by Ugh
Not sure if LJ was going to put one up, but talk about whatever. New unemployment numbers, Final Four, the forthcoming release of a portion Senate Intelligence Committee report on the CIA torture jamboree, Letterman retiring, doing your taxes, etc. I guess the new baseball season too, if you must.
Better the new baseball season than wasting time on the “Final Four”!
a friend of mine hipped me to jill scott. kinda old school R&B, but modern. nice!
also been digging gregory porter, also kinda old school R&B, from from the jazz direction.
so, my ears are happy.
Better the new baseball season than wasting time on the “Final Four”!
Indeed. Aside from the Super Bowl there is no more over-hyped sports event than the NCAA tournament.
The general hysteria surrounding too many sports these days has actually caused me to lose interest. Who wants to listen to announcers treat every game, every good play, as one of the most important and spectacular events in sports history? I guess lots of fans do, but not me.
Aside from the Super Bowl there is no more over-hyped sports event than the NCAA tournament.
This statement suggests that the NCAA tournament could be over-hyped, which, of course, it can not be.
Who wants to listen to announcers treat every game, every good play, as one of the most important and spectacular events in sports history?
Why limit it to sports history? You seem to misunderestimate the true importance of a buzzer-beating, game-winning 3-pointer.
I can agree with the hyperventilating announcer point. Also, too, ESPN’s desperate need to say, at least 100 times during each Sportscenter, “this is the first time Team X has done Y since Z,” with Z being, like, last week.
ESPN’s desperate need to say, at least 100 times during each Sportscenter, “this is the first time Team X has done Y since Z,” with Z being, like, last week.
Yes. And at other times Y is some obscure feat, like winning a game by a margin equal to the day of the month.
One more thing. The general statistical imbecility of sports announcers truly grates. This actually show up a lot in baseball, maybe because so much data is available.
One example is the alleged importance of scoring in the first inning because “teams that score in the first inning win X% of the time,” where X>50. Of course they do. Teams that score in the fourth inning, or the sixth, also win more than 50% of the time, because scoring a run helps you win, regardless of the inning.
I could go on.
Home field/court advantage in the playoffs is another one – they give home field/court advantage in the playoffs to the best teams! Of course they win more!
I wonder if scoring a run in the 9th inning would be less correlated with winning than any other inning. Based on the hypothesis home teams only bat in the 9th if they’re behind or the game is tied,so the number of 9th-innings in the data set would not include all the games home teams win after the top of the 9th.
“home teams only bat in the 9th if they’re behind or the game is tied,so the number of 9th-innings in the data set would not include all the games home teams win after the top of the 9th.”
That sounds plausible. It seems unlikely that average runs scored in the bottom of the ninth exceeds the average deficit after eight-and-a-half.
Also, visitors with a big lead normally won’t use their best reliever in the ninth, so the home team is more likely to score the further behind they are.
Maybe if they played the ninth inning first, it would take the pressure off the closers.
Yes, baseball announcing has been in long decline, both TV and radio.
After Vin Scully goes, we’re going to be left with a stupifyingly boring set of automatons who all learned their announcing cadences at the Berlitz School of Monotone.
Something tells me the same thing is wrong with baseball announcing that is wrong with broadcast news, the MBA suits got a hold of it and rationalized and homogenized it into featureless pablum augmented by a “color” guy, who like C3PO, interjects with data points and opinions.
You could tell many of the old announcers grew up in the towns they announced in; you could hear the regional accents. Now, as far I can tell, all of them were raised on the same suburban street in Denver, house after identical house of white-bread accountants, like TV weathermen, where everyone talks alike, unless its Spanish.
They had their own funny, clever catch-phrases — Bob Prince of the Pirates — “that call was closer than a gnat’s eyelash.”
Or, “Going, going … gone” on the home run. I want that engraved in my headstone.
Now, they do fan input … Don from Poughkeepsie thinks Cano oughta yadda yadda… f8ck the fan. How about you do the play by play and the fan at home can watch the game and stick to what he’s good at, throwing his shoe at the TV and missing.
Why, when I was a boy … let me start again … not too long ago, it seemed that each announcer had their own flavor and color. They were like the old ballparks with their peculiar idiosyncracies, odd dimensions and corners in the outfield, etc.
Now the field might as well be standardized football dimension or basketball courts.
Then the suits and the owners somehow tried to make up for the homogenized yawn inducing announcing by adding back in entertainment in the parks … fireworks, between innings festivities .. sausage races … and they blew that too. Half the time, the baseball game is the sideshow.
Look, give me some popcorn, maybe a beer, I don’t need a f8cking dry martini and canapes at the ballpark, and if the only other excitement besides a guy legging out a triple with a head-first slide was Morgana hauling herself onto the field and trying to give the pitcher a dry-rinse in her ample decolletage and having to be escorted off, that’ll do me.
It’s hard to describe what is missing from play-by-play announcing, especially on the radio if you didn’t experience it. The old guys called the plays and the wonderful rhythm and cadence of their speech and its pauses place in your mind’s eye the exact rhythm of a baseball game itself. Silences were permitted; you could hear the murmuring and gusting excitement of the crowd and then you would get the info you needed about what just happened and the descriptions conveyed perfectly the sights and smells of the game.
I love baseball stats; I get my fill of them playing fantasy baseball on Yahoo, but as much as Bill James added to the game, he also supplanted something else, something intangible, the expectation of the unexpected event by the unexpected player — that’s not quite it, but it’s an intimation — with his data mongering.
Here’s the kind of baseball data I want to hear. Every time Wade Boggs ate chicken before a game, he got a hit.
Or this, from Bob Gibson: Roberto Clemente would whine about his neck being sore his entire career. Before every at bat he would stand outside the batter’s box and twist his head around with an agonized look on his face, like maybe he would be paralyzed within minutes if he made a false move. Then he’d step in, and I’d throw him a 98 mph fastball high and outside where only a contortionist could reach it, and he’d swing from the heels, his spine twisting and his head yacking back and forth on its perch, and he would hit that pitch so hard it would stay on a steady line at a steady height for 400 feet in Forbes Field, like it was shot out of a cannon and carom off the outfield wall and Clemente would scream around the bases, arms and legs all over the place, head bobbing up and down like his neck was made of rubber, and slide like a maniac into third base.
Sore neck, my ass, according to Gibson in so many words.
That’s data, without a color man.
I play baseball and the sweetest moments of my life, outside of love, are standing in center field on a 80 degree day, very slight breeze, the outfield grass newly mown and giving off its sweet American perfume, as the pitcher tosses his last few warm up pitches, with my hands on my hips, and then putting the glove on as I see the first batter in the inning drop one of his warm-up bats and head for home plate.
Hit it to me.
That’s the kind of data announcers no longer paint their word pictures with.
Instead they talk about a sandwich their wife had yesterday or the fact that XYZ ballplayer drives a Lexus to the park.
Also, baseball teams do enjoy a home field advantage – not as large as in other sports, but it’s there. So for all 9th-innings played you’re looking at visiting-team 9ths plus trailing/tied home-team 9ths. The more I think about it, it seems like the correlation would have to be reduced.
Time to visit Google and see if there’s publicly available stats on this.
Nice, Count.
I used to love listening to games on the radio. When I was kid Mutual Broadcasting had a “Game of the Day” that was part of my daily routine in the summer.
Later in life, when driving in the evening I could pick up KMOX, off and on, and listen to the Cardinals – Harry Caray. You could hear the vendors yelling “Cold beer here,” and on a hot night nothing made you thirstier.
Priest,
If you go to Baseball-reference you can subscribe to something called their “event database” – not the exact name – and I think it will have this data. If not, it’s a good place to start.
If Google doesn’t turn up any stats, try fivethrityeight.com (Nate Silver got his start on baseball statistics, before he branched out into elections.)
Now, they do fan input … Don from Poughkeepsie thinks Cano oughta yadda yadda… f8ck the fan. How about you do the play by play and the fan at home can watch the game and stick to what he’s good at, throwing his shoe at the TV and missing.
Carlinesque.
Thanks for the back up, Ugh. It’s the start of the new school year here, and I don’t remember it being this busy before.
Ug, sports. I nearly died of a baseball analogy once.
Seriously, I was driving from Michigan to Florida, to visit my mom for Christmas, and had “Wonderful Life” by Gould, on tape, to listen to on the trip. Things were going fine until he embarked on a hideously extended analogy between the statistics of evolutionary diversity, and baseball stats. I grasped the point in the first 30 seconds, a half hour later I fell asleep at the wheel, and was woke by the car shaking as I drifted off the shoulder.
Nearly killed by sports statistics. Took an extended session of Jane Child to revive me, and I never did finish that tape.
Brett:
That’s one reason I don’t care for non-fiction audiobooks — you can’t skim. But clearly “might get so boring you die” is another good reason.
I’m heading out to NYC for a wedding now. Back late Sunday.
Gould was a great baseball fan.
I once drove right over a guy at the intersection of Nut Street and Whacked Boulevard in downtown Craziopolis, flattened him purtin’ear, who was explaining a Supreme Court Justice’s analogy of speech to money, so I slammed on the brakes, backed over him for good measure, and then flung a simoleon out the window at him as my analogy for saying “I’m sorry”.
Okay, so open-threading it:
I’m conflicted about this thing.
Gay marriage is lovely (as lovely as marriage can be), and I’m all about boycotting people’s bad business behavior (have not hung out at Hobby Lobby lately). But I’m kind of uncomfortable with this Brendan Eich thing. Not that I’m comfortable with Brendan Eich.
The world is a creepy place.
The ironic thing is, at the time Eich donated to Prop 8, Obama was on the Prop 8 side of things. (As was, for instance, Hillary.) So, in theory anyway, they ought to be firing anybody who supported Obama.
But, as always, Obama gets a pass, and thus, (In order that?) his supporters do, too.
The world is a creepy place.
FWIW, Josh Marshall weighs in.
To me, this is one of those cases where both sides have very legitimate points.
I doubt this will usher in a wave of CEOs (or anyone) being bounced out of their jobs because they hold politically incorrect (for lack of a better word) points of view. Mozilla and Silicon Valley in general is fairly unique environment.
It’s interesting that they were cool with him being CTO, but not CEO. Maybe nobody noticed the Prop 8 donation until the job change.
Mozilla is so wildly non-representative of the California public in this regard, (Eich was the only Mozilla employee to donate in favor of Prop 8, in a state where it passed.) that it probably didn’t occur until lately that it was worth checking. They just assumed that he was in favor of SSM, everybody else at the company was.
Obama was on the Prop 8 side of things. (As was, for instance, Hillary.
actually, not quite.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2008/11/obama-on-mtv-i/
yeah, he was waffling. but that’s better than donating in favor of Prop 8. and compared to the other options that year, Obama was miles ahead.
I guess I should say, he was the only Mozilla employee to donate to the pro-Prop 8 side, AND report their employer. Most of the people who didn’t so report were pro-Prop 8, so apparently even then, they were fearing reprisals.
Maybe there’ll be a Proposition to end the practice of “firing at will and whim” and Eich can give unlimited amounts of money to get that on the ballot and voted in.
I favor a top down approach – a Federal law prohibiting fire at will practices. Eich can now give to unlimited numbers of candidates and get that legislation thru Congress.
All of the so-called long-term unemployed had jobs at some point time until someone else, probably Eich, fired or laid them off (how many HAS he fired in career?) for one reason or another.
They didn’t quit their jobs. They didn’t have the means to act on that privilege.
This ridiculous debate about unemployment goes on and on when the solution is right in front of our faces. Mandate full employment by next Friday, with each employer, including governments, hiring proportionally to their size until the unemployment rate is at zero.
He can get in line.
Bottom line, I don’t think Eich should have been fired for his political beliefs.
Neither do I think a line worker somewhere deep in Koch Industries should be fired for expressing at a company meeting the need to unionize his fellow workers, or perhaps suggest corporate should pay more attention to being a good steward of the environment, or for wearing an “I Heart Obama” lapel pin to the company picnic.
Thing is, Eich has probably 50 high-paying job offers as we speak and the usual suspects are hogging the microphones to express their deep empathy and solidarity with him, not to mention the fact that if he never worked again, he wouldn’t be missing a mortgage payment, while the same usual suspects just came from another press conference where they accused the long-term unemployed, in fact, you just have to be unemployed five minutes in this full of sh*t country for the filth to be on your case, of being lazy mooching no-accounts who are stealing our hard-earned tax dollars.
Get in line, get down on your knees, and kiss my arse.
But, again, he should not have been fired.
I think he should steal a potted plant and some office supplies on his way out the door.
Like the josh marshall piece, russell, thanks for that. A couple of nice grafs from that
I don’t want to make this wholly about President Obama because that confuses the issue. And obviously there’s a whole separate story behind his ‘evolution’ on the issue. But I think there’s one part of it that does shed light on the issue.
Even many people who see themselves as strong supporters of LGBT rights – and certainly many who have no ill-will toward LGBT people – have come relatively late to fully accepting the idea that LGBT people should get the same marriage document as us heterosexual folks. At the same time, though, most people have had a pretty clear sense of the trajectory of history on this issue and made a pretty clear distinction in their minds (rightly, I think) on whether (or how quickly) you’re ready to push the envelope of rights forward and whether you’re ready to push them back.
That’s key and very real distinction, though it can get lost in being over-literal about what this or that person’s position was at a given time.
That’s why, if we’re honest with ourselves, being revealed not just as a supporter but a cash contributor to Prop 8 really isn’t the same as … say, someone who back in 2008 supported civil unions but not full marriage…
and
This transformation, this cleansing – or white-washing from another perspective – is a whole ‘nother story and one I’ve been fascinated with for years. What makes the current situation so fascinating and different is the rapidity of change. Like Paul spoke of the on-rush of the Kingdom of God, you can virtually see the future bleeding into, pushing up into the present. Over the last two or three years the future pushed its way into the present, leaving all sorts of oddities with the two often coexisting at the same time.
