80 thoughts on “The Left’s Attack On Brandon Eich”
So when you call for Michael Mann to be fired that’s conservative fascism?
Sure, if you think hounding a man out of his job for donating to a Proposition 8 six years ago is the same thing as academic and scientific misconduct, bogus lawsuits and contemptable behavior. If you do think those two things are equivalent, then your judgement is seriously flawed, to say the least.
I never called for Michael Mann to be fired. From what alternate reality did you post that comment?
It’s called “Chris Gerrib Reality,” RS.
Larry J – usually, calling somebody a fraud requires actually proving that they are a fraud. As far as contemptible behavior, attempting to revoke gay marriage after it was approved could certainly be considered contemptible.
Rand – So academic frauds should be allowed to keep their jobs?
Mr. Gerrib, egad you are boring.
I never called anyone an academic fraud. Again, what is the color of the sky on your world?
One can “covered up wrongdoing by one of its employees” but it’s a “what color is the sky on your world” to call that “academic fraud?”
Misconduct is not fraud. I’m sorry you have trouble with English.
If that were the case, then you wouldn’t be being sued
in court.
Your attorney’s aren’t denying you said certain words, just that
it’s Rhetorical Hyperbole.
Much like when people refer to the neocons as agents of influence of the
red bear, they argue that it’s hyperbole in rhetoric not that they didn’t call
someone a communist agent.
I’m not being sued for calling him an “academic fraud,” you moron.
I never called anyone an academic fraud.
Nit picking. You wrote that Mann molested data. Any scientist who molests his data is an academic fraud.
Words means things.
I’m not being sued for calling him an “academic fraud,” you moron.
The Anti-SLAPP motion to block the suit was denied precisely because Judge Weisberg took your statements to be calling Mann an academic fraud:
Accusing a scientist of conducting his research fraudulently, manipulating his data to achieve a predetermined or political outcome, or purposefully distorting the scientific truth are factual allegations. They go to the heart of scientific integrity. They can be proven true or false. If false, they are defamatory. If made with actual malice, they are actionable.
So apparently you can’t read.
As to the question of fraud, it remains to be seen if it can be proven. There certainly are a lot of legitimate questions about his practices and his refusal to provide the original data is far from the accepted practices of legitimate science. If he did commit fraud, then he deserves to be fired. Not because of what he has said but what he did.
California’s Prop 8 was such a odious idea that a majority of voters in one of the most liberal states in the country voted for it. If the man had discriminated against gays at Mozilla, then he deserved to be fired. If he did not, then he was fired for holding the same opinion on the matter as the majority of California voters, Bill and Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama until 2012.
sometimes past positions come back to haunt you.
Sen Byrd and Mr Justice Black had both been KKK members in their early 20’s.
Didn’t stop people like Rand from dragging it up, decades later, long after
it had all been forgiven. Byrd and Black worked hard to disavow their beliefs
as young men.
Eich like many has been on the wrong side of history and as a figure in a public role, his political activities harmed his ability to be effective.
Byrd and Black worked hard to disavow their beliefs as young men.
I guess 2009 was 5 years ago.
Ack.. 2001, so 13 years ago.
Give DN a break. Democrats have to defend KKK officers. It’s in their contract when they join the party of Jefferson Davis.
“…usually, calling somebody a fraud requires actually proving that they are a fraud. ”
This proves beyond a reasonable doubt (to me, at least) that you are an ignoramus.
People have been publicly calling other people frauds since before the founding of the Republic without being required to show proof. Have you read any history – at all? Did any of what you did presumable read make any impression on the incredibly lonely brain cell under your hair? (/rant)
Michael Mann should be arrested for defrauding the taxpayer. If I did the same things Mann did, I would be in prison.
Hey, once again Gerrib is accusing people of things they didn’t do. Some things never change.
Rand,
Can we Tar and Feather the Geribil’s Strawman this time?
+1
I believe the difference is fairly substantial between these two viewpoints:
1. Let’s fire Michael Mann because we think he is doing a lousy job of accurately predicting the causes and effects of climate, and is trying to use that (believed bad) information to effect policy.
2. Let’s fire Brandon Eich because he dared to oppose the liberal viewpoint on gay marriage, when his job has nothing to do with gay marriage.
A society that does this is not stable. You are removing voice from a class of citizens, effectively removing an important safety valve. From now on, if people like Brandon Eich want to effect change their only option is violence. You have removed debate as a viable option.
So don’t be surprised when this leads to war. Because it will, undoubtedly.
I’ve been told repeatedly by libertarians in this and other blogs that if we repealed the public accommodations portion of the Civil Rights Act, segregation would not happen. What I’ve been told would happen is that, if a business decided not to serve blacks, protests and other market forces would be directed at the owner such that they changed their policies.
In this case, the libertarians were right. Eich made public statements that customers and vendors of Mozilla found problematic. They exercised their free speech rights to protest and use market forces against Mozilla. The (private) Board of Directors then either suggested Eich resign or accepted his resignation when it was offered.
What you are seeking, D. S., is not free speech. You are seeking a right to not be criticized for speech.
