free speech in any way shape or form.  I think we can all agree on that, and just maybe disagree about the limits to free speech within the law and whether those limits are necessary and just or unnecessary and unjust.  Flag burning, yelling fire in a crowded theather, hate crimes, and what not.

    Parent

    If you want to see how far the Supreme Court says (5.00 / 4) (#9)
    by Peter G on Wed Apr 09, 2014 at 03:56:11 PM EST
    the First Amendment protects boycott-type activity from governmental restriction -- in fact, from governmental facilitation of private restriction or penalizing of agressive boycotting, by providing a court remedy to the "victim" -- check this out.

    Parent
    Interesting... (none / 0) (#113)
    by kdog on Thu Apr 10, 2014 at 01:08:54 PM EST
    Thanks Peter...I wonder if today's pro-business corporate court would rule the same way.

    Parent
    Yes, me too (none / 0) (#3)
    by ruffian on Wed Apr 09, 2014 at 02:34:25 PM EST
    It took someone basically telling me I had to watch some TV show or buy some product or I was violating some rightie's free speech, to bring it home.

    I remember what it was...someone's show was about to get yanked off some network..and my friend was telling me sponsors had no right to stop sponsoring it and the network had no right to pull that TV show. Like whoever it was had some right to a network TV show.

    Parent

    Duck Dynasty was it? (none / 0) (#4)
    by kdog on Wed Apr 09, 2014 at 02:41:40 PM EST
    Don Imus was my epiphany moment, if I recall correctly.  I thought it was kinda f*cked up he got sh&tcanned for his on-air comments, but realized at the end of the day it wasn't a free speech issue, it was a  private profit-driven corporation issue.

    Don't get me wrong, still a big time critic of the pc police most of the time...but respect their right to be the squeaky wheel that gets the grease.  If I don't like it, I can get off my arse and be a squeakier wheel, or just let it go.  

    Parent

    Ha, nope it was even before Imus (none / 0) (#5)
    by ruffian on Wed Apr 09, 2014 at 02:49:19 PM EST
    so I didn't get exercised about his "right" to have a TV show, having already formed my thoughts on such things. I wish I could remember. It was one of the first of such cases. Probably something Christian related because I remember the friend, and that would have been her issue.

    Parent
    Ultimately Imus was a corporate thing (none / 0) (#11)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Apr 09, 2014 at 04:58:48 PM EST
    But to BTDs point I doubt Imus would have gotten the same grief for a gay slur, particularly at that time,  as for referring to young black women as "nappy header hoes".  He crossed a different line.

    Parent
    Duck Dynasty (none / 0) (#13)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Apr 09, 2014 at 05:10:34 PM EST
    Is also a case in the same point.  All the Fox News people wanted to talk about was his comments about gay people.  They carefully avoided mentioning his comments about AAs in the same interview that I frankly found more ignorant and disturbing.
    And they did that for a very good reason.  Lots of other people would have found them ignorant and disturbing who were at best unphased and at worst sympathetic with the gay comments.

    Parent
    And what (none / 0) (#15)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Apr 09, 2014 at 05:48:55 PM EST
    he said about women. It's no wonder the GOP has dropped their plan to campaign with them. Of course, you and I had to know something like this was coming because I'm sure that you know people just like this as do I and once they start talking and the more they talk you are going to hear this kind of stuff.

    Parent
    "nappy headed ho's".... (none / 0) (#41)
    by magster on Wed Apr 09, 2014 at 09:50:23 PM EST
     about 18-20 year old kids should get you "sh!tc@nned".

    Parent
    Inappropriate and underserved... (none / 0) (#84)
    by kdog on Thu Apr 10, 2014 at 08:51:34 AM EST
    totally...but in my book an apology was sufficient, no need to demand his scalp.  

    Parent
    Indeed (none / 0) (#8)
    by jondee on Wed Apr 09, 2014 at 03:34:28 PM EST
    boycotting and promoting boycotts is the public expression of an opinion.

    Which is also why publications refusing to be bullied by the neocons into publishing those Muhammed cartoons was also an expression of the right of free speech.

    It's like playing music and exercising basic etiquette: what you don't play/do is as important as what you do play and do.

    Parent

    This is such a crock (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Apr 09, 2014 at 05:01:59 PM EST
    It used to be social conservatives who stood for the idea that companies could and should fire employees based on the "values" and "community standards" of their "employees, business partners and customers." Now it's liberals. Or, rather, it's people on the left who, in their exhilaration at finally wielding corporate power, have forgotten what liberalism is.

    Someone should explain to him that tolerance does not have to extend to tolerating intolerance.

    You know, the War of Northern Agression (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by MKS on Wed Apr 09, 2014 at 05:10:42 PM EST
    was about preventing the loss of liberty--the right or liberty to own slaves.  How dare they tell the South what they could and could not do.

     

    Parent

    You won't get them to say that (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Apr 09, 2014 at 06:05:02 PM EST
    Incredibly I had this conversation yesterday

    Nope, it was about states rights.  

    When you point out it was the states right TO OWN SLAVES they get all twitchy.

    Parent

    Tell them to read (none / 0) (#72)
    by jbindc on Thu Apr 10, 2014 at 08:03:21 AM EST
    The Ordinances of Secession and see how many times "slavery" is mentioned as the reason for seceding.

    Parent
    Read? (none / 0) (#81)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Apr 10, 2014 at 08:44:21 AM EST
    You want them to read?

    Parent
    You can read it to them (none / 0) (#92)
    by jbindc on Thu Apr 10, 2014 at 09:18:43 AM EST
    Which financial liberals... (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by Dadler on Wed Apr 09, 2014 at 06:10:44 PM EST
    ...have all that corporate power? Is he serious?

    Does he believe Wall Street and corporate boardrooms teeming with bleeding hearts? Seriously?

    That's just intellectually clownish.

    Parent

    "America has one political party, (none / 0) (#42)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Apr 09, 2014 at 10:12:01 PM EST
    the party of property, blah blah blah..." - G.Vidal

    Parent
    Hang the intolerant (none / 0) (#164)
    by Mikado Cat on Thu Apr 10, 2014 at 07:11:25 PM EST
    A hard line needs to be drawn between speech you make representing only yourself, and it should be legally protected from any impact on your job, otherwise freedom of speech becomes practical only for the rich.

    I don't really care how extreme the speech is either, if I make it as a private citizen, it should have no effect on my work. Boycott all you want, but if I get fired I should be able to sue for full compensation and win.

    Parent

    In 29 states I can be fired for being gay (5.00 / 2) (#166)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Apr 10, 2014 at 07:24:00 PM EST
    And simply being outed.  I waste no tears for a guy who was canned because his presence threatened the bottom line of a corporation because he contributed to a cause that would perpetuate that kind of world and that kind of law.  

    Parent
    Interesting (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by Yman on Thu Apr 10, 2014 at 07:53:59 PM EST
    I don't really care how extreme the speech is either, if I make it as a private citizen, it should have no effect on my work. Boycott all you want, but if I get fired I should be able to sue for full compensation and win.

    So you're saying your right to free speech - no matter how extreme or offensive - is more important than their right to protest your speech.

    I'm shocked.

    Parent

    Looking up Brandon Eich (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Apr 09, 2014 at 06:56:38 PM EST
    got me to revisiting that nasty proposition 8 campaign in CA. Honestly that same campaign could have been run here in GA. It's the exact same talking points they use here. Apparently he sent the money right before the election too. Wow just wow but then when you find out that he was a Pat Buchanan supporter it's not that surprising. This kind of stuff is just so hateful and insidious.

    The Mormon Church (none / 0) (#44)
    by MKS on Wed Apr 09, 2014 at 11:06:07 PM EST
    won't go there again.   It was so foolish of a church that was run out of Illinois, Missouri and Ohio because they had an odd view of marriage to get up on a soapbox about the issue.

    The Mormon Church hates, hates, hates bad press.  They were really surprised at all the blowback its members received over Prop 8.  They have backed off....

    The tide has turned....

    Parent

    And some of that blowback ... (none / 0) (#56)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Apr 10, 2014 at 01:59:49 AM EST
    ... came from members of their own church, especially those individuals who have gay and lesbian children or relatives.

    It's almost always easy to adopt a position on an issue like gay marriage when it's abstract and impersonal. But such posturing gets a lot more difficult and thorny, when you realize that you have a dog in that hunt.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Gay (none / 0) (#165)
    by Mikado Cat on Thu Apr 10, 2014 at 07:15:31 PM EST
    marriage is a gateway to polygamy, Mormon's should hitch a wagon to it.

    Parent
    I don't think the conservative (none / 0) (#167)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Apr 10, 2014 at 07:37:03 PM EST
    Church is going to be into wagon metaphors

    And I'm not sure if that was a put down but I agree with you.  Personally I think an adult should be able to marry anyone they wish or more than one if they wish.  It's none of my business and it's none of yours.

    Parent

    I am (5.00 / 4) (#58)
    by lentinel on Thu Apr 10, 2014 at 03:52:45 AM EST
    a graduate of Brandeis University.

    I have to say, without any extra knowledge except that provided here and the link to the bio on wikipedia above, that the reversal by Brandeis is a quality that I well remember.

    Brandeis started out as a very liberal University. It was founded, to the best of my recollection, partly because Jewish students were often shunned by other Universities at that time. There was a quota system that was in place. So a University was started to provide an alternative.

    In its beginning days, it had professors who were avowed Marxists and Socialists - among others.

    But - in an effort to appeal to a what I would call a larger audience - or the prevailing politics of the day - the University began to gradually turn its back on its reputation of being "far left" -  and began weeding out its more radical - and interesting - professors. Denying tenure... etc.

    It also began a concerted effort, in my opinion, to "diversify" - to actively seek students from other than Jewish backgrounds so that - again in my opinion - it would not be perceived as a haven for Jewish intellectual pinkos.

    The withdrawal of the planned awarding of an honorary degree to Ayaan Hirsi Ali reminds me of this lurching to the right that, as I recall, began to infect and dilute the magic that was there in the early days of Brandeis.

    In deciding to deny Ms. Ali her honorary degree, Brandeis issued this statement:

    "She is a compelling public figure and advocate for women's rights, and we respect and appreciate her work to protect and defend the rights of women and girls throughout the world," said the university's statement. "That said, we cannot overlook certain of her past statements that are inconsistent with Brandeis University's core values."

    This part of the statement above,

    we respect and appreciate her work to protect and defend the rights of women and girls throughout the world,
    is contrasted with her belief that Islam fosters war and the denigration of women.

    As BTD implies in his last paragraph, I believe that the same could and has been said about Christianity. One could even make the case that the same is true for different sects of Judaism. I think that the case could be made for just about any religion.

    So what I think is happening here, is that Brandeis is putting its need to appear a certain way to a certain community above its supposed commitment what I would have hoped were its "core values".

    If Ms. Ali's work, "to protect and defend the rights of women and girls throughout the world", does not reflect Brandeis' core values, then I am left to wonder what its core values might be at this time.

    Agree with all of that (none / 0) (#73)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Apr 10, 2014 at 08:15:23 AM EST
    But if the intent was to lurch to the right it was not a very successful attempt.  The result seems to be that the Fox News crowd, as illustrated by their local mouthpieces, condemning for what they did louder than anyone.  Most of the left is to gutless to complain about it for fear of being called anti Muslim.
    I think that it was not about core values at all necessarily but about the bottom line.  Every bit as much as the Eich business.  I think that is thing the two situations have in common more than any other.