Being in a country where the social consensus is an even more powerful tool for compliance and the maintenance of conservative ways than in the US, I often wonder how you can make changes in social outlook without using the power of social consensus. Of course, it is very easy to get branded as a concern troll if one brings up this or similar points when someone is getting hammered, but I always wonder what other mechanism exist for changing someone like Eich’s political views without putting pressure on him in this way. I suppose that the ideal way is to make people think that they were actually for things when they weren’t, which is what gets you into what Josh Marshall terms as ‘white-washing’, but it seems like it is either that or making people constantly realize how often they fall short.
“but I always wonder what other mechanism exist for changing someone like Eich’s political views without putting pressure on him in this way.”
Reasoned discourse? It’s really a bad idea to ignore reasoning with people as a way to change minds.
I’m certain Eich has engaged in and been engaged by reasoned discourse over the years regarding this particular issue.
How many gay folks have been fired or not hired because of their outwardly professed sexuality over the past 11,000 years?
They tried to keep their sexuality a secret too, like Eich did his Proposition 8 giving.
Anyone try reasoned discourse on those who humiliated and discriminated against their sexuality?
I think everyone should be happy, or else!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6Sxv-sUYtM
Hat tip to John Cole on the video.
He was apparently happy for a minute and a half this morning.
In Eich’s case, I think his firing is unjustified. Just as unjustified as it would be if another company somewhere fired someone for having donated to the campaign against Prop 8.
It really ought to be remembered that we are currently in the middle (not at the end, in the middle) of a major social change. There are lots of people who once opposed gay marriage who have now changed their minds. (Including, and Andrew Sullivan has noted, a lot of gay rights advocates — who were vehemently opposed when he was first pushing the idea.) And there are lots more who are in the process of changing their minds.
But there are also a lot of people who have not (or, in some cases, not yet) changed their minds. Firing someone over their current (let alone past) opinion on the subject is the kind of McCarthyism that anybody, liberal or conservative or libertarian, ought to be opposed to.
In a couple of decades, when gay marriage is as (un)controversial as interracial marriage is today, it might be another story. But today, it is simply unjustified.
We’ll can get to that:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KRbpF9GoK24
Reasoned discourse? It’s really a bad idea to ignore reasoning with people as a way to change minds.
I suppose that this
But, as always, Obama gets a pass, and thus, (In order that?) his supporters do, too.
in some bizarro universe, is an example of reasoned discourse, in that you have a reason and you expressed it, but my definition of reasoned discourse is that one should avoid cheap rhetorical moves like that.
As the count notes, he’s probably had a lot of discussions about this. I’m wondering how people who don’t get to hang around him are able to engage him in reasoned discourse? How do I get to change his mind?
I’d also point out that he wasn’t fired, he resigned. This blog post discusses the view from inside Mozilla. Here’s a post about how the victory was a hollow one which seems like a much better example of reasoned discourse. However. if you alienate a lot of your employees, you probably have to go. I mean that is the beauty of the private market, isn’t it? I get to change his mind by boycotting Mozilla, by inserting a line of code that sends Mozilla browsers to a page explaining what Eich has done. What would mr reasoned debate propose we do? Get a government task force to make sure that no one can use code like that?
At any rate, following on the Count’s first video link, this made me happy
http://www.wimp.com/trombonehappy/
I’d also point out that he wasn’t fired, he resigned.
LJ, especially in upper management jobs, actual firing is reserved for those involved in major crimes. For anything less, the usual process is to ask the individual for his resignation. Yes, everybody knows that, if you fail to take the offer to let you resign, you are going to be fired. But virtually nobody tries to fight it.
As a matter of saving face for you, you get to “resign”. But in reality, you were fired in everything but name.
Well, I suppose, but the difference between Eich and something like this seems to be a bit more than name. And given that 3 people left the board, and the prop 8 campaign was particularly vicious, looking at this from afar, I might suggest that it’s karma, not that I want to have any part of being responsible for delivering karmic payback. I agree that he shouldn’t have had to go, but I balk at making fired a word to mean getting in a situation where the context you work in doesn’t function and something has to change.
Of course, if I were Mozilla, I would like to think that I either wouldn’t have moved him to be the public face of the company, and if he had gotten there, I would have maybe demoted him back to CTO? Suggest that he apologize? But I’m not, so I can just observe that Eich got socially ostracized because of his views, and I wonder what other way you make large scale changes than doing that. One thing that we have started to figure out over the last century or so is that one can change things through non-violent means, which is great, but that non-violent change operates in large part by making certain things seem unacceptable. I’ve got no idea how else this is supposed to work on the largescale, so I’m not cheering this on, just wondering how this all works out.
The trombone piece was very cool, lj.
Eich probably felt like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJiCUdLBxuI&list=PL299B353C8108896B
I would say that either Mozilla’s Board didn’t do very well on their due-diligence when selecting him as CEO, or they knew about the donation but didn’t think thru what the reaction would be.
but didn’t think thru what the reaction would be.
Whether they knew about the donation or not, I think they were surprised by the scale of the response.
My two cents, it seemed excessive, and unless he was going to push his views through the platform, I probably wouldn’t have joined the boycott.
For a few reasons. It was several years ago in a subject that has seen a massive sea change over the last several years(http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2014/0405/Mozilla-s-Brendan-Eich-and-gay-marriage-Intolerance-over-tolerance-video ):
” at the time Eich made his donation, only two states allowed same-sex marriage, and a majority of Americans (including then presidential candidates Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton) opposed the idea; today, 17 states allow it, and a majority of Americans support the idea, according to polls.”
Second, I remember the Prop 8 campaign. It was loaded with FUD. There were people convinced it mandated some for of homosexual eduction in elementary school. I know people that voted for 8, only to regret it a few weeks later. The entire thing was really sad.
Third, you have the words of the developers that started the boycott (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2014/0405/Mozilla-s-Brendan-Eich-and-gay-marriage-Intolerance-over-tolerance-video ):
“This really was a personal statement of boycott, and it seems to be getting carried as if we are organizing a boycott or that we think Mozilla is evil or that we think Brendan Eich is the devil. None of those things are true”
Now, I’ve said that I would be unlikely to join the boycott. I might even encourage those that did form the boycott to reconsider.
Does that mean I think those two developers are evil? No. Has Eich had his rights infringed upon in any way? No.
This was a private/social discussion which utterly lacked a governmental component, as it should be. And yes, it got heated, as discussions often do. But a number of people used their associative rights to make a political point. That’s how it should be, and it is, IMHO, an example of how powerful those rights are.
Or, to take LJ out of context (sorry, LJ):
I mean that is the beauty of the private market, isn’t it?
In my mind, yes.
If I had concerns, it would be on donor lists being disclosed. I’m very uncomfortable with that concept, but it does have an anti-corruption component to it. I don’t know how I feel about that issue.
I’d also point out that he wasn’t fired, he resigned.
LJ, especially in upper management jobs, actual firing is reserved for those involved in major crimes
True enough, but the fact remains that he resigned. And, it appears he resigned after a huge number of employees very vocally objected to his promotion to CEO, and after about half the board threatened to leave.
So, resign or fire, it was obvious that having him as CEO was not a workable situation. Nobody wanted to work for the guy, or with him as CEO.
It also appears that his donation to Prop 8 was fairly widely known at least as of 2012. So, nobody should really have been blind-sided by that, either.
That was actually the view of Eich’s single member LLC…
My two cents, it seemed excessive…
Really? What about the case of Debo Adegbile? He wasn’t fired, but he failed to clear the Senate confirmation vote due to what I can only term mad dog vigilante mob rule bullshit.
I don’t recall your disquiet.
It is incredible that people (I’m looking at you Andy Sullivan)can cheer on the advancement of the rights of the LBGT community, but have no qualms whatsoever about a bigot in a position of considerable power.
If you are OK with bigoted assholes having power, then are you not then OK with bigotry?
Just asking here to stir up the pot.
Regards,
Scott Lemieux weighs in.
The recent World Vision flap is telling.
My two cents, it seemed excessive…
Yeah, bottom line is that nobody wanted to work with the guy.
It may seem excessive to your or me, but I’m not sure we have anything to say about it. We don’t work for Mozilla, we’re not on the board of Mozilla, we (or at least I) don’t build third party apps for Mozilla.
The situation everyone was facing was that it would likely have crushed Mozilla to keep Eich as CEO.
I’m not sure it’s your place or mine to say that all of the folks involved should or should not have felt the way they obviously felt about Eich.
Yeah, bottom line is that nobody wanted to work with the guy.
Yeah, I agree it was the right decision for Mozilla. It would have been a problem for the organization if he stayed. And I think Mozilla is a good corporation.
I’m not sure it’s your place or mine to say
Yeah, that’s vaguely what I was getting at with:
Does that mean I think those two developers are evil? No. Has Eich had his rights infringed upon in any way? No.
People, from Mozilla developers to those running OkCupid, exercised their rights to protest and boycott.
They don’t need my approval, or your approval, to do what they feel is right.
No dates on OKCupid for Eich I suppose, too.
He can always change his profile.
The trouble I would have with the “they have to do what they feel is right” is this. Ask yourself if you would be equally happy (or at least unconcerned) if it was a company which was forcing the resignation of a CEO for pushing for gay marriage (or any other currently controversial cause you can think of)? Or for having pushed for it half a decade ago.
I can agree that Mozilla may have had cause, given their particular situation, to do what they did. Which doesn’t mean I cannot feel that punishing someone for having an unpopular political or policy position is a bad thing. And that goes double whenever the issue in question is one which is in the midst of massive change.
(If there was any record of his having discriminated against gays in his company, that would be a different story. But, as far as I can tell, there was nothing liket that.)
Ask yourself if you would be equally happy (or at least unconcerned) if it was a company which was forcing the resignation of a CEO for pushing for gay marriage (or any other currently controversial cause you can think of)?
I’m neither happy nor unhappy about the Mozilla thing. I’m neither concerned or unconcerned.
In the particular culture in which Mozilla exists, it’s apparently really unacceptable for their CEO to be against gay marriage.
If, for example, Chick-Fil-A somehow inadvertently stumbled into a situation where they moved somebody who was pro-gay-marriage into the CEO spot, and the board and/or employees revolted, and that person had to step down, it likewise would neither concern me, nor make me happy or unhappy.
I’m also not sure it’s fair to say that Mozilla was “punishing” Eith for his views. I’m not sure we have enough information to make that judgement. They found his point of view intolerable and didn’t want to work with him.
Net / net, as it turns out he was a bad hire for the job. His views were known before hand, although whoever promoted him to CEO may not have anticipated the strength of the reaction.
It’s also worth noting that Mozilla is really not like too many other companies. It’s more of a collective than a corporation.
Mozilla’s own FAQ about the resignation, in which I discover that some of my own information was incorrect.
A pretty good New Yorker piece on the resignation.
Mozilla is a fairly unusual, and atypical, case in the overall landscape of corporate America. I’m not seeing this as some kind of harbinger of corporate putsches motivated by rampant political correctness.
wj:
Ask yourself if you would be equally happy (or at least unconcerned) if it was a company which was forcing the resignation of a CEO for pushing for gay marriage (or any other currently controversial cause you can think of)?
It’s a fair question, but I think you’re missing my point. What I may, or may not have done isn’t too relevant.
The board and Eich took what they thought was the best course of action. He may, or may not, have been unfairly treated. If he was, that sucks, but unfair stuff happens in the world.
After glancing at a few news stories about it, this doesn’t strike me as a grave injustice executed by a mob. Nor does it strike me as a shining victory for equality.
Its something in between. It doesn’t really strike me as one extreme or the other, and I’m very detached from the incident and in a poor place to judge.
From what I know, he wasn’t pressing his views at Mozilla or discriminating actively against anybody, so I’m not going to judge him solely on a campaign contribution from 5 years ago.
The CEO is an important position and he is the face of the company. If he can’t represent them well and can’t lead the company well, the board has cause to let him go.
Maybe they were wrong to do so. Maybe OkCupid, etc was wrong to ask for it. I don’t know and I’m not in a great position to judge.
But this is the marketplace of ideas. It’s not always fair, and its not always pretty. Eich is free to have his beliefs, but he can’t (and as far as I can tell, hasn’t) insist other people associate with him if they don’t like those beliefs.
If I was really worked up about it, and perhaps I would be in your hypo, I would be free to exercise my rights as well, and boycott.
“motivated by rampant political correctness.”
I know the term “political correctness” is thrown around in common usage, but the more I think about the folks who came up with the term, it grates on me.
Like the “Democrat” Party.
Just another way for bullies on the Right to say STFU.
By which I mean, what was “politically correct” for a million years was gay men and lesbians being forced to keep the secret for fear of reprisal on the job and elsewhere, let alone to be found to be living together and God forbid, wedding nuptials.
Talking about it or pushing gay marriage was politically incorrect for a million years.
It still is for a certain segment of the population.
Anything that Rush Limbaugh calls “politically correct” is actually the opposite.
He’s politically correct. Everything that comes out of his mouth is and was politically correct.
He just doesn’t like being corrected.
He’s also fat.
He may, or may not, have been unfairly treated. If he was, that sucks, but unfair stuff happens in the world.
And while Mozilla was entirely within their rights to terminate his employment, that doesn’t mean that we cannot observe (and say) that their action was an overreaction. And unfair.
As you say, unfair stuff happens in the world. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t bother to point out when it happens.
But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t bother to point out when it happens.
True, but this doesn’t strike me as obviously and horrendously unfair.
For me, I’d need to have a much more detailed view of the case to feel comfortable judging “fairness”. Of who Eich was, how he acted, his place in Mozilla, etc etc. There is likely far more nuance to all sides of the issue than is reported. There always is.
You may differ. Maybe you’ve heard enough to render judgement one way or the other. I don’t feel I can.
I’m not trying to say what’s fair and unfair shouldn’t be pointed out, just that this isn’t one of those cases where it’s blindingly obvious to me that one party is aggrieved. As such, I’m uncomfortable dusting off my soapbox.
“And while Mozilla was entirely within their rights to terminate his employment, that doesn’t mean that we cannot observe (and say) that their action was an overreaction. And unfair.”