Mozilla has always been deeply committed to honoring diversity in sexual orientation and beliefs within our staff and community, across all the project’s activities.
Except they don’t honor diversity in beliefs. If they did, the man would still have his job. He was canned because his beliefs weren’t the same as everyone else’s. A more accurate sentence would read: “Mozilla has always been deeply committed to honoring diversity in sexual orientation and beliefs within our staff and community, across all the project’s activities, so long as they agree with the gay rights lobby.”
IN what twisted reality is making making campaign donation, a factor in whether one is qualified
to do a job.
Let’s take a job where it might be applicable. So, chairman of DNC.
If chairman of DNC has in the past had donated to any politician was not a Democrat, is that a problem related to that person being the chairman of DNC?
Larry J and gbaikie – your replies ignore the salient point: the market has spoken and told Eich to leave. Who are you to argue with the market?
The market has had nothing to say about it. Yet.
Who are you to argue with the market?
…another part of the market, which has the same right to argue as any other part. You’re acting like “the market” magically stops where you decree.
I am not arguing with the market, but rather someone called Chris Gerrib who has no salient point and who has demonstrated a fascinating ignorance in libertarian philosophy.
If you’re arguing strictly market, then … we’re part of the market, —–.
There are other reasons, but to say “You can’t speak because it’s over” is beyond silly (but, sadly, all too typical). Or are you actively calling for the repeal of the 21st on the basis of “Shut up, they said.”
It wasn’t the market that spoke but the mob. There is a difference. The mob is made up of the activists and the perpetually agrieved who’ll happily move on looking for their next scalp. The market is, in this case, comprised of Mozilla’s customers. Did large numbers of their customers drop their products because of his campaign contribution in 2008? I don’t see much evidence of that. I do see the market speaking when thousands of their customers complain on Mozilla’s website and unistall their products due to his firing. It’ll be interesting to see how their market share holds up over the next several months. If they have fewer users, or if their market share decreases at a sharper rate, then you could say that the market disapproved of the company’s actions. If their share increases (or declines at a slower rate), then the market approved. Time will tell.
The difference is “Conservatives have called upon the State to use it’s powers to fire
Michael Mann from a professorship at a public university, while individuals have
called upon Mozilla to fire a individual from a private foundation”.
People have generally an expectation that the state will not impose upon them
for exercising their speech rights, particularly when it’s their job commenting
upon a matter of public concern.
Conservatives have called upon the State to use it’s powers to fire Michael Mann from a professorship at a public university
No one has done that, you moron. At least none of the people he’s suing have.
“No one has done that, ”
Oh, that’s a broad statement.
I wonder who the idiot is quoting, since he put what looks like his own statement in quotes. If it is not his own statement, he sure didn’t attribute it to anyone else. There’s so much wrong with that paragraph.
Ha!
I suppose it’s possible that he might be using “scare quotes”.
Let’s imagine a CEO who’s an anti-semite, or who disapproves of mixed-race marriages. Let’s say his views become known publicly, and various clients decide they don’t want their business to support that CEO’s success. Is the opinion here that the board of directors at the company — who are legally obligated maximize profits for their shareholders — have no right to remove this CEO for the good of the corporation and its profitability?
This is what you call totalitarian?
“Is the opinion here that the board of directors at the company — who are legally obligated maximize profits for their shareholders — have no right to remove this CEO for the good of the corporation and its profitability? ”
1) Depends upon the contract.
2) Quite often there’s a performance metric in the contract. Something along the lines of:
“If you don’t have the company start showing a profit by such and such a date, the Board has the right to terminate the contract with the following payoffs….” etc.
3) Your strawman is not very well thought out – the “non-maximization of profit for the shareholders” had not occured. You can’t fire someone if the non-performance hasn’t occured yet. That would mean anyone can be fired at any time with the whispy chemeric excuse tht the board doesn’t think he/she will turn a profit.
Try again.
If it was such a problem, how did he become CEO in the first place? It’s not like he made this donation AFTER he was made CEO, it happened long before he was even considered for the job.
In that case, the Board should all lose their positions, inasmuch as they couldn’t be bothered to perform their due diligence BEFORE hiring someone who had a viewpoint that was apparently so utterly reprehensible that they had no choice but to fire him ask him to resign.
But Eich wasn’t fired for that, he was fired for agreeing with Barack Obama, Bill and Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, and the majority of voters in California. Of course it’s perhaps true that Mozilla’s actions should be extended to the firing of every single Democrat politician, who all at one time expressed agreement with Brendon Eich.
Its amazing so many Democrats voted for other Democrats who you think are on par with Nazis. Considering the wide range of beliefs on marriage held by Democrats, are you all Nazis now based on your new standard? Or is it that Democrats can still have a diversity of beliefs on what marriage is and other people must agree with whatever the Democrats say that day?
Lots of dems, needed to move on Gay Marriage, but it was the conservatives that used Gay Marriage
as a wedge issue for 3 decades.
It’s okay, the GOP is now wildly viewed as backwards and insular.
“but it was the conservatives that used Gay Marriage
as a wedge issue for 3 decades.”