    They were both about the bottom line.

    Parent

    Totally (none / 0) (#99)
    by lentinel on Thu Apr 10, 2014 at 09:58:56 AM EST
    agree.

    It's about $$$$$$

    Parent

    Lurch to the Right? (none / 0) (#100)
    by squeaky on Thu Apr 10, 2014 at 10:13:11 AM EST
    She is painted as anti-muslim, how is that a lurch to the right?

    If anything it is a nod to donors who are against islamophobia, no?

    That would be the left? No?

    And, as fine as it is for one group (Brandeis) to shun someone because they want them to change their views, or do not wanted to be associated with certain political viewpoints, do you think that a group of people who share viewpoints (Muslims here), should be dictated on how to behave because another group (the left) believes it is more enlightened?

    Seems to me that change has to come from within the muslim community. Activists, within can point to the Brandeis affair, and say that sexism is hurting Muslims.  But other than that, the Left really has no business dictating what beliefs and practices a Religious group adheres to, imo.

    Parent

    I don't (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by lentinel on Thu Apr 10, 2014 at 10:56:48 AM EST
    think the "left" is dictating anything to anybody.

    Brandeis, in considering giving Ms. Ali an honorary degree, was going to do so because of her great and passionate work on behalf of women and girls.

    In deciding to not give her the degree, they decided that her comments about Islam trumped her work defending women and girls.

    The "left", in my opinion, is not about stifling speech.

    So, the denial of the honorary degree is, for me, a  lurch to the right. For me, the suppression of thought and speech is associated with right wing politics.

    And I freely admit that I think all organized religions have left the wisdom of those upon whom the religion is allegedly based far behind.

    But ultimately, as the Captain said above, and squeaky says about this being a "nod to donors", it is about putting money first. Above left. Above right. Above principle. Above everything.

    Parent

    It has often come (none / 0) (#109)
    by KeysDan on Thu Apr 10, 2014 at 12:51:00 PM EST
    to be understood that University administrators look to extramural funding as the prime indicia of University achievement, but it is disappointing that such a large proportion of Brandeis faculty registered their support for disinviting Ms. Ali.  The withdrawal of an invitation to be commencement speaker and recipient of an honorary degree on May 18 is especially lamentable.  The controversy about Brandeis awarding Tony Kushner an honorary degree was surmounted and the degree was granted demonstrating the flexibility in drawing the line.

    Parent
    Perhaps an easy solution (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by CoralGables on Thu Apr 10, 2014 at 01:04:14 PM EST
    is to quit offering silly honorary degrees, and stick to giving degrees to those who earn them.

    Parent
    Disagree. Honorary degrees (5.00 / 2) (#114)
    by KeysDan on Thu Apr 10, 2014 at 01:52:43 PM EST
    are a valued academic tradition by which the achievements of a worthy individual can be modeled and honored as a part of the awarding of earned degrees.   The committee that makes recommendations to the president and Board of Regents/Trustees generally does a thorough review of candidates.  This graduation season will see many honorary degrees awarded with distinction and without controversy.  The explanation that Brandeis was unaware of some of the statements of Ms. Ali is odd, more like they were short on courage.

    Parent
    Brandeis reminds me of the old joke about the (none / 0) (#130)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Apr 10, 2014 at 03:13:15 PM EST
    guy who offers a woman a million dollars for sex.

    She thinks for a few moments and then agrees.

    He then says, fine, would $20 do??

    Outraged she cried, "What do you think I am?"

    "Madam," he replied. "We have settled that. We are now negotiating the price."

    Parent

    Agreed. That is an old joke. (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by KeysDan on Thu Apr 10, 2014 at 05:15:46 PM EST
    But harsh.  Brandeis is among the finest private institutions of higher learning, and, all the more for that reason, I am disappointed with the disinviting Ms. Ali.  

    Parent
    People earn them? (none / 0) (#112)
    by kdog on Thu Apr 10, 2014 at 01:08:09 PM EST
    I thought they just paid for them;)

    Parent
    Depends upon the degree, Dog (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by Zorba on Thu Apr 10, 2014 at 06:42:07 PM EST
    My relatives who received PhD's in science were all paid a stipend as graduate students, for research and teaching fellowships, and didn't owe a dime in tuition.  They had to pass both written and oral qualifying exams during the course of their studies.
    And then they all had to do original research, write a doctoral dissertation, and defend it before a committee of senior faculty and sometimes, outside scientists.
    And their research helped their PhD advisors by providing those advisors with (frankly, lowly-paid) work that their advisors used to publish their scientific papers.
    So, no, some degrees are not "paid for" by the people who earn them.


    Parent
    Don't take me so seriously... (none / 0) (#188)
    by kdog on Fri Apr 11, 2014 at 07:50:23 AM EST
    but seriously, all things that could be learned/done/studied/researched without the act of paying for a degree, or getting one comped via scholarship.

    iow, education and knowledge is free or can be shared freely, it's degrees you have to pay for.

    Parent

    She Sounds Like a Bigot (none / 0) (#147)
    by squeaky on Thu Apr 10, 2014 at 04:36:25 PM EST
    "She is one of the worst of the worst of the Islam haters in America, not only in America but worldwide," Ibrahim Hooper, a spokesman for the group, said in an interview on Tuesday. "I don't assign any ill will to Brandeis. I think they just kind of got fooled a little bit."

    Stifling speech? How?

    The "left", in my opinion, is not about stifling speech.

    So, the denial of the honorary degree is, for me, a  lurch to the right. For me, the suppression of thought and speech is associated with right wing politics.


    The university said that the president of Brandeis, Frederick M. Lawrence, discussed the matter with Ms. Hirsi Ali on Tuesday, and that she "is welcome to join us on campus in the future to engage in a dialogue." Universities consider it important to make a distinction between inviting a speaker who may air unpopular or provocative views that the institution does not endorse, and awarding an honorary degree, which is more akin to affirming the body of a recipient's work.

    The free speech issue has to do with those who have shunned her and the power of their free speech to force Brandeis to withdraw the honorary degree.

    No one at Brandeis is stopping her from speaking, in fact they have invited her to talk and debate despite the fact she has controversial views towards Islam.

    Parent

    Ali's take: (none / 0) (#181)
    by lentinel on Thu Apr 10, 2014 at 08:37:29 PM EST
    Ali said that her critics selectively pick quotes and that she doubts the university was not aware of them.

    "What was initially intended as an honor has now devolved into a moment of shaming," she said in a statement Wednesday. "Yet the slur on my reputation is not the worst aspect of this episode. More deplorable is that an institution set up on the basis of religious freedom should today so deeply betray its own founding principles.

    "The 'spirit of free expression' referred to in the Brandeis statement has been stifled here, as my critics have achieved their objective of preventing me from addressing the graduating Class of 2014."

    That is the way I feel about it too.

    Parent

    Got It (3.00 / 1) (#183)
    by squeaky on Thu Apr 10, 2014 at 11:31:38 PM EST
    You like her despite her bigoted views. Yes, I can see her appeal.

    [CORRECTION: This piece originally stated that Hirsi Ali would be the speaker at Brandeis' graduation ceremony itself. She was actually originally slated to receive an honorary degree, and address students on two other occasions during graduation weekend -- a diploma ceremony and a celebratory breakfast. We regret the error and any concomitant confusion it caused. This piece has been corrected throughout.]

    Parent

    The "gay mafia" strikes back (5.00 / 4) (#140)
    by MyLeftMind on Thu Apr 10, 2014 at 03:44:28 PM EST
    I hate that Brandan Eich's actions have been minimized or glossed over, as if allowing gays and lesbians to keep their jobs is some magnanimous feat by a lawsuit-savvy manager.

    "Maybe someone will come forward to testify that Eich treated gay and straight couples differently outside the context of defining marriage."

    He gave his money to an organization with the purpose of hurting millions of gays and lesbians and their children by taking away civil rights. Then, when Eich's donation was made public, he didn't apologize! Sure, maybe he wouldn't ever fire a gay programmer, especially a hard working one, wink wink. But he has no interest in supporting said programmer's equal rights.

    How bad is it to give to anti-gay organizations? Prop 8's passage reverberated across our nation, bolstering bullies in schools and preventing justice for gay families. How many people lost a partner to death before Prop 8 was struck down and were ineligible for inheritance or Social Security benefits? How many couldn't see a sick partner in a hospital. How many lost their children because they weren't biologically related, or were denied the opportunity to adopt? The list of damages is huge, and people like Eich are personally responsible for the cruelty.

    Prop 8 wasn't about supporting straight marriage, it was about denying gays and lesbians equality. Eich donating to that cause is not just a minor difference of opinion. Your religious beliefs may cause you to dislike or disagree with same-sex couples, but forcing your beliefs onto others with hurtful, oppressive laws is cruel, even when they are dishonestly characterized as "support for traditional marriage." (Which is anything but traditional, of course, given that women were traditionally considered property.)

    Hurting other Americans by blocking equality is a huge affront and unforgivable action by a man who has not attempted to make amends ore even bothered to apologize. For those people like Andrew Sullivan who are worried about whether we've been too harsh on Mr Eick and his ilk, trust me we haven't even begun.

    BTW, teh gays didn't cause Eick's ouster. And there is no gay mafia. Mozilla is an alternative organization and the Mozilla community didn't like his bigotry and aren't tolerant of his intolerance.

    Thanks for a great post BTD.


    Big Tent endorses unprincipled shunning (3.50 / 2) (#57)
    by citizenjeff on Thu Apr 10, 2014 at 03:15:40 AM EST
    The sports buff who likens himself to a tent writes: "The hope of gay activists is that opposing gay marriage will be viewed in the same way opposing interracial marriage is now. It's that simple."

    The hope of gay activists is fine. But the problem here is that it was relatively common in 2008 to oppose gay marriage. That it was common doesn't mean it was right. But it does bring up this question: Why single out Eich for punishment six years later?

    I think Will Saletan and Andrew Sullivan correctly recognize that merely being offended doesn't justify depriving or trying to deprive the offender of a livelihood. There has to be something else to justify inflicting such punishment. The tent dude suggests it's enough to successfully persuade "a sufficient group of people to agree with your line and to have them act in a way that establishes your line." Color me unpersuaded.

    "Mistrust those in whom the impulse to punish is strong." - Friedrich Nietzsche

    I choose to deny my patronage and cash to (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by ruffian on Thu Apr 10, 2014 at 06:36:16 AM EST
    to people that are going to use it to further causes I do not agree with. Why do I need "something else" other than that? It is not the impulse to punish, it is the impulse to keep my money out of the hands of bigots.

    Parent
    odd (none / 0) (#70)
    by insanity on Thu Apr 10, 2014 at 07:48:35 AM EST
    There are so many things you do...everyday things...which qualify as "giving money to bigots" by simply your own personal usage....without even guessing.

    We cannot survive as a society if we are this overtly political about our lives.  You choose what you wish but I contend it is an inconsistent position.  

    Parent

    Actually (none / 0) (#74)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Apr 10, 2014 at 08:24:12 AM EST
    I think we may not survive as a society if we do not start being "overtly political" about our lives because you are correct.  It is small choices we make every day that can make more difference than anything.  Shop at walmart because it's cheap? That's a political choice.  

    Shopping Is Political: A Lesson From '70s Feminists

    Parent

    Hmmmm (none / 0) (#87)
    by squeaky on Thu Apr 10, 2014 at 09:04:26 AM EST
    That could mean living the life of a bean counter, a life where you know the price of everything but the value of nothing.