Precisely. I’m quite comfortable with saying, Mozilla was entitled to fire him, and I don’t like their doing it. I’d likely abandon Firefox, if I hadn’t already last year just because it was starting to suck.
“I know the term “political correctness” is thrown around in common usage, but the more I think about the folks who came up with the term, it grates on me.”
Yeah, I’m pretty disgusted with the Red Chinese, too. Mao used it seriously, pretty much all uses today are ironic, the people who actually insist on political correctness would never think to identify what they’re doing as that, anymore than somebody who demands you practice doublethink would call it that.
Even as they blithely toss off absurd phrases like “people of color”, or coming from another direction, “person of interest”, (How I hate that phrase!) they’ll claim they’re just trying not to be insulting, or aiming for precision. Like anybody buys that.
So, yes, I find the practice of PC annoying, and the people who engage in the practice find the fact people actually have a term for it, and thus can point it out, are annoyed by that. It’s annoying all around.
Anyway, surely you do recognize the un-introspective irony of somebody giving a speech about how tolerant and inclusive their organization is, to justify firing somebody in order to maintain a uniformity of viewpoint.
the un-introspective irony of somebody giving a speech about how tolerant and inclusive their organization is, to justify firing somebody in order to maintain a uniformity of viewpoint.
there’s no irony.
promoting tolerance is not intolerance. and nobody who preaches tolerance believes everything, including bigotry, must be tolerated.
likewise, those who preach Feredom™ and Liberty™ don’t actually mean people should be free to do literally anything. that would be hedonistic anarchy.
Feredom™ being Freedom™ en Francais, or something.
Whenever Brett tries to support his arguments with etymology, hilarity ensues. From the wikipedia entry
According to American educator Herbert Kohl, writing about debates in New York in the late 1940s and early 1950s,
The term “politically correct” was used disparagingly, to refer to someone whose loyalty to the CP line overrode compassion, and led to bad politics. It was used by Socialists against Communists, and was meant to separate out Socialists who believed in egalitarian moral ideas from dogmatic Communists who would advocate and defend party positions regardless of their moral substance.
—“Uncommon Differences”, The Lion and the Unicorn Journal
Given that Mao’s Little Red Book was only published in Chinese in 1964 and the English translation was only published in 1967, it is difficult to imagine how it could be sent back in time to be used as the English source for its use in 1940’s.
Here’s my simple solution to situations like Mozilla.
We’ll all just recognize a line between our private values and beliefs, and our participation in institutions that are legally constituted to engage in commercial activity.
In other words, barring things that are illegal, criminal, or obviously physically harmful, check your personal druthers at the office door. We’re here to work, not express our deepest personal values and beliefs.
Right?
I am pretty sure Brett didn’t say anything that resembles “Mao invented the phrase. I’m also pretty sure Mao used it seriously. And many of us heard it first in that context. Although Brett didn’t say that.
But thanks for the history.
Brett doesn’t like “people of color.” OK. We all have our verbal preferences. I’m curious as to what term he would suggest as an alternative. “Non-white”? Or does he resist the idea that a useful distinction can be made – particularly in the USA – between the historically privileged ethnicity and the rest, a distinction primarily identified with “color”?
Marty, not sure where your quotation is closed, but the idea that political correctness comes from Mao’s use of it is clearly false. If you heard it ‘in that context’, you were being told a lie, and it would be intellectually honest to admit that it was wrong rather than trying to attach Mao to the notion. The attempt to tie the term to Mao is the invocation of a boogeyman who no one could possibly agree with, so therefore, the notion can’t possibly be supported. It serves as a lazy shorthand for those who want to claim that things like the ACA is communism writ large, but it’s crap argumentation, like the previous one by Brett that liberal comes from liberty, where a little reflection would reveal that it ain’t true.
Good try Russell.
Marty: I am pretty sure Brett didn’t say anything that resembles “Mao invented the phrase.
Brett: “I know the term “political correctness” is thrown around in common usage, but the more I think about the folks who came up with the term, it grates on me.”
Yeah, I’m pretty disgusted with the Red Chinese, too.
Dr Ngo: I’m pretty sure Marty doesn’t know how to read.
Good try Russell.
Whatever do you mean?
Another point: you would think that trying to avoid hurting others is a good thing and something to teach our children, but the notion of being not politically correct basically takes that foundational notion and throws it out. That I chose to use a phrase as a way to avoid giving needless insult becomes some sort of refusal to ‘tell the truth’ (‘Why say he is learning disabled? He’s retarded, can’t you see!!! God, this PC crap’) which seems to turn the notions of being kind to others and not causing unnecessary anguish on their head. It seems that when people complain about PC, they are basically upset with the fact that they can’t bully other people.
this doesn’t strike me as obviously and horrendously unfair.
I guess the reason that this bothers me is this: If we are to function as a society — at least as the kind we have, where people disagree about lots of political and policy not to mention religious issues — we have to be able to work together with people who disagree with us. And this action (and the pressures that led up to it) reflect a massive refusal to work with someone who disagrees.
Note that this was not a matter of someone acting in the workplace on that disagreement, to the detriment of others. Indeed, he made a plea for those who were upset to give him a chance to demonstrate that he would continue to act inclusively. But it was not enough.
Consider all of the other topics on which we disagree with each other — some objectively significant, others not so much. What is the criteria for deciding that some disagreements are simply intolerable . . . even though they may not even come up in the workplace? Do you refuse to work with someone who has a different opinion on theology? On abortion? On contraception? On affirmative action? On politics? On foreign policy? What is the criteria?
for me, at least, the criteria would be “Does it impact behavior in the workplace. Either with co-workers or with customers?” If so, we have a problem. If not, others can believe what they will — and act on those beliefs on their own time and with their own resources. No matter how wrong-headed I think those beliefs are.
I may well try to persuade them otherwise, should I happen to become aware of it. But on my own time and outside the workplace.
That I chose to use a phrase as a way to avoid giving needless insult becomes some sort of refusal to ‘tell the truth’ (‘Why say he is learning disabled? He’s retarded, can’t you see!!! God, this PC crap’)
there’s also the issue that things which didn’t used to be insults become insults. and “retarded” is the perfect example. it was, at one time, used exactly as “learning disabled” is. it wasn’t an insult. it was just a flat description of a condition. it turned into an insult over the years and is being replaced by “learning disabled” and other terms. but if you haven’t been paying attention, you might still think “retarded” is an acceptable term.
but here comes someone to tell you that the word is now unacceptable, and maybe you don’t see why because you thought the word was just a medical term (and it was). so your reaction to this news might be “oh, these language police are out of control.”
I’m sure this sounds politically incorrect, but slaves in 1859 got three squares a day, whereas in Africa they would have been eating dirt.
I’m sure this sounds politically incorrect, but women are a little emotional to hold leadership positions, don’t you think?
I’m sure this sounds politically incorrect, but it’s been snowing for two days now.
I’m sure this sounds politically incorrect, but he’s a little light in the loafers for manual labor, isn’t he?
I’m sure this sounds politically incorrect, but except for tacos, what did immigrants ever do for us?
I’m sure this sounds politically incorrect, but Maynard J. Krebs was lazy. Is he a black guy?
I’m sure this sounds politically incorrect, but first they wanted to be called Negroes, and then they wanted to be called blacks, then it was African-Americans, now it’s people of color. What was wrong with what my grandfather called them?
I’m sure this sounds politically incorrect, but just between us palefaces, Kemosabe, was it a Pepsi or a Coca Cola that Clarence Thomas was drinking?
I’m sure this sounds politically incorrect, but I’d like to see Chairman Mao get into Stanford these days. Even with his grades, the PC police would be making him cool his heels behind those other people.
I’m sure this sounds politically incorrect, but Roger Ailes’ doesn’t carry his weight very well, even for a fat man. Now, Gleason could cut the rug.
Here’s my favorite from a couple of years ago, from a relative of mine, closer than I like to admit, who stormed out of a Subway in Pennsylvania and got into the car I was driving: “That guy wouldn’t take my coupon. He jew’ed me out it!
Now, from previous “conversations” with this relative about the owner of the Subway, whom I’ve never met, I have inferred that my relative THINKS he is Muslim, probably because of the accent or the man’s attire, but the guy is probably Asian Indian or something, so I said, “Wait a second, the last time you caterwauled about this you said he was a Muslim, so if you don’t mind me pointing this out, the very least we can say is that he couldn’t very well have “jew’ed” you out of it.”
My relative: That’s right. He’s a an effing camel-jockeying, towelhead who jewed me out of the sandwich!”
This relative has never uttered a knowingly ironic statement in his life.
Me: Well, it could be worse. He could be another example of your everyday ordinary piece of sh*t, lying, bigoted, average white boy.”
Him: (after looking at me a good, hard long time, maybe trying to detect some irony) A white man would have honored the coupon. That’s what “MEN” do.
Me: Let me see the coupon. It says here the thing expired 18 months ago. (I later confirmed via a relative that Subway had stopped that national deal on sandwiches a long time ago, and that she’d had a very similar conversation about the Subway owner with the relative of the first part months ago.
Him: I don’t care. I’ll say what I want to say. What do you care? Oh, that’s right, you’re a liberal. (You might think there is a hint of irony in that last statement, but no. He’d sooner start reciting Shakespeare)
I decided not to explain the arcane derivation of the “politically correct” term to him, you know, the infighting among Communists and Socialists, and I especially wouldn’t have brought up Chairman Mao’s role in the dictum, because this relative would have said something along the lines of “What do you expect from a Commie chink?”
But then what would you expect, and I hope this doesn’t sound politically incorrect, from a bullet-headed, dumbass, piece of white trash. And he’s good northern stock? Hardly ever set foot below the Mason-Dixon.
For my next installment, I might feature this relative’s tirade in front of the TV featuring Obama-hatred, why do I have to pay taxes to the damned gummit speechifying and ending with him accusing the all of the above of trying to cancel his Social Security disability payments, which it really wasn’t, I came to find out.
Ya hadda be there.
If we are to function as a society — at least as the kind we have, where people disagree about lots of political and policy not to mention religious issues — we have to be able to work together with people who disagree with us.
Yup, it’s a problem.
What is the criteria for deciding that some disagreements are simply intolerable . . . even though they may not even come up in the workplace?
That’s a good question.
The question of when something can be said to “come up in the workplace” is also a good question.
There are lots of points at which someone’s marital status gets involved with workplace matters – insurance coverage, beneficiaries for various kinds of benefits, family and bereavement leave – so a CEO’s position on gay marriage, or anything to do with marriage, is not completely orthogonal to, or irrelevant to, the workplace. As it turns out.
It’s not directly an issue, in most cases. Just sometimes.
Can’t we all just get along? I don’t know, maybe we can’t.
In any case, “getting along” cuts in more than one direction.
for me, at least, the criteria would be “Does it impact behavior in the workplace.
I think that’s a good criteria, and is the one I would hew to. Like I said, I likely would not have joined the boycott.
The board made a decision that they felt was best, and its their business. I may have made a different one, but it was theirs to make, and I lack a lot of the details.
If it was unfair, it doesn’t strike me as so unfair that I’m going to boycott Mozilla now.
Sometimes living in this country means private actors will take actions I don’t like. Sometimes it is unfair. I can’t protest every instance, and I’m not comfortable doing so when I don’t have all the details of this fairly minor incident.
If I was more intimately involved, I might have a stronger opinion. If it was a more egregious event in either direction, I might have a stronger opinion.
You are, of course, free to disagree with where your lines are drawn. That’s part of the system 🙂
What is the criteria for deciding that some disagreements are simply intolerable . . . even though they may not even come up in the workplace?
It’s going to vary from person to person and from time to time. Pretty much, if something bothers you enough to take some sort of stand, you’ll take your stand. You might prevail, or you might not. Until it crosses a legal line, it’s going to be purely subjective and will play out in a micro-political way.
Even trying to come up with criteria that some number of people can agree to will be that way, let along attempting to apply them.
It’s organic, like how much mustard you might eat in a given year.
I’m sure this sounds politically incorrect, but slaves in 1859 got three squares a day, whereas in Africa they would have been eating dirt.
No man, in Africa they would have been eating missionaries.
If it was unfair
Mozilla is a company that develops software and technology and basically gives it away. The relatively tiny (for a high-profile Silicon Valley company) income they have comes mostly from Google paying them to be the default search engine on their browser.
A tremendous amount of the actual work done under the “Mozilla” banner is done for free, by people who like to code and like the idea of there being a free and freely accessible alternative to the big for-profit browser products, most especially IE.
It’s an unusual place, and it has an unusual culture. And, it’s an unusual place with an unusual culture that is not so easy to tease apart from the workplace, because it’s an industry where workplace and lifestyle are not so distinct.
Eith’s publicly known position on gay marriage apparently put him at odds with that culture.
If the folks at Duck Commander somehow ended up appointing someone as CEO who was on record as publicly supporting (including with financial contributions) gay marriage, and the board and employees said “sorry, that was a bad hire, you have to go”, would that be unfair?
“Eith’s publicly known position on gay marriage apparently put him at odds with that culture.
If the folks at Duck Commander somehow ended up appointing someone as CEO who was on record as publicly supporting (including with financial contributions) gay marriage, and the board and employees said “sorry, that was a bad hire, you have to go”, would that be unfair?”
I think donors lists should be completely private and if leaked should be a state/federal felony. No on should know who contributed either way. Then we wouldn’t be having this discussion. Duck Commander or Mozilla. I think the Duck Commander CEO should be able to contribute to whatever causes he wants.
I think donors lists should be completely private and if leaked should be a state/federal felony.
So Duck Commander and a prospective CEO shouldn’t not have the right to privately contract as they see fit, even if one of the terms of said contract was a disclosure of political contributions? (Or are you just talking about lists, rather than personal disclosures, if and as required?)
I think the Duck Commander CEO should be able to contribute to whatever causes he wants.
No one’s saying he can’t. It’s just a question of whether or not he remains Duck Commander CEO.
I shouldn’t not type so fast.
I think the Duck Commander CEO should be able to contribute to whatever causes he wants.
Me too.
I think donors lists should be completely private and if leaked should be a state/federal felony. No on should know who contributed either way.