Ya, you are right. There have never been any Democrat politicians that have used same sex marriage as a wedge issue. I can’t even think of a time that they ever talked about it. (Do I need a sarcasm tag?)
“Lots of dems, needed to move on Gay Marriage”
This is the thing. You say Democrats needed to move. That they can change. But you don’t allow the same thing for people who are not Democrats. Democrats do not hold their own party to the standards they hold everyone else to. Democrats are not in favor of gay rights as much as using gay rights as a pretext to be dicks to everyone.
Wow.
Well, I suppose the market could see this as privacy issue.
Or just that the handling in general, indicates a significant degree of incompetence of the entire management.
Or they simply don’t like it.
You can’t fire someone if the non-performance hasn’t occured yet.
Do you even work for a corporation? The board can remove any corporate officer if they decide it’s in the company’s best interest. Note that I didn’t say, “the board can remove anyone” (as you implied I did). I said the board can remove a CEO as they see fit.
And how about addressing the main point: For the good of the shareholders, is a board justified in removing a CEO if he’s an anti-semite and his views are hurting business relations?
What if the board removes the CEO because he’s Jewish, and everybody in Germany has decided that Jews shouldn’t be allowed in business anymore?
that would be an issue for German courts, German Judges and the European court of Human RIghts.
FWIW, the ECHR is pretty rough.
And the German courts decided those issues, and German customers and businesses threw them out of work, and then had their government put the Jews in labor camps, and then a whole lot of Jews weren’t with us anymore.
Meanwhile, in modern times, completely oblivious to their coming near-extinction event when science develops a pre-natal diagnostic test for homosexuality, they insist on acting like a group that nobody is going to miss very much.
Is anyone saying Mozilla couldn’t have acted the way they did or are they analyzing why Mozilla and the activists acted the way they did?
America had the chance to vote against someone who thought marriage was between a man and woman but they elected Obama twice. I am not sure why these Democrats are holding Obama to a lower standard than the CEO. We don’t even know what his views on gays are. Trying to say his belief of what marriage is somehow means he hates gays is bigoted. Do polygamists hate gays? Polyandrists?
I think you would take the reverse, that a belief in homogamy, means a person hates straights as bs.
For the good of the shareholders, is a board justified in removing a CEO if he’s an anti-semite and his views are hurting business relations?
The anti-Semite would say, “we can’t allow a Jooo as a CEO because his scriptures are homophobic… And being homophobic hurts business relations. Also, those Joooo devils keep shooting all those innocent Palestinian suicide bombers… How dare those Joooos defend themselves.”
Do you progressives realize that any of your “mainstream positions” today can be considered “beyond the pale” in the future? Eich’s position years ago was mainstream and the same as Obama’s on the question of marriage.
Dave wrote:
“Do you even work for a corporation?”
Not at present, but I have in the past. That should dispense with your non-sequitur…
“The board can remove any corporate officer if they decide it’s in the company’s best interest.”
Have YOU ever worked for a corporation The Big Shots have contracts and both sides have to eet the contract. The Board is *NOT* a dictatorship.
You have very silly notions.
“For the good of the shareholders, is a board justified in removing a CEO if he’s an anti-semite and his views are hurting business relations?”
I did – you just can’t be bothered to read carefully. I answered your question with points one and two. And then I demolished your silly notion at it’s base with point three.
Remedial reading re-education Kamp for you.
I think Admiral Gerbil is ignoring the really important question: “What would Jesus do?” I mention this because when I once challenged him to justify the Welfare State’s robbing Peter to give free stuff to Paul, he responded by invoking Jesus’ parable to the Good Samaritan (ironically, a story about someone doing good voluntarily with his own money). Rational thought isn’t exactly his strong suit.
Appropriation is always wrong unless it is in the service of Democrat politics.
I think under Biblical law, every 7 years, debts were forgiven.
Wasnt that Robbing Banker Bob for the benefit of Paul?
“Are there any women, here?”
(In high-pitched voice) “Nooooo!”
“Alright, then, I will resume reading the indictment . . .”
(Stone comes flying from the crowd)
“Who threw that? Who threw that? It was you, then. You, to the back of the line!”
Jesus would tell Eich “judge not lest ye be judged” regarding gay marriage. He’d also tell Eich that it’s easier to get a camel through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to get to heaven.
Jesus was not so much with business or wealth. Feeding the poor, yes. Wealth, no.
People who enjoyed the above post and want more of the same should read Admiral Gerrib’s collection of equally-logical essays, LIBERTY: IT’S A TRAP! One chapter is “The Good Liberal Samaritan.” In it. the Admiral reveals translation errors in all versions of the Gospel of Luke, and how Jesus MEANT to show the Good Samaritan, finding the waylaid victim on the road, leaves him there, but persuades the Romans to force the innkeeper to care for the victim.
Eich doesn’t have a right to his CEO job… And neither do the employees who opposed him have rights to their jobs. Eich should have refused to apologize and then proceed to fire his enemies within his company just like the late Steve Jobs did. For external activist enemies, he should of published their physical locations and trashed their names on the internet.