    Personally, I could not live a life where everything I spent money on was based on whether or not the producer or head of the institution shared my political views.

    For instance, I have owned art that has given me countless hours of deep inspiration, and the artist was a right wing bigot.

    I have spent many hours listening to Tristan and Isolde, and Wagner was a inveterate anti-semite.

    Sometimes a$$holes have another side that has little to do with their political beliefs, or personal views, and that part of their life is amazing, top level human contribution.

    As far as Mozilla guy goes, f'him..  what he did is not valuable enough to me to have anything to do with his product.

    Parent

    IMO (none / 0) (#95)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Apr 10, 2014 at 09:24:35 AM EST
    There is a big difference in strategically spending your money and listening to Wagner.

    I collect religious objects.  But that doesn't mean I support Christianity because I have a window from a church any more that I support Hinduism because I have a 6' Garuda

    Parent

    That's the rub squeaky... (none / 0) (#97)
    by kdog on Thu Apr 10, 2014 at 09:29:06 AM EST
    I too have bought and appreciated the art of many not so nice people with deplorable political/social views and do no regret it one bit.  On the flip, I boycott the banking/finance industry as much as humanly possible and try to shop at mom and pops over mega-corporate chains for reasons of conscience.

    It's all about striking a balance so you can live with joy and still be able to look in the mirror...no right or wrong answer.

    Parent

    Yes, Balance (none / 0) (#98)
    by squeaky on Thu Apr 10, 2014 at 09:42:18 AM EST
    The idea of shunning, boycotting and sanctions, is to get a party to change their behavior or views.

    Humans are irrational though when it comes down to it because many people will still not support someone they believe is doing something that they do not like, even after they change their behavior.

    Were we more evolved, ex convicts would be free of stigma, and all the once bigoted would be welcome suppliers,

    It does not work that way, sad to say. And, that type of behavior really deserves a look in the mirror.

    Parent

    Of course, that is true (none / 0) (#103)
    by ruffian on Thu Apr 10, 2014 at 11:18:13 AM EST
    Lots of things I don't know about, others I weigh the rewards of what I get from the service (eg. Amazon) vs what damage I think they do. Of course that is a totally subjective decision we all make for ourselves.

    You can call it inconsistent if you want. I think you display the black and white, all or nothing, thinking that is a lot more damaging to society than me picking my battles.

    Parent

    Probably the most morally questionable... (none / 0) (#104)
    by kdog on Thu Apr 10, 2014 at 11:23:54 AM EST
    thing we all do with our money is pay taxes.

    George Carlin said it best, I paraphrase..."there is no such thing as an innocent victim.  We're all guilty the day we are born."

    Parent

    HeadStart? Food Stamps? (none / 0) (#145)
    by christinep on Thu Apr 10, 2014 at 04:23:07 PM EST
    Housing subsidies? Medicaid? Implementation and enforcement of Environmental statutes & reg? Enforcement of Civil Rights legislation? Construction of Schools and Hospitals?  Etc.

    The foregoing is -- obviously -- only the start of the help provided by those (dastardly, you say) taxes.  

    Parent

    If it was just that stuff... (5.00 / 1) (#187)
    by kdog on Fri Apr 11, 2014 at 07:47:50 AM EST
    it wouldn't be morally questionable now would it?

    Drones, cruise missiles, enriched uranium, foreign adventures in empire, civil drug war, international drug war, torture, Guantanamo Bay, prisons, deportations, the DHS/CIA/NSA/FBI/DEA/ATF and all the acronyms for tyranny.  

    Every taxpayer is guilty of crimes against humanity as well as supporting worthy goals.

    Parent

    Yes, we're all in it together, kdog (none / 0) (#195)
    by christinep on Fri Apr 11, 2014 at 09:39:36 AM EST
    Good response ... about the good & the bad.

    Parent
    Yup, money is speech :) (none / 0) (#71)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Apr 10, 2014 at 07:48:43 AM EST
    They want my money, they need my money, and I am free to have dinners with friends and inject my uncoolness about a business hurting others and it does put a chill in the air.  Of course immediately after dinner Jim will run to Chick Fil A for dessert after having that conversation with me, but most won't and a grand confidence in pulling into their drive thru will be lost.

    Parent
    Acceptance & silence are tacit agreement. (5.00 / 3) (#150)
    by MyLeftMind on Thu Apr 10, 2014 at 04:54:30 PM EST
    "... merely being offended doesn't justify depriving or trying to deprive the offender of a livelihood."

    I've programmed for Mozilla. I believe in the potential of open source code and alternative companies. My time and skills helped make a product that Eich profited from. Then he spent his money enacting public policy that severely damaged my family. You think I'm offended? No, Jeff, it's much larger than that. Perhaps you don't understand the connection between institutionalized oppression and outright violence.

    I looked up all the Prop 8 donors (you can download a spreadsheet) and it turns out there a few right here in my hometown. One is a woman who donated only a small amount. Granted, the Eich takedown was very emotionally rewarding, but I'd be just as happy to discuss why a neighbor feels (or felt) compelled to curtail the rights of her fellow citizens.

    Maybe I'll meet her someday at a PTA meeting and show her pictures of my kids who still don't have the same rights as many of their classmates who happen to be born to heterosexual parents.

    Here are a couple of quotations to help you understand why it's important to challenge corporate leadership by someone like Eich as well as homophobic and/or oppressive actions by anyone else:

    All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke

    Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter. -- Martin Luther King Jr.

    Parent

    Who "punished" Eich? (none / 0) (#101)
    by KeysDan on Thu Apr 10, 2014 at 10:32:48 AM EST
    Brendan Eich resigned, he was not fired.  Eich was accountable to his Board and that Board found that he was not good for business,  His capabilities to lead the company into the future, with many young employees and young users of their product, became a concern.  There was no organized effort by gay groups to have him bow out.

    Parent
    Exactly (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by MyLeftMind on Thu Apr 10, 2014 at 05:59:47 PM EST
    Yet anti-gay organizations are already up in arms over censorship and violations of First Amendment free speech rights. Here's the "Keep The Republic And Marriage" statement about Eich:

    ... Eich donated $1,000 to the campaign to... protect marriage as the union of one man and one woman. For that, he's been convicted of an imagined hate crime by the radical homosexual activist community.

    Oooh, sounds like a fun group. Where can I join up?

    We must stand up to this outrageous assault on...  the fundamental principles of free speech and our very democratic process! We cannot let a fringe group of radicals create an environment that will prohibit citizens from engaging in their right to enter the political arena without fear of reprisals!

    Eich and his ilk have all the free speech they want. And the rest of us can use our free speech to let them know what we think of their actions. Isn't that exactly the point? Public criticism is the perfect way to pull the rug out on the bigots' funding.

    Viva la revolution!

    Parent

    S.L.Adler (none / 0) (#162)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Apr 10, 2014 at 06:18:41 PM EST
    "The real moments that changed the world are when church members miss the meaning of a whole sermon, and take no accountability for the testimonies they damage, by being self-righteous."

    Parent
    It often seems to be an accomplishment (none / 0) (#6)
    by KeysDan on Wed Apr 09, 2014 at 03:05:29 PM EST
    if the bright line of freedom of speech is understood and recognized in the instance of state actors.  For non-state actors, drawing a line, bright or dull, does not seem easy, let alone, getting others to agree to, and then show,  and join in support for, that line.

    My sense is that the difficulty in drawing the line in the case of non-state actors, is that the line placement if not controlled by a statute, may be situational , circumstantial  or emotionally-based--over-riding rational or consistent placement of the line.

    Brendon Eich was the CEO of a company in Northern California who donated funds for California Prop 8--a proposition that was not just opposition to same sex marriage, but also, for enactment of a law that took equal protection rights away from some Californians (and deployed questionable tactics that suggested negative effects on children).

    It would not be surprising if some of his employees would feel he brought  the makings of a hostile work environment.  Nor would it be surprising if his Board felt that that his past actions (he also gave monies to Pat Buchanan's campaign), may place business in jeopardy.

     The argument might be made, that many business (and political leaders) have evolved since the Prop 8 campaign, even citing President Obama.  However, it is not clear if Eich evolved and, furthermore,  it should be recalled that Obama was, at the time, opposed to same sex marriage, but he was against Prop. 8.

    Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a line that is easy for me to draw.  I disagree with her shunning and believe that Brandeis did not live up to academic expectations of a University.  The diversity of viewpoints and the engagement of dialog are linchpins of academic freedom, along with the ability to express them without fear of retribution.

     Every Brandeis faculty member who holds tenure, and understands its purpose,  should be among the first to stand strong.  But, the line, in this case, was difficult, unfortunately, for many to draw.   The Muslim student groups are off track in this, but it is also understandable,for a student.  A faculty member claimed the situation made these students feel uneasy which may be true, but the University's role includes challenging ideas, for purpose of change or affirmation.  And, the nimbleness of the line in this case may have included other factors.

    I agree that Andrew Sullivan's thinking in this area is not worth looking too far into, especially when he disagrees with the Eich resignation, but did agree to the firing of Alec Baldwin from MSNBC. But, I guess, he does show how difficult it is to rationally and consistently draw a line in the case of non-state actors.

    I agree with your points ... (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Apr 09, 2014 at 06:26:09 PM EST
    ... about Brendan Eich. Generally, I don't believe that one should face economic retaliation, i.e., dismissal from a job, because of personal political differences or disagreements over public policy.

    But as a consumer, I have absolutely no qualms at all about patronizing other businesses or establishments, should the public face or representative of a particular company choose to take a very public stance opposite my own on issues with which I happen to hold equally strong feelings.

    I long ago made a personal choice to not shop at Wal-Mart or Sam's Club because of what I see as (a) that corporation's aggressive and predatory business practices with regards neighborhood-based small businesses; (b) its conscious decision to not pay employees a decent living wage; and (c) its management's failure to respect the right of workers to organize and bargain collectively should they choose to do so. I don't tell others not to shop at Wal-Mart, but I will let them know of my choice if and when asked, and further, why I made that particular personal decision.

    The public case offered by proponents of Proposition 8 went well beyond whatever personal feelings or views one might hold on the subject of homosexuality. It was nothing less than an endorsement of state-sanctioned discrimination against a specific demographic of our population based solely upon an immutable personal characteristic, which in this case was someone's particular sexual orientation.

    And while it's one thing to hold a particular personal bias or prejudice against people because of who or what they are, it's quite another entirely to consciously seek to convert those biases or prejudices into public policy which would actively discriminate against them on that basis.

    Brendan Eich consciously chose to act on his personal prejudices when he donated money to organizations which were supporting and bankrolling Proposition 8. If he was foolish enough to believe that individual campaign donations are not part of a larger public record, or that given both the divisive nature of Prop. 8 and his own high corporate profile, someone wouldn't eventually take the time to find out discover whether he in fact was supporting one side or the other, then in my opinion he lacked the good judgment and common sense necessary to be an effective chief executive officer.

    The other night while watching PBS, I watched a documentary profile of Harry Selfridge, the American entrepreneur who founded the famous Selfridge's Dept. Store on Oxford Street in London back at the beginning of the 20th century. (PBS is also currently airing the second season of the British drama "Mr. Selfridge," as part of its long-running "Masterpiece" series.)

    As a businessman, Selfridge was considered a pretty innovative and farsighted trailblazer, both in business and on public policy. He unapologetically took sides on what were very controversial and contentious issues of his time, in that he openly supported paying workers a decent living wage, and advocated for the rights of women as individuals (especially the right to vote), rather than continuing to treat them as someone's personal chattel.