That could work. But IF, and only if, the recipient doesn’t know either. Otherwise the probability of bribery becomes too great. (Maybe all donations ahve to be done with BitCoin — or whatever replaces it in the anonymous payment field.)
Open thread:
this
I think the Duck Commander CEO should be able to contribute to whatever causes he wants.
Me too.
If I could expand on this a bit…
Me too, I find it unfortunate that somebody is bumped out of a CEO position because they hold a particular set of social or political views.
That said, I’m curious about reactions to Eith’s resignation / being pushed out that range from “creepy” to “unfair”.
It’s just the flip side of religious people claiming that their own personal values must be respected in the context of their workplaces and businesses.
I’m not seeing the difference. Good for the goose, good for the gander.
But personally, I’d rather folks would just learn how to get along.
HSH, I had to double check that you weren’t pointing to an Onion article. But it appears that it may be legit. In which case, it is a huge deal.
Fuel produced from sea water?!?!? Who would have thought . . . ?
Whyaduck?
What if the CEO at Duck Commander gave an interview to the Gay Duck Hunter’s of America in house publication and disclosed that even though he is foursquare against homophobic nutcases in fake beards shooting any sort of bird because it’s just not right for one creature to shoot the other out of the sky when they are minding their own business, nevertheless he took the job because he needed the eggs, which one will recommend his firing first?
For the record, I’m for full disclosure in donor’s lists for political giving. I like my corruption, should it come to that, hung like laundry in the open air. If money is speech, then let her rip. Why should political speech/money be like a duck call – secret, fake, and backhanded?
Holding an individual’s political money/speech against him is protected by the First Amendment.
Not doing so sounds so, I don’t know, politically correct.
The first question when someone gives money via Karl Rove’s network or into the Koch brothers deceitful web of prevarication should be “Excuse me, what did you say? Perhaps you’d like to share that with all of us so when lying through your bad teeth becomes a crime, we’ll know who to round up.”
Money is speech, I’m told. You got something to say, say it. Don’t sit there and mumble dollar signs with your hand over your mouths.
At least then we know who to tell to STFU.
Eventually, it’s all going to come out anyway and then we repair to our respective duck blinds and let the shooting commence.
HSH:
It’s going to vary from person to person and from time to time. Pretty much, if something bothers you enough to take some sort of stand, you’ll take your stand. You might prevail, or you might not. Until it crosses a legal line, it’s going to be purely subjective and will play out in a micro-political way.
Thank you. Exactly what I’m trying to say.
russell:
I’m not saying it was unfair. I saying maybe it was, where ‘maybe’ is dependent on a whole lot of facts that I just don’t have. From what I know, I probably wouldn’t have forced him out, but there’s a lot I don’t know, and its not my call to make.
This entire event strikes me as the kind of thing that people work out privately all the time. Maybe I would handle it differently, I dunno.
It’s just the flip side of religious people claiming that their own personal values must be respected in the context of their workplaces and businesses. I’m not seeing the difference.
I’m not seeing the difference either. People are not always going to get along, however much I may wish it to be so.
When they can’t, they’ll sort themselves accordingly. Sometimes people get hurt, sometimes its unfair. Sometimes its perfectly fair. Don’t know which it was in this case, but either way it doesn’t strike me as extremely one way or the other.
And as asides:
wj: Bitcoins are not anonymous: http://www.hbarel.com/bitcoin-does-not-provide-anonymity
And HSH: That Navy link is pretty cool. If it works, it would be a gamechanger.
But IF, and only if, the recipient doesn’t know either.”
I kind of like that idea for campaign finance reform…double blinding of contributions.
Hard to enforce, though.
Representative: “Mr. Moneybags, lovely day on the course today, isn’t it?”
Mr. Moneybags: “You certainly seem to be in a good mood today. Did someone just deposit 1.53 million and 6 cents into your campaign fund?
Representative: “Well, I best be off, I have that banking reform vote to get to. I’m sure I’ll see you on the course again in, say, 2 years.”
That said, I’m curious about reactions to Eith’s resignation / being pushed out that range from “creepy” to “unfair”.
I’m not heartbroken by Eich’s resignation. I don’t share what I know of his political views. But, as to the observation that Mozilla is a unique company with a unique culture, there’s a countervailing fact, that Eich cofounded mozilla.org, and apparently helped to create that culture. He’s contributed significantly to a mission that is all about inclusiveness and accessibility. And he stated his professional commitment to nondiscrimination and inclusiveness.
“Marriage” is an institution that people understand in very different ways, based on their upbringing, nationality and religious views. Even as a legal institution, the rights and responsibilities “marriage” confers vary substantially by jurisdiction, and (in the United States) have changed dramatically in the past half-century.
I think that it’s unwise to judge someone’s professional value on the basis of this single issue of what “marriage” means to them (and what they think it should mean to society), and I’m uncomfortable with the fact that so many people found it justifiable to do so. I understand that if he is incapable of leading the company, he needed to go. I think that if he has shown bigotry and discrimination in more ways than his views on the legal definition of marriage, it adds to the general justification of his having been fired.
HSH:
Very cool.
I know this sounds politically correct, using conservative standards and guidelines regarding what hurts their feelings, but you’re telling me that over-unionized, overpaid gummint scientists at the Naval Research Labs had time between their lengthy lunch hours and figuring up their over-generous pensions stolen off the backs of hard working tax payers to come up with a method for converting sea water to fuel, when everyone who is tuned into the reigning political correctness on the Right knows very well, in their bones and at the cellular level, that only a private employee of a corporate person, which contributes money/speech to political candidates to gut funding for gummint research capabilities because God and Ayn Rand, could possibly be incentivized adequately by constant threats of being fired to come up with a groundbreaking scientific result like this.
And I know this sounds politically incorrect under conservative and libertarian doctrine regarding political incorrectness, but I think we should permit only those who vote for liberals and who value government research to profit and use this technology when it is deployed. All others, and you know who you are, may not use it because it would be politically correct, or is it politically incorrect, for you to stoop to unlimited socialist fuel sources.
Perhaps we could arrange a hefty fee schedule and some onerous paperwork for those of the latter persuasion to use the fuel and thereby pay off the IOUs, I’m sorry, gummint bonds I think they called by the politically whichever and the very same own in all of their financial accounts and which were issued to pay for bogus killing in two wars because better debt than they pay taxes.
And that includes the Naval cadets and officers on board our Navy vessels — pick a side, mofos. You who think you’re fighting to have your taxes reduced to zero, freedom, may use the vessels fueled by conventional sources and thereby sit like sitting Duck Commanders while you await the arrival of the fuel tankers, while those greenish science types, perchance socialists, you know, the ones who conspire to make you think the polar ice caps are melting so they can give the government more power to come up with unlimited, clean supplies of fuel, may man the ships turning sea water into fuel.
Get your own Navy.
I think that it’s unwise to judge someone’s professional value on the basis of this single issue of what “marriage” means to them (and what they think it should mean to society), and I’m uncomfortable with the fact that so many people found it justifiable to do so. I understand that if he is incapable of leading the company, he needed to go.
Put those sentences together and you get a conundrum of sorts. You can certainly make the argument that the reason he was unable to lead the company was that so many people (in the company) found it justifiable to judge his professional value on the basis of this single issue of what “marriage” means to them, even if they did so unwisely.
So you can say these individual people shouldn’t have acted the way they did, but that once they did act that way, the company was justified in doing what it did (insofar as companies do things distinctly from the people forming those companies).
I am guessing they are getting past violating energy conservation laws via conveniently tapping into the carrier’s nuclear reactor for power to hydrolize water. And possibly for other parts of this reaction.
It’s a cool thing if it pans out, sure. Consider, though, that (assuming I am right, above) it would tend to put an even greater premium on taking out the carriers in a convoy.
Not that it isn’t already a big one.
I agree with your analysis hairshirthedonist, but that doesn’t change the fact that I find it unfortunate and troubling. It would make me doubt the judgment of the people who were unwilling to work with him.
I am guessing they are getting past violating energy conservation laws via conveniently tapping into the carrier’s nuclear reactor for power to hydrolize water.
That’s not how I read it. They were talking about oil tanker-dependent ships lacking nuclear reactors producing their own fuel and fuel for planes. I don’t think it’s a matter of conservation of energy any more than extracting oil from the ground is. They’re just tapping energy that’s already been stored by nature, concentrating it, and using it, AFAICT.
I should add that I don’t think the hydrogen gas is coming from hydrolizing the water. It’s gas that’s simply dissolved in the water. No need to break water molecules apart. (Again, AFAICT…)
But, as to the observation that Mozilla is a unique company with a unique culture, there’s a countervailing fact, that Eich cofounded mozilla.org, and apparently helped to create that culture.
All true.
The main point I was making about Mozilla’s uniqueness was that Eich’s getting the boot was unlikely to represent an up and coming trend.
A lesser point was that there is an analogy to be drawn to other work environments that have a prevailing social vibe, and where folks seem less upset about it.
I agree that there isn’t any particular evidence that Eith was looking to impose his point of view on anybody else at Mozilla, and IMO it’s unfortunate that folks couldn’t find a way to make it work.
“It’s just the flip side of religious people claiming that their own personal values must be respected in the context of their workplaces and businesses. I’m not seeing the difference.
I’m not seeing the difference either. People are not always going to get along, however much I may wish it to be so.”
Well, the difference is that in the obvious recent cases it would be illegal to fire someone or even create a hostile enough workplace for them to quit for supporting gay marriage, or having an abortion, or using contraception or just advocating any of the above. Pretty big difference. Really.
To me it looks a bit too much like the gold from seawater project Germany secretly conducted in the Weimar era to generate income to pay the war reparations. Technically possible but not economical due to the very low concentrations. Given how little hydrogen is soluble in water (as opposed to CO2), it would necessitate to pump huge amounts of it through the plant which requires itself lots of energy. I can’t see how they get a positive balance out of it. I doubt that they managed proton catching from the natural 2 H2O = H3O+ / OH- equilibrium.
Well, the difference is that in the obvious recent cases it would be illegal to fire someone or even create a hostile enough workplace for them to quit for supporting gay marriage, or having an abortion, or using contraception or just advocating any of the above.
People could boycott based on their religious convictions without running afoul of the law, no? Keep in mind, we’re talking about a CEO here, not any old employee. Companies have a bit more latitude, likely based on contract, if not simply on the importance of the position to the company’s health, where CEOs are concerned. (It would be weird for the CEO of, say, Hobby Lobby to fire himself, being the owner of the company.)
recent cases it would be illegal to fire someone
Well, without knowing which specific cases its hard for me to comment specifically.
But in general, I lean toward the more expansive interpretation of freedom of association. Does that mean my views sometimes conflict with current law? Yes. As has been noted on this very blog.
Does the existence of some legal restraints in some cases mean I should argue for a legal solution to the Eich case? Absolutely not.
hsh,
if we are focusing on him being the CEO, they pretty much serve at the pleasure of the Board and most often have a package in their contract, which also often gets renegotiated. It is different. That difference isn’t really what I felt Russell was referring to.
I really doubt that. There just isn’t much free hydrogen in seawater. Gas in seawater solution tends to be there because it’s put there by some partial pressure of that gas in the atmosphere, which just isn’t the case for hydrogen.
It seemed that way, yes. But they don’t actually say that. And then there’s this, which basically says:
Adding CO2 and water to a catalytic converter sounds like perpetual motion to me, as (I think it will turn out) it should.
So, in short: you’re going to have nuclear-powered vessels making fuel for some of the rest of the fleet. And if they directly electrolyze seawater, they’re going to have to figure out how to avoid splitting the electrolyte. Which as anyone who’s tried to generate hydrogen from seawater can tell you, generates an unpleasant amount of free chlorine gas.
The process involves extracting carbon dioxide dissolved in the water and combining it with hydrogen – obtained by splitting water molecules using electricity – to make a hydrocarbon fuel.
Well, that sounds pretty definitive. Splitting water molecules, it is.
That difference isn’t really what I felt Russell was referring to.
My point was pretty much what HSH alludes to.
If a company with an entrenched (for example) evangelical culture somehow managed to hire someone for CEO who supported notably non-evangelical positions, and they moved him out promptly, it wouldn’t surprise too many people.
Folks who weren’t aligned with evangelical values would probably call it unfair, folks who were would probably claim freedom of religion.
From the Independent Gay Forum:
Pretty much all of the civil arguments against equality have failed because they were given the space to be aired against the opposing arguments. What is there to gain today, except some noxious exhilaration, by trying to silence or punish the true believers? – See more at: http://igfculturewatch.com/2014/04/07/silence-isnt-golden/#sthash.WNfvZdow.dpuf
PS–I tried to log in through Typepad and got an warning of unsafe site and that I was trying to access http://www.typekey.com
Is this the new neame for Typepad?
From Andrew Sullivan:
“I’m sorry but Surman is full of shit – as, I might add, is his profoundly intolerant company. Eich begged for mercy; he asked to be given a fair shot to prove he wasn’t David Duke; he directly interacted with those he had hurt. He expressed sorrow. He had not the slightest blemish in his professional record. He had invented JavaScript. He was a hero. He pledged to do all he could to make amends. But none of this is ever enough for Inquisitions – and it wasn’t enough in this case. His mind and conscience were the problem. He had to change them or leave.
A civil rights movement without toleration is not a civil rights movement; it is a cultural campaign to expunge and destroy its opponents. A moral movement without mercy is not moral; it is, when push comes to shove, cruel.
For a decade and half, we have fought the battle for equal dignity for gay people with sincerity, openness, toleration and reason. It appears increasingly as if we will have to fight and fight again to prevent this precious and highly successful legacy from being hijacked by a righteous, absolutely certain, and often hateful mob. We are better than this. And we must not give in to it.”
Sorry, but the fact that the left, generally, isn’t hugely embarrassed and pushing back against this episode is a very, very sad commentary on the left’s evolution. Expressing ‘concern’ or ‘reservations’ or what have you is weak beer. There is no such reticence when a left’ish ox is gored. I wish I had saved the various comments from my friends here extolling the liberal virtue of tolerance. Really, they would make good reading right now.
