Patterico's Pontifications

12/10/2008

‘Day Without a Gay’ Fades Away

Filed under: General — DRJ @ 7:40 pm



[Guest post by DRJ]

Today’s Day Without a Gay event passed unnoticed in most communities. Several people interviewed for this AP article took a realistic view of the idea, noting that the day off seemed to punish employers and did little to raise awareness in the communities.

However, one supporter offered an interesting theory regarding how “coming out” on Gay Day could raise employee productivity:

“[Selisse Berry, Out and Equal’s executive director] noted that only 20 states have laws to protect workers from being fired for being homosexual, making lesbians and gays reluctant to reveal themselves to co-workers in most jurisdictions.

“Constantly lying about our weekends at the water cooler or changing pronouns, that takes up so much energy that we could be putting into our jobs,” she said.”

One of my jobs at work is thinking of ways to increase productivity. Maybe I should post a notice about wasted time due to pronoun choice. Or I could get rid of the water cooler.

In the meantime, here’s my two cents of PR advice: Publicizing a day for gays and others to publicly volunteer to help their communities is a good idea. Doing it on a workday isn’t.

— DRJ

156 Responses to “‘Day Without a Gay’ Fades Away”

  1. The biggest problem with most of them is that they really do not understand how little the rest of the world really cares how they desire to get off! Or whom or what they choose to be with when they do.

    BUT, we sure as hell do care that they desire some sort of “Special Status” amongst us while they do!

    Besides that, if you are spendin all that time around the water cooler, yer ass is gonna git fired! Now git back ta work!

    TC (0b9ca4)

  2. It takes “energy” to change your pronoun usage? And you think you have problems? Jeez.

    sierra (4be1ff)

  3. It won’t raise worker productivity.

    They will just come back to work the next day and claim to be “straight but not narrow”

    Daryl Herbert (b65640)

  4. All three of my [deleted by DRJ] came to work.

    Seriously. I got no problem with anyone as long as they keep their genitalia and family kookiness out of my offices.

    Da'Shiznit (089453)

  5. How about a decade without a gay…a century…a millennium perhaps? I’m game if somebody wants to organize this.

    I’d settle for just never hearing about them.

    In case anyone thinks that’s homophobic, I feel the same way about animal rights activists, vegans, climate change activists, enviro-nuts and other non sexually oriented groups.

    Charles Harkins (971090)

  6. These sorts of grandstanding plays are what bothers me about the social justice left. I think we are pretty well to the point where re-creating 1960s marches, boycotts, and sit-ins doesn’t get the job done. More often than not — as in this case — they are planned haphazardly and seem to lack any tangible purpose. At worst (as in the Day without Mexicans) they undermine their own point by actually making traffic commutes better.

    A new, ahem, “civil rights” leadership needs to come along with fresh ideas, not the recycled hits of yesteryear.

    JVW (fdc1b0)

  7. Wow. Was this the response you were looking for DRJ? We’ve got some real pieces of work commenting on this one. I don’t think that homosexuals are organizing in order to discuss graphic details of their personal lives at work, but how about the right to keep your job no matter who you call ‘dear’…

    Seems like that right is pretty closely aligned with one of the Bill of Rights amendments, and I know you are all staunch defenders of the document.

    truthnjustice (c313be)

  8. I think there’s some ill-chosen hyperbole tonight, but I also think the organizers made a mistake when they used the workplace to make a statement about peoples’ sex lives and choices.

    DRJ (b4db3a)

  9. I would agree that the workplace is not the place for a demonstration, but I would have to disagree that this particular day did that. I think that calling in sick to work removed those discussions from the office. Had the day been organized as some sort of sit-in then I would wholeheartedly agree with you.

    truthnjustice (c313be)

  10. So cutting work is just something people should be able to do, like kids who cut class?

    DRJ (b4db3a)

  11. but how about the right to keep your job no matter who you call ‘dear’…

    Strawman. No one on this blog is calling for their jobs.

    In fact, one of the best and most respected commenters on this site, aphrael, is a lefty…and gay. He did not support the Day Without a Gay:

    I think it’s a terrible idea: it has the effect of punishing the employers of gay people for something that, by and large, other people did. It seems to me that would just have the effect of making potential allies into enemies.

    Seems like that right is pretty closely aligned with one of the Bill of Rights amendments, and I know you are all staunch defenders of the document.

    And which amendment would that be?

    Paul (creator of "Staunch Brayer") (152589)

  12. See, there you go again with the warmed-over 60s stuff, tnj (#9, 9:04 pm). As someone who voted AGAINST Proposition 8, I most assuredly would not have appreciated someone yammering to me all day about how Mormons are all about hate and how any two loving people ought to equal a marriage. Would you like it if pro-life people spent an entire workday “teaching” you about how horrible it is that parents don’t have a right to know when their underage daughters have abortions?

    JVW (fdc1b0)

  13. I don’t think that homosexuals are organizing in order to discuss graphic details of their personal lives at work,

    It’s really a case of quite a few them trying to satiate and soothe their neurotic leftist (aka “progressive”) sentiments. So it’s more about symbolism to them, more than the particulars of laws and legislation per se. It’s an effort to make as much of society as possible shed a tear, open up and proclaim “do your own thang, baby! Tolerance for tolerance’s sake! And if it feels good, do it!”

    Mark (411533)

  14. Homophobes.

    Tmj is a moron.

    JD (5f0e11)

  15. DRJ: doing it on a workday isn’t necessarily bad if involves everyone using a vacation day – donating a day of their time, all on the same day. But that would require a little bit more advance planning than was shown here. If the point is to show how numerous we are, surely that point can be made without inflicting harm on the people around us.

    Truthinjustice: I think a protest day where every gay person spent part of their work day talking to their coworkers about the issues which are important to them and how gay rights factors into their lives would be *very* productive. Simply disappearing and shirking your job duties for the day, on the other hand …

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  16. I think a protest day where every gay person spent part of their work day talking to their coworkers about the issues which are important to them and how gay rights factors into their lives would be *very* productive.

    I respectfully disagree, aphrael. I know I would not appreciate someone foisting on to me their political views in the workplace, and I would find it to be unprofessional. What would they think if I spent a day engaging them in conversations about why I think government-run health care is a potential nightmare or why I think school vouchers should be part of any education reform? Once you turn the workplace into a Speaker’s Corner for political causes, where does it end?

    JVW (fdc1b0)

  17. Paul: it’s true that nobody here is calling for gay people to lose their jobs. But there are still many states where it is perfectly legal for employers to fire gay people just because they are gay; and were there evidence that happening, I think it would be a legitimate reason to picket or boycott companies (or, if it were a state government doing it, to engage in larger-scale protest).

    Moreover … the fact that it’s legal to fire people for being gay in many jurisdictions plays a really strong emotional role in the psychology of many gay people. If you live in such a state, it’s an ever-present threat: if the wrong person finds out who you sleep with, you could be unemployed tomorrow and, depending on the town you live in, unemployable thereafter.

    Which is to say it may be a strawman in this conversation; but it’s a very real threat in many places, a powerful enough one that it’s never going to be far from the minds of those potentially vulnerable to it.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  18. JVW: this may arise from the difference in your workplace and my workplace (I can’t tell, as I know nothing about your workplace :)), and it may speak to the social deftness of the individuals doing the polemicizing.

    Speaking just from experience: I’ve never worked in a workplace in which there isn’t some form of casual conversation between coworkers about just about anything under the sun. So it doesn’t seem to me to be a stretch to decide that on a given day, I’m going to find a way to work my pet topic for the day into whatever such conversations naturally take place on that day – whether the topic is the importance that my relationship to my husband has in my life, for example, or why I think that the state legislature is staffed by lunatics, or what have you.

    Spending the entire day doing nothing but talking about some contentious political topic would be unprofessional, sure, and obnoxious; but focusing all of your personal conversations with your coworkers on a particular topic for a day needn’t be.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  19. In my last office experience there wasn’t a whole lot of social interaction during work hours. A number of us, however, used to go out for drinks together after work, and that is when we would discuss politics, sports, personal lives, etc. I could see a day in which gays invited all their straight co-workers out to a post-work social event where they can make their point, but that would give anyone who is uncomfortable with political discussions a chance to back out and it would keep the work environment a little more focused on the business at hand.