    It was therefore somewhat surprising to learn that privately at home with his own family, some of Selfridge's own personal views were actually quite at odds with the public stances he held as chairman of Selfridge & Co., Ltd.

    But Harry Selfridge had the innate good sense to resolutely separate home and work from one another. He realized that were he to implement and impose businesses practices and policies based upon personal inclinations reflecting his own mid-19th century upbringing and coming of age, that Selfridge's would soon become an anachronism and eventually be out of business, as modern society evolved and public opinion and mores changed in accordance with the times in which people lived.

    And over the long term, being seen by the public as an enlightened social progressive proved especially beneficial for Harry Selfridge's business, as women and members of the working class instead chose to patronize his establishment, rather than continue shopping at those of his more stodgy competitors, some of whom still discouraged single women from entering the premises without a chaperone.

    It's almost never a good idea to co-mingle the business and the personal. I can think of a number of current CEOs in our country who could benefit from learning why Harry Selfridge was so respected and even beloved a businessman in his day.

    Perhaps by doing so, they could thus avoid the sort of self-induced public pratfalls as recently experienced by CEOs Guido Barilla of Barilla Pasta Co. and Dan Cathy of Chick-Fil-A, both of whom consciously drove a large wedge between their respective companies and the LGBT community -- which also so happens to be a fairly affluent consumer group that spends over $700 billion annually in the U.S. marketplace.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Did Henry Ford's pronouncements hurt his (none / 0) (#20)
    by oculus on Wed Apr 09, 2014 at 06:34:13 PM EST
    bottom line?

    Parent
    I don't think they did, in the 1930s (none / 0) (#22)
    by Peter G on Wed Apr 09, 2014 at 07:01:40 PM EST
    But they would today, for sure.

    Parent
    Agreed. (none / 0) (#24)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Apr 09, 2014 at 07:51:20 PM EST
    For that matter, were Abraham Lincoln alive and running for president today, and were he to opine publicly at a debate that African Americans should be returned to the place of their ancestry as a matter of public policy, no doubt he'd be booed and heckled right off the podium and out of the theatre.

    Historical analogies can be worthwhile and useful, to a point. But we need to first consider the times in which people lived when they acted a certain way or made certain public pronouncements, before we seek to claim an analogy's current relevance to today's issues.

    We need only recall where public opinion generally stood during the earlier years of many of our own respective lifetimes back in the mid-20th century, regarding the idea that women should be paid the equivalent of men for doing the exact same job, or further be admitted to law and medical schools at the same frequency as men in order to become doctors and lawyers in their own right.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Anti-Semitism Historically, OK? (none / 0) (#94)
    by squeaky on Thu Apr 10, 2014 at 09:19:13 AM EST
    Historical analogies can be worthwhile and useful, to a point. But we need to first consider the times in which people lived when they acted a certain way or made certain public pronouncements, before we seek to claim an analogy's current relevance to today's issues.

    Slippery slope..  very slippery.

    Native American slaughter? That was ok too?

    the list is long...  so it is a long slide down.

    Parent

    But society in earlier eras often functioned under profoundly different standards that exist today. And therein lies the problem when assessing history "by today's standards."

    Look at what I noted above about Abraham Lincoln. He did in fact propose that African Americans be repatriated to Africa, because he shared the conviction of most Americans of his time that black people could not be assimilated into white society. He rejected the notion of social equality of the races, and early in his presidency he actively supported projects to relocate freed slaves from the United States to Liberia, an African country that was founded by former American slaves. Only as the U.S. Civil War escalated in both size and scope did his thinking on the subject begin to change, and as it turned out, his views evolved rather radically.

    Regardless of whether or not we like and accept it, it is nevertheless an historic fact that prior to the profound social changes which occurred in the 20th century as a result of technological advances, the two world wars, etc., bigotry -- be it based in class, religion, gender, race or ethnicity -- was acceptable in western society. Further, it was expected to be upheld and practiced by citizens, and in many instances was rigidly enforced under the prevailing statutes and ordinances of our communities at the time.

    Were you living back in 1850s America and professing and acting upon the current personal values and standards by which you presently abide, the odds are better than even that you would have quickly found yourself in no small amount of difficulty with your neighbors, the larger community and perhaps even the legal authorities.

    That's just the way it was back then. Social value judgments change and evolve over time -- sometimes relatively quickly as is the case today with LGBT civil rights, but oftentimes excruciatingly slowly, as was the case with the issue of human trafficking and slavery. Look at how profoundly our attitudes and thinking about women's and racial equality have evolved just during our own lifetimes.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    History Assessed by Today's Standards (none / 0) (#138)
    by squeaky on Thu Apr 10, 2014 at 03:34:29 PM EST
    But society in earlier eras often functioned under profoundly different standards that exist today. And therein lies the problem when assessing history "by today's standards."

    How is it possible to assess history with any other standards than those of today?

    We look at people of a certain time through their writings, visual representations, and more recently recordings and then evaluate them through the lens of NOW.

    And everyone's NOW is not the same, but most people believe that our social values are more advanced, civilized or progressively better than they were in the past.

    Well surprise surprise, since we get to decide over the dead people, who has reached a higher level of society, we decide that it is our current society.

    We are just as racist, sexist, classist and power hungry as any civilization if you want to call it that.

    Look at our prisons, our wars, we are no different from the Abraham Lincoln the racist and his backwards countrymen.

    Social progress is a myth.

    Parent

    Obviously, given our exchanges over ... (none / 0) (#155)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Apr 10, 2014 at 05:11:09 PM EST
    ... the last few days, you are not an historian, trained or otherwise. Rather, you appear to be the type who first posits her opinion or deduction, and then relentlessly cherry-picks her facts to support it.

    Historians who are both highly regarded and worth their salt absolutely do NOT "look at people of a certain time through their writings, visual representations, and more recently recordings and then evaluate them through the lens of NOW."

    That's what someone with an agenda does. And what you get from people like that is not real history, as it's long been understood in the traditional academic sence of the term. Rather, you get Bill O'Reilly's "Killing Lincoln" and "Killing Kennedy," David Barton's "Jefferson's Lies," and the late Howard Zinn's "A People's History of the United States" -- that is, a bunch of populist twaddle written for people who only want to read what they already want to hear.

    That's not to say that historians don't hold sometimes strong opinions about historical events. But the true (and responsible) historian is perfectly willing to risk having that initial opinion challenged and even disproved by first examining all the evidence dispassionately, and then following its trail logically wherever it might lead -- which, in all instances, certainly does NOT necessarily end at one's own pre-conceived and pre-ordained conclusion.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Historian? (none / 0) (#184)
    by squeaky on Thu Apr 10, 2014 at 11:37:41 PM EST
    Not me. I am not an academic. It appears that you believe that humans (western white male culture), have progressed from the backward times when it was OK to be a slave owner, and believe that black people were not fully human.

    Seems to me as if nothing has changed.

    Parent

    If your (5.00 / 1) (#185)
    by NYShooter on Fri Apr 11, 2014 at 12:52:40 AM EST
    "nothing has changed," means what I think it means, you're right. And, what's worse, the thing that hasn't changed has, actually, gotten worse in that it's more insidious, pervasive, and, virile.  

    Parent
    Thanks (none / 0) (#7)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Apr 09, 2014 at 03:24:15 PM EST
    for explaining Eich. I did not know the story on that one. Donating to Pat Buchanan could also be the makings of a hostile workforce for minorities and Jews or so the argument would go.

    You would actually think that these CEOs would want to get rid of Citizen's United simply because now everybody is going to know their supposed "values". It is going to be public information whereas before they could put out nice advertising and keep up the facade.

    Truly if i had a business I think i would stay out of politics. It's really no win situation no matter who or what you support because you never know the beliefs of your customers.

    Parent

    Free Speech (none / 0) (#10)
    by koshembos on Wed Apr 09, 2014 at 04:50:20 PM EST
    Free speech in the US is universal qualified by special cases only. You can protest anyone including Eich. Another right, not in the constitution, is the right for decently paying job. Eich isn't Don Imus. He runs a company. Do we prevent people with radical views from getting decent jobs?

    For me, Eich is a racist. He still should be able to keep his job.

    No, we generally don't, and we shouldn't. (none / 0) (#23)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Apr 09, 2014 at 07:32:48 PM EST
    koshembos: "Do we prevent people with radical views from getting decent jobs?"

    But that said, let me offer you the following hypothetical, for whatever it's worth. And please remember, this is strictly a hypothetical -- it's clearly not intended to imply that it reflects upon you personally in any way, and there is absolutely no offense intended personally.

    Let's say that I am a business owner who employs you as a manager and maître-d at my very popular restaurant and nightclub in the heart of San Francisco's Castro District, which has a mostly but not exclusively gay clientele. Let's also say that you are very good at your job.

    But one day, numerous long-time customers start complaining to me that they recently saw you prominently exercising your First Amendment rights -- both in person and on the local television news -- on your day off at a recent Pride Day parade, by holding a large sign saying "God Hates F&gs!" in a very conspicuous place along the parade route on Market Street.

    And further, let's say that many of these same long-time customers soon decide that the perceived offense was such that they could no longer stand the sight of you, and they begin to tell me that they're quite ready to take their business elsewhere unless I terminate your employment.

    And let's say that I initially ignore their demands, but soon notice that many of my once-loyal customers were no longer patronizing my establishment and that my gross revenues had declined by some 20%, thanks to your prominent position at the front door of my now-increasingly less popular establishment.

    But when I talk to you about the incident and ask that you apologize to these people for any offense you might have caused them, you instead refuse to do so and further cite your religious beliefs as your rationale for doing what you did in the first place.

    Should I be required to keep you on my payroll, even though your continued presence is obviously toxic to my bottom line?

    And were I to fire you -- which admittedly at this point would be both my inclination and my preference -- should the court be allowed to subsequently find in your favor in your civil suit against me, in which you claim that I discriminated against you by violating your right to free speech and religious freedom under the First Amendment?

    Think about it.

    Parent

    You messed up and complicated your hypothetical (none / 0) (#25)
    by Peter G on Wed Apr 09, 2014 at 08:32:44 PM EST
    by injecting the religion issue, Donald. Title VII protects employees' freedom of religion from employer discrimination; it does not protect employees' right to freedom of speech on political, philosophical, social or cultural matters.

    Parent
    But what happens if someone does invoke it? (none / 0) (#53)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Apr 10, 2014 at 12:30:13 AM EST
    Given the context of the times in which we live, why wouldn't that happen?

    Then again, how many people professing to be a anti-gay Christian fundamentalist would also choose to work at a popular gay establishment in the Castro?

    ;-D

    Parent

    I have known a few (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Apr 10, 2014 at 08:27:46 AM EST
    To their wives:

    "But honeyyyy, it was the only job I could get"

    REALLY

    Parent

    Unfortunately, Donald (none / 0) (#76)
    by jbindc on Thu Apr 10, 2014 at 08:29:53 AM EST
    that works both ways:

    Let's say that I am a business owner who employs you as a manager and maître-d at my very popular restaurant in the heart of Birmingham, Alabama, which has a large evangelical population. Let's also say that you are very good at your job.

    But one day, numerous long-time customers start complaining to me that they recently saw you prominently exercising your First Amendment rights -- both in person and on the local television news -- on your day off at a recent Pride Day parade, holding a rainbow sign, in a very conspicuous place along the parade route on Euclid Avenue.