More Lemieux on this matter.
Sorry, but the fact that the left, generally, isn’t hugely embarrassed and pushing back against this episode is a very, very sad commentary on the left’s evolution.
I base my opinion of the right’s evolution on Rush Limbaugh’s popularity. So there!
The term you generally see thrown around in linguistics for this phenomena is the “euphemism treadmill”, and to hear someone going on about how this is soft-hearted control-freak liberals pursuing their special brand of evil falls somewhere between laughable and severely depressing. Political correctness is a conscious effort to accelerate something that happens naturally, but it’s not something unique or special. It’s just how language works.
Sorry, but the fact that the left, generally, isn’t hugely embarrassed and pushing back against this episode is a very, very sad commentary on the left’s evolution.
Maybe it’s because “the left”, broadly construed, doesn’t really consider the board and employees of Mozilla to be speaking for them.
This isn’t some organized movement, it’s one somewhat unusual company.
And for the record, I’m not seeing any kind of overwhelming support for Eich’s ouster among the left-leaning folks here.
Sorry, but the fact that the left, generally, isn’t hugely embarrassed and pushing back against this episode is a very, very sad commentary on the left’s evolution.
Your apology for the “resignation” of Helen Thomas is noted.
Sorry, but the fact that the left, generally, isn’t hugely embarrassed and pushing back against this episode is a very, very sad commentary on the left’s evolution.
So companies shouldn’t be able to fire employees for any or no reason, and society at large should have a say in the operations and employment decisions of privately held corporations? That seems to be a rather strange implication to be pushed by you of all people.
Look, I don’t think this forced resignation was a good policy, but frankly I don’t really care. I don’t have a dog in the fight. It’s another large corporation making internal decisions I don’t agree with, based on beliefs I don’t share with them. Just because I’m not standing up and offering a ringing loyalty oath to principles of Tolerance™ doesn’t mean I don’t hold them. If I spent my days decrying internal corporate decisions I disagree with for ideological reasons, I’d never do anything else. Ever. Thank you, no.
And for the record, I’m not seeing any kind of overwhelming support for Eich’s ouster among the left-leaning folks here.
That’s not the point. You have to be vehemently against it, and in large numbers.
Now, I will say that “the left” may react more when one of “its” oxen are gored, but that’s pretty much true of everybody within whatever grouping you might come up with.
It’s kind of hard to get excited over the lack of lefty outrage over this, unless you think “the left” is angelically principled – as McKinney obviously does. ;^)
Sorry, but the fact that the left, generally, isn’t hugely embarrassed and pushing back against this episode is a very, very sad commentary on the left’s evolution.
You undercut your argument, McKinney, by generalizing and moralizing against “the left, generally”. I have stated my own opinion that what happened was a shame, but many of the comments regarding Eich’s status as CEO are relevant to the amount of outrage I (as someone who might be part of “the left”) feel. Eich is a wealthy, talented man, and can, and probably will, do other things. In fact, he was apparently offered a different position at the company that he co-founded and perhaps loved. (In other words, he could have stayed there.) He has a lot of options in life, more than most employees fired “at will” by employers.
Pushing back? What does that even mean in this context? If Eich were a KKK member, I would not want him as CEO of a company that I had anything to do with, even though being a KKK member is his right. I don’t happen to believe that Eich’s support of Proposition 8 is equivalent to being a KKK member. Because the marriage issue is a complicated cultural one (in my opinion) it’s not the “single issue” on which I would judge someone a bigot.
That’s why I’m “troubled” but not “pushing back”.
I suppose that’s a bit too dismissive. I do care, but I’m not moved to action, or even loud protest. It’s a fait accompli, and it’s something that happens all the time in lower-profile, less hot-button matters. I’ll save my breath for times when it might matter, and I’d be highly critical of suggestions that refusal to go ballistic over this instance of pretty typical corporate exercise of Freedom™ is insightful and informative.
Navy chemists have processed seawater into unsaturated short-chain hydrocarbons that with further refining could be made into kerosene-based jet fuel. But they will have to find a clean energy source to power the reactions if the end product is to be carbon neutral.
I admit that my inital thought was that they were extracting hydrocarbons from the abundant biota in seawater. Plankton, and other smaller stuff. But it appears, assuming that Yahoo News got the details right of course, that they are doing something more like electrolysis of water for hydrogen for fuel. Which would be far harder to do efficiently. Especially, to do it and come up with anything that would work in unmodified existing engines.
So my guess is that the report got things a bit muddled. So there may be something interesting here. But we may have to wait a while to determine exactly what they are doing and what it was.
I admit that my inital thought was that they were extracting hydrocarbons from the abundant biota in seawater
Good God man, think of the jellyfish!!
The jellyfish are going to win, in the end.
I don’t think the Left’s intolerance chops are much up to snuff, compared to the professionals, despite my jokey (sometimes not) attempts to whip people into shape around here.
Bottom line, I don’t think Eich should have been fired from his job and I don’t believe he should be forced by societal or political sanction into marrying a man just to keep his job and to hide his heterosexuality from the rest of us.
Neither do I believe he should be prevented from marrying a woman, or two, in succession, not simultaneously, let’s not carried away.
Andrew Sullivan, whom I enjoy because of the sheer eclectic variety of his interests, has gone into full snit status also over the past year or two over the intolerance (Benghazi) of the Republican (birth control) Party (we can’t afford to have those with preexisting conditions on the health insurance rolls) and the Tea Party (Obama the witch doctor, Kenyan born and blah blah) etc etc, and we’ve never has anyone take the time to observe that he agrees with most of the commentariat here at OBWI on those matters …
… but I agree, I should chill out and be more tolerant, which will cramp the rants but I need a rest anywho.
Maybe if the Democrat Party would field some Presidential candidates who compared marrying someone from the opposite sex to bestiality and accuse men who use condoms of being eye-batting Beast whores of Babylon and went out of their way to discern the upside of white slavery, I would be more secure in believing liberals were keeping up their side of the intolerance bargain in this country.
So companies shouldn’t be able to fire employees for any or no reason, and society at large should have a say in the operations and employment decisions of privately held corporations?
Mr. Employment A’ht Will, please meet Ms. Expansive Right D’free Association.
It goes without saying that political ideologies need not be internally consistent in order to be politically effective.
I speak from experience 😉
Slarti,
I found this.
Seems to answer a few of the questions that came up on the subject.
And yes….the jellyfish are winning.
Good God man, think of the jellyfish!!
Ah, but I am thinking of the jellyfish. After all, if the Navy is getting fuel from sealife, they suddenly care, a lot, about keeping the sea life going — including the jellyfish. And if the Navy is pushing ecological issues, that’s the one way it might get thru the current Congress. N’est pas?
“Which would be far harder to do efficiently.”
Efficiently or not, it’s just a way of storing energy generated in some other way, and there will be losses from the original source. But, of course, I can see why the Navy would be interested, given large ships with nuclear power plants. They could manufacture on them the hydrocarbon fuels needed to run the smaller vehicles that don’t have nuclear power plants.
Someone in the comments section to one of the articles did a quick calculation and came to the conclusion that the process would be too slow to hold up with consumption and would pale in comparision to the amount of jet fuel a Nimitz carrier usually carries. It’s not a question of reaction kinetics but the energy needed that has to be drawn from the nuclear reactors with their high but still limited output (the commenter estimated 800 gallons per hour when 10% of the reactor output is used for the process, not even starvation rations for the usual complement of planes).
there’s also the issue that things which didn’t used to be insults become insults. and “retarded” is the perfect example. it was, at one time, used exactly as “learning disabled” is. it wasn’t an insult. it was just a flat description of a condition. it turned into an insult over the years and is being replaced by “learning disabled” and other terms. but if you haven’t been paying attention, you might still think “retarded” is an acceptable term.
That’s the key, isn’t it. Not paying attention. The world is changing, and if you don’t pay attention, you might find yourself getting a lecture cause you say ‘honeybuns’ to a waitress or referring to someone as being a ‘mongoloid’.
Cause, the thing is that a term like mongoloid was a scientific word, (cause the facial features of people with Down’s syndrome have a vaguely ‘Oriental’ look) just like the terms, moron, imbecile and idiot (in case you were wondering, they represented IQs of 51-70, 26-50 and 0-25). But they were also embedded in a worldview that had races as corresponding to different levels of development and IQ as being hereditary.
There is a wonderful phrase in Japan when you talk about someone who doesn’t quite seem to be with the program, which is KY and it stands for kuki yomenai. kuki means air or atmosphere and yomenai means unable to read, so it is a person who can’t pick up on social clues. you see KY in a lot of chats, and supposedly, there is a SKY, which stands for Super kuki yomenai. While I’m sure that KY will eventually bite the dust, what is represents, the person who just doesn’t seem to realize that times have changed, is a neat image, at least to me.
I am going to crossthread this by noting that McKTx is quoting Andrew Sullivan for the smack.
Which…no. Not even for the game point.
Thanks for the link, bobbyp. For me, the takeaway line is this:
Cathode means they’re electrolyzing seawater, in addition to the CO2 extraction. Which takes some power input, for any appreciable H2 to be generated.
Which brings me back to Nucular.
I don’t know how many of you follow the NFL, but I – vaguely – do and am slightly amused (bemused) by the almost chronologically coincidental release by the Philadelphia Eagles of talented-but-troubled wide receiver DeSean Jackson, even at the cost of eating a large chunk of his remaining contract, I believe. This caused great kerfluffle in many quarters insofar as it may or may not have hinged on Jackson’s ongoing relationship, if any, to a certain Los Angeles gang (Crips??) from his old neighborhood, and Sides Were Taken. Some say he’s just a giant pain in the ass and thought more of himself than of the team; others decry this view as racist.
If I cared more about the Eagles (or the NFL) I would have followed more closely, but the main lesson I learned from following the discourse at a distance is that We [the general public] Just Don’t Know. When it comes to a controversial personnel decision by a major corporation, most of the time we simply do not have the information on which to base an informed opinion as to the rightness or wrongness of this decision. This of course does not prevent us from having and spouting uninformed opinions – isn’t that why the gods gave us the internet? – but I hope it would inoculate us somewhat against excessive certainty and over-righteousness in defense of these opinions.
FWIW, in this case the victim, Jackson, has already signed a new contract with a competing firm (the ill-named Washington Redskins) and stands to make some $33 million on the two contracts, so he’s not suffering as much as some.
That’s the key, isn’t it. Not paying attention.
it is.
and it’s something that happens to most people as they get older. a person stops caring about staying on the cutting edge, then about being on the blade at all; then he stops knowing why things need to be cut, and thinking it might be better if some things were simply left whole. but kids, they be cuttin.
As an Eagles season ticket holder, I can tell you in all honesty that all I care about is whether releasing Jackson comes back to bite them on the ass when they play the Redskins. I like watching people play football. All the background stuff bores the hell out of me. Sports-talk radio is one of the most stupidly annoying things in existence. Uninformed opinions – very strongly held ones, of course – abound.
Maybe someday, the world will know the real reason Kelly cut Jackson. Maybe not. Either way, it’s something that happened. And life goes on.
a person stops caring about staying on the cutting edge, then about being on the blade at all
boy can i relate to this.
my strategy these days is to just keep saying the stuff i said 40 years ago, and hope that it eventually comes back around.
either that, or the kids will all at least humor me and wipe the drool from my chin now and then.
can you dig it?
right on man!
Note that there are two interpretations (or more) to this, and both kinds can be more or less without rhyme or reason.
Sorry. Recent experience with this. Long, long story.
When I was in high school, the terms “solid” and “thorough” made a short comeback. I came to understand from The Cosby Show that those were actually terms used in jazz circles several decades prior, at least according to the grandparents on Cosby.
Much more recently, I came to understand from Jesse Pinkman on Breaking Bad that solid has (or at least had) made another comeback, but modified as “Do me a solid,” as in a favor.
Sports-talk radio is one of the most stupidly annoying things in existence. Uninformed opinions – very strongly held ones, of course – abound.
Why pick on sports-talk radio. You could have just said “talk radio” and been completely correct.
McKinney: Sorry, but the fact that the left, generally, isn’t hugely embarrassed and pushing back against this episode is a very, very sad commentary on the left’s evolution.
What kind of personal and/or political views would Eich have to hold for calling for his firing/resignation would be okay with you, McKinney? Let’s assume for the sake of argument that it has been demonstrated that he has not acted on these views in the workplace.
Anything?
I just think McK has a very, very sad life if he can’t find anything more to be outraged about than this – a corporation firing its CEO. Whoopdee.
What about DeSean Jackson?! (see my comment above) Shouldn’t a fellow’s gang connection – not work-related – be sacrosanct? Where was McKT when this travesty of justice took place?
In other news, however, which may be good news for him: the McCutcheon app, now on the market, apparently.
Why pick on sports-talk radio. You could have just said “talk radio” and been completely correct.
why pick on talk radio. you could have just said “talk” and been completely correct.
I suspect MckT has a fulfilling life.
I do, too. I think he just likes going after “the left.” I don’t know if it’s some lawyerly rhetorical ploy to throw liberals off their game or what. Maybe it’s just a tick. It’s easier to attack a faceless movement than individual people making specific points. It’s a form of meta-argumentation, I suppose.
Not that there’s anything wrong with meta, since we’re more or less doing it now – especially me.
It’s always “me, me, me.” What about “ta”?
do and re come first.
do and re come first.
Yay, a musical cue!
Since Sullivan was invoked the other day, he had this up this morning:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9bX5mzdihs
I think McKT was just saying we need to have more love and understanding, and THAT’s ALL!
I shall resume regular broadcasting soon enough.
“Yay, a musical cue!”
So I spent three hours on a really nice musical journey triggered by this. It took me to Other Voices, Other Rooms Nanci Griffith (includes Do, Re, Mi). Then to Old Yellow Moon (Emmy Lou and Rodney Crowell) and then somehow ended on Leon Russell’s new album Life Journey that includes his version of New York State of Mind, new enough I couldn’t find it on youtuube, but it is on Spotify.
this is what I do with my spare time.
Nice!!!