    JVW (fdc1b0)

  20. In the olden days, the city fathers (told you it was the olden days) of Oceanside would occasionally make a stink about all the so-called problems caused by the nearby Camp Pendleton Marines. At one point things when things were pretty bad-don’t remember the particulars-there was some talk of keeping the Marines out of town. The brass decided to pay the recruits in scrip, redeemable by merchants for cash. When registers all over town started to full with scrip, the town quickly decided to work with, rather than against, the Marines.

    Merits of the gay marriage argument aside, I think that if I were trying to make my point in a productive way, I would emulate the Marines. If, instead, I wanted to vent in the most counterproductive way possible, I might adopt the current playbook.

    fat tony (fe99d8)

  21. Truthinjustice: I think a protest day where every gay person spent part of their work day talking to their coworkers about the issues which are important to them and how gay rights factors into their lives would be *very* productive. Simply disappearing and shirking your job duties for the day, on the other hand …

    I think not coworkers, but other people, would be very productive. Coworkers are together because they have to work together. Whether they want to discuss such topics is completely voluntary.
    But everybody knows somebody. Every gay person knows a person they can talk to about their lives.

    Leave the word “rights” out of it, though.
    Nobody else that can get fired for any old reason really cares if you can get fired for any old reason, too. In my personal experience, the more protected classes there are (gay, minority, pregnant), the more a non-protected class person sees that layoff target zeroing in on them.

    And nobody should talk about the “right” to get married to people who think only a man and a woman should get married. There are legitimate fears that a “right” becomes…anybody can get married. Make it about a desire to get married.

    That’s my 2 cents.

    MayBee (4a9480)

  22. But there are still many states where it is perfectly legal for employers to fire gay people just because they are gay; and were there evidence that happening, I think it would be a legitimate reason to picket or boycott companies (or, if it were a state government doing it, to engage in larger-scale protest).

    If that were the scenario, I totally agree.

    Paul (creator of "Staunch Brayer") (152589)

  23. But there are still many states where it is perfectly legal for employers to fire gay people just because they are gay; and were there evidence that happening, I think it would be a legitimate reason to picket or boycott companies (or, if it were a state government doing it, to engage in larger-scale protest).

    I’m curious as to what states have these laws on the books. Any references or citations?

    FrankM (4f1d9e)

  24. but how about the right to keep your job no matter who you call ‘dear’…

    Seems like that right is pretty closely aligned with one of the Bill of Rights amendments, and I know you are all staunch defenders of the document.

    What “right” to a job? Exactly what in the BoR are you referring to? I lost a job recently just because the company couldn’t afford to keep me (and 2 other colleagues) around. If they wanted to fire me because they didn’t like the color of the shirts I wore, they could do that too.

    What color is the sky in your world?

    Horatio (55069c)

  25. These sorts of grandstanding plays are what bothers me about the social justice left. I think we are pretty well to the point where re-creating 1960s marches, boycotts, and sit-ins doesn’t get the job done. More often than not — as in this case — they are planned haphazardly and seem to lack any tangible purpose. At worst (as in the Day without Mexicans) they undermine their own point by actually making traffic commutes better.

    JVW, it’s all theater. And it was so back in the 60s too. Read Lee Harris, Al Qaeda’s Fantasy Ideology;

    … A friend of mine and I got into a heated argument. Although we were both opposed to the Vietnam War, we discovered that we differed considerably on what counted as permissible forms of anti-war protest. To me the point of such protest was simple — to turn people against the war. Hence anything that was counterproductive to this purpose was politically irresponsible and should be severely censured. My friend thought otherwise; in fact, he was planning to join what by all accounts was to be a massively disruptive demonstration in Washington, and which in fact became one.

    My friend did not disagree with me as to the likely counterproductive effects of such a demonstration. Instead, he argued that this simply did not matter. His answer was that even if it was counterproductive, even if it turned people against war protesters, indeed even if it made them more likely to support the continuation of the war, he would still participate in the demonstration and he would do so for one simple reason — because it was, in his words, good for his soul.

    What I saw as a political act was not, for my friend, any such thing. It was not aimed at altering the minds of other people or persuading them to act differently. Its whole point was what it did for him.

    And what it did for him was to provide him with a fantasy — a fantasy, namely, of taking part in the revolutionary struggle of the oppressed against their oppressors. By participating in a violent anti-war demonstration, he was in no sense aiming at coercing conformity with his view — for that would still have been a political objective. Instead, he took his part in order to confirm his ideological fantasy of marching on the right side of history, of feeling himself among the elect few who stood with the angels of historical inevitability. Thus, when he lay down in front of hapless commuters on the bridges over the Potomac, he had no interest in changing the minds of these commuters, no concern over whether they became angry at the protesters or not. They were there merely as props, as so many supernumeraries in his private psychodrama. The protest for him was not politics, but theater; and the significance of his role lay not in the political ends his actions might achieve, but rather in their symbolic value as ritual. In short, he was acting out a fantasy.

    LarryD (feb78b)

  26. but how about the right to keep your job no matter who you call ‘dear’…”
    King of the strawman strikes again. Where is there one single word about anyone losing their job because they are gay in this post?

    “Seems like that right is pretty closely aligned with one of the Bill of Rights amendments,”
    Which one? Once again. Broad, empty assertions with no substantive backing. What does being “closely aligned” mean here? You really try hard to choose phrasing that makes you appear intelligent and more often than not fail miserably.

    and I know you are all staunch defenders of the document.
    Sarcastic snobbery as a substitute for substance – what you do best.

    Jack Klompus (cf3660)

  27. LarryD – so spot on describing the “activist” scene.

    Jack Klompus (cf3660)

  28. So cutting work is just something people should be able to do, like kids who cut class?

    Comment by DRJ — 12/10/2008 @ 9:06 pm

    Adults know the consequences, and most kids can make a conscious choice as well. I am a teacher, and I don’t pretend to get up in arms about a kid ditching a class. I have anecdotal stories of friends who performed the same benign stunts when I was in high school who are quite successful. The problem with that really is determining what the students are actually doing while they are cutting class.

    “but how about the right to keep your job no matter who you call ‘dear’…”
    King of the strawman strikes again. Where is there one single word about anyone losing their job because they are gay in this post? -comment by jack klompus

    “[Selisse Berry, Out and Equal’s executive director] noted that only 20 states have laws to protect workers from being fired for being homosexual, making lesbians and gays reluctant to reveal themselves to co-workers in most jurisdictions.

    and I know you are all staunch defenders of the document.
    Sarcastic snobbery as a substitute for substance – what you do best.

    truthnjustice (c313be)

  29. Actually I wasn’t being sarcastic. I was just wondering how one could defend the constitution in one instance, then pretend it doesn’t exist in another. Care to explain that one?

    truthnjustice (c313be)

  30. “pretend it doesn’t exist in another.”
    Maybe because it doesn’t in this case?

    Jack Klompus (cf3660)

  31. JKer: Just so we understand each other, are you defending firing someone because of their sexuality?

    truthnjustice (d99227)

  32. Also, JKer, way to pick up on one sentence in my response and ignore the part where I cut and pasted evidence against your argument that was in the actual post. Perhaps you should read the posts before commenting. In this case, it was only a few paragraphs and you have demonstrated you have more than enough free time to catch up on it. Go ahead…. I’ll wait. …

    ….

    Done yet?

    truthnjustice (d99227)

  33. Its more than a bit amusing that truthnjustice complains about selective quotation one moment and then puts words in another’s mouth the next.

    I take that back. Its not funny anylonger.

    SPQR (72771e)

  34. TMJ writes:

    “…Perhaps you should read the posts before commenting…”

    Oh. My. God.

    It’s performance art, isn’t it? Someone’s senior project in sociology.