    And further, let's say that many of these same long-time customers soon decide that the perceived offense was such that they could no longer stand the sight of you, and they begin to tell me that they're quite ready to take their business elsewhere unless I terminate your employment.

    And let's say that I initially ignore their demands, but soon notice that many of my once-loyal customers were no longer patronizing my establishment and that my gross revenues had declined by some 20%, thanks to your prominent position at the front door of my now-increasingly less popular establishment.

    But when I talk to you about the incident and ask that you apologize to these people for any offense you might have caused them, you instead refuse to do so and further cite your First Amendment beliefs as your rationale for doing what you did in the first place.

    Should I be required to keep you on my payroll, even though your continued presence is obviously toxic to my bottom line?

    And were I to fire you -- which admittedly at this point would be both my inclination and my preference -- should the court be allowed to subsequently find in your favor in your civil suit against me, in which you claim that I discriminated against you by violating your right to free speech under the First Amendment?

    Think about it.



    Parent
    That is precisely (none / 0) (#78)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Apr 10, 2014 at 08:34:14 AM EST
    why I said if you have a business you might want to think twice before supporting any political candidates or anything the least bit controversial.

    Parent
    Unfortunately for gay people (none / 0) (#80)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Apr 10, 2014 at 08:40:50 AM EST
    This part does not-

    Then again, how many people professing to be a gay would also choose to work at a christian establishment in Alabama?

    Unfortunately gay people have to work at lots of Christian owned businesses - like Hobby Lobby and Chic-Fil a- just to put food on the table in places like Alabama.  I know a good deal about this.  I live in one.
    Not that many fundies NEED to work in the Castro.  

    Parent

    Yes it is a problem (none / 0) (#85)
    by jbindc on Thu Apr 10, 2014 at 08:57:30 AM EST
    And not one that should be glossed over.  But my example could be used for any liberal cause.  Substitute my hypothetical employee going to a Pride Parade with her going to a clinic that's known to perform abortions or at an environmental protest.  It comes down to this - would you feel the same way about someone stepping down from their job, for supporting a cause by donating money (and in Eich's case, not really that much money), if you supported the cause they supported?

    My guess is that if Eich had led some other large company and donated to the opponents of Prop 8 and was asked to resign, then there would be many howls from the left screaming, "You can't do that!  It's outrageous!"

    Parent

    jbindc... That's not a guess (none / 0) (#118)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Apr 10, 2014 at 02:46:56 PM EST
    That's a fact.

    lol

    Parent

    I was not up on the Hirsi Ali story (none / 0) (#16)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Apr 09, 2014 at 05:57:48 PM EST
    It is fascinating. On so many levels.

    "Ali was raised in a strict Muslim family, but after surviving a civil war, genital mutilation, beatings and an arranged marriage, she renounced the faith in her 30s."

    She is not a casual observer.

    "Facing growing criticism, Brandeis University said Tuesday that it had reversed course and would not award an honorary degree to Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a campaigner for women's rights and a fierce critic of Islam, who has called the religion "a destructive, nihilistic cult of death.""

    Oh right, is that the one that ceremonial eats the flesh and drinks the blood of a dead man?

    Thomas Doherty,(who seems and sounds like a very reasonable and knowledgeable man) chairman of American studies, refused to sign the faculty letter. He said it would have been great for the university to honor "such a courageous fighter for human freedom and women's rights, who has put her life at risk for those values."

    Not wise enough to split this baby but I agree completely that her defenders and her detractors will both have very different reasons than I might for either opinion.

    What I don't get is how they give her the (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by ruffian on Thu Apr 10, 2014 at 06:10:32 AM EST
    degree in the first place because she fights for women's rights against horrible abuses taking place in the name of religion, and then take it away because she criticizes religion too much?  What exactly do they think she was fighting? Zombies?

    Parent
    Indeed (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Apr 10, 2014 at 08:33:09 AM EST
    The message seems to be -

    "we respect and appreciate her work to protect and defend the rights of women and girls throughout the world,"

    "as long as you don't say anything bad about the people from whom you are protecting and defending them"

    Parent

    The irony is that what all major religions (none / 0) (#43)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Apr 09, 2014 at 10:19:12 PM EST
    have in common is that their right wings are so completely wrong.

    Parent
    Thanks for the thoughts, BTD (none / 0) (#26)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Apr 09, 2014 at 08:59:29 PM EST
    one of the best threads I've seen on TL of late.

    But really, how can a boss be charged with creating a hateful workplace because of who s/he donated money to??

    Should not a person be punished for actually doing something and not for exercising their free speech by donating money???

    My position is that s/he should not. As for Mozilla, I'm done with them. I won't support tyrants.

    Frankly (none / 0) (#27)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Apr 09, 2014 at 09:02:48 PM EST
    any business wading into politics these days has become a lose/lose proposition. The CEO of the Marriott Corporation even said he made a mistake.

    Parent
    So it is a mistake for SOME people (none / 0) (#30)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Apr 09, 2014 at 09:09:51 PM EST
    to exercise their rights?? Where do you want to stop the speech control?? At the first level of management?? The janitor??

    Besides, I don't think he said anything, just donated money. That's a different situation versus him making a speech.

    The protection of speech rights must include that speech which we each find hateful.

    Parent

    No (5.00 / 4) (#34)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Apr 09, 2014 at 09:19:00 PM EST
    it's not a mistake but there are consequences. The first amendment protects your right to say whatever but it doesn't protect you from the consequences of what you said.

    Anyhow the supreme court ruled that money is speech. Maybe conservatives should not have been so insistent on taking that to court. You are now probably going to suffer a lot of consequences of that ruling you so desperately wanted. Unintended consequences happen a lot out of bad court cases and bad supreme court decisions.

    Parent

    Not to mention the "religious freedom" (none / 0) (#35)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Apr 09, 2014 at 09:21:07 PM EST
    Nonsense

    Parent
    But the CEO has said nothing. (none / 0) (#45)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Apr 09, 2014 at 11:17:01 PM EST
    Or at least as far as I can tell he has never uttered a word in public or in any situation.

    Try to focus on that and not a false analogy.

    Parent

    Your buddies (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Apr 10, 2014 at 06:36:29 AM EST
    ruled that money is the same as speech. You don't have an argument there.

    Parent
    At least, not verbally. But his personal checkbook clearly spoke volumes, because campaign donations are part of the public record.

    Brendan Eich really should've known better, given both his senior position as a high tech executive, and the Mozilla Corporation's location in the heart of the San Francisco Bay Area, a place where a lots and lots of gay and lesbian people reside.

    People are entitled to their own opinions. That's not the point here. But if you are a business executive who holds a position of tremendous personal responsibility, such as overseeing a large and diverse corporate workforce, there are any number of times when the responsible thing to do is to ensure that potentially contrary personal opinions on controversial issues are kept to yourself -- particularly when you know that any resultant hullaballoo is almost sure to be disruptive to company harmony and operations.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    No Donald (none / 0) (#61)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Apr 10, 2014 at 06:12:26 AM EST
    Public speech and actions in such matters do count.

    Private actions do not.

    This is clearly an attempt to intimidate.

    Parent

    What he did (none / 0) (#79)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Apr 10, 2014 at 08:37:09 AM EST
    Jim was public not private. Donating to any political or issue campaign is public information.

    Parent
    And so what if it is, Jim? (none / 0) (#116)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Apr 10, 2014 at 02:28:05 PM EST
    Setting aside for the moment that campaign donations are indeed a public and not private act by virtue of being reported as part of the public record, who are you to be decrying acts of political bullying and intimidation?

    Do you seriously mean to suggest to us that the American right doesn't engage in similar acts toward others who might disagree with them politically? Hell, you guys do that all the time to your own Republican moderates, never mind liberal Democrats.

    Jeez, dude, get some perspective and lose the double standard.

    Parent

    If she was bad mouthing (none / 0) (#117)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Apr 10, 2014 at 02:38:14 PM EST
    Christianity they would be posting her home address online.

    Parent
    Of if (none / 0) (#128)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Apr 10, 2014 at 03:11:05 PM EST
    you say you support SCHIP? Remember that poor family in MD that conservatives terrorized for simply speaking their mind? They spied in their house and everything. It was absolutely horrible.

    Parent
    Donald, no one knew until (none / 0) (#119)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Apr 10, 2014 at 02:49:27 PM EST
    the haters decoded to use him as an example of what no one must do... exercise their rights.

    Parent
    Ridiculous (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by Yman on Thu Apr 10, 2014 at 06:33:52 AM EST
    So it is a mistake for SOME people to exercise their rights??

    It might be, depending upon the speech.  It's up to that person to decide if they are willing to bear the cost of that speech.

    Where do you want to stop the speech control??

    Are you talking about a different case?  No one is "controlling" his speech.  He's free to dontate to candidates or groups, while others are free to respond to his speech.

    The protection of speech rights must include that speech which we each find hateful.

    The right to free speech doesn't protect you from others being offended by your speech or from their exercise of their free speech rights.  If you think it does, you have no clue about how the 1st Amendment works.  Speech, in whatever form, can have consequences.

    Parent

    Quit acting like you don't understand... (none / 0) (#120)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Apr 10, 2014 at 02:51:22 PM EST
    The reason he was attacked was to install control through fear...

    Wait, that's too subtle for you. I was wrong. You don't understand.

    Parent

    So there's no 1A problem (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by Yman on Thu Apr 10, 2014 at 05:00:11 PM EST
    He exercised his speech rights.  Then they exercised theirs.  Glad we've finally put your silly claim to bed.

    Parent
    The sad thing about Brandeis (none / 0) (#28)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Apr 09, 2014 at 09:03:40 PM EST
    is the chilling effect that this will have on open discussion about the Islamic religion.

    I don't want anyone to get their jockeys's  in a wad but this is a graphic demonstration of how the radical Muslims intend to impose Sharia law on us... one "University" at a time.

    You know (none / 0) (#29)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Apr 09, 2014 at 09:09:40 PM EST
    the GOP is a lot closer to imposing "sharia law" on us but yet you seem to have no problem with voting for them. This is precisely why all the sqawking about it goes nowhere.

    And the GOP always attacks universities it seems. I guess they don't want nobody getting any "higher learnin"

    Parent

    Pleaseeeee. Stop with the nonsense. (none / 0) (#31)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Apr 09, 2014 at 09:11:55 PM EST
    The GOP is not doing any such thing and if you don't think so then you are pitifully misinformed.

    Parent
    I would say it is you that is (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Apr 09, 2014 at 09:15:01 PM EST
    Misinformed.

    But that accepts that you are informed

    Parent

    You apparently (none / 0) (#36)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Apr 09, 2014 at 09:21:18 PM EST
    don't pay attention to what your own party is doing then. Supporting countries in Africa that either jail or kill gay people-check the same as in Iran. The list can go on and on. I'll just make it short and sweet for you: socially the GOP is right in line with the islamic fundamentalists. Fundamentalism no matter what the flavor shares the same beliefs.

    Parent
    Don't try and change the subject (none / 0) (#46)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Apr 09, 2014 at 11:29:25 PM EST
    First, show me where the GOP does what you claim. I want chapter and verse with links to back it up.

    What you can show is some crazy comments supposedly reported factually by the Left wing media. And while I disagree totally with them, the fact is that the nut cases verbally supporting  is not the same as doing the crime.

    AND THEY ARE NOT THE GOP WHICH IS WHAT YOU CLAIMED.

    Secondly, Sharia law is the backbone for female genital mutilation, stoning of gays and fornicators, denial of women's right to education, honor killing and other horrendous acts by radical Muslims.