Concerning Michael Mann and his buddy Joe Romm, they are crooks.
Chuck Ross just broke the story that OK Cupid CEO, Sam Yagan, also supported pro-traditional marriage. LOL!
Countdown to hypocritical Leftist apologetics in 3 . . . 2 . . .
Here’s a link to the story at that great right-wing bastion, Mother Jones.
But there’s a hitch: OkCupid’s co-founder and CEO Sam Yagan once donated to an anti-gay candidate. (Yagan is also CEO of Match.com.) Specifically, Yagan donated $500 to Rep. Chris Cannon (R-Utah) in 2004, reports Uncrunched. During his time as congressman from 1997 to 2009, Cannon voted for a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, against a ban on sexual-orientation based job discrimination, and for prohibition of gay adoptions.
He’s also voted for numerous anti-choice measures, earning a 0 percent rating from NARAL Pro Choice America. Among other measures, Cannon voted for laws prohibiting government from denying funds to medical facilities that withhold abortion information, stopping minors from crossing state lines to obtain an abortion, and banning family planning funding in US aid abroad. Cannon also earned a 7 percent rating from the ACLU for his poor civil rights voting record: He voted to amend FISA to allow warrant-less electronic surveillance, to allow NSA intelligence gathering without civil oversight, and to reauthorize the PATRIOT act.
Will this man also be forced from his job as CEO of OKCupid and Match.com? If not, then it will be yet another example of a double-standard (the only standards the Left has).
Hold not thy breath, Thales…..
Rand – you know, when everybody, including Federal judges, have a hard time understanding what you write, perhaps the problem lies not with the reader but with the writer.
Anyway, good luck persuading a federal judge and jury that alleging a professor manipulated data in his field of work is not calling him a fraud.
For obvious reasons, I’m not going to try this case in my comments section with a jury of apparently illiterate idiots.
I did not call Michael Mann an “academic fraud.” And note, for morons who fantasize that I did: Even he didn’t attempt to claim that I did. In the context of his ludicrous claims, that’s saying something.
“Anyway, good luck persuading a federal judge and jury that alleging a professor manipulated data in his field of work is not calling him a fraud.”
Isn’t Mann the one that has to do the proving? The burden of proof is rather steep considering free speech laws and Mann being a public person and all. Is free speech for Democrats only for their activist front groups carrying out violent attacks and agitating for socialist revolution? Is the first amendment only for burning flags? Only for masturbating in public libraries? WTF happened to you guys.
Its like Obama got elected and flipped the switch and Democrats are all about censorship, using government agencies to attack private citizens and businesses that Democrats don’t like, starting wars without going to congress, and exiling people from society for thought crimes. Who looks at Venezuela and thinks, “Lets do that here because its so cool.”
I used to think Democrats didn’t realize what it meant to wear Che or Mao on a t-shirt but now, it looks like they know all too well.
So when is the next book burning?
Anyway, good luck persuading a federal judge and jury that alleging a professor manipulated data in his field of work is not calling him a fraud.
First, one must determine in front of a judge… what the word “science” and “scientist” actually means…
Then again, you’ve never been good at reading comprehension. Perhaps, we should come up with someone else to decide whether Rand’s stuff is comprehensible?
Remember folks companies are not people, they can’t have an ideology.
IKR — Hobby Lobby is going to have a field day with this one…
I like Dennis Prager.
But I use firefox and will continue to use firefox- for a while at least.
I reserve my right to be part of some mob action, but I am not too fond
of them in terms what they produce.
I will continue to use Firefox for the present. I no longer trust Chrome due to information gathering by Google and it’s annoying inability to copy/paste correctly. Opera would probably be my next pick, should I switch.
A lot of people told me last time we talked about this matter that states grant people access to marriage without any relation to procreation. This is patent BS. I suggest you read this little snippet at Wikipedia:
As manpower was short in Qin relative to the other states at the time, Shang enacted policies to increase its manpower. As Qin peasants were recruited into the military, he encouraged active immigration of peasants from other states into Qin as a replacement workforce; this policy simultaneously increased the manpower of Qin and weakened the manpower of Qin’s rivals. Shang made laws forcing citizens to marry at a young age and passed tax laws to encourage raising multiple children. He also enacted policies to free convicts who worked in opening wastelands for agriculture.
For those who do not know who Shang Yang is he was the main driving force behind Legalism i.e. the Chinese totalitarian bureaucratic and legal system used to rule the state of Qin and later by the First Emperor of China. The system continued to form the core of government administration policies during later eras like the Han.
As for the claim that “today there are other means to procreate” statistics prove you wrong. Gay couples have much lower fertility rates than heterosexual couples.
If you think maintaining or increasing population is irrelevant to a state I suggest you re-read the first phase of the paragraph I quote.
Oh yeah and then there is the whole definition of having a ‘honeymoon’ after you get married. Why do you think it is called a honeymoon? Guess what is the duration of a female’s fertility cycle?
So when you call for Michael Mann to be fired that’s conservative fascism?