I may have to follow along your footsteps a little later on today Marty.
What kind of personal and/or political views would Eich have to hold for calling for his firing/resignation would be okay with you, McKinney? Let’s assume for the sake of argument that it has been demonstrated that he has not acted on these views in the workplace.
I can’t think of any personal views, assuming they don’t manifest in the workplace, that would justify the treatment Eich got. There was a time, and it may still be a meme on the left, when the Hollywood Blacklist loomed large in the lefty world as an example of conscience being punished unfairly. The differences here seem minimal.
As for Dr. Ngo, his minimalist characterization of what actually happened simply underscores my point. The Count is right: I do have a very fulfilling life and one that doesn’t have me policing other people’s political views, or religious or what have you, as an employment criteria.
I favor marriage equality–not a majority position in TX and certainly not a majority position among my friends. Yet, they remain my friends and I remain employed. By the standards of the left, I could be socially ostracized and hounded out of my job–I am at the top of my food chain, so seemingly I will be ok if I am run off the job.
By the standards of the left
Given the number of folks ‘of the left’ here who have expressed discomfort or an unwillingness to support the boycott, I don’t think that phrase means what you think it does.
So, a professed view that Osama bin Laden’s cause is just would be ok?
By the standards of the left, I could be socially ostracized and hounded out of my job
so we’re pretending people are never fired, or prevented from taking a job in the first place, for being liberal ?
why would we do that?
By the standards of the left
I guess what I’m unclear on is what a reaction “from the left” would have to consist of in order to avoid the appearance (or reality) of hypocrisy.
How come no stories on Cliven Bundy, its pretty interesting about what the BLM is doing to this man and how the people are standing up against the oppression of the federal government.
“I can’t think of any personal views, assuming they don’t manifest in the workplace, that would justify the treatment Eich got.”
I can’t either, but “manifest in the workplace” is a sticky wicket.
Wal Mart fires union organizers. Catholic schools, and some public schools, unload gay staff members, though until recently, I guess one’s personal views on sex with minors manifesting in the workplace was only good for a transfer to a another parish.
I’m not sure what’s going to happen when a Vice President at Hobby Lobby mentions during a conference call that she’s a little uncomfortable with the birth control prohibition through their health plan, but I have a feeling it will be announced as a resignation, ha, ha.
As for Chick Fil-A, there’s gotta be a gay person somewhere in the corporate hierarchy and down the road five years or so, they might even get married on the sly to a person of the non-contradictory gender, and that will be …
…. well, I think, we’re going to find out, aren’t we, as the tide is nurse-ratcheted back in the next Republican Administration and the “morality” posses take their seats in policy positions.
All kinds of lesser “personal views” are actionable on the firing front from the boss’s point of view — “Granderson, despite your spotless record around here, the grapevine says you think I’m a tyrant. How bout I prove it, and give you your walking papers.”
The primary problem is fire at will.
The secondary problem is Mozilla wondering if Eich’s previous personal views MIGHT somehow manifest in the workplace, despite my view that he should not have been fired.
I also notice Pat Buchanan is still in his current gig despite his latest paeon to Putin-love, but I imagine his employers don’t don’t mind the traitorous talk of a jackass as long as it’s directed at raising money/speech against a black President.
Frankly, I’m so against involuntary unemployment, that I felt a little sorry the other day that God fired Fred Phelps, and in fact, dragged him out feet first.
A good attorney could fashion an unjustified firing case.
Didn’t Phelps think He was the boss?
There was a time, and it may still be a meme on the left, when the Hollywood Blacklist loomed large in the lefty world as an example of conscience being punished unfairly. The differences here seem minimal.
I can probably agree with that and still not be beside myself over Eich’s highly encouraged resignation, assuming we’re talking about minimal differences in the underlying principles of the matters. The practical sides are very different, though.
For one thing, we’re not talking about an entire industry shutting many people out over their politics, to the point where they no longer have their once-happy careers – at all, as in “no longer in the movie industry.” Eich’s one guy at one company – a fairly unusual company, as has been pointed out several times.
The other difference is that many of the people black-listed in Hollywood were so over unsubstantiated claims. They didn’t even do the “wrong” things they were accused of or simply assumed to have done.
We’re talking about many people whose lives and reputations were virtually ruined. It remains to be seen how Eich’s life turns out after leaving Mozilla.
Getting back to the fact that the most favorable assessment here of Eich’s treatment seems to be “don’t know enough to have a strong opinion either way,” which isn’t sufficiently frothy, the question for me becomes – what would the point of outrage be? What exactly are we proposing to do about this?
Should we make it illegal for companies to let their CEOs go over political problems? Should we organize a boycott of Mozilla? Whose fault was it – Mozilla as a company or the individuals who boycotted Eich? Or both?
And if we’re going to look at this as a right/left kind of thing, is it possible that, to the extent that the right is highly critical of Eich’s treatment, it is because it is their anti-gay-marriage ox being gored?
I don’t think the right is really outraged. They sound outraged. But what they actually are is delighted. Ecstatic even.
It is always great, if you thrive on a sense of victimhood, to have an example to wave around. As the left learned long ago, and the right has embraced in the last couple of decades with great fervor.
Given the number of folks ‘of the left’ here who have expressed discomfort or an unwillingness to support the boycott, I don’t think that phrase means what you think it does.
I guess what I’m unclear on is what a reaction “from the left” would have to consist of in order to avoid the appearance (or reality) of hypocrisy.
“Discomfort” is at the higher end of the decibel level here. I quoted Sullivan and the Independent Gay Forum (I think) for what taking a real position looks like. The response here is weak beer, minimalist and exactly what sends the left into orbit when Limbaugh or someone of his ilk goes over the line and others aligned with the right are insufficiently vehement in their disavowals.
what would the point of outrage be? What exactly are we proposing to do about this?
Make it crystal clear, a la Sullivan, where the lines are drawn in a free, civil society and not parse details to justify mild pearl clutching and minimalist tut-tutting.
I don’t think the right is really outraged. They sound outraged. But what they actually are is delighted. Ecstatic even.
Good mind reading. I don’t think you’ll be called out for generalizing about the right. That doesn’t happen much around here. On the merits of your comment, it’s a poor rejoinder to sidestep the merits of a debate and question the motives of the people you disagree with.
So, a professed view that Osama bin Laden’s cause is just would be ok?
If verbalized in the work place, it would likely be disruptive. I don’t know where you work, but folks I work around tend to keep their politics and their religion to themselves. It’s a matter of manners. My partner is a very devout, down to the ground Baptist. If she proselytized at work, there would be a huge issue, but that doesn’t cross her mind. If you’re saying it’s all a matter of degree and that any idea, if enough people disagree with it, can be beyond the pale and justify what happened in Eich’s case, say so. Just don’t say you’re a liberal. You’d be a fascist. Note the use of the conditional word ‘if’. You’re not a fascist, but your liberal bona fides are in question. In the old days, liberals went to bat for unpopular viewpoints. Now they murmur disapprovingly.
so we’re pretending people are never fired, or prevented from taking a job in the first place, for being liberal ?
why would we do that?
If you have data to support this, I’d like to see it and I would endorse countering that kind of activity vigorously.
But, if you want to know where and how politics can drive employment, look at academia. Lefties abound, righties not so much. It’s probably coincidence.
On the merits of your comment, it’s a poor rejoinder to sidestep the merits of a debate and question the motives of the people you disagree with.
I was commenting on the discussion of the outrage on the right. Which is independent of the merits of either side in the debate over Eich. And also a valid subject for discussion, don’t you think?
And, if you read carefully, I noted explicitly that the embrace of victimhood is present on both ends of the political spectrum. (And that the left actually got there first.) You may have noted the long-standing (and frequently meritted) accusation from the right that the left is playing up the victim status of those who they are supporting (e.g. blacks, Latinos, etc., etc.). It isn’t particularly impressive mind-reading to note that one group or another frequently talks about how they are discriminated against, put upon, damaged, etc.
I don’t think you’ll be called out for generalizing about the right. That doesn’t happen much around here.
I believe that may be because wj has stated that he comes from being a relatively solid Republican to someone who is pretty disgusted with the way things have developed. (Corrections if I am misremembering) Trying to think of where people are coming from is kind of important in understanding the conversation and the ‘that doesn’t happen much around here’ is the polar opposite of that.
And while I don’t think ‘he started it’ is a good excuse, hsh’s observation that he can’t tell if what you do is a ‘lawyerly rhetorical ploy to throw liberals off their game’ or a ‘tick’ seems to be spot on. To me, it is more like a tell, indicating that you’ve found something really problematic and you are trying to misdirect attention. Do you want to mandate that companies can’t get rid of their CEOs if they do something that goes counter to their image? I really don’t think so. And, as the country moves towards an acceptance of gay marriage, having a CEO who is opposed is going to harm a brand just as surely as if a CEO is revealed to look at child porn or participates in a dogfight ring.
As far as academia, that’s a place where social pressure and conformance to the norms probably plays out more than anywhere else. You have to stand up and state your opinions, often and with gusto. Your advancement depends on the support of your peers. How could it not be where the social consensus presses in the most? That’s also why academia is often where changes get started because it is relatively easier to round up the smaller support for a position and then push it out. This can be good and bad, as I’ve tried to point out in my musings about how social pressure works. But making it some indication of the left/right divide is, to my mind, just another ploy to distract. Maybe you are coming to this with a Gomer Pyle innocence, just baffled by this crazy mixed up world and wondering why Sgt. Carter is yelling all the time. I don’t think so, but it’s always a possibility.
hsh’s observation that he can’t tell if what you do is a ‘lawyerly rhetorical ploy to throw liberals off their game’ or a ‘tick’ seems to be spot on. To me, it is more like a tell, indicating that you’ve found something really problematic and you are trying to misdirect attention
Honestly, LJ, just when I think I follow, you throw me off. I get the first sentence–I don’t agree, but I get it. The second, sorry, but ‘I’ve found a problem and I am trying to direct attention away from it?’ Not tracking.
The line between principle and partisanship is clearest when one’s own side screws up publicly. Partisans rationalize, parse, minimize, misdirect (turnabout!) and so on. Others see the larger problem and call out the zealots. If this is lawyerly, fine, but dismissing someone’s argument based on his/her work rather than engaging is a form of ad hominem. HSH engaged.
But making it some indication of the left/right divide is, to my mind, just another ploy to distract.
I don’t work in academia, but I did attend college and law school. In addition to witnessing it, I’ve read study after study confirming the heavy leftish tilt of academia. If you deny this, fine. My point was limited to a comment Cleek made, implying that lefties are victims of employment discrimination. I pointed out the one area where just the opposite seems to be the case. Factual disputation is not misdirection. Again, ad hominem.
McKinney,
A study regarding the chance of being fired for being a union activist during a union recognition election campaign can be found at:
http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/dropping-the-ax-update-2009-03.pdf
The penalty for such behavior is a civil matter, not criminal. Resolution is time consuming. Restoration of some missed pay is about all one can get if the one fired wins in court (i.e., no punitive damages). Employers routinely fire union activists as a “cost of doing business”. It costs them virtually nothing.
As to the left wing tilt of academia, I can only retort with reference to the decidedly right wing tilt of the managerial and ownership class.
Pray tell, which of these two groups has more political power?
Make it crystal clear, a la Sullivan, where the lines are drawn in a free, civil society
Where are the lines drawn in a free, civil society?
If a corporation that identified itself with some set of explicitly stated conservative values somehow blundered into hiring somebody with a record of public actions not in compliance with those values, and that corporation cut him loose, I doubt you would hear a chorus of “left-leaning” howling about the injustice.
You sure wouldn’t hear it from me.
Take your pick. Hobby Lobby, Covenant Trucking, Buck Knife, Papa John’s, Chick-Fil-A. Somehow one of them hires a CEO who donates $1,000 to some organization or other that supports the legalization of gay marriage, and they cut that person loose.
It won’t bother me.
The lines drawn in a civil, free society are that private corporations are free to hire and fire at will, *especially* in high-visibility positions like CEO, where the mutual obligations and responsibilities between company and officer are generally spelled out in excruciating detail, and the general public has bugger-all to say about it.
Do I think it’s a shame that Mozilla and Eich couldn’t work something out? Yes, I do, because Eich has paid his dues there, and in general I don’t think people’s private values should enter into workplace dynamics. Assuming they don’t deliberately insert them there, which Eich apparently did not do.
But “gee it’s a shame” is as far as I’m going to go, whether it’s a conservative or liberal putsch, because private contracts are the concern of the folks involved.
Those are the rules we live by here in our free and civil society.
I don’t work for Mozilla, Mozilla doesn’t speak for me, nor do I speak for them. Not my company, not my cross to bear.
If we want to open the conversation about corporations having some broader responsibility to social norms values and interests, I’m all for it, but I’m sure as hell not hearing any kind of groundswell in that direction from “the right”, whoever they happen to be.
McTX: I’ve read study after study confirming the heavy leftish tilt of academia. If you deny this, fine
I for one do not deny it. I attribute it to the “leftish tilt” of learning, knowledge, expertise, and so forth.
–TP
The response here is weak beer, minimalist and exactly what sends the left into orbit when Limbaugh or someone of his ilk goes over the line and others aligned with the right are insufficiently vehement in their disavowals.
Ya know, maybe I don’t frequent the right left circles, but insufficient outrage outrage has always struck me as a predominantly rightwing game, and it’s never impressed me as one worth wasting one’s time on in any case. We all have limited time and attention, and claiming that we must – must – not just publicly proclaim our disapproval of each and every outrage presented to us, but proclaim it with vehemence meeting some arbitrary and fluid standard or be complicit with it is preposterous. Full stop. It’s the same breed of idiocy that assigns worth to loyalty oaths.
You complain constantly about mindreading, McK… I’d be fascinated to hear how your insistence here that you can draw broad, deep, and insightful conclusions from the intensity of “the left’s” expressions of distaste for Eich’s dismissal is somehow different from that most awful of rhetorical sins. I’m not saying a case can’t be made for drawing conclusions, but I’ll freely assert that if this doesn’t exceed the threshold for mindreading, your typical usage of that phrase is seriously drawn into question, because this represents a great deal more unsupported assumptions and generalizing speculation than what you typically protest against.