    Eric Blair (8f93a0)

  35. That’s a good possibility, Eric.

    SPQR (72771e)

  36. JKer: Just so we understand each other, are you defending firing someone because of their sexuality?

    As if understanding was ever your goal…

    No, he is not defending the firing of someone who is gay. No one here has suggested that firing someone because they are gay is even close to right, and is infact against the law.

    However, I would not be adverse to someone being moved up the “potential downsizing victim” list for playing hooky from work in the middle of the week for no damned reason other than wanting to make a political point.

    The office is not a place for that, leave it at home. If you want a job, work. If you would rathe rnot work, then we can arrange that.

    There is a mile of difference, bubba, and you will never see it.

    That amuses me for only so long. You’re like the guy from goodfellas, where everything said is taken that completely wrong way, even though it is obvious to a moron what is actually mean.

    Scott Jacobs (90ff96)

  37. I was just wondering how one could defend the constitution in one instance, then pretend it doesn’t exist in another. Care to explain that one?

    Your difficulty comes from the fact that we apply it evenly across the board, giving no side prefference. The document means what it says, not what we think it should mean now.

    This is the problem with the “Living Constitution” view. equal application begins to look like unfair treatment to them.

    Again, the difference will be utterly missed by He Who Has No Brain.

    Scott Jacobs (90ff96)

  38. What’s next “Bugger Friday?”

    Mossberg500 (9fd170)

  39. No, he is not defending the firing of someone who is gay. No one here has suggested that firing someone because they are gay is even close to right, and is infact against the law.

    “[Selisse Berry, Out and Equal’s executive director] noted that only 20 states have laws to protect workers from being fired for being homosexual, making lesbians and gays reluctant to reveal themselves to co-workers in most jurisdictions.

    truthnjustice (d99227)

  40. The world’s cemetaries are full of indispensable people.

    nk (094d4d)

  41. “[Selisse Berry, Out and Equal’s executive director] noted that only 20 states have laws to protect workers from being fired for being homosexual, making lesbians and gays reluctant to reveal themselves to co-workers in most jurisdictions.

    Yes yes… State law…

    Apparently, you are completely unfamiliar with the body of legal work known as “Federal Law”.

    Scott Jacobs (90ff96)

  42. The document means what it says, not what we think it should mean now.

    Does that include the “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State…” part of the Second Amendment that the Right pretends doens’t exist?

    truthnjustice (d99227)

  43. Scotty not Hotty: Yes, I am familiar. Are you familiar with the off button on your radio? Listening to Rush has made you inoperably stupid

    truthnjustice (d99227)

  44. If you look at contemporary academic work on this, you will find that an agreement has been reached (even among Lib/Left academics such as Lawrence Tribe) that “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State...” is a dependent clause, and is not controlling.
    That the “Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms…“, is an individual one which allows that which is described in the dependent clause.
    And, “…shall not be infringed.” has the same force as the statement “Congress shall make no law…”.

    This is the reasoning behind Heller.

    Another Drew (3a8a2c)

  45. Comment by liesntyranny — 12/11/2008 @ 9:11 am
    A prime example of the compassion and inclusiveness of the Left.
    Moron!

    Another Drew (3a8a2c)

  46. See, I don’t think that this fella is an engineer, nor a teacher. He is just a troll. He is just here to argue, not to debate. To slap out in a safe environment, where he doesn’t have confront anyone personally.

    And certainly not to illuminate.

    If this character was in fact a teacher, he would recognize that he is acting precisely like a snotty sophomore…and moderate his behavior, while still arguing for his position.

    I teach sophomores every quarter, and this guy sure sounds like one who doesn’t study very much and needs to make up for that lack via bluster.

    But whatever. Maybe he is a well trained engineer, and winner of multiple teaching awards, beloved by his students and highly effective in the classroom.

    It’s possible.

    Eric Blair (8f93a0)

  47. About the same possibility that I’ll win the Nobel Prize for Chemistry.

    Another Drew (3a8a2c)

  48. Does that include the “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State…” part of the Second Amendment that the Right pretends doens’t exist?

    Do you really want to go there? Ok. I have a few minutes…

    The first part of the sentence being true is not a requirement for the REST of it to be true. For example: “The teacher being sick today, class is canceled.”

    The teacher could, in fact, be fishing at the lake. That doesn’t change the fact that class remains canceled. Also, Militias were not standing groups. They were largely ad hoc bodies that gathered when needed. If the population does not have weaponry with which to arm itself, a militia in an emergency would be impossible.

    Would you care to attempt to defend “Right to Abortion” or “Right to marriage” in a similar fashion?

    Are you familiar with the off button on your radio? Listening to Rush has made you inoperably stupid

    And the baseless personal attack, much like insults towards teh wife I don’t actually have.

    Perhaps some day you could resond to actual posts, instead of rapidly changing the subject when pressed.

    You remind me of phil…

    Scott Jacobs (90ff96)

  49. Scott, this character may actually *be* phil, or one of the other Cast of Trolls.

    Eric Blair (8f93a0)

  50. Scott, this character may actually *be* phil, or one of the other Cast of Trolls.

    They’re generic. A busload every day. Perpetually replaceable.

    nk (094d4d)

  51. FrankM: no state, so far as I’m aware, has a rule making it explicitly legal to fire people because of sexual orientation.

    But in the absence of a law making it illegal to fire people for sexual orientation, a person fired because of his sexual orientation has no recourse; the action of their employer wasn’t illegal.

    aphrael (9e8ccd)

  52. Scott: the feds haven’t passed a law prohibiting employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

    aphrael (9e8ccd)

  53. truthnjustice, Eugene Volokh of the Volokh Conspiracy and law professor at UCLA Law School addressed the preface to the Second Amendment and explained the practice of the time of adding justification clauses that had no limiting effect.

    So nice try on thread hijacking.

    SPQR (72771e)

  54. Methinks he chose the wrong topic to bring up for an attempted hijack, at least here.
    Perhaps he could find one more obscure, and of less public interest, in contemporary society – that is, if he had any real awareness of what is happening in the world outside his mother’s basement?

    Another Drew (3a8a2c)

  55. SPQR: And Hitler addressed the humanity of Jews during WWII. Should I take that argument at face value? What would Mussolini do?

    truthnjustice (d99227)

  56. Wanker Alert on Aisle 55!

    Another Drew (3a8a2c)

  57. 48: Oh, so you’re saying that the founding fathers just put that first part in there for fun? Because in the example you used, you suggested that the teacher being sick was just a word game used to throw off the reader from the real reason class was cancelled. Oh, I like word games! Is the whole document like that?

    truthnjustice (d99227)

  58. Very Interesting….
    Hitler reference by DCSCA @ 9:31;
    and now one by liesntyranny @ 10:14.

    “Great” minds think alike!

    Another Drew (3a8a2c)

  59. Hey wankerchild if you think you’re going to win an argument about the Constitution with actual attorneys I can’t wait to watch this one. SPQR actually offered you some food for thought from a highly respected legal scholar with regard to an issue that YOU threadjacked with and then you make a Hitler reference? You really show what an immature putz you are everytime you type.

    Jack Klompus (cf3660)

  60. Jack, he is just trolling. The goal is to stir people up, so that he can feel like a Big Guy.

    Like I said, I think he isn’t who he says he is….

    Eric Blair (c8876d)

  61. I’d like to get a job as a teacher in his district since it seems like you get a lot of free periods.

    Jack Klompus (cf3660)

  62. aphrael wrote:

    Moreover … the fact that it’s legal to fire people for being gay in many jurisdictions plays a really strong emotional role in the psychology of many gay people. If you live in such a state, it’s an ever-present threat: if the wrong person finds out who you sleep with, you could be unemployed tomorrow and, depending on the town you live in, unemployable thereafter.

    You know, every place I’ve ever worked, people talked amongst themselves, and the employees who were gay usually didn’t “come out” and say, “Hey, I’m gay,” but people simply knew from the way they talked about their off-work lives.