    To try and connect that to the GOP or the nut cases you try and change the subject to is plain flat out silly.

    Parent

    With all of your ... (none / 0) (#62)
    by Yman on Thu Apr 10, 2014 at 06:16:54 AM EST
    First, show me where the GOP does what you claim. I want chapter and verse with links to back it up.

    ... specious, baseless, unsupported claims about Democrats, you are absolutely the last person who should be making these kinds of demands.

    Parent

    Yman, please stop the hooey (none / 0) (#121)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Apr 10, 2014 at 02:52:51 PM EST
    You make claims and try to change the subject you should expect to be asked.

    Parent
    I couldn't agree more (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by Yman on Thu Apr 10, 2014 at 04:56:32 PM EST
    You make claims and try to change the subject you should expect to be asked.

    But when the guy doing the "asking" is the same person who constantly does the very thing he's complaining about, he should expect to be called out on it.

    Parent

    BTW - Given your newfound ... (none / 0) (#159)
    by Yman on Thu Apr 10, 2014 at 05:20:15 PM EST
    ... appreciation for evidence and links, here's another article from your blog where you attack Muslims - not radical Muslims or terrorist Muslims or even extremist Muslims - just Muslims.

    Given that it took about 5 minutes to find three such pieces of garbage on your blog, I guess we can put one of your other false claims to bed ...

    Parent

    There are certainly plenty of (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by MyLeftMind on Thu Apr 10, 2014 at 05:46:31 PM EST
    good Muslims in the world, as there are good Christians. However, like most religions, Islam creates, teachers and promotes animosities that result in the death of non-believers and the oppression of millions, especially women.

    When people are brainwashed to believe fairy tales that keep them from toppling oppressive power structures, it's hard to see beyond the "good people" and accept the political/religious institutions that both impose and benefit from those structures.

    Parent

    Assigning (none / 0) (#66)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Apr 10, 2014 at 06:40:43 AM EST
    legal personhood to a zygote for one thing. That is extremely radical legislation don't you think? Terri Schiavo is another piece of legislation that is almost identical to something that would come from Iran. There are two examples. I'm sure you'll make excuses for those too.

    Parent
    Personhood (none / 0) (#67)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Apr 10, 2014 at 06:45:59 AM EST
    amendment to the constitution link

    the whole sordid record on Teri Schiavo

    There's two links to back up what I said.

    Extremely radical legislation either proposed or passed by the GOP.

    Evangelicals supporting the murder of gay people

    Parent

    GA, that's not the GOP (none / 0) (#122)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Apr 10, 2014 at 02:54:00 PM EST
    please quit making unfounded attacks.

    Parent
    Really? (none / 0) (#125)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Apr 10, 2014 at 02:59:21 PM EST
    Who is it?

    Parent
    I'm going (none / 0) (#137)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Apr 10, 2014 at 03:33:32 PM EST
    to start laughing at everything Jim posts from now on. The GOP sponsors legislation that would be right at home in Iran but it's not the GOP. I guess it must be the phantom GOP or something.

    Parent
    Why do you folks keep bickering with him? (5.00 / 2) (#141)
    by MyLeftMind on Thu Apr 10, 2014 at 03:46:17 PM EST
    It really detracts from the thoughtful comments.

    Parent
    You are right of course (5.00 / 4) (#142)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Apr 10, 2014 at 03:49:45 PM EST
    I tell my self that all the time.  Then he will say something so igneously intentionally stupid I can't help myself.

    I will try harder.


    Parent

    Bickering with PPJ is a TL Tradition (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by squeaky on Thu Apr 10, 2014 at 03:52:53 PM EST
    You are (none / 0) (#144)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Apr 10, 2014 at 04:20:03 PM EST
    correct because facts don't pentrate his brain. It's like trying to talk to a cultist.

    Parent
    Still (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Apr 10, 2014 at 04:32:07 PM EST
    I think in some ways he provides a useful service.  He often does a respectable job of smearing intellectual lipstick on the pig known as right wing talking points.
    And I don't believe echo chambers are good for anyone.

    Parent
    Echo chamber (none / 0) (#152)
    by MyLeftMind on Thu Apr 10, 2014 at 04:59:05 PM EST
    Good point. I've learned to stifle my opinions on illegal immigration here after seeing other posters' comments being deleted and their accounts removed from TL.

     

    Parent

    Wow (none / 0) (#129)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Apr 10, 2014 at 03:12:51 PM EST
    it was sponsored by the GOP and all 220 something reps signed on but somehow it's not the GOP.

    Your cluelessness is simply astounding.


    Parent

    Don't you think (none / 0) (#37)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Apr 09, 2014 at 09:22:38 PM EST
    there might be a reason she went from islam to ATHEISM Jim?

    Parent
    I'm goin with (none / 0) (#38)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Apr 09, 2014 at 09:26:00 PM EST
    Genital mutilation

    Parent
    Don't really care what she (none / 0) (#47)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Apr 09, 2014 at 11:34:33 PM EST
    did or did not convert to. The issue is what Brandeis did after the pressure from various Muslim groups.

    Why are you trying to defend them by changing the subject?

    Here is a link that you should watch even though it will make you so angry you will just vibrate.

    Link

    Parent

    Oh (none / 0) (#68)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Apr 10, 2014 at 06:49:12 AM EST
    yes another one of your you tube thingys.

    You are hysterical. You have radicals in your own backyard that you are supporting and apologizing for but you're putting up something from Great Brittain to make your point? LMAO.

    Parent

    Your education seems to be lacking the point that (none / 0) (#123)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Apr 10, 2014 at 02:56:57 PM EST
    what starts in Europe always comes here.

    And his statements ring true wherever there are feminists making excuses for such acts as he describes.

    LYAO right up until the laws are passed that take away your rights.

    Parent

    Oh, geez (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Apr 10, 2014 at 03:15:44 PM EST
    Right. Great Brittain has had universal healthcare for fifty or sixty years and it's been here for decades. LOL.

    Parent
    The point I keep (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Apr 10, 2014 at 03:17:58 PM EST
    making to you is and I'm going to say this loud and clear: THE GOP IS MAKING LAWS EVERYDAY HERE IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA TO TAKE AWAY MY RIGHTS AND YOU VOTE FOR THEM!!!

    And i'm supposed to take you seriously on anything you say when you can't even acknowledge what is happening right here in this county?????

    Man, the GOP has done a masterful job of fleecing you guys.

    Parent

    Let's hope whatever dire thing (none / 0) (#127)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Apr 10, 2014 at 03:02:21 PM EST
    You are yammering about takes as long as gay rights and universal healthcare to get here

    Parent
    Dear Allah (none / 0) (#33)
    by Yman on Wed Apr 09, 2014 at 09:15:33 PM EST
    I don't want anyone to get their jockeys's  in a wad but this is a graphic demonstration of how the radical Muslims intend to impose Sharia law on us... one "University" at a time.

    This is a graphic demonstration of the wingnut conspiracy theories and an utter failure of logic.

    Parent

    There are millions (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Apr 09, 2014 at 09:27:27 PM EST
    of Evangelicals who want to oppress women in this country. They hold elected office. We had one as president as recently as 2009. They support organizations in Africa that believe in killing and jailing gay people. There are a few million Muslims in this country and I think only one holds elective office. One out of probably thousands of evangelicals. Somehow this handful is going to get all these laws passed miraculously but we shouldn't be worried about the people that are actually writing similar laws and have gotten the passed. Yes, completely defies logic and reason.

    Parent
    It's time to destroy the myth (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by NYShooter on Wed Apr 09, 2014 at 11:56:16 PM EST
    that the Republican Party is a serious organization with the wellbeing of American citizens as its primary goal. It's also time to destroy the myth that it's a "big tent" party where Evangelicals and the Tea Party are but minor members whose views are appreciated, but, not dominant.

    Unfortunately, the Republican Party, in reality, and, by its actions, is a racist, fascist gang run by sadistic thugs beholden only to the tiny group of Robber Barons comprising the richest of the rich Plutocrats. Given unfettered control of all branches of the Government there is no doubt in my mind that genocide against the weakest segments of our society would become national policy.

    I use the term, sadists, in describing their members because, not only would their policies result in the deaths of millions of our fellow citizens, but, because it is irrefutable that they take such pathological joy in inflicting pain and humiliation on those who cannot defend themselves.

    I welcome the criticism that is sure to come regarding my beliefs. But, be prepared to explain the action of 21 Republican Governors  in refusing to participate in the Medicaid expansion included in the ACA, and, made permissible by the same 5 vote right wing majority of our Supreme Court.
    *************
    "Since the U.S. Supreme Court's 2012 ruling that states can opt out of Medicaid expansion and the Affordable Care Act, 21 states have done so, and (not surprising) they're all under Republican control. What is new to this Obamacare saga is a new Harvard University and CUNY study. It found that the lack of Medicaid expansion in these opt-out states will result in about 7,000 to 17,000 deaths a year."

    LINK

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#82)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Apr 10, 2014 at 08:46:26 AM EST
    I am seeing the deliberate sin of omission type of killing off of people here in GA. Just don't let them get medical treatment and they all will die sooner or later. They want these people to die. Let's just be honest about that. They deem these people "unworthy" to live but yet they want personhood status for a zygote which would create a legal nightmare.

    The GOP hates:
    Women
    Liberals
    Muslims
    Jews are considered "useful idiots" who are needed to bring about the apocalypse.
    African Americans
    Hispanics
    School teachers.
    Gay people

    Any given day any of these people can be their punching bag. They move from one group to the next which ever they think is more effective that particular day.

    Parent

    Well, you need a menace (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by KeysDan on Thu Apr 10, 2014 at 12:59:25 PM EST
    or something by which to change the subject.  Communists worked well for a good long time.  When you have no programs, and indeed, do not want any programs, Republicans need something.   Except for the most extreme, 'vote for me and I promise to do nothing'  is not the best campaign slogan, even though it fits nicely on a bumper sticker.

    Parent
    you forgot (none / 0) (#89)
    by DFLer on Thu Apr 10, 2014 at 09:07:16 AM EST
    Unions and union members

    Parent
    Yes, i did. (none / 0) (#90)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Apr 10, 2014 at 09:14:58 AM EST
    Don't forget (none / 0) (#93)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Apr 10, 2014 at 09:19:10 AM EST
    Native Americans .  Or as Jim calls them "so called native Americans"

    They are going to become a more popular target with their vocal opposition to the keystone pipeline.

    Parent

    GA, it seems that everybody (none / 0) (#126)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Apr 10, 2014 at 03:01:13 PM EST
    hates you.

    LOL

    Parent

    No actually (none / 0) (#134)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Apr 10, 2014 at 03:20:08 PM EST
    you've got it backwards. That was a list of who the GOP hates and I hate to tell you but the GOP is a minority who hates the majority. Not that I think you'd understand it anyway.

    Seriously do you have dilexia or something? Or are you deliberately trying to be dense?

    Parent

    Oh please (none / 0) (#51)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Apr 09, 2014 at 11:47:07 PM EST
    quit making things up...

    Millions???

    lol

    You have become ridiculous.

    Parent

    Not that (none / 0) (#69)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Apr 10, 2014 at 06:55:22 AM EST
    I expect facts to permeate your brain but there are roughly 2.9 million Muslims in the US. The Muslim population is what percentage of the US? About 1%? I'm guessing you must be doing Bush math with that statement. But someone that one percent is supposed to instate something while thousands of legislators who support radical fundamentalist Christianity and are writing radical laws we should not be worried about? You defy reason and logic but then if you used reason and logic you wouldn't believe anything the GOP tells you. Shake a Muslim in front of you and you'll do anything they tell you to do. You are absolutely controlled by your fear.