Sure, if you think hounding a man out of his job for donating to a Proposition 8 six years ago is the same thing as academic and scientific misconduct, bogus lawsuits and contemptable behavior. If you do think those two things are equivalent, then your judgement is seriously flawed, to say the least.
I never called for Michael Mann to be fired. From what alternate reality did you post that comment?
It’s called “Chris Gerrib Reality,” RS.
Larry J – usually, calling somebody a fraud requires actually proving that they are a fraud. As far as contemptible behavior, attempting to revoke gay marriage after it was approved could certainly be considered contemptible.
Rand – So academic frauds should be allowed to keep their jobs?
Mr. Gerrib, egad you are boring.
I never called anyone an academic fraud. Again, what is the color of the sky on your world?
So when you said Should we suppose, in light of what we now know, they would do any less to hide academic and scientific misconduct, with so much at stake? as part of comparing Mann to Jerry Sandusky this “academic and scientific misconduct” did not include fraud?
One can “covered up wrongdoing by one of its employees” but it’s a “what color is the sky on your world” to call that “academic fraud?”
Misconduct is not fraud. I’m sorry you have trouble with English.
If that were the case, then you wouldn’t be being sued
in court.
Your attorney’s aren’t denying you said certain words, just that
it’s Rhetorical Hyperbole.
Much like when people refer to the neocons as agents of influence of the
red bear, they argue that it’s hyperbole in rhetoric not that they didn’t call
someone a communist agent.
I’m not being sued for calling him an “academic fraud,” you moron.
I never called anyone an academic fraud.
Nit picking. You wrote that Mann molested data. Any scientist who molests his data is an academic fraud.
Words means things.
I’m not being sued for calling him an “academic fraud,” you moron.
The Anti-SLAPP motion to block the suit was denied precisely because Judge Weisberg took your statements to be calling Mann an academic fraud:
So apparently you can’t read.
As to the question of fraud, it remains to be seen if it can be proven. There certainly are a lot of legitimate questions about his practices and his refusal to provide the original data is far from the accepted practices of legitimate science. If he did commit fraud, then he deserves to be fired. Not because of what he has said but what he did.
California’s Prop 8 was such a odious idea that a majority of voters in one of the most liberal states in the country voted for it. If the man had discriminated against gays at Mozilla, then he deserved to be fired. If he did not, then he was fired for holding the same opinion on the matter as the majority of California voters, Bill and Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama until 2012.
sometimes past positions come back to haunt you.
Sen Byrd and Mr Justice Black had both been KKK members in their early 20’s.
Didn’t stop people like Rand from dragging it up, decades later, long after
it had all been forgiven. Byrd and Black worked hard to disavow their beliefs
as young men.
Eich like many has been on the wrong side of history and as a figure in a public role, his political activities harmed his ability to be effective.
Byrd and Black worked hard to disavow their beliefs as young men.
I guess 2009 was 5 years ago.
Ack.. 2001, so 13 years ago.
Give DN a break. Democrats have to defend KKK officers. It’s in their contract when they join the party of Jefferson Davis.
“…usually, calling somebody a fraud requires actually proving that they are a fraud. ”
This proves beyond a reasonable doubt (to me, at least) that you are an ignoramus.
People have been publicly calling other people frauds since before the founding of the Republic without being required to show proof. Have you read any history – at all? Did any of what you did presumable read make any impression on the incredibly lonely brain cell under your hair? (/rant)
Michael Mann should be arrested for defrauding the taxpayer. If I did the same things Mann did, I would be in prison.
Hey, once again Gerrib is accusing people of things they didn’t do. Some things never change.
Rand,
Can we Tar and Feather the Geribil’s Strawman this time?
+1
I believe the difference is fairly substantial between these two viewpoints:
1. Let’s fire Michael Mann because we think he is doing a lousy job of accurately predicting the causes and effects of climate, and is trying to use that (believed bad) information to effect policy.
2. Let’s fire Brandon Eich because he dared to oppose the liberal viewpoint on gay marriage, when his job has nothing to do with gay marriage.
A society that does this is not stable. You are removing voice from a class of citizens, effectively removing an important safety valve. From now on, if people like Brandon Eich want to effect change their only option is violence. You have removed debate as a viable option.
So don’t be surprised when this leads to war. Because it will, undoubtedly.
I’ve been told repeatedly by libertarians in this and other blogs that if we repealed the public accommodations portion of the Civil Rights Act, segregation would not happen. What I’ve been told would happen is that, if a business decided not to serve blacks, protests and other market forces would be directed at the owner such that they changed their policies.
In this case, the libertarians were right. Eich made public statements that customers and vendors of Mozilla found problematic. They exercised their free speech rights to protest and use market forces against Mozilla. The (private) Board of Directors then either suggested Eich resign or accepted his resignation when it was offered.
What you are seeking, D. S., is not free speech. You are seeking a right to not be criticized for speech.
Here’s the first sentence of Mozilla’s Statement on Diversity
Mozilla has always been deeply committed to honoring diversity in sexual orientation and beliefs within our staff and community, across all the project’s activities.