    In some professions — like construction (mostly male), the one I’m in — knowledge that someone was gay might lead to some taunting, but not for long: the bosses would clamp down on it due to the fear of a “hostile work environment” lawsuit. And if there is no specific protection based on sexual orientation in some states, there are usually other grounds on which a non-performance dismissal could be challenged.

    So, I’ve got to ask: just how realistic is the fear aphrael mentioned? Same-sex marriage won’t pass, but the idea of civil unions in some form enjoys fairly widespread support. And while there are still occasional alcohol-fueled gay-bashing incidents, the perpetrators wind up in prison. It seems to me that the type of fear you have mentioned is getting less and less realistic every day.

    The rational Dana (which doesn't imply that the adjectiveless Dana is irrational!) (3e4784)

  63. Plus there are over 300 cities and counties with statutes prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. There are also over 3,000 employers with policies prohibiting sexual orientation discrimination including 435 of the Fortune 500 companies.

    Jack Klompus (cf3660)

  64. truthnjustice, still namecalling like the cheap little dishonest troll that you are, I see.

    SPQR (72771e)

  65. Years ago Cracker Barrel Restaurants came under fire because they had an explicit policy of firing gay employees. Now here’s a reasonable target of activist ire. Pressure, boycotts, awareness, and appeals to common decency led CBR to end that policy. No restaurants were torched or had rocks thrown through their windows. Across many “red” states you see these restaurants which now make it their policy to not discriminate based on sexual orientation. The effort to change corporate policy here I think is admirable as compared to say a bunch of shrieking lavender fascists creating blacklists and bullying Mormons for exercising the ballot.

    Jack Klompus (cf3660)

  66. truthnjustice, still namecalling like the cheap little dishonest troll that you are, I see.

    Comment by SPQR — 12/11/2008 @ 11:28 am

    Ha. That is funny. You just called me out for namecalling then called me a name literally six words later in the same sentence? Genius.

    truthnjustice (d99227)

  67. Hey!
    Talk to the Hand!

    Another Drew (3a8a2c)

  68. truthnjustice, wow, you figured that out. You really are an educator.

    SPQR (72771e)

  69. I don’t think that homosexuals are organizing in order to discuss graphic details of their personal lives at work,

    Actually, if you weren’t a troll, I would suggest you spend a few hours in my wife’s workplace (an operating room) where you could listen to lesbian nurses go on for hours about their love lives, complete with graphic details, daring anyone to complain. The straight nurses are so sick of it but the hospital, run by nuns, is loathe to fire anyone, let alone what are probably vexatious litigants who would love to claim discrimination. So the straight nurses avoid the lounge when the gays are there.

    The gay guys are cool, it’s the lesbians who love to regale straight women with their tales, no pun intended

    Mike K (f89cb3)

  70. Hot lezbo girl-on-girl surgery talk?!!!

    Jack Klompus (cf3660)

  71. aphrael:

    DRJ: doing it on a workday isn’t necessarily bad if involves everyone using a vacation day – donating a day of their time, all on the same day. But that would require a little bit more advance planning than was shown here. If the point is to show how numerous we are, surely that point can be made without inflicting harm on the people around us.

    Employees have tasks to do that need to be done. When someone misses work, that typically means another worker has to do extra work in their absence. If not, then the missing employee is probably expendable and s/he should consider looking for back-up employment.

    It’s not cute or a joke when a group of people miss work on the same day. Flu epidemics cost businesses millions of dollars in lost revenue and reduced productivity. That’s true in large part because the absences happen at the same time.

    Further, workers have sick leave for a reason — because they might get sick, and they and their employers need an established way to prepare for that. If workers use their sick leave to make a political statement, where will it end? It’s not noble, it’s childish, and I don’t see the virtue in adults acting like children cutting class — even if it’s for a good cause.

    DRJ (b4db3a)

  72. DRJ: I don’t support using *sick leave* for something like this.

    Using *vacation* for something like this, however, strikes me as being quite different; it doesn’t undermine the intent of a sick day, and it allows the employer time to plan for the absence … and to say ‘no’ if the load of absences is going to be too high.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  73. Comment by Mike K.

    It is hard for me to refute a personal anecdote. For every tale of lesbian nurses that go too far on the job I am sure I could come up with ten examples of straight men who engage in um…. ‘colorful’ conversation while on the clock.

    truthnjustice (d99227)

  74. Comment by DRJ — 12/11/2008 @ 1:18 pm

    No vacations ever! For anyone! No off time either. Work 24/7/365 or you are expendable.

    truthnjustice (d99227)

  75. #74…Now, there is reasoned discourse.

    Another Drew (3a8a2c)

  76. No vacations ever! For anyone! No off time either. Work 24/7/365 or you are expendable.

    Try being a contractor. I don’t get paid if I don’t work. Not complaining, I took this job willingly and I’m grateful to have it. But you don’t seem to realize that companies are not required (at least at the federal level) to offer sick leave, vacation pay, retirement, paid holidays, or any benefits.

    And here’s a clue: everyone is expendable. If you think you’re not expendable, try putting your finger into a glass of water, and just see what kind of impression you leave behind.

    Steverino (69d941)

  77. So if everybody is expendable then why do we have such outrageous salaries for CEOs? Why not take a vacation if you’re in the same, expendable boat as everyone else?

    No vacations lead to heart disease.

    truthnjustice (d99227)

  78. aphrael –

    I should read more carefully, because you did say vacation rather than sick leave. I still think coordinated leaves of any kind are a bad idea unless you want to hurt the business you work for. There’s a reason boycotts sometime work and this is basically a boycott of your own employer’s business.

    truthnjustice –

    There are many people who work hours a lot closer to 365/24/7 than you’re apparently willing to consider. It’s a good thing you aren’t a small business owner.

    DRJ (8b9d41)

  79. Comment by DRJ — 12/11/2008 @ 3:57 pm

    Actually, tnj should consider a little entrepreneurship.
    It would open his eyes as to the reality around him.

    Another Drew (821fe5)

  80. So if everybody is expendable then why do we have such outrageous salaries for CEOs? Why not take a vacation if you’re in the same, expendable boat as everyone else?

    No vacations lead to heart disease.

    For someone who claims to have an engineering background, you really are ignorant.

    First, just because everyone is expendable doesn’t mean everyone’s skills are equal. If you didn’t realize that, you’re incredibly stupid; if you did realize that and asked anyway, you’re disingenuous.

    Second, not everyone can do a CEO’s job. Very few people can do it at all, and even fewer can do it well. Just like in sports, money chases talent. And where there’s a lot of money to be made by having talent, a lot more money will chase the talent. Welcome to the world.

    Third, I can take a vacation when I want to, but I won’t make any money, and my client might go elsewhere for the services I provide. So, I prefer to take a long break between projects.

    Fourth, as DRJ pointed out, small business owners work incredibly long hours every day of the week. Try running a small retail concern with a dozen or so employees, when your life’s savings are bankrolling the endeavor, and get back to us about how many vacation hours you take in the first three years.

    Fifth, there’s no proof that lack of vacations cause heart disease. And, unfortunately, our species has gotten past the point where your level of stupidity is invariably fatal before the organism has a chance to breed.

    Steverino (69d941)

  81. I’m not going to show up for work just to show you how much you can’t get along without me. Just as soon as there’s a law that says you can’t fire me for it.

    nk (094d4d)

  82. First off, TMJ either refers to Dr. K. as a liar, or presents himself as someone willing to lie multiple times to advance an argument (as if that is a surprise, given prior behavior).

    “…..For every tale of lesbian nurses that go too far on the job I am sure I could come up with ten examples of straight men who engage in um…. ‘colorful’ conversation while on the clock….”

    Then, we get this howler:

    “…why do we have such outrageous salaries for CEOs?…”

    Oh, yes. Outrageous. The funny part is that many people might think that TMJ’s salary is outrageous, as well. Who decides? TMJ? President Obama? Folks who are unemployed? Other teachers? Engineers?

    Or maybe the market? Instead of someone telling another person what they ought to earn (and how to spread it around).

