In Reply: No... That ain't fascism you're smelling... It's freedom.

In reply to the following comment by ztitans1 at the post The absurdity of the Mozilla boycott - WashingtonExaminer.com:

"That is a slippery slope if you justify someone being driven from their employment due to their socio-political beliefs. I say you and those who think like this better get prepared for when the pendulum swings. Retribution may be swift and violent. People wil not react well as their liberties cocontinue to be taken away by the PC crowd. Tolerance of other people's views used to be part of the liberal philosophy, when did they crossover to tyranny?"
---

I believe in the public's right to decide which companies they do and do not give their money to, and to decide that based on whatever criteria they choose, including the socio-political beliefs of the CEO of the company...or their board of directors. Every conservative who is deleting their Firefox browser is behaving like they believe that too, in spite of their words calling such behavior FASCISM!! or a slippery slope.

No one's saying a person or corporate entity cannot have and express whatever views they wish...but if they take positions on controversial issues, there will be people--sometimes a whole lot of people--who will not do business with them based on those views. That is as true of the traditional marriage folks boycotting Mozilla today as it was the marriage equality folks boycotting them last week. That is what free speech and freedom in general is all about...

Honestly, I don't believe you really disagree with that, your vague but dire warnings to the contrary...

Tolerance of other people's views means live and let live, not limiting the legal rights and opportunities of certain people because you have a moral objection to how they live and love. If Brendan were tolerant, he wouldn't've financially supported a law that would refuse to allow or recognize marriage equality, and would retroactively strip the rights of legally married couples. Tolerance of other people's views does not mean one must passively accept whatever nonsense someone expresses. (If it did this conversation wouldn't be taking place; either you'd be "tolerating" my views, or I'd be "tolerating" yours... All that would be left to figure out is what omnipotent overlord gets to decide which of our views deserves "toleration" and which does not.)

I believe in free speech and the marketplace of ideas... You don't have to agree with me (or even tolerate me--at least the way you're defining it), I don't have to agree with (or tolerate) you, and each of us can decide which companies we will and will not spend our money supporting, based on whatever ideas and ideals we have and hold.

No... That ain't fascism you're smelling... It's freedom.
---

Posted Monday, April 7, 2014, 5:35 PM

In Reply: Boycotters Are FASCISTS!!! (unless I agree with 'em...)

In reply to the following comment from ztitans1 at the post The absurdity of the Mozilla boycott - WashingtonExaminer.com:

"Free speech includes making political donations. So says the SCOTUS. He has a right to make a political donation without being a victim of a political witch hunt."

You had me...and then you lost me. He has the legal and societal right to speak (whether by voice or cash). He does NOT have the legal or societal right to be free from others responding with speech of their own...not even if some call that speech "a political witch hunt."

When one reaches a certain level of public attention and scrutiny, the things one does and says begins to matter. And when one becomes the face of a major company, taking a position on controversial issues--even if one did so in one's past, and does not deftly handle that controversial opinion in the present--is likely going to alienate a portion of that company's customer and employee base. It's not that such people CAN'T take a position on divisive issues, but that they are courting divisiveness among the general public when they do.

And sadly, once the division starts, it's hard to stop... One side will boycott because they disagree with what a CEO said or did, unless and until the company responds positively to their boycott. And the other side will boycott if the company does whatever it is the first side asks for. To paraphrase a line from a movie from my youth, "The only way to win is not to play."

That isn't to say that a CEO and company cannot decide the controversial words or deeds are worth the cost; I admire Dan Cathy at Chick-Fil-A for the way he runs his business--especially his commitment to being closed the sabbath, which I wish every company would do--even as I disagree with his / his company's stand on marriage equality, and therefore continue to refuse to spend money there. (Full disclosure: This isn't a big sacrifice for me; The closest Chick-Fil-A location is over 50 miles away. But my heart's in the right place.)

But to deny there is a cost, or to claim that those who choose not to do business with a company because they disagree with what the CEO--or the board of directors--says or does are against free speech, or worse, are FASCISTS!! is absolute nonsense. The thing about free speech is that everyone gets to speak freely, including the people who use theirs to disagree with what what you said using yours.

(And my wonder is this; Should Mozilla respond to the "pro-traditional marriage" boycott by sacking the board of directors who "caved" to the "pro-marriage equality" boycott, will these people also call that "FASCISM!!" and stand for those poor fired souls? I suspect not...)
--

Posted (in two parts) Sunday, April 6, 2014, 11:45 PM (or so) and a little bit later'n that.

In Reply: Free Speech Does Not Mean Freedom From Critical Response (In fact, free speech ENCOURAGES it.)

In reply to: The absurdity of the Mozilla boycott | WashingtonExaminer.com

He wasn't forced out for his beliefs. He was forced out for donating money to those trying to make it a law that everyone--even folks who disagreed with him--had to live according to his beliefs, for not changing his mind--or at least acknowledging that this law forcing everyone to live according to his beliefs hurt real people--and, because that has turned out not to be such a popular thing to do, especially in his industry, for being a potential financial and media drain on the company that'd just made him their public face.