Except they don’t honor diversity in beliefs. If they did, the man would still have his job. He was canned because his beliefs weren’t the same as everyone else’s. A more accurate sentence would read: “Mozilla has always been deeply committed to honoring diversity in sexual orientation and beliefs within our staff and community, across all the project’s activities, so long as they agree with the gay rights lobby.”
IN what twisted reality is making making campaign donation, a factor in whether one is qualified
to do a job.
Let’s take a job where it might be applicable. So, chairman of DNC.
If chairman of DNC has in the past had donated to any politician was not a Democrat, is that a problem related to that person being the chairman of DNC?
Larry J and gbaikie – your replies ignore the salient point: the market has spoken and told Eich to leave. Who are you to argue with the market?
The market has had nothing to say about it. Yet.
Who are you to argue with the market?
…another part of the market, which has the same right to argue as any other part. You’re acting like “the market” magically stops where you decree.
I am not arguing with the market, but rather someone called Chris Gerrib who has no salient point and who has demonstrated a fascinating ignorance in libertarian philosophy.
If you’re arguing strictly market, then …
we’re part of the market, —–.
There are other reasons, but to say “You can’t speak because it’s over” is beyond silly (but, sadly, all too typical). Or are you actively calling for the repeal of the 21st on the basis of “Shut up, they said.”
It wasn’t the market that spoke but the mob. There is a difference. The mob is made up of the activists and the perpetually agrieved who’ll happily move on looking for their next scalp. The market is, in this case, comprised of Mozilla’s customers. Did large numbers of their customers drop their products because of his campaign contribution in 2008? I don’t see much evidence of that. I do see the market speaking when thousands of their customers complain on Mozilla’s website and unistall their products due to his firing. It’ll be interesting to see how their market share holds up over the next several months. If they have fewer users, or if their market share decreases at a sharper rate, then you could say that the market disapproved of the company’s actions. If their share increases (or declines at a slower rate), then the market approved. Time will tell.
The difference is “Conservatives have called upon the State to use it’s powers to fire
Michael Mann from a professorship at a public university, while individuals have
called upon Mozilla to fire a individual from a private foundation”.
People have generally an expectation that the state will not impose upon them
for exercising their speech rights, particularly when it’s their job commenting
upon a matter of public concern.
Conservatives have called upon the State to use it’s powers to fire Michael Mann from a professorship at a public university
No one has done that, you moron. At least none of the people he’s suing have.
“No one has done that, ”
Oh, that’s a broad statement.
I wonder who the idiot is quoting, since he put what looks like his own statement in quotes. If it is not his own statement, he sure didn’t attribute it to anyone else. There’s so much wrong with that paragraph.
Ha!
I suppose it’s possible that he might be using “scare quotes”.
Let’s imagine a CEO who’s an anti-semite, or who disapproves of mixed-race marriages. Let’s say his views become known publicly, and various clients decide they don’t want their business to support that CEO’s success. Is the opinion here that the board of directors at the company — who are legally obligated maximize profits for their shareholders — have no right to remove this CEO for the good of the corporation and its profitability?
This is what you call totalitarian?
“Is the opinion here that the board of directors at the company — who are legally obligated maximize profits for their shareholders — have no right to remove this CEO for the good of the corporation and its profitability? ”
1) Depends upon the contract.
2) Quite often there’s a performance metric in the contract. Something along the lines of:
“If you don’t have the company start showing a profit by such and such a date, the Board has the right to terminate the contract with the following payoffs….” etc.
3) Your strawman is not very well thought out – the “non-maximization of profit for the shareholders” had not occured. You can’t fire someone if the non-performance hasn’t occured yet. That would mean anyone can be fired at any time with the whispy chemeric excuse tht the board doesn’t think he/she will turn a profit.
Try again.
If it was such a problem, how did he become CEO in the first place? It’s not like he made this donation AFTER he was made CEO, it happened long before he was even considered for the job.
In that case, the Board should all lose their positions, inasmuch as they couldn’t be bothered to perform their due diligence BEFORE hiring someone who had a viewpoint that was apparently so utterly reprehensible that they had no choice but to
fire himask him to resign.But Eich wasn’t fired for that, he was fired for agreeing with Barack Obama, Bill and Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, and the majority of voters in California. Of course it’s perhaps true that Mozilla’s actions should be extended to the firing of every single Democrat politician, who all at one time expressed agreement with Brendon Eich.
Its amazing so many Democrats voted for other Democrats who you think are on par with Nazis. Considering the wide range of beliefs on marriage held by Democrats, are you all Nazis now based on your new standard? Or is it that Democrats can still have a diversity of beliefs on what marriage is and other people must agree with whatever the Democrats say that day?
Lots of dems, needed to move on Gay Marriage, but it was the conservatives that used Gay Marriage
as a wedge issue for 3 decades.
It’s okay, the GOP is now wildly viewed as backwards and insular.
“but it was the conservatives that used Gay Marriage
as a wedge issue for 3 decades.”
Ya, you are right. There have never been any Democrat politicians that have used same sex marriage as a wedge issue. I can’t even think of a time that they ever talked about it. (Do I need a sarcasm tag?)