I’m assuming that the first sentence is the one you are quoting? I’m also assuming you are a poker player and the one thing you do as a poker player is try to control your ‘tells’, so you aren’t letting someone know you are bluffing because your nostrils flare or you are tapping on your chips. And to me, whenever you bring up this unified vision of the left, you are telling me, ‘there is something here that I really see as a problem for my worldview, so I need to change the subject’.
In this case, it is that you definitely don’t want the government making decisions for companies in who is their public face, yet if you accept that public outrage can change that, companies are going to move away from conservative values. So ‘The Left’ needs to stand up for people who take on positions that they don’t agree with so as to give companies cover for keeping them on. This New Yorker blog post is rather interesting in explaining the situation, which shows there were lots of other things in the pot, so your singular devotion to discussing this as something of ‘The Left’ kind of misses the point.
But I was talking about you, and the reason I suggested it is a tell is that I hope you can see, in the context of a poker game, that mindreading is the purpose of the exercise and I’m baffled why, in discussion, people aren’t supposed to ‘mindread’ and instead examine every word as it was born anew.
You want to claim this is ad hominem, but your arguments don’t start at zero every time you put them out, they come from your point of view and personality and personal choices and the rhetoric and patterns you have established. I am noting, like hsh, that you go to this notion _a lot_ and I am correlating that with the fact that it is, in my memory, always to call out ‘the left’ on something. It is never to explore what _individuals on the board_ are thinking, so I tend to assume (or mind read as it were) that you are deflecting.
You might complain that I’m not engaging with your discussion, which is true, because it seems that when you invoke ‘the Left’, you are weighed under by your own baggage and I’m not sure if there is anything I can say to have you take individual opinions into account. You can tell me I’m wrong (people do it all the time), and I’m not going to go rooting through the comments to find other examples. However, any number of folks here have noted that this is a go-to trope for you, so you may want to wonder why that is. If you have another reason (other than ‘well, the Left is bad’), I’d love to hear it, but you seem to have a very fixed idea of some construct in your head that you have labeled as ‘the Left’ and you are determined to trot it out every chance you get, and I’m just not sure that is going to convince the jury, counselor…
I would endorse countering that kind of activity vigorously.
counter away:
two different people fired for being atheists: http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/religion/2010-05-29-fired28_st_n.htm
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/02/05/it-must-be-tough-to-be-an-athe/
fired for being liberal:
http://www.tcstangs.com/forum/showthread.php?124251-Fired-for-being-a-Liberal
fired for being insufficiently homophobic:
http://www.liberalamerica.org/2014/01/03/kluwe-vikings-punted-gay-ally/
29 sates where you can be fired for being gay:
http://www.upworthy.com/29-states-can-fire-you-for-being-gay-is-your-state-one-of-them
i could go on all day.
and maybe i will….
fired for supporting Obama:
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2009/10/16/77285/worker-at-kansas-company-claims.html
fired for supporting the Democratic party:
http://www.allgov.com/news/unusual-news/another-case-of-being-fired-for-supporting-obama?news=840003
gun maker CEO fired for supporting Obama:
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-10-30-gun-ceo-ousted_N.htm?csp=15
ooh… that last one is fun:
but, yeah. it’s all about The Left.
look at academia. Lefties abound, righties not so much. It’s probably coincidence.
Nah, we’re just smarter…
Ok let me rephrase that: the conservative mindset doesn’t generally nurture the critical thinking skills favoured in academia.
I’ve read study after study confirming the heavy leftish tilt of academia
When I finished college, Ronald Reagan had just become President, and no conservative on the planet wanted to go into academia.
Academia was for losers, people who wanted to sit around and navel-gaze all day, people who didn’t have the gumption and raw animal spirits to go get a real, money-making job.
All of the conservative kids wanted to get into investment banking and M&A.
What you describe certainly contains several grains of truth, but I’d say there is some self-selection involved.
Last year, a similar outpouring of outrage derailed the career of Wyoming outdoorsman Jim Zumbo after he denounced the use of assault rifles for hunting.
Also Dick Metcalf, at Guns & Ammo.
Some workplaces have, for good or ill, a social stance. If you don’t comply with it, you may not fit in, your presence there may become a distraction to everyone else, and you may therefore not be a good hire, especially for public-facing and/or leadership positions like CEO.
It’s a shame Mozilla and Eich couldn’t work it out. Mozilla’s an unusal place, in many ways, and there’s no evidence I can see that Eich’s ouster there represents a trend of people getting the boot due to being Not Liberal Enough.
In any case, his employment there is a matter of private contract between himself and Mozilla. Like Metcalf’s was with Guns & Ammo, and any of the folks in cleek’s long list was with their employers.
And unlike guys like Limbaugh, whose febrile rants actually do, incomprehensibly, have an effect on public policy, the wider effects of Mozilla’s board deciding to move Eich out are likely to be nil.
Other than giving Andrew Sullivan and the folks at Town Hall something to yell about, of course.
but, yeah. it’s all about The Left
No, it’s about whether freedom of conscience conflicts with the admittedly unenforceable right to one’s own views outside of the workplace. That said, your points are taken. Canning someone because of their personal views is disgusting. Ganging up on someone, as in Eich’s case, is a more egregious example due to the mob-like nature of the calls for his resignation. But, clearly the knife cuts both ways.
What is the solution? Denounce both sides, clearly and unequivocally.
Where are the lines drawn in a free, civil society?
There are no bright lines, as you probably know. Pushing back vigorously when a crowd publicly calls for punishing someone for his/her private political (or religious or what have you) views seems like an easy call for me.
So ‘The Left’ needs to stand up for people who take on positions that they don’t agree with so as to give companies cover for keeping them on.
I said “so as to give companies cover for keeping them on”? I missed that part, but if I said it, I retract it. I think I mentioned something about principle vs partisanship, but I could be misremembering.
And to me, whenever you bring up this unified vision of the left, you are telling me, ‘there is something here that I really see as a problem for my worldview, so I need to change the subject’.
This is an odd take on my views. I come here to debate and discuss with people on the left. I’m not aware of another venue that is as civil as ObWi. As for subject-changing, hmmmm . . . I’ll that go.
I am correlating that with the fact that it is, in my memory, always to call out ‘the left’ on something.
Such as when I discuss my support for marriage equality or my disdain for Sarah Palin, you mean like that? Or is when I try to hold the left to its own standards of tolerance and free and open debate?
Of course I fuss with the left here on many issues. I make the effort to do so substantively.
However, any number of folks here have noted that this is a go-to trope for you, so you may want to wonder why that is. If you have another reason (other than ‘well, the Left is bad’), I’d love to hear it, but you seem to have a very fixed idea of some construct in your head that you have labeled as ‘the Left’ and you are determined to trot it out every chance you get, and I’m just not sure that is going to convince the jury, counselor…
If you want an echo chamber, I can withdraw from ObWi. I have no interest in conservative echo chambers and I am, as stated above, unaware of any discussion group that is as congenial as ObWi. It seems to me that your complaint about me is that I complain about the left. Well, yes I do, when I disagree. That is the entire point. That is what people who don’t agree with the left and who come here do.
To flip your argument, you seem to resent any criticism of the left if it comes from the right. Ok, fine. Seems a bit thin-skinned to me, but since most of my friends’ heads explode when I depart from hard right doctrine, this isn’t my first rodeo (as we sometimes say here in the PRT).
If you want an echo chamber, I can withdraw from ObWi.
i vote No on both.
To flip your argument, you seem to resent any criticism of the left if it comes from the right.
Maybe, but the thing is that there are individual people here on this blog writing specific things. I don’t get the point of criticizing “the left” for not reacting strongly enough to one guy’s forced resignation when we can simply discuss what we all personally think of it. Even if everyone here started writing comments about how terribly wrong the whole thing was and how incensed they were over it, would that mean “the left” was appropriately outraged?
Or is when I try to hold the left to its own standards of tolerance and free and open debate?
Maybe you’re misapplying those (obviously wonderful and superior to the right’s) standards. Maybe this one instance just isn’t that big of a deal in the grand scheme of things.
Ganging up on someone, as in Eich’s case, is a more egregious example due to the mob-like nature of the calls for his resignation.
What, specifically, was mob-like about it? I ask in all honesty.
(What actually happened was, at the left’s monthly meeting, we had a very full agenda and ran out of time to agree on the outrage level to express over Eich’s resignation. Sullivan went one way, russell went another, sapient was somewhere in between. It was a mess. I think a few of the district managers even failed to send in their district-sentiment summaries to the national council for evaluation. We really need to get out sh1t together.)
hsh hits the notes I wish I were good enough to reach. I try not to think of what you say as ‘The Right’ (and I don’t think I’ve ever said ‘As McT, who represents the Right, says’), and I try to engage with you bearing in mind your background, and what I know about you. I’m not trying to kick you out, I’m merely suggesting that your tic, or lawyerly ploy of talking about ‘The Left’ as an entity doesn’t really do it for me.
A more fruitful line of inquiry might be in trying to figure out how a creed of tolerating intolerance can actually be meaningful. It is a paradox, but it is dealt with by having functional notions of what constitutes acceptable intolerance and merges with notions of appropriate social pressure. You’ve agreed that lines are drawn, but they aren’t altogether clear and they differ for different individuals. That seems to run counter to your suggestion that your job is to “hold the left to its own standards of tolerance and free and open debate…” cause if you agree that these lines are not clear and may be drawn differently by different people, those ‘standards’ are illusory.
I appreciate that you are exploding heads on the far right, but I don’t think that exploding heads stands as proving that you are correct. While many people feel that they must be right because people on both sides get upset with them (something that defines Sullivan’s shtick to a T), I don’t think that is actually correct.
me: So, a professed view that Osama bin Laden’s cause is just would be ok?
McKinney: If verbalized in the work place, it would likely be disruptive. I don’t know where you work, but folks I work around tend to keep their politics and their religion to themselves. It’s a matter of manners.
I guess I should have included more detail on what I was thinking. Replace Eich’s donation to support Prop. 8 with a publicly disclosed donation to, say, the KKK PAC that advocates for the restoration of Jim Crow laws. That’s just fine and he can continue as CEO, as long as he didn’t bring it up at the workplace?
If you want an echo chamber, I can withdraw from ObWi.
i vote No on both.
Seconded.
Also, when did Sullivan become a liberal? I thought he was supposed to be America’s Own Burkean, on loan from Old Blighty.
I’ve read study after study confirming the heavy leftish tilt of academia
When I finished college, Ronald Reagan had just become President, and no conservative on the planet wanted to go into academia.
These things change over time. When I was in college (late 1960s) there certainly were a lot of very liberal professors — Berkeley was just developing its ultra-liberal reputation. But there were also a lot of quite conservative ones. And (just to be complete) several rather libertarian ones. This is an over-simplification, of course — a lot of my engineering professors, for example, were generally conservative but socially libertarian.
So I would say that any vision of “left-leaning academia” needs to take account of both the historical record of academic fads changing. And the fact that academia is not, in fact, all the same. (Notice that John Yoo is a professor at ultra-liberal — at least by reputation — Berkeley.)
when did Sullivan become a liberal?
Sullivan appears to be “conservative” in the British sense — someone who is loath to make changes until they are demonstrated to be necessary. But quite willing to make changes once that threshold is crossed.
But he is “liberal” in the American sense of “anyone who is not on the right of the core of the Republican Party.” Which in Britain (let alone Europe generally) would be well to the right of not just their conservative parties, but even their far-right “nut job” parties.
Also, when did Sullivan become a liberal?
We let him come to the meetings where, among certain other issues, same-sex marriage is relevent to the the subject under discussion. He’s an a la carte kind of guy and gets special status because of his influence.
You should know all of this already, russell. You’re a district manager, for crying out loud.
as a gay man who criticizes “conservatives”, what else could Sullivan be but liberal?
I will never, ever be able to spell “relevant” right the first time.
You’re fired!
If there’s one thing the usually tolerant left is intolerant of, it’s spelling errors. And to think I was being nominated for membership on the national council. I was so looking forward to reading russell’s district-sentiment summaries.
Isn’t it the unusually tolerant left?
Sullivan became a liberal when he realized how many more page views he could get from the “transition” and ultimately the more liberal base. It is, after all, his job.
Isn’t it the unusually tolerant left?
Yes, here on the left we only tolerate the unusual.
Sullivan became a liberal
Sorry man, until he publicly denounces Burke and takes the bust of Oakeshott off of his mantle, he can’t join the club.
Even we lefties have our standards.
Funny though, russell, I never see a conservative quoting him. He must be some Centro-conservative.
Lefty standards are, like, metric.
Funny though, russell, I never see a conservative quoting him
The only person I notice quoting him is John Cole, and then all his (Cole’s) commenters give him crap about it.
I must not be reading the right people.
I think I read his (Sullivan’s) blog once or twice, maybe about ten years ago. It must have been before he saw the light.
I thought he was kind of a jerk.
Lefty standards are, like, metric.
You got that right!!
And our district meeting minutes are recorded in Esperanto.
Us Centro conservatives only have our meetings recorded by Carter film and sound inc. And, of course, we can’t spell Esperanto.
LOL, here’s one from Andy’s now-404’d greatest hits:
Good times.
I like these, too:
And this one:
Maybe when these folks muster out they can be re-trained to be Sullivan’s butler, valet, and downstairs maid.
He’s a Burkean, all right. Some people are born to rule, and you can tell who they are because they have property.
The rest of you peons, get busy and fight my war.
Asshole.
The woman who cleans my house is Brazilian. She and her husband are legal residents, they used to have a good business in Brazil, they were doing fine, but they wanted to come here. Now she cleans houses and he paints them.
Their kid is a Marine. He just started two years in Okinawa, which means he should probably play the lottery because he ain’t going to Afghanistan.
I’m happy to have people like my cleaning lady and her family come to this country.
I’d love to send Sullivan and his war-mongering nostalgia-for-empire Bell-Curve-pimping horseshit back to the UK. By my lights, there ought not be a place for him here.