    Sure, a lot of CEOs seem to make some serious coin. But the folks criticizing it…aren’t CEOs. It’s kind of like a non-engineer telling an engineer about his or her job. Ignorant and arrogant and more to the point, uninformed.

    Like an engineer spouting off about the Constitution, disagreeing with any number of Constitutional scholars.

    Some of us would rather read what Constitutional scholars actually write on the subject before spouting off.

    But none of this is new. Trollery as usual.

    I’m pretty sure that TMJ is the newest incarnation of one of our prior trollish types. Again, IPs would tell the tale.

    Eric Blair (c8876d)

  83. It’s outrageous that teachers get summers off. The government should force them to work longer.

    Jack Klompus (b0e238)

  84. I am a teacher,

    OK – but then we have this:

    Listening to Rush has made you inoperably stupid

    And then we had this:

    part of the Second Amendment that the Right pretends doens’t exist?

    So we apparently have another Mr. Holland’s Anus, but he cannot spell nor express himself coherently.

    Dmac (e30284)

  85. Ouch, Dmac. That’s gonna leave a mark.

    But as I wrote before, I doubt the bona fides of the Troll du Jour. After all, engineers generally think in a clear fashion. And as engineers, they are very aware of their own limitations.

    Much more likely just someone who likes to pick fights electronically—that is, safely.

    Eric Blair (c8876d)

  86. This guy couldn’t engineer a Lionel train.

    Another Drew (821fe5)

  87. I would love to stick him in a public high school in Philadelphia or LA or DC and watch the feeding frenzy.

    Jack Klompus (b0e238)

  88. Wouldn’t make it to 3rd-period!

    Another Drew (821fe5)

  89. Jack, that is an interesting comment. I was born in Compton, and raised in North Long Beach. So when I went off to graduate school, I was surprised when this one postdoctoral fellow talked to me in a fashion that I associated with fist fights. I knew we were too old to fight, and that if we did, I could clean his clock (and I am not bragging; the fellow was all mouth).

    I didn’t understand it.

    Then I got it: where he was from, people could get away with that kind of interpersonal communication—without physical consequences. Where I was raised, you were supertough or very polite. And some of the very tough guys were also polite.

    The internet seems to breed people who work out their personal issues via verbal fistfighting.

    It’s not about vigorous debate. When I have disagreed with people here, the regular posters are never nasty or insulting to me. They save that for the trolls.

    The problem is, I think that the trolls like it.

    Again, at least electronically.

    Eric Blair (c8876d)

  90. Eric…When you were a teen-ager, was Shady Acres still around?

    Another Drew (821fe5)

  91. I hear you Eric. I know I get really profane sometimes, often crossing a line. But I try to limit it to people that fire the first shot of aggressive stupidity combined with in-your-face “I’m so right and you’re so wrong” arrogance. I was actually a high school teacher for fifteen years and dealt with all sorts of styles of obnoxiousness and there was nothing worse than the aggressive know-it-all.
    I know also about your upbringing. I grew up in a pretty rough and tumble working class part of Philly and washed dishes in the dining hall through a U of Penn education that my parents sacrificed tremendously to provide. I’d scrub my hands to the bone washing pots then go off to class stinking of disinfectant and then listen to trust funded snots mouth left-of-center talking points all afternoon. I have little if any tolerance for loud mouthed boilerplate lefty bullshit.

    Jack Klompus (b0e238)

  92. “Constantly lying about our weekends at the water cooler or changing pronouns, that takes up so much energy that we could be putting into our jobs,” she said.”

    By Golly she is right … homosexuals ARE less productive than normal people, frittering their time at the water cooler!

    Travis Monitor (cfa2f1)

  93. Truthinjustice: I think a protest day where every gay person spent part of their work day talking to their coworkers about the issues which are important to them and how gay rights factors into their lives would be *very* productive.

    No it would be annoying. “Go away, I am trying to get some work done. Stop bothering me.”

    I would be more than happy to engage them back for 8 hours running on why the Democrat party is a venal and corrupt enterprise that keeps Americans more ignorant, poorer and less safe than they otherwise would be. Lots of factoids to prove that, which most people are ignorant of due to be sheep-dipped by the liberal MSM. But would they appreciate it? hmmm. Methinks political hectoring in the workplace coulod be a form of harrassment.

    Travis Monitor (cfa2f1)

  94. DMac likes to misquote people then pretend he didn’t. Right, Dmac? I hardly think that a typographical error counts as a misspelling. If, for example, you read the word ‘the’ spelled in a post as ‘teh’, do you suppose the individual really doesn’t know how to spell the word? That question is rhetorical.

    Also, JKer, to think that you have any inkling of how I relate to my students proves (yet again) that you are commenting on things without any proof or knowledge. Stick to what you’re good at: being a bigot.

    I hear you Eric. I know I get really profane sometimes, often crossing a line. But I try to limit it to people that fire the first shot of aggressive stupidity combined with in-your-face “I’m so right and you’re so wrong” arrogance. I was actually a high school teacher for fifteen years and dealt with all sorts of styles of obnoxiousness and there was nothing worse than the aggressive know-it-all.
    I know also about your upbringing. I grew up in a pretty rough and tumble working class part of Philly and washed dishes in the dining hall through a U of Penn education that my parents sacrificed tremendously to provide. I’d scrub my hands to the bone washing pots then go off to class stinking of disinfectant and then listen to trust funded snots mouth left-of-center talking points all afternoon. I have little if any tolerance for loud mouthed boilerplate lefty bullshit.

    Comment by Jack Klompus — 12/11/2008 @ 6:59 pm

    Two wrongs don’t make a right, but…

    Millions of wrongs make the Right.

    It’s not about vigorous debate. When I have disagreed with people here, the regular posters are never nasty or insulting to me. They save that for the trolls.

    That is a joke, right? These people do not know how to have a clean debate. I have attempted respectful debates, but those attempts are met with ‘f-ing troll’ and all sorts of nasty words when I post proof.

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081211/pl_nm/us_usa_abuse

    Chew on that. Your boy is a criminal. While I am sure it fits into the mantra of the right to blame the man on the end of the food chain, who tried to join the service because his last name wasn’t Bush and he couldn’t drunk drive his way into college… the person to blame is Crummy Rummy. Imagine that. Is this thread jacking? Maybe… but there was no way you loons were actually going to post a story like this… because it proves that your bad apples are just as bad as those on the left… only when the Illinois Governor screws up over 4000 service men and women don’t die. Hard to argue with those numbers.

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/09/000922072149.htm

    http://www.aheartylife.com/2008/07/23/vacations-are-heart-healthy/

    There are some articles about heart disease and vacation… I know there were some claims about that that those sites should disprove. Wow, you guys are wrong again? What are the odds? I just got off the phone with my bookie and he is putting the over-under of factually incorrect responses to this one at 14.5. I am taking the over.

    truthnjustice (d99227)

  95. I know also about your upbringing. I grew up in a pretty rough and tumble working class part of Philly and washed dishes in the dining hall through a U of Penn education that my parents sacrificed tremendously to provide.

    Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha *deeep breath* hahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahahaha

    “I know about growing up in the ghetto, because I had to wash dishes for a few hours while my parents mailed me checks for my U Penn education”

    That’s why we call you the JKer.

    truthnjustice (d99227)

  96. That’s why we call you the JKer.

    “We”?

    The voices in yer head talking to you again?

    Scott Jacobs (90ff96)

  97. tnj – Did you actually read that article you linked from Yahoo? If you did, how did you reach you conclusion? I’m wondering how Yahoo did in it’s summary, given the following money quote about Rumsfeld rescining his authorization:

    “The report’s executive summary, made public by the committee’s Democratic chairman Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan and its top Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona, said Rumsfeld contributed to the abuse by authorizing aggressive interrogation techniques at Guantanamo Bay on December 2, 2002.

    He rescinded the authorization six weeks later. But the report said word of his approval continued to spread within U.S. military circles and encouraged the use of harsh techniques as far away as Iraq and Afghanistan.

    The report concluded that Rumsfeld’s actions were “a direct cause of detainee abuse” at Guantanamo and “influenced and contributed to the use of abusive techniques … in Afghanistan and Iraq.””