    Parent
    For a small minority they sure (none / 0) (#124)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Apr 10, 2014 at 02:58:07 PM EST
    took over Brandeis.

    Parent
    You are (none / 0) (#135)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Apr 10, 2014 at 03:23:19 PM EST
    so silly. You know this lady could be offensive to Christians too. She could be offensive to A LOT OF PEOPLE but of course this one incident proves something to you but thousands of laws written by the GOP and passed by the GOP taking any my rights and the rights of other women aren't important.

    One incident and you've bought into massive conspiracy theories. I guess you also thought that poor guy that Glenn Beck slimed and slandered was the one really responsible for the Boston attacks.

    Parent

    They "took over Brandeis"?!? (none / 0) (#154)
    by Yman on Thu Apr 10, 2014 at 05:03:42 PM EST
    By persuading the university through the exercise of their own free speech rights, they "took it over"?

    Heh.

    Parent

    Seriously (none / 0) (#40)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Apr 09, 2014 at 09:37:29 PM EST
    There has to be two jimakPJs because the person who said this

    I don't want anyone to get their jockeys's  in a wad but this is a graphic demonstration of how the radical Muslims intend to impose Sharia law on us... one "University" at a time.

    Could no possibly have said this

    I have never opposed Muslims, or anyone else, practicing their religion.
    And surely you didn't need My Shadow, AKA Yman, to know that I am strongly opposed to radical Islam and the terrorist Muslims it spawns.
    And it appears that you are the person disturbed about the possibility of people practicing their First Amendment rights not conservatives.

    If you actually knew anything about the story you would "radical Muslim terrorists" have nothing whatever to do with what is happening to this woman.


    Parent

    Howdy, when you make things (none / 0) (#49)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Apr 09, 2014 at 11:42:16 PM EST
    up you should try and be accurate.

    Radical Muslim is a descriptive term.

    Muslim terrorist is a descriptive term.

    I suppose you could say that a Muslim terrorist is radical.

    But my comment was to radical Muslims.

    I trust you can see the difference.

    Wait. I hope you can but there is no way you will do anything but disagree.

    Good night.

    Parent

    uh, what? (none / 0) (#48)
    by insanity on Wed Apr 09, 2014 at 11:41:45 PM EST
    I am amazed.  You lefties still think the Brendan Eich affair/issue is about gay marriage.  

    You have 3 actors here.  The shamers, the shamed, and the collateral damage.  

    The shamers are those advocating for his removal.
    The shamed is Brendan Eich and by extension Mozilla.
    The collateral damage is the rest of us. Some of us agree...some of us disagree.

    Shamers advocate for removal of all kinds of shamed all of the time.  Most of the time it doesn't account to much.  Here is the difference.

    Okcupid put up a message when going to their home page using Firefox indicating Eich's position as of 2008 with respect to gay marriage and indicating how wrong it is.  They also indicated their own position on the matter (the totally hypocritical position, btw) and asked each user to use an alternative when going to their web site.  Granted, they didn't block the access it self...but...

    what happens often now is the increase of collateral damage.  If you say nothing or advocate for no position....refuse to boycott...etc then it is assumed now to be tacit approval for a position you didn't advocate for simply based on what you don't say or your ambivalence on the matter.  In other words you increase indirectly the size of the shamed to those who don't deserve shaming as a way to create a stronger position.  What this ends up doing is 2 things:  either people will give in due to fear or people will dislike the movement...even if maybe they agree with its position.  

    If say you shop at Chic-fil-a....are you advocating Dan Cathy's position?  
    If say you shop at Amazon, are you advocating for Jeff Bezos' position?
    Whole Foods?  You must be against Obamacare....

    If you use the internet...period...(most every website uses Javascript) are you advocating for Brendan Eich's position?  He invented it...

    The process of shaming should be rarely employed but instead we use it way too much.  Overuse and whatever "gains" are made will eventually regress.  We are projecting shame and expanding it to cover way too much.  

    I wish I had said that. (none / 0) (#50)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Apr 09, 2014 at 11:44:07 PM EST
    It's also possible for someone ... (none / 0) (#54)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Apr 10, 2014 at 01:16:28 AM EST
    ... patronizing Chick-Fil-A to be entirely ignorant of Dan Cathy's position on marriage equality, just as it's possible for people who shop at Wal-Mart to be totally oblivious to management's behavior toward their own employees. Not everybody is hardwired politically or even wants to be, and we really need to respect that.

    As I stated above, I have my own reasons for not shopping at Wal-Mart, but I refuse to pass judgment on those who choose otherwise, simply because I don't necessarily know their particular circumstances. I don't hide my own liberal inclinations, but as a general rule I don't believe in calling for corporate boycotts in response to what I think to be bad or even egregious behavior, as some of my political friends on both the left and right tend to do ad nauseum at the slightest hint of any perceived offense. It's reached the point where such calls have long since lost their effective impact on public opinion, and more often than not they're doing it just to get their names in the paper or see themselves on TV.

    Given a controversial position on an important socio-political issue taken by company management, whether one chooses or not to continue patronizing an establishment or business on the basis of that position should be considered an inherently personal decision, which is really best left to the individual who may have to take into account any number of very real factors when making it.

    I may not like Dan Cathy's position on marriage equality, but if I have a cousin or nephew who is employed at the local Chick-Fil-A and really depends upon that paycheck in order to make ends meet financially for his or her family, any personal decision I might make regarding my own patronage of that establishment is probably going to be markedly different than if my relations were NOT working there.

    I hope that makes sense. Aloha.

    Parent

    Add to your list... (none / 0) (#59)
    by lentinel on Thu Apr 10, 2014 at 05:55:37 AM EST
    If say you shop at Chic-fil-a....are you advocating Dan Cathy's position?  
    If say you shop at Amazon, are you advocating for Jeff Bezos' position?
    Whole Foods?  You must be against Obamacare....

    Paypal. I use the bloody thing. It refused to allow people to contribute to Wikileaks. So, I have to ask myself if, in so doing, I am advocating for the indefinite detention of Julian Assange.

    (On top of it - Paypal advertise on its home page that it is "loved". Ech.)

    After that, we have to extrapolate (a la kdog) and ask ourselves whether in paying taxes we are advocating the use of torture, rendition, and its brethren, the drones.

    I don't mean to make light of this situation.
    We are, to some extent, prisoners.

    There is the 1%, the banks, the politicians, Wall Street, the corporate monopolies, international conglomerates, oil cartels - and then there is the rest of us - scraping along - doing our best and to a large extent unable to control our destinies.

    Parent

    There does seem to be... (none / 0) (#83)
    by kdog on Thu Apr 10, 2014 at 08:48:47 AM EST
    a scarlet letter aspect at play in some cases that is most unsavory.  Protest can be a beautiful thing, as can a boycott...but so is forgiveness and understanding and giving the benefit of the doubt.

    Take Michael Vick...I hear the scarlet letter brigade is gearing up to protest his arrival at Jets training camp this summer.  Deplorable as his crimes & cruelty were, it was seven years ago and he paid a heavy price.  Feel free to hate him to his dying breath, don't buy tickets, don't watch games...but let the man earn a living for god's sake.  Another case of having the right but being wrong imo....it's almost bizarro Fred Phelps sh*t.  Enough already.

    Parent

    It happened to me (5.00 / 5) (#106)
    by NYShooter on Thu Apr 10, 2014 at 11:51:51 AM EST
    I owned a bar/nightclub in New York's Hudson Valley years ago. We had rock music four nights a week, and, the place was usually packed, mostly with 20 somethings.

    Well, one Friday night the scheduled band couldn't make it, and, that meant big trouble as Friday was the busiest night of the week. So, since I knew a lot of people I put the word out, and, luckily one of my friends called and said he knew of a band, and, that they were available. However, there was one hitch, they were black. For me, I couldn't care less. I had a black adopted sister, and, this was the 70's after all. The only thing I cared about was, could they rock, and, I was assured they could.

    Well, Friday night rolls around, the band shows up, gets set up, and, boy, could they rock! Then, my regulars started showing up. Now, anyone who has owned, or, worked in a bar will tell you that the regulars, especially after a few drinks, feel that they own the place. And, these regulars, one by one, started telling me that they didn't appreciate the new venue. They said they would give me a "pass" because it was a special situation, but, let me know, in no uncertain terms that if they were booked again they would stop coming.

    As the night went on, the band was really wailing, and, the place was rocking to the heavens. And, I was slowly, but, surely getting more and more pissed off at the blackmail facing me. I loved the band, and, the guys in it. Everyone seemed to be having a great time, and, just as a matter of principal I wasn't going to let anyone tell who I could hire, so, during a break, I told the band I wanted them back for the next four weekends. Because the place remained full all night, I figured that even if I lost a few regulars the majority would keep coming back.
    Anyway, after the weekend was over, the regulars stopped in and asked me what my decision was regarding re-booking the band, and, reminded me again of their threat to find another place to patronize the next weekend.

    By now, it wasn't about business any more, something much more important was involved. A couple of my waitresses were students at nearby Vassar College, as Liberal as they get, and they were very, very supportive of my stance. That convinced me, I was going to do the "right thing," and, I knew I wouldn't be able to live with myself if I capitulated to the racist demands.

    I told the emissaries from the "regulars" they could come around the next Friday night and they would see for themselves what my decision would be. From the looks on their faces they were sure that meant, no more black bands.

    So, to finish this story; I did the "right thing," I re-hired the black band, my regulars came Friday night, turned around, and, left. They never returned, nor did anyone else. The business that was paying me six figures was no more.
    This was not a "feel good" movie where everyone "see's the light" and rocks away into the sunset. This is reality, and, in the real world some bad things happen, some really, really bad things.

    The point I want to get across is not that you have to give in to racism, sexism, or homophobia. It's just that it's very easy to condemn someone else when they, apparently, operate in ways we find odious. Principal is one thing, making a living, and, sustaining a family is something else again.

    Would I do it again, knowing I would lose my business, and, my livelihood? Yes, I would. But, that's just me. After coming home from the war, losing a business wasn't as big a deal as it might be for someone else. I knew I would bounce back. For others, it might be the end of their lives as they've known it, especially if they have a spouse and children.

    I don't know what the answer is. All I know is that if you don't have any skin in the game you better think twice when demanding certain behaviors from others that do.


    Parent

    This would be a good op ed. (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by oculus on Thu Apr 10, 2014 at 12:15:29 PM EST
    Thanks for sharing Shooter... (none / 0) (#108)
    by kdog on Thu Apr 10, 2014 at 12:18:10 PM EST
    As for the answer, I think it's just a pick your battles thing.  Your battle was worth fighting, and I commend you...now if your regulars had threatened to leave because they didn't like the cheap toilet paper in the sh*tter, I'm sure you would have obliged them and bought Charmin.  

    Pick your battles.

    Parent

    Are you kidding? (none / 0) (#186)
    by NYShooter on Fri Apr 11, 2014 at 01:01:25 AM EST
    I would personally hand them however many sheets they wanted.

    Parent
    Exactly... (none / 0) (#189)
    by kdog on Fri Apr 11, 2014 at 07:53:49 AM EST
    that's my beef with the pc police/chronically offended brigade...I don't think they pick their battles wisely sometimes, and are dentrimental to their own causes.  Boy who cried wolf syndrome, if you will.