“Lots of dems, needed to move on Gay Marriage”
This is the thing. You say Democrats needed to move. That they can change. But you don’t allow the same thing for people who are not Democrats. Democrats do not hold their own party to the standards they hold everyone else to. Democrats are not in favor of gay rights as much as using gay rights as a pretext to be dicks to everyone.
BTW, the market is speaking, by like, a 10 to 1 margin…
Wow.
Well, I suppose the market could see this as privacy issue.
Or just that the handling in general, indicates a significant degree of incompetence of the entire management.
Or they simply don’t like it.
You can’t fire someone if the non-performance hasn’t occured yet.
Do you even work for a corporation? The board can remove any corporate officer if they decide it’s in the company’s best interest. Note that I didn’t say, “the board can remove anyone” (as you implied I did). I said the board can remove a CEO as they see fit.
And how about addressing the main point: For the good of the shareholders, is a board justified in removing a CEO if he’s an anti-semite and his views are hurting business relations?
What if the board removes the CEO because he’s Jewish, and everybody in Germany has decided that Jews shouldn’t be allowed in business anymore?
that would be an issue for German courts, German Judges and the European court of Human RIghts.
FWIW, the ECHR is pretty rough.
And the German courts decided those issues, and German customers and businesses threw them out of work, and then had their government put the Jews in labor camps, and then a whole lot of Jews weren’t with us anymore.
Meanwhile, in modern times, completely oblivious to their coming near-extinction event when science develops a pre-natal diagnostic test for homosexuality, they insist on acting like a group that nobody is going to miss very much.
Is anyone saying Mozilla couldn’t have acted the way they did or are they analyzing why Mozilla and the activists acted the way they did?
America had the chance to vote against someone who thought marriage was between a man and woman but they elected Obama twice. I am not sure why these Democrats are holding Obama to a lower standard than the CEO. We don’t even know what his views on gays are. Trying to say his belief of what marriage is somehow means he hates gays is bigoted. Do polygamists hate gays? Polyandrists?
I think you would take the reverse, that a belief in homogamy, means a person hates straights as bs.
For the good of the shareholders, is a board justified in removing a CEO if he’s an anti-semite and his views are hurting business relations?
The anti-Semite would say, “we can’t allow a Jooo as a CEO because his scriptures are homophobic… And being homophobic hurts business relations. Also, those Joooo devils keep shooting all those innocent Palestinian suicide bombers… How dare those Joooos defend themselves.”
Do you progressives realize that any of your “mainstream positions” today can be considered “beyond the pale” in the future? Eich’s position years ago was mainstream and the same as Obama’s on the question of marriage.
Dave wrote:
“Do you even work for a corporation?”
Not at present, but I have in the past. That should dispense with your non-sequitur…
“The board can remove any corporate officer if they decide it’s in the company’s best interest.”
Have YOU ever worked for a corporation The Big Shots have contracts and both sides have to eet the contract. The Board is *NOT* a dictatorship.
You have very silly notions.
“For the good of the shareholders, is a board justified in removing a CEO if he’s an anti-semite and his views are hurting business relations?”
I did – you just can’t be bothered to read carefully. I answered your question with points one and two. And then I demolished your silly notion at it’s base with point three.
Remedial reading re-education Kamp for you.
I think Admiral Gerbil is ignoring the really important question: “What would Jesus do?” I mention this because when I once challenged him to justify the Welfare State’s robbing Peter to give free stuff to Paul, he responded by invoking Jesus’ parable to the Good Samaritan (ironically, a story about someone doing good voluntarily with his own money). Rational thought isn’t exactly his strong suit.
Appropriation is always wrong unless it is in the service of Democrat politics.
I think under Biblical law, every 7 years, debts were forgiven.
Wasnt that Robbing Banker Bob for the benefit of Paul?
“Are there any women, here?”
(In high-pitched voice) “Nooooo!”
“Alright, then, I will resume reading the indictment . . .”
(Stone comes flying from the crowd)
“Who threw that? Who threw that? It was you, then. You, to the back of the line!”
Jesus would tell Eich “judge not lest ye be judged” regarding gay marriage. He’d also tell Eich that it’s easier to get a camel through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to get to heaven.
Jesus was not so much with business or wealth. Feeding the poor, yes. Wealth, no.
People who enjoyed the above post and want more of the same should read Admiral Gerrib’s collection of equally-logical essays, LIBERTY: IT’S A TRAP! One chapter is “The Good Liberal Samaritan.” In it. the Admiral reveals translation errors in all versions of the Gospel of Luke, and how Jesus MEANT to show the Good Samaritan, finding the waylaid victim on the road, leaves him there, but persuades the Romans to force the innkeeper to care for the victim.
Apparently Jesus had Gerbil’s number:
http://www.quickmeme.com/meme/3qxcx3/
Eich doesn’t have a right to his CEO job… And neither do the employees who opposed him have rights to their jobs. Eich should have refused to apologize and then proceed to fire his enemies within his company just like the late Steve Jobs did. For external activist enemies, he should of published their physical locations and trashed their names on the internet.