    Given that the full report is classified, I guess we’ll never know, but it’s great fodder for the BDS crowd.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  98. “I have attempted respectful debates, but those attempts are met with ‘f-ing troll’ and all sorts of nasty words when I post proof.”

    Biggest laugher all month! Thanks tnj. I needed that.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  99. … only when the Illinois Governor screws up over 4000 service men and women don’t die. Hard to argue with those numbers.

    You use the death of our soldiers so easily, casually.

    4,000 have not died.

    4,209 have in Iraq.
    623 have in Afghanistan.

    Remember each and every one if you must use any. It is a sign of respect, even if you do not understand why.

    They died for our country.
    They were betrayed by a corrupt Governor who tried to make a part of our Country die.

    Despite HIS best efforts and because of THEIRS (and men and women like them), he (and those like him), will fail.

    Pons Asinorum (5fa803)

  100. Hmmm. Our favorite troll writes:

    “… to think that you have any inkling of how I relate to my students proves (yet again) that you are commenting on things without any proof or knowledge. Stick to what you’re good at: being a bigot…”

    Wow. I’ll leave alone the obvious joke about “relating” to students.

    This is a guy who in every recent post makes sweeping and impolite assumptions about others. Comments routinely on things outside his own expertise, while claiming expertise (say, on Constitutional issues).

    My perception of how this troll began his Reign of Error was that folks did not respond insultingly toward him until he began doing so himself. There are, again, plenty of people who disagree with one another on this blog. The only serious name calling I see on this blog is in response to trollery.

    Finally, this guy calls other people bigots, when his own statements lumping together groups of people comprise the very definition of bigotry.

    Projection. Sheer projection.

    I’m still thinking student, not professor. And I base that on teaching students for many years. The tone I am reading is, gently put, not consonant with the job description.

    Maybe the fella is a professor, and is just working out issues on the Internet. It is safer to argue with people electronically than in person, after all.

    Eric Blair (8f93a0)

  101. Who said “ghetto” you insipid little shit? You have never tried anything remotely respectful, so now nothing remotely close to it comes back to you, dipshit. Being a bigot? You can go F yourself, junior. You’re a self-indulgent, know-it-all twit who knows nothing. You embody exactly what I was referring to. Even your name reflects your moronic, high self-opinion you have.
    Yeah that’s right my parents did mail in checks to pay for school. From their very average blue collar jobs to supplement the load of financial aid that made going to a good college possible. And once there I encountered all sorts of obnoxious little shits like you all of the time who thought they had a clue about how the world works. I’m sure you bring that dipshit attitude into your classroom and your students respond in kind by treating you like the no-respect-deserving little twat you certainly are.
    I don’t know why I even bother defending myself against obnoxious, holier than thou, pompous, pseudo-intellectual, fake progressive, sniveling little fucks like you at all especially when you show that the best you can do is call someone “a bigot”. That along with your earlier Hitler reference just shows that when backed into a corner you’ve got nothing of substance to contribute to anything. You’re just a pathetic little weasel.

    Jack Klompus (b0e238)

  102. Hey why not toss in a nice round “4,000” just to score a political point. You sickening little jerkoff.

    Jack Klompus (b0e238)

  103. JoKer: Whether you said ‘ghetto’ or not, your little story has nothing to do with sacrifice or ‘making it’ or ‘pulling yourself up from your bootstraps’. Your story is an illustration of how you are a silver spoon baby. So what your parents had to sacrifice. All parents sacrifice for their children. Not all kids get checks from mommy and daddy to go to an Ivy League school. You clearly have no idea.

    truthnjustice (d99227)

  104. Okay, should I say at least 4000, then? Considering you all voted for the man who marched the service men and women to their deaths, I would hardly be proud of the exact number you helped slaughter.

    truthnjustice (d99227)

  105. tnj – Did you actually read that article you linked from Yahoo? If you did, how did you reach you conclusion? I’m wondering how Yahoo did in it’s summary, given the following money quote about Rumsfeld rescining his authorization:

    “The report’s executive summary, made public by the committee’s Democratic chairman Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan and its top Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona, said Rumsfeld contributed to the abuse by authorizing aggressive interrogation techniques at Guantanamo Bay on December 2, 2002.

    He rescinded the authorization six weeks later. But the report said word of his approval continued to spread within U.S. military circles and encouraged the use of harsh techniques as far away as Iraq and Afghanistan.

    The report concluded that Rumsfeld’s actions were “a direct cause of detainee abuse” at Guantanamo and “influenced and contributed to the use of abusive techniques … in Afghanistan and Iraq.””

    Given that the full report is classified, I guess we’ll never know, but it’s great fodder for the BDS crowd.

    Comment by daleyrocks — 12/11/2008 @ 11:11 pm

    And this one is my favorite. Ha, yes I read it. Did you read the headline? Perhaps you should read it again. The entire article explains why crummy rummy is to blame for the abuses.

    truthnjustice (d99227)

  106. Comment by liesntyrannynbigotry — 12/12/2008 @ 7:23 am
    No, you are the one who doesn’t absorb the disconnect, often found, between the headline, which is meant to grab your attention, and the body of the article, which explains that Rumsfeld gave a specific authorization, to a specific group, to do specific things.
    What happened at Abu Graib was not authorized by him, and is (and was, evident by the Courts Martials of those involved) the responsibility of the individuals involved, up to and including the Brigadier General in command who suffered a career ending demotion over the actions of her subbordinates.

    Another Drew (9e3db1)

  107. We can go back and forth all day, but what do you suppose the writer of the article wanted you to take away from it? Journalism 101 AD. The headline isn’t there as a counterpoint to what is in the article. Crummy Rummmy gave that order. Apparently he wasn’t as clear when he rescinded… word didn’t get around I guess. He should never have given the order to begin with. It was a move on par with Bush’s stupidity.

    truthnjustice (d99227)

  108. truthnjustice, the only stupidity evident continues to be yours, as you continue to misrepresent basic facts to support your false descriptions of events.

    SPQR (72771e)

  109. “I would hardly be proud of the exact number you helped slaughter.”
    You’re a pathetic, sniveling little smacked-ass pig.

    Jack Klompus (cf3660)

  110. What facts SPQR? Don’t speak in generalities, prove me wrong.

    truthnjustice (d99227)

  111. Okay, should I say at least 4000, then? Considering you all voted for the man who marched the service men and women to their deaths, I would hardly be proud of the exact number you helped slaughter.

    You’re keeping score for the wrong side.

    Now, how about you attempt to hold to the topic of the post?

    Scott Jacobs (a1c284)

  112. And you’re a wannabe, JoKer. You pretend to be someone you’re not. Can I pretend I know what it was like to grow up in Bosnia because someone once threw a snowball at me? That is analogous to what you are claiming. Spare the ‘I had to wash dishes once’ sob story.

    truthnjustice (d99227)

  113. truthnjustice, you’ve already been proven wrong. And as usual, it is the exact same scenario that we’ve seen with you week after week. You make a false claim, and link to a piece that you found on Google without bothering to read.

    Clueless, TMJ, repetitively so.

    SPQR (72771e)

  114. You wouldn’t last one second where I grew up you spoiled little bitch.

    Jack Klompus (cf3660)

  115. Earth to liesntyrannynbigotry….
    Journos who write the story don’t write the headline.

    Isn’t clear? “Six weeks later”…what’s not clear about six weeks?

    And, again, the authorization was for the use of “enhanced interrogation techniques” at GITMO, nowhere else.
    Any belief by individuals in other commands that they were now authorized to do the same (absent specific orders – which would be written), was a mistake on their part and is the reason they were subject to judicial punishment for their non-authorized actions. You do notice, don’t you, that there have been no Courts Martials of personnel at GITMO for mistreatment of prisoners, including enhanced interrogation techniques?
    Could that be because there has been no mistreatment, and the interrogation was authorized?

    Damn, You’re Stupid!