The thing about free speech (in the broad sense--by this point everyone is aware that this was not government action and is therefore not a 1st A issue) is that it does not protect you from other people using their free speech to criticize what you said using yours. He spoke his mind (money being speech, n'all), a lot of folks used their speech to disagree with him and seek remedy, and the free market had it's say, as well...

Those writing posts and deleting their FireFox browsers and other Mozilla products over this guy's resignation are not doing anything different that the folks who support marriage equality were doing a week or more ago because he was hired. I did not participate in the boycotts against the guy, and I don't personally believe he should've been forced out either, but my opinion, like those who're all up in arms now, did not prevail. They saw the landscape and made a corporate decision.

There's nothing wrong with folks who're passionate about an issue voting with their wallets and their feet, whether it's the marriage equality folks for the last few weeks or the traditional marriage supporters in the last few days. Sometimes it actually works.
--

Submitted for moderator approval Posted Saturday, April 5, 2014, 6:50 PM (or so...)

In Reply: Osama and the Twin Memes of the Right

In reply to a series of comments at Raid that got bin Laden was culmination of years of work, senior administration officials say | Philip Klein | Politics | Washington Examiner
---

Any chance you could cite that NYT article that discusses this 2007 discovery of the courier's name at Guantanimo by title and author... Because the article I read said they learned the man's name four years ago (2007), but doesn't say that any Gitmo detainee was the source of that info. (We did get his nickname from a detainee, but that was "not long after 9/11.") The article I'm reading is titled "Detective work on courier lead to breakthrough on bin Laden," and was authored by Mark Mazzetti and Helene Cooper. Please show your work as well because, as I've been saying in the comments to this same article posted here at the Washington Examiner ten minutes earlier, no one yet has offered anything conclusive on the twin memes that 1) closing Guantanimo anytime after 2004 or so would've had any effect on the killing of bin Laden, or 2) that harsh interrogation techniques elicited the intelligence that lead to the Abbott & Costello compound where bin Laden was located.

I look forward to your reply.
---

Posted 5/2/11 11:25 PM

In Reply: "Enhanced Interrogation" (Torture) Vindicated? Not So Fast...

In reply to the following comment at the Washington Examiner post Bin Laden raid was culmination of years of work, senior administration officials say:

"My reply is not to invoke frustration regarding your comment. But, it does make me question your involvement in such matters. You said 'we get'. Are you or have you personally been involved in such matters? The theory of , it is better to talk than fight always sounds better. The praticality of it is not always true. War has been around for a very long time. I would believe if just talking worked better...it would only be used. Physical and mental tactics are purposeful and effective."
---

I have not personally interrogated anyone, no. I'm willing to bet that the majority of us (that is, we Americans) similarly never have. I don't believe that my failure to do so should in any way negate my opinion on the matter, anymore than I believe that anyone who advocates in favor of war without ever having served in one is a chicken hawk. Our whole military structure is based on civilian leadership and oversight, and our government is similarly civilian lead and "overseen" by we, the people. As Americans, we have an obligation to speak up about the things our government is doing in our name... ...even if we haven't personally done those things, ourselves.

Further, I'm not advocating against war... I agree there is a time for talking, and a time for fighting. While I never thought Iraq was a particularly good idea (to this day... The ends don't justify the means.), I was never opposed to our invasion of Afghanistan, and I'm still not.

And, while I do question the effectiveness of torture (and it's euphemism, "enhanced interrogation"), that isn't the only reason to oppose their use. Even if they elicited nothing but 100% factual intelligence, they would still be morally and legally wrong. We Americans stand for a set of values, and one of them is that we treat others humanely, no matter how poorly they treat us. It is our values that define us and make us exceptional on the world stage. When we compromise them for short term gain--and as I said, I question whether there is any short term gain, besides--we compromise that which makes us who we are as a nation.

Since I posted my initial comment, Folks have been floating the meme that harsh interrogation tactics were responsible for some of the intelligence that lead to the killing of bin Laden. Facts in support have been sketchy, at best. (An AP report quoting unnamed sources...) Until I see something more definitive I'll have my doubts, but even if it turns out to be completely true, every word, I'll still believe that the use of torture goes against the values that make America great, and that we can get all the intelligence we need through the methods the military and law enforcement have always employed.
---

Posted 5/2/11, 10:38 PM

In Reply: "No, it's a Rightwing Victory, Dammit!!"

In reply to the following comment at Bin Laden raid was culmination of years of work, senior administration officials say | Philip Klein | Beltway Confidential | Washington Examiner

What a delicious irony it would be to discover the intel gained from the gitmo detainee was obtained by waterboarding. (There's no comment permalinks. This comment was submitted 5/2/11, approximately 8:35 AM, Eastern)
---

Waterboarding?

Where did you read that? Because this article says nothing about waterboarding, or anything about the circumstances under which the detainees in question gave up the information, including where they were held, even.