Concerning Michael Mann and his buddy Joe Romm, they are crooks.
http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.co.uk/2009/01/gentle-introduction-to-unqualified_22.html?m=1
Chuck Ross just broke the story that OK Cupid CEO, Sam Yagan, also supported pro-traditional marriage. LOL!
Countdown to hypocritical Leftist apologetics in 3 . . . 2 . . .
Here’s a link to the story at that great right-wing bastion, Mother Jones.
But there’s a hitch: OkCupid’s co-founder and CEO Sam Yagan once donated to an anti-gay candidate. (Yagan is also CEO of Match.com.) Specifically, Yagan donated $500 to Rep. Chris Cannon (R-Utah) in 2004, reports Uncrunched. During his time as congressman from 1997 to 2009, Cannon voted for a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, against a ban on sexual-orientation based job discrimination, and for prohibition of gay adoptions.
He’s also voted for numerous anti-choice measures, earning a 0 percent rating from NARAL Pro Choice America. Among other measures, Cannon voted for laws prohibiting government from denying funds to medical facilities that withhold abortion information, stopping minors from crossing state lines to obtain an abortion, and banning family planning funding in US aid abroad. Cannon also earned a 7 percent rating from the ACLU for his poor civil rights voting record: He voted to amend FISA to allow warrant-less electronic surveillance, to allow NSA intelligence gathering without civil oversight, and to reauthorize the PATRIOT act.
Will this man also be forced from his job as CEO of OKCupid and Match.com? If not, then it will be yet another example of a double-standard (the only standards the Left has).
Hold not thy breath, Thales…..
Rand – you know, when everybody, including Federal judges, have a hard time understanding what you write, perhaps the problem lies not with the reader but with the writer.
Anyway, good luck persuading a federal judge and jury that alleging a professor manipulated data in his field of work is not calling him a fraud.
For obvious reasons, I’m not going to try this case in my comments section with a jury of apparently illiterate idiots.
I did not call Michael Mann an “academic fraud.” And note, for morons who fantasize that I did: Even he didn’t attempt to claim that I did. In the context of his ludicrous claims, that’s saying something.
“Anyway, good luck persuading a federal judge and jury that alleging a professor manipulated data in his field of work is not calling him a fraud.”
Isn’t Mann the one that has to do the proving? The burden of proof is rather steep considering free speech laws and Mann being a public person and all. Is free speech for Democrats only for their activist front groups carrying out violent attacks and agitating for socialist revolution? Is the first amendment only for burning flags? Only for masturbating in public libraries? WTF happened to you guys.
Its like Obama got elected and flipped the switch and Democrats are all about censorship, using government agencies to attack private citizens and businesses that Democrats don’t like, starting wars without going to congress, and exiling people from society for thought crimes. Who looks at Venezuela and thinks, “Lets do that here because its so cool.”
I used to think Democrats didn’t realize what it meant to wear Che or Mao on a t-shirt but now, it looks like they know all too well.
So when is the next book burning?
Ah, science vs Science.
http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.co.uk/2009/01/gentle-introduction-to-unqualified_22.html?m=1
First, one must determine in front of a judge… what the word “science” and “scientist” actually means…
Then again, you’ve never been good at reading comprehension. Perhaps, we should come up with someone else to decide whether Rand’s stuff is comprehensible?
Remember folks companies are not people, they can’t have an ideology.
IKR — Hobby Lobby is going to have a field day with this one…
Dennis Prager has a good blog post on the topic:
http://townhall.com/columnists/dennisprager/2014/04/08/uninstall-firefox-n1819985/page/full
I like Dennis Prager.
But I use firefox and will continue to use firefox- for a while at least.
I reserve my right to be part of some mob action, but I am not too fond
of them in terms what they produce.
I will continue to use Firefox for the present. I no longer trust Chrome due to information gathering by Google and it’s annoying inability to copy/paste correctly. Opera would probably be my next pick, should I switch.
A lot of people told me last time we talked about this matter that states grant people access to marriage without any relation to procreation. This is patent BS. I suggest you read this little snippet at Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shang_Yang
As manpower was short in Qin relative to the other states at the time, Shang enacted policies to increase its manpower. As Qin peasants were recruited into the military, he encouraged active immigration of peasants from other states into Qin as a replacement workforce; this policy simultaneously increased the manpower of Qin and weakened the manpower of Qin’s rivals. Shang made laws forcing citizens to marry at a young age and passed tax laws to encourage raising multiple children. He also enacted policies to free convicts who worked in opening wastelands for agriculture.
For those who do not know who Shang Yang is he was the main driving force behind Legalism i.e. the Chinese totalitarian bureaucratic and legal system used to rule the state of Qin and later by the First Emperor of China. The system continued to form the core of government administration policies during later eras like the Han.
As for the claim that “today there are other means to procreate” statistics prove you wrong. Gay couples have much lower fertility rates than heterosexual couples.
If you think maintaining or increasing population is irrelevant to a state I suggest you re-read the first phase of the paragraph I quote.
Oh yeah and then there is the whole definition of having a ‘honeymoon’ after you get married. Why do you think it is called a honeymoon? Guess what is the duration of a female’s fertility cycle?