    Another Drew (9e3db1)

  116. You wouldn’t last one second where I grew up you spoiled little bitch.

    Comment by Jack Klompus — 12/12/2008 @ 7:49 am

    Did you get that from a Fresh Prince of Bel-Aire episode?

    truthnjustice (d99227)

  117. You wouldn’t last one second where I grew up you spoiled little bitch.

    Hell, he wouldn’t last that long where *I* grew up, and it was middle class!

    Scott Jacobs (a1c284)

  118. You guys are awfully tough in cyberspace.

    truthnjustice (d99227)

  119. Comment by truthnjustice — 12/12/2008 @ 7:58 am

    *chuckles* The irony of your statement makes me smile.

    Scott Jacobs (a1c284)

  120. Comment by Scott Jacobs — 12/12/2008 @ 8:01 am

    Eric must have collapsed over his keyboard upon reading that drivel.

    Another Drew (9e3db1)

  121. It wouldn’t if you knew the definition of irony.

    truthnjustice (d99227)

  122. Threadjack Alert on Aisle 121!

    Another Drew (9e3db1)

  123. You wouldn’t last one second where I grew up you spoiled little bitch.

    Hell, he wouldn’t last that long where *I* grew up, and it was middle class!

    Comment by Scott Jacobs — 12/12/2008 @ 7:56 am

    It is hilarious that you are basing these judgements off of nothing save my typing. You must have grown up in rough neighborhoods if I couldn’t last one day because of the way I post on internet sites. Once again you guys are commenting on things you don’t know or understand.

    truthnjustice (d99227)

  124. Every single time I see Tmj’s name in the Recent Comments sidebar, I just know there is a steaming pile of cow dung that just got dumped in a thread. I personally liked the idea that the body of a story does not matter as much as the headline.

    Considering you all voted for the man who marched the service men and women to their deaths, I would hardly be proud of the exact number you helped slaughter.

    When you lump this bile in with the calls of racism and bigotry directed at individuals and the collective, in this thread and others, it again proves itself to be nothing other than a mean, vile, dishonest partisan troll.

    And, then, the crowning jewel … Tmj claims that others are commenting on things you don’t know or understand. Fuckin’ priceless!

    JD (6a82b7)

  125. Comment by JD — 12/12/2008 @ 8:44 am

    Succint, to the point, and one of your best bitch-slaps ever!

    Another Drew (9e3db1)

  126. Folks, he is just a “PP”: projective poseur.

    “What a maroon,” as Bugs Bunny put it.

    Eric Blair (fd3410)

  127. AD – I missed out on its antics in the last few days, having been on the road, and having had little internet access. This whole troll infestation thing in the last few weeks is really kind of baffling. They should be happy, overjoyed even, that Teh Messiah, Teh One we have been waiting for, Teh One that stopped the oceans from rising, won the election. However, they have exhibited nothing that resembles actual joy over winning, and instead, have acted like a petulent little child, a poor sport, that gets more joy making fun of their opponent than being an honorable good sport. Now, mix in the fundamental dishonest of Baracky and his crew, coupled with the connections to the corrupt Governor, and long-time political ally of Baracky’s, and they are practically coming unglued. Sad, really.

    JD (6a82b7)

  128. Yes, they thought they would have this moment in the Sun to Lord it over their defeated opponents; and as they have engaged in their petty little acrimonious assaults, their world is slowly coming apart as the dishonesty of the Chi-town machine asserts itself, and their precious leader is exposed for the political hack that he is.

    Another Drew (9e3db1)

  129. AD – It is like watching a child learn that Santa Claus is not real.

    JD (6a82b7)

  130. That’s the same thought I had just a moment ago in realizing that I’ve only rarely seen any post recently by love2008 (terrible sentance construction, but WTF it’s just a blog).

    Another Drew (9e3db1)

  131. BTW, will have to sign-off.
    Will be out of town for the weekend on more satisfying pursuits w/o internet access too (oh, happy days).
    Have fun all.

    Another Drew (9e3db1)

  132. Another Drew: can one threadjack a thread which has already been threadjacked?

    aphrael (9e8ccd)

  133. partisan troll.
    ~comment by Junior Detective

    Who is partisan on here? The guys who spend their lives posting that how a Democrat blows his nose is communist? Give me some honest analysis of a real situation or you can can your ‘partisan troll’ speeches.

    truthnjustice (d99227)

  134. Tmj – If you can point to where I, or anyone else accused someone of being a communist because they blow their nose, then I will graciously admit that you have a point. Until that point in time, I will continue to maintain that you are nothing other than a verbose partisan troll.

    JD (6a82b7)

  135. #104: Okay, should I say at least 4000, then? Considering you all voted for the man who marched the service men and women to their deaths, I would hardly be proud of the exact number you helped slaughter.

    They marched out of duty, honor, and many other reasons (as many as there are soldiers).

    Their sacrifice was not made to vindicate your position on the President.

    All living combat soldiers take a cold comfort in a Promise to each other: take me home and always remember.

    It is a Soldiers Promise, but as Americans and human beings, is it not a request that we can all honor to the best of our abilities?

    As a person blogging on the internet, it takes less than a minute to find the information. If that is too much time and effort, then maybe that is a clue that these numbers are in jeopardy of being used in a trivial and casual manner (perhaps find a better way than using a number?).

    If one must use of the heartless number of statistics, then use The Number as opposed to a number. Is it so much to ask in light of the sacrifice they made?

    (Tnj: those American citizens that are aware of such conventions, and are mentally and morally sound, have always been more than willing to accommodate. It really is not even that hard and – good news for you—you do not even have to be 100% accurate. Only a genuine effort is required.)

    Pons Asinorum (5fa803)

  136. Comment by JD — 12/12/2008 @ 9:16 am

    AD – It is like watching a child learn that Santa Claus is not real.

    Gawd, that’s funny!! Good to see you back in action JD.

    Pons Asinorum (5fa803)

  137. Gawwwd. Pons: Did you cue up the violins while you were typing that out? A lot of soldiers are there for financial reasons. They didn’t have the silver spoon tucked neatly up their *sses like you folks did (ask Jack Klompus about that… he still has a few hangups about the silver spoon he was born with).

    I respect that they are over there putting their lives on the line, and I commend their bravery. However, you can’t justify a war based on the bravery or honorability of a soldier.

    truthnjustice (d99227)

  138. Truth – I will reiterate what a colossal, pointless, clueless sack of shit you are and again invite you to spend one hour being a complete douche, i.e. being yourself, where I come from, you little turd. You won’t walk out on your own power. As usual you talk out your ass. How many members of the military have you ever even interacted with you juvenile little cretin? Yeah you commend the military, whatever you spineless little twat. You couldn’t carry a soldier’s jock.

    Jack Klompus (cf3660)

  139. Did you mean *talk out of your ass*

    Again, JoKer, you are talking about things you do not comprehend. Did the check from father come late this month? Did your mother forget to use dryer sheets on your laundry?

    Like I said, doing dishes at a dining hall does not make you the tough guy you fancy yourself to be.

    truthnjustice (d99227)

  140. A lot of soldiers are there for financial reasons.

    Absolutely true, and guess what – it does not take long to realize that other soldiers are now counting on you (about the time the first bullet whizzes by, the lesson REALLY ingrains) (about the first time you place your hand on your buddy’s wound to stop the bleeding, all doubt COMPLETELY evaporates). The selfish reason quickly recedes (albeit still exists) but the desire to protect one another becomes… beyond important.

    I respect that they are over there putting their lives on the line, and I commend their bravery.

    So do we all, so why not respect them?

    However, you can’t justify a war based on the bravery or honorability of a soldier.

    Correct, so why do you bring them into it? If you disagree with the war, state your reasons present your logic, construct an argument (if you can) –if you still insist on mentioning their Sacrifices, then use accurate numbers (within reason).

    They didn’t have the silver spoon tucked neatly up their *sses like you folks did (ask Jack Klompus about that… he still has a few hangups about the silver spoon he was born with).

    What do these falsehoods have to do with your desire to impute our soldiers with your political conclusions?