    That being said, there's no right or wrong...we all got our own terms with our deal with the devil.

    Parent

    Having defended her (none / 0) (#86)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Apr 10, 2014 at 09:01:17 AM EST
    I will say thiis-  

    she said of the religion: "Once it's defeated, it can mutate into something peaceful. It's very difficult to even talk about peace now. They're not interested in peace. I think that we are at war with Islam. And there's no middle ground in wars."

    That is a rather extreme statement that I do not agree with.  IMO if we allow ourselves to say things like this we become Jim.
    We have a serious problem with radical Islamists but we are not and should not be at war with Islam.
    I understand where her pain and hatred comes from.  I myself sometimes feel that I and those like me are "at war" with Christianity.  But I would not really expect a high profile university to,give me an honorary degree if I went around saying so publicly.

    Just sayin


    Precisely (none / 0) (#88)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Apr 10, 2014 at 09:06:27 AM EST
    the whole "War with Islam" thing is what Osama Bin Laden was predicting and plays right into what the radicals want us to say and what they want us to do.

    The far right in this country essentially wants the same thing that Al Qaeda wants ironically.

    Parent

    They do (none / 0) (#91)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Apr 10, 2014 at 09:16:17 AM EST
    But as BTD said in the post.  Just because people will be defending her for the wrong reasons should not stop anyone from defending her for the right ones.  And I did that.  And also noted that it's complicated.

    Parent
    It is (none / 0) (#96)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Apr 10, 2014 at 09:26:35 AM EST
    complicated and she is a real mixture of views and beliefs. She buys into the war with Islam stuff but is an atheist. Truly she was a victim of these radicals and perhaps that made her radical as well.

    Parent
    In general the use of war as a metaphor (none / 0) (#105)
    by ruffian on Thu Apr 10, 2014 at 11:30:21 AM EST
    is dangerous. At least I assume she is using it as a metaphor there.

    Parent
    Howdy, you could never never never (none / 0) (#133)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Apr 10, 2014 at 03:18:31 PM EST
    become me because you are so naive as to be dangerous to yourself and the country.

    Why do you want to punish her for speaking the truth.

    Do you think Islam will change as long as its actions are accepted??

    Of course not.

    Just as Christianity had to be reformed by Luther, Islam must be reformed by someone within Islam.

    But that does not mean that we should fail to point out its problems.

    Or at the least with the same fervor that is used against Christianity.

    Parent

    So you want (none / 0) (#136)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Apr 10, 2014 at 03:24:32 PM EST
    a holy war just like OBL?

    Parent
    You are just refusing to understand. (none / 0) (#148)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Apr 10, 2014 at 04:42:19 PM EST
    And that's ok. That's who you are.

    Parent
    You seem (5.00 / 1) (#194)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 11, 2014 at 08:50:36 AM EST
    to be the one that so wrapped up in the failed Bush Doctrine that you can't see the consequences of what are you doing.

    Parent
    Let it be known (none / 0) (#139)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Apr 10, 2014 at 03:40:54 PM EST
    I'm only doing this because I need to kill time while the pot roast finishes but

    First thank god.  No more sleepless nights or panic attacks from fear of becoming you.

    Second, holy hell, you can't ever follow your own nonsense-

    "Why do you want to punish her for speaking the truth.
    Do you think Islam will change as long as its actions are accepted??"

    To begin with I never said anything close to wanting to punish her also she said  "Once it's defeated, it can mutate into something peaceful."

    I have no earthly idea what you mean by accepted and please don't bother to explain - I also don't  care.  But one thing I do know is that it will NEVER be Defeated.  If Christianity has taught us anything it it that persecution is like a bellows to a forge.


    Parent

    You appear to know nothing (1.00 / 1) (#149)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Apr 10, 2014 at 04:44:22 PM EST
    about the Reformation, which is what I wrote about. Study some history and then come back.

    And I am glad that you are glad.

    Parent

    I know enough about it to know (none / 0) (#156)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Apr 10, 2014 at 05:15:13 PM EST
    Nothing was reformed and no one was defeated and all that really was accomplished was 150 years of bloody war that devestated much of Europe.  All because he didn't like the idea of selling indulgences which IMO was the most honest thing the church ever did because it acknowledged it was a business selling a product.

    Parent
    Thank you for demonstrating your lack of (none / 0) (#172)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Apr 10, 2014 at 08:11:26 PM EST
    knowledge.

    The curious thing to me is why the Left gets into bed with radical Muslims.

    Could it be that both groups hate America.


    Parent

    Curiously (none / 0) (#173)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Apr 10, 2014 at 08:14:30 PM EST
    I have been in bed with a Muslim.  Not that radical by my standards but by yours .......

    Parent
    Nope, don't go there (to paraphrase our (none / 0) (#176)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Apr 10, 2014 at 08:18:02 PM EST
    Attorney General...lol)

    I can flood you with comment after comment where I have supported the rights of all people to sleep with who they choose... and even marry if they like...

    You see Howdy, you just don't know what you are talking about.

    Parent

    The curious thing ... (none / 0) (#182)
    by Yman on Thu Apr 10, 2014 at 09:00:47 PM EST
    ... to me is why the Right gets into bed with radical, Christian fundamentalists.

    Could it be that both groups hate America.

    Happy to fix your silly fairy tale.

    Parent

    The problem is that Christian (none / 0) (#199)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Apr 11, 2014 at 09:56:37 AM EST
    fundamentalists aren't on jihad to kill Muslims.

    Happy to show your dorkiness again.

    lol.

    Parent

    ROTFLMAO (none / 0) (#190)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 11, 2014 at 08:35:06 AM EST
    you are a perfect example of the why the GOP will continue to lose presidential elections. You sound just like Dick Cheney and you guys still embrace the discredited Bush doctrine and love teh divisive ness of "you're either wid me or agin me" mentality.

    FYI it isn't the Cold War anymore but apparently you guys can't move past that fact.

    Parent

    The interesting thing (none / 0) (#158)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Apr 10, 2014 at 05:19:19 PM EST
    is the actions of people like you and your fellow Republicans actually are delaying any type of reformation happening. If you continue this all muslims are terrorists stuff and we are at war with Islam crap you are playing their game the way they want you to play it. You are encouraging the victim mentality of fundamentalism. It's the same game Fox News plays with conservative christians in this country who believe they are the ultimate victims of a war on Christianity because someone didn't say Merry Christmas to them in a department store or some such junk. Al Quaeda and Fox News play the same game but change the names around.

    Parent
    somebody said.... (none / 0) (#169)
    by insanity on Thu Apr 10, 2014 at 07:59:13 PM EST
    "You may not be looking for war, but war is looking for you"

    If liberals choose to ignore "actual people who wish to harm and terrorize"......the result will be an ending that is quite bad.  

    I am also sure if you replace "Islam" with "Christianity" you would be rather agreeable.  

    Parent

    I have (5.00 / 1) (#191)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 11, 2014 at 08:37:35 AM EST
    to laugh. You guys talk about this but always completely ignore the homegrown terrorists that people like Glenn Beck are helping to create. I guess it's okay for those terrorists to kill people but not Muslim terrorist.

    You are apparently an apostle of the failed Bush Doctrine.

    Parent

    Some else said (none / 0) (#170)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Apr 10, 2014 at 08:03:44 PM EST
    It's hard to have a conversation with someone who's hair is on fire.

    What we try to ignore, or more correctly diminish, is bomb throwers.  On both sides.

    Parent

    No. You do not (none / 0) (#178)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Apr 10, 2014 at 08:21:30 PM EST
    Whenever Islam is criticized the Left springs to attention and always tries to find a moral equivalency with today's Christianity.

    And that is not possible.

    Parent

    You (5.00 / 1) (#192)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 11, 2014 at 08:40:38 AM EST
    see you exactly stated your problem. You can't recognize terrorism unless it comes from a Muslim. This is why conservatives are so whacked out. You yourself said that Eric Rudolph and Timothy McVeigh were not terrorists. The fact of the matter is terrorism is terrorism no matter who does it. What most people take offense to is the fact that everytime the GOP talks about Muslims they are repeated OBL's theory of a holy war. I know you want a holy war but I don't think the majority of Americans want one.

    Parent
    Again you make false claims (none / 0) (#198)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Apr 11, 2014 at 09:51:59 AM EST
    with no proof and intended to place me on the defense.

    Of course Rudolph and McVeigh were terrorists. I have never said otherwise and I have ZERO evidence that any conservative, or in my case, a social liberal, has.

    Why do you make things up you know to be untrue?? There is an ugly word, "lie," that describes such actions.

    The facts are that Islamic terrorism is supported by nation states and consists of groups of terrorists who oppose each other from time to time but will support each other when attacking the west.

    Parent

    So you've (none / 0) (#200)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 11, 2014 at 10:12:01 AM EST
    changed your stance on Rudolph and McVeigh because previously you had said that they just "had a problem with the government"?

    You see stating that Islamic Terrorism is state sponsored which is not true is basically advocating for the extermination of a religion which has never worked Jim. But I'm glad you finally admit that.

    Terrorism is sponsored by individuals and done by individuals.

    Parent

    Oh really?? (none / 0) (#174)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Apr 10, 2014 at 08:15:08 PM EST
    It is the fault of those who disagree with the horrific practices that the practices continue?

    Are you for real??

    And no, I have not said that all Muslims are terrorists. You are real hoot!

    Parent

    I AM for real (none / 0) (#177)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Apr 10, 2014 at 08:18:40 PM EST
    And I am, in fact, a hoot.  Thanks for noticing.

    Beyond that I have no idea what that was supposed to mean.

    Parent

    It would make sense if you were GA. (none / 0) (#179)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Apr 10, 2014 at 08:22:21 PM EST
    ;-)

    Parent
    If I have to be a state (none / 0) (#180)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Apr 10, 2014 at 08:34:40 PM EST
    Can I be Hawaii?

    Parent
    No. State of Confusion? Yes (none / 0) (#196)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Apr 11, 2014 at 09:42:34 AM EST
    ;-)

    Parent
    you are hysterical (none / 0) (#193)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 11, 2014 at 08:44:57 AM EST
    You don't just disagree. You embrace the Bush Doctrine which would entail killing a lot of people who actually might not like the fundamentalists either but radicalize otherwise moderate people because of your own radicalization.

    Parent
    Hooey. You just make things up. (none / 0) (#197)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Apr 11, 2014 at 09:45:58 AM EST
    And it just proves that what you demand is that 500% agreement.

    Diversity means nothing to you.

    Why do you oppose this woman who is trying stop the violence against women?

    Parent

    ROTFLMAO (none / 0) (#201)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 11, 2014 at 10:15:29 AM EST
    You're not advocating for diversity?

    The problem with this particular woman is that she is actually playing into the hands of the fundamentalists by advocating the complete extermination of the religion. I think Malala is a much better and MORE effective spokesperson. She's advocating against the fundamentalists not an entire religion.

    Parent

    GOP Hispanic Outreach, Orlando style (none / 0) (#171)
    by ruffian on Thu Apr 10, 2014 at 08:10:52 PM EST
    Made me laugh. This will not end well for the GOP. I think Alan Grayson is resting a little easier about keeping his seat tonight, if he was worried at all.

    Sorry, meant this for the open thread (5.00 / 1) (#175)
    by ruffian on Thu Apr 10, 2014 at 08:17:11 PM EST
    But if there is a boycott of the GOP it will be relevant.

    Parent