I know there are folks on the right who want to spin this as some kinda victory just for them, but the facts in evidence just ain't cooperating... It was a victory for us all, not just those espousing a particular political point of view. You might be better off being one of those tinfoil hat types (bin Ladeners?) who claim Osama bin Laden was killed years ago under Bush, and it's all been kept from the American public, up till now... I'm sure Trump has folks investigating...

On Edit: I didn't notice this was a fantasy comment, first time 'round (though I am right that no one said "gitmo," either)... But in reply, yes, it would be ironic... though from what I've heard, unlikely. Most of the reliable info we get comes from talking to those we interrogate, not by almost drowning them, or otherwise making them feel pain.
---
Posted 5/2/11, approximately 9:01 AM, eastern

Dr. Fred Gottheil and the "sanctimonious bigots" commenting at the Washington Examiner

In reply to: Prof calls fellow academics ‘sanctimonious bigots’ - Washington Examiner
---

Dr. Gottheil sent his Statement to these 675 professors as a private e-mail from his college account. There is no indication of how many actually received his unsolicited missive (vs the spam folder) and how many of the folks who did actually see it in their in box tossed it away before even reading it because they had no idea who he was. Then there are those who did read it, but saw that there was no rights organization affiliated with the e-mail, and ignored it as being unproductive.

The bottom line is, counting the number of people who didn't respond to a single unsolicited e-mail from a stranger that may or may not've even made it into their "IN" box is hardly the best way to determine who does and does not care about the rights of women or gay folks in Middle Eastern countries. (If you ask me, the real discovery here is the ineffectiveness of Dr. Gottheil's methods in taking action for human rights.)

What has Dr. Gottheil done for his cause since, other than excoriate his fellow professors for "their" lack of concern (obviously forgiving himself for his own lackluster effort to actually obtain those signatures.)?

What has American Thinker, FrontPage Magazine, or the Washington Examiner--or any member of their writing staff, readership, or sycophants done to help?

What have YOU done to help?

Has anyone here (or at any of those sites) posted Dr. Fred Gottheil's Statement of Concern Calling for Support Regarding Discrimination in the Middle East against Women, Gays, and Lesbians online and solicited signatures from their own readership and from the general public--right and left, liberal and conservative, muslim, gentile, atheist, or jew--rather than the relatively small subgroup that Dr Gottheil initially targeted with his piss-poor "cold call" e-mail campaign--a group who'd signed one relatively obscure petition over a year and a half earlier?

It's one thing to whine and complain and then consider yourselves so much more "moral" and "right" than the other side, but perhaps folks would take the lot of you more seriously if you actually did something yourselves regarding the issue, rather than bitch about what "they" didn't do, and what that says about "them." Perhaps it's time that some of you folks took a look in the mirror, instead.

I'm just sayin'...
---

Submitted for Washington Examiner moderator approval 9/23/10, 2:46 PM (WIS blog time)
Reposted without links (and thus, without moderator review) 4:35 PM or so.
---

To peruse all my other commentary on this subject, previous and since, click the "GOTTHEIL" label, below.

Also, Dr. Gottheil's Statement of Concern is now posted at PetitionsOnline.com, and is accepting signatures from anyone willing to speak out against human rights abuses in the Middle East. As you're obviously interested in the story, I urge you to step up and sign it: Support Regarding Discrimination in the Middle East against Women, Gays, and Lesbians Petition

In Reply: Not So Fast, Indeed - Shirley Sherrod and Wingnut Face-Saving, After Breitbart Burnout

In reply to: Shirley Sherrod's Disappearing Act: Not So Fast | Washington Examiner
---

Quite the speculative hit job.

"We're also wondering whether she beat her children, and how often. We're not saying she *did* beat them mind you, but throughout much of her life she has had children, a working pair of arms and other requisite body parts, AND consistent access to belts and other common household implements with which to beat them. This Washington Examiner reporter will get back to you when he knows more."

I'm not saying you shouldn't look into what may perhaps maybe be a story. But I am saying that this post as it currently stands is nothing but malicious (& likely partisan) speculation based on, well, absolutely nothing.
---

Posted 7/21/10, 1:45 AM (or so)

In reply: Only if you're a tea partier... RE: Did the Tea Party win the debate over the N-word accusations?

In reply to: Did the Tea Party win the debate over the N-word accusations? - Washington Examiner
---

No, I don't believe Breitbart and the Tea Party crowd have won much of anything, here. For all his bluster, @andrewbreitbart has no more proof that the incident never happened than the congressmen have that it did.

Sure, it would be nice if there were some kinda audio or video footage conclusively proving the words were or were not spoken, but I'm pretty sure that trees falling in the middle of the forest make noise, even when no one captures the sound on tape. And as the great 'pubbie philosopher once said, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

The eye witness testimony of the congressmen--and the tea party protesters, too--is apparently the only evidence there is, and after that, it all comes down to who we each find more credible. It's not surprising that for activists, anyway, the divide between who folks find more trustworthy falls along partisan lines.
---
Wingnuts and Moonbats X-post