Unless of course he wants to clean houses.
Us Centro conservatives only have our meetings recorded by Carter film and sound inc
Carter only recorded what the man said.
Carter reports, we decide.
Well we sure as heck don’t record them ourselves, even in Esperanto. It is way too much trouble to leak them that way.
I’d love to send Sullivan and his war-mongering nostalgia-for-empire Bell-Curve-pimping horseshit back to the UK.
In fairness to Sullivan, he has not only backed off his support for the wars, back in the early 2000s. He has said, explicitly, that he was wrong. (Which probably disqualifies him permanently for today’s far right. Or far left.)
Unless, of course, the Internet (where nothing ever dies) means that nobody is ever allowed to change their mind. Or “evolve.” Or do anything other than cleave rigidly to whatever positions they held when they first ever went on the web — even if it was at age 5.
Unless, of course, the Internet (where nothing ever dies) means that nobody is ever allowed to change their mind. Or “evolve.”
I’m sure his point of view has changed over time. I wonder if his character has done likewise.
Regarding the wars of the 2000’s, Sullivan was not just a supporter, he was an enthusiast. It’s great that he sees things differently now, he can join the club along with the other eleventy-million guys who are agin it now that it’s no longer the hip thing to be for.
This is what being “sorry for promoting a war” looks like.
“Oops, my bad” doesn’t quite cover it. It lacks a certain quality of regret, and of recognizing and accounting for the consequences of your being wrong.
Long story short, I’m not interested in reading the guy.
I can’t read Sullivan without having the audio from his interview with Hugh Hewitt run through my head.
I could be the only person this happens to, though.
We on the far, far left never admit error (except at show trials). We simply form another splinter group that puts out an incomprehensible jargon laden rag.
Thus we will, in time, have parties of one. The fall of capitalism and Freedom follows. This is inevitable.
The path to the pure anarchist paradise is strewn with many manifesto(e)s.
I can’t read Sullivan without having the audio from his interview with Hugh Hewitt run through my head.
I can’t read Moby Dick without Ahab’s voice sounding in my head like that of Mr. Crabs from Spongebob Squarepants. It’s a curse.
Regarding the wars of the 2000’s, Sullivan was not just a supporter, he was an enthusiast.
Not only that, he vilified opponents of the war using despicable rhetoric – a true sociopath. And terribly unserious, it’s all a game to him to satisfy his vanity and greed.
oh and this:
http://thedailybanter.com/2013/01/if-andrew-sullivan-is-the-future-of-journalism-then-journalism-is-fcked/
Maybe, but the thing is that there are individual people here on this blog writing specific things. I don’t get the point of criticizing “the left” for not reacting strongly enough to one guy’s forced resignation when we can simply discuss what we all personally think of it.
Well, of course everyone here is an individual–many of whom reflexively defend a charge leveled generally at the left and who also regularly generalize about the right. I go to bat for the ‘right’ side of things when I care enough about the issue and agree with that side–or, as I often attempt to do, point out that the criticism has elements of a double standard.
As I have been told more than once: if a criticism of a conservative point of view doesn’t apply to you, McKTex, then it doesn’t apply and don’t be offended by it.
Replace Eich’s donation to support Prop. 8 with a publicly disclosed donation to, say, the KKK PAC that advocates for the restoration of Jim Crow laws. That’s just fine and he can continue as CEO, as long as he didn’t bring it up at the workplace?
This is an excellent point. Eich did a mea culpa. The left forgave a certain senator from West VA who also did a mea culpa. Eich resigned under pressure, but that pressure came from below and from outside the company and the board reacted to it–weakly in my view. The distinction between giving Prop 8 1K and membership in the Klan seems significant to me, but not in an objective, bright line fashion–which raises one of the points Sullivan and others make: that giving to Prop 8 in 2008 was and is a viewpoint that requires discussion and persuasion, not shunning, as the means of civil discourse. So, is there, on the continuum of views, a line beyond which a civil society may rightly disassociate from a viewpoint, and if there is a line, who gets to draw it or does it move?
There likely is such a point, and membership in the KKK is beyond that point, but believing that marriage is between a man and a woman is not beyond that point. Side note: some of the more vocal supporters of SSM conflate the “God hates fags” school with the “marriage is between a man and a woman” school on the opposition side of SSM. I know a lot of people in the latter category, none in the former. There is a big difference.
In an effort to give that line some sense of meaning: once a view becomes widespread consensus, implying among other things that minds have changed in the process, as in burning crosses in people’s yards is beyond the pale, it is society’s right to disassociate. Other examples: advocating sex with children, cannibalism and gun control.
We on the far, far left never admit error (except at show trials). We simply form another splinter group that puts out an incomprehensible jargon laden rag.
I really have to find a client in Seattle.
Not only that, he vilified opponents of the war using despicable rhetoric – a true sociopath. And terribly unserious, it’s all a game to him to satisfy his vanity and greed.
He certainly did and has now done a 180 along with a very soul-searching mea culpa in which he gathered all of his writings on the topic in one place for people to view. Not a lot of people in the public eye do that. I agree with Marty that there are other reasons for this and, FWIW, he now employs similar rhetoric against Fox News and various other right wing bogeypersons.
I read Sullivan because in and among the histrionics, he occasionally reverts to an interesting contrarian persona and is quite engaging intellectually. There are some other closet Dish watchers here at ObBi, I’ll wager.
I must not be reading the right people.
You’d better not be. Hmm, maybe we need to have us a show review board of your purity credentials.
(And of course this is about the Greater Good, and not just us bucking for your chair on the national council.)
Perhaps the problem is that you are accusing ‘The Left’ of a sin of omission, whereas most of the complaints made of ‘The Right’ are about sins of commission. Of course, ‘The Left’, at least as it stands in the US, has the built in defense mechanism that ‘we’ are generally too disorganized to actually get around to sins of commission.
I think the part that I am stumbling over is that you feel you have discovered very real problems on the left and I’m just not seeing them. This usually happens when someone seizes on hypocrisy as a cardinal sin. (cf. Benghazi) You think you’ve identified something that is a problem for ‘the Left’ and you assume because we are squawking about what you have written, you’ve obviously found some home truth.
But what I and I think others are actually trying to tell you is that you are actually misunderstanding the dynamics of this. People have tried to point out various aspects, noting that there were a lot of other reasons that seemed to plug into this and one never knows the full extent of business decisions and when people say they want to tolerate a diversity of opinions, that doesn’t mean that everyone has to tolerate the go Osama poster in someone’s workspace, but you keep upping the ante and accusing anyone who says that you might be wrong about the conclusion about ‘The Left’ as being upset because it is their their ox being gored. Well, certainly, but as cleek points out, our oxen seem to get gored on a regular basis, so the charge of hypocrisy seems opportunistic. But again, I’m not trying to kick you out and if anything that I’ve said came across as saying that, I apologize, that was not my intention.
There are some other closet Dish watchers here at ObBi, I’ll wager.
Well, you can’t count me, because I’m not in the closet. 😉
On the general topic, we might profitably have a discussion of whether or not it is even possible for someone to take a wrong position and later change it. Is it possible to have that change accepted as a good-faith change? Especially if one is a public figure or a politician.
And if someone does have a change of position, how much do they have to do to demonstrate that it is something more than a gesture of convenience? Presumably that would depend, in part, on whether they merely agreed publicly with something, or argued for it, or took concrete action in support of it. But how much does one have to do in order for a change, and/or an apology, to be accepted?
I read Sullivan regularly for the sheer breadth of interesting subjects, trivial and substantive, that he covers.
It took me a long time to get comfortable paying attention to him again, after the, uh, tenor, of his attacks on those who spoke out against the war in Iraq, as several have mentioned above.
I even wrote him an email telling him to eff off.
I mean, “Fifth Column”? Give me a break.
This was unlike my return to reading John Cole, who reads everyone the riot act on everything, and for awhile did it as a Board member of Redstate, if I’m not mistaken, but his rants are kind of entertaining for the sheer scenery-chewing that goes on.
I have to say, though, that Sullivan invites trouble on all fronts, and likes it, because he goes off on fully cocked, righteous snits (articulate yes, perhaps eloquent at times, but rarely funny because he is one earnest individual) for and against whatever is cooking this week, like the Eich deal, and then comes back around after he settles down and THEN seems to want to hog the middle ground or wherever it is he lands on the continuum with equal fervor, high drama, and deep earnestness.
He goes after people who step outside his approval with both barrels.
So when others go after, say Eich, suddenly he finds others’ outrage an outrageous injustice.
It’s not so much tiresome, as it is tiring sometimes.
But I read him.
wj, can I front page your comment as the friday open thread?
Eich did a mea culpa. The left forgave a certain senator from West VA who also did a mea culpa. Eich resigned under pressure, but that pressure came from below and from outside the company and the board reacted to it–weakly in my view. The distinction between giving Prop 8 1K and membership in the Klan seems significant to me
Yes, I see a distinction between donating $1K to Prop 8, and being a member of the KKK.
However, I also see a distinction between “CEO of a private software company” and “US Senator”.
One instance is fundamentally a private concern, and I can’t think of a single conservative who would have it any other way.
The other is not.
And if someone does have a change of position, how much do they have to do to demonstrate that it is something more than a gesture of convenience?
I’d say there’s no standard answer to that. It depends.
Has Sullivan ever recanted on the Bell Curve thing? As noted, I don’t read him, nor do I read about him if I can avoid it, so I simply don’t know.
i used to read Sullivan because he is a reliable aggregator of interesting stuff. but he too often ends up taking a ridiculous position and defending it with an absurd tenacity, for weeks. and after a few of these episodes, i gave up. it was too tough reading a dozen posts a day watching him make a fool of himself. IMO.
As I have been told more than once: if a criticism of a conservative point of view doesn’t apply to you, McKTex, then it doesn’t apply and don’t be offended by it.
Well, you shouldn’t. And I’m not offended by what you’re saying about “the left.” I just don’t know what to do with it. It’s not a matter of verifiable fact. It’s an impression, and even if it were true, there would be nothing I could do about it if I wanted to. I can only change my mind, not the left’s (as though a conceptual political construct could have one).
It’s just a frustrating mode of discourse, especially when it becomes a regular thing. Usually, when people here do criticize “the right,” it’s over something more concrete than a lack of a reaction over what is, in the end, not that big a story. It’s usually about the advocacy of specific policies that people think are bad for the country.
Not to make this all about Sullivan (too late), but my take on him is that he’s basically a straight up British Tory who happens to live in the US.
So, property as a prime virtue, nostalgia for empire, and blood and guts war mongering as long as it’s some yob in the front line taking the heat, but not particularly hung up on social conservative shibboleths.
That puts him to the left of the American right, but it sure as hell doesn’t make him a liberal, either in the American or the UK context.
It may seem unfair to hold people to the standard of things they said ten years ago or more years ago, but ten or more years ago was a particularly important inflection point in this country, and the folks who held the positions Sullivan held did some real damage.
And that damage is well and truly done, and we’re still living with it and paying for it. And not just us. A lot of folks paid for it with their lives, and their livelihoods, and various limbs, and their sanity.
So basically I don’t feel like I need to give him any kind of fresh look.
There are some points of view that people can hold that require not just a change of mind, but a change of who they fundamentally are. Maybe that’s a corner he’s turned, which would be all well and good for him, but frankly I’m just not interested in his point of view on much of anything.
“Earth to Whitsett: you’re a soldier”. That’s right Andy, and you by god are not, and don’t want to be, and never will be whether you want to or not.
You just want to tell other people to go die. With very clever rhetoric and great-ish prose style.
And f**k yeah, I’m a lefty, and there are a number of things about which I am damned well intolerant.
I’m more than fine with it. That’s a hat I’ll gladly wear.
lj: sure. Feel free.
(was it something I said . . . ? 😉
And if someone does have a change of position, how much do they have to do to demonstrate that it is something more than a gesture of convenience?
Take David Horowitz. Please.
As an occasional/fringe member of “the left” on ObWi – perhaps only a fellow traveler, certainly not a candidate for even a regional committee – I feel I owe it to McK to explain my interjection into this thread.
It was calling our failure to suffer “huge embarrassment” – not just the ordinary or garden variety – and to “push back” with sufficient vigor a “very,
very
sad commentary” on our “evolution.”
It was the second “very” that got me. Without it, I still would have rejected the premise as just another instance of faux indignation over an episode that McK views with utter moral clarity, undisturbed by any potential ambiguity in either the facts of the case or the ethical premises invoked. If You Don’t Feel As Bad As I Feel You Should, You Are Shameful!!! hohum.
Such maximization of indignation calls for minimalism in response, but I probably wouldn’t have bothered to say so (hohum) without the second “very.”
Beware of rousing the sleeping pedant.
Two verys in the bush are worth one in the hand, so sometimes its worth killing one of them with one bemoan.
I see it now.
What you did there, I see it.
So in summary, the left is not indignant enough, the right really doesn’t care, the center is confused why we are even discussing it, Sullivan is a twit and Russell and I share some taste in music. Good thread.
Oh, and Russell has “household staff”.
inspired by this thread and wanting it to continue, Condi Rice has joined the board of Dropbox.
Oh, and Russell has “household staff”.
Yeah man! My toilet scrubbing, floor mopping, dust busting days are behind me.
I hope.
It’s good to be the king.
Mostly, both my wife and I work, neither one of us wants to do it, and we got no kids at home to rope into it.
So, we outsource.
I’m still waiting for the neighbor kid to get big enough to shovel snow.
Condi Rice has joined the board of Dropbox.
I guess I’m confused on the value that “former secretary of state” adds to an outfit like Dropbox.
The value that she adds to Dropbox? Proof at the top of them valuing of diversity. And, being both female and black, they get two for one!
Good thread.
Well, it is hopey changey.
now taking bets on: number of days until “conservatives” call for a boycott of CBS because Colbert’s taking over Letterman.
you can already hear the stirrings. O’Reilly & Shapiro are laying the foundation. he’s not “conservative” enough to tell jokes to insomniacs. he’s disrespectful of “conservative” positions. et. cet. er. a.
5 days.