    Never mind tnj, I think you are lost. I hope you find your way.

    Pons Asinorum (5fa803)

  141. And you do understand, right? Must have watched a documentary or two. I love the picture you put together based on what you want to believe about others and then you project your own sad little insecurities. So let’s see you are most likely some little suburban kid or from some cookie cutter little McTown. Probably couldn’t cut it in the private sector and now gets tooled by school kids who no doubt have little if any respect for you as they fling spitballs at your pinhead. Have you ever set foot in a large city? Most likely not. Sort of like your completely lame and one-dimensional depiction of the military that you allegedly “commend” unless you want to work them into your juvenile little political views. Pathetic.

    Jack Klompus (cf3660)

  142. What was your point with that last one, JoKer? Did you have a point or were you just trying to rip me based on the two things you actually know about me. What do you do for a living? Are you willing to share that?

    I do not talk politics in the classroom. I teach physics. But if a student asked me who I voted for I would tell them and explain a few reasons why I did so (probably focusing on the educational angle).

    I live in a large city, JoKer…. 15th largest in the US. But, what am I doing trying to sell myself to a person who I do not respect at all? You speak out of your @ss and ignore facts.

    truthnjustice (d99227)

  143. 1. The Iraq war is based on lies and deception.
    The Bush Administration planned for an attack against Iraq before September 11th, 2001. They used the false pretense of an imminent nuclear, chemical and biological weapons threat to deceive Congress into rationalizing this unnecessary conflict. They hide our casualties of war by banning the filming of our fallen’s caskets when they arrive home, and when they refuse to allow the media into Walter Reed Hospital and other Veterans Administration facilities which are overflowing with maimed and traumatized veterans.
    For further reading: http://www.motherjones.com/bush_war_timeline/index.html

    2. The Iraq war violates international law.
    The United States assaulted and occupied Iraq without the consent of the UN Security Council. In doing so they violated the same body of laws they accused Iraq of breaching.
    For further reading:
    http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/proc/imtconst.htm
    http://www.westpointgradsagainstthewar.org/

    3.Corporate profiteering is driving the war in Iraq.
    From privately contracted soldiers and linguists to no-bid reconstruction contracts and multinational oil negotiations, those who benefit the most in this conflict are those who suffer the least. The United States has chosen a path that directly contradicts President Eisenhower’s farewell warning regarding the military industrial complex. As long as those in power are not held accountable, they will continue…
    For further reading:
    http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0714-01.htm
    http://www.publicintegrity.org/wow/

    4. Overwhelming civilian casualties are a daily occurrence in Iraq.
    Despite attempts in training and technological sophistication, large-scale civilian death is both a direct and indirect result of United States aggression in Iraq. Even the most conservative estimates of Iraqi civilian deaths number over 100,000. Currently over 100 civilians die every day in Baghdad alone.For further reading:
    http://www.nomorevictims.org/
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1338749,00.html
    http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F70A1EF73C5A0C758DDDA10894DE404482

    5. Soldiers have the right to refuse illegal war.
    All in service to this country swear an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, both foreign and domestic. However, they are prosecuted if they object to serve in a war they see as illegal under our Constitution. As such, our brothers and sisters are paying the price for political incompetence, forced to fight in a war instead of having been sufficiently trained to carry out the task of nation-building.
    For further reading:
    http://thankyoult.live.radicaldesigns.org/content/view/172/
    http://youtube.com/watch?v=Qa6ZHYcG_EM
    http://youtube.com/watch?v=1dAXQeH7y9g&mode=related&search=
    http://girightshotline.org

    6. Service members are facing serious health consequences due to our Government’s negligence.
    Many of our troops have already been deployed to Iraq for two, three, and even four tours of duty averaging eleven months each. Combat stress, exhaustion, and bearing witness to the horrors of war contribute to Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), a serious set of symptoms that can lead to depression, illness, violent behavior, and even suicide. Additionally, depleted uranium, Lariam, insufficient body armor and infectious diseases are just a few of the health risks which accompany an immorally planned and incompetently executed war. Finally, upon a soldier’s release, the Veterans Administration is far too under-funded to fully deal with the magnitude of veterans in need.
    For further reading:
    http://www.ncptsd.va.gov/
    http://www.vets4vets.us/

    7. The war in Iraq is tearing our families apart.
    The use of stop-loss on active duty troops and the unnecessarily lengthy and repeat active tours by Guard and Reserve troops place enough strain on our military families, even without being forced to sacrifice their loved ones for this ongoing political experiment in the Middle East.
    For further reading: http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,FL_loss_092704,00.html

    8. The Iraq war is robbing us of funding sorely needed here at home.
    $10.3 billion per month is spent on a war which could have aided the victims of Hurricane Katrina, gone to impoverished schools, the construction of hospitals and health care systems, tax cut initiatives, and a host of domestic programs that have all been gutted in the wake of the war in Iraq.
    For further reading:
    http://www.costofwar.com

    9. The war dehumanizes Iraqis and denies them their right to self-determination.
    Iraqis are subjected to humiliating and violent checkpoints, searches and home raids on a daily basis. The current Iraqi government is in place solely because of the U.S. military occupation. The Iraqi government doesn’t have the popular support of the Iraqi people, nor does it have power or authority. For many Iraqis the current government is seen as a puppet regime for the U.S. occupation. It is undemocratic and in violation of Iraq’s own right to self-governance.
    For further reading:
    http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/

    10. Our military is being exhausted by repeated deployments, involuntary extensions, and activations of the Reserve and National Guard.
    The majority of troops in Iraq right now are there for at least their second tour. Deployments to Iraq are becoming longer and many of our service members are facing involuntary extensions and recalls to active duty. Longstanding policies to limit the duration and frequency of deployments for our part-time National Guard troops are now being overturned to allow for repeated, back-to-back tours in Iraq. These repeated, extended combat tours are taking a huge toll on our troops, their families, and their communities.
    For further reading:
    http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-military12jan12,0,7198945.story?coll=la-home-headlines

    Don’t take my word for it, take it from the soldiers themselves. This is from the Iraq Veterans against the Iraq war website. (www.ivaw.org)

    This nicely summarizes my opinion about the war.

    truthnjustice (d99227)

  144. I teach physics.

    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

    There is no way someone like you, with your demonstrative inability to even the simplest line of reasoning or to identify the difference between “fact” and “crap you believe because it makes you feel better about yourself”. The way you fail as even basic logic (or even staying on topic) suggests an inability to get very far in ANY hard science.

    Please, speak to me about some higher concept of physics. Pick any one you want, and speak on that topic. Feel free to use high-concept ideas and terms. I might not be a physics major, but I do well enough and read widely enough that I suspect I can follow along.

    Just so you know, I’ll be checking what you write against wiki, to make sure you didn’t cut and paste.

    Scott Jacobs (a1c284)

  145. Scott:
    No.

    truthnjustice (d99227)

  146. I didn’t think you would have the ability to do so, so no real loss of respect there.

    Scott Jacobs (a1c284)

  147. Do you realize how insane and moronic that request was, Scott? It is a waste of time.

    truthnjustice (d99227)

  148. It is a waste of time.

    Of course it is. I realize how difficult it must be to demonstrate a knowledge base you falsely claim to possess.

    My apologies.

    Scott Jacobs (a1c284)

  149. 15th largest. Oooh real metropolis there. Douche.

    Jack Klompus (cf3660)

  150. Congrats. You live in a college town. What is with Ohio and its production of sniveling little wads? First jharp and now this meaningless juvenile clown tnj.

    Jack Klompus (cf3660)

  151. You say that like they are different people…

    Scott Jacobs (a1c284)

  152. DRJ: I was fairly certain you had misread, but did not want to make an accusation of such; reading too quickly is a mistake I think we are all guilty of from time to time. :)

    You may be right; I think it depends on distribution. Which is to say, if a thousand companies all have one employee take the same vacation day off for a cause, then the cause is benefitted and the cost to employers is distributed in such a way as to be basically lost in the noise. If, on the other hand, one hundred companies all have ten employees take the same vacation day off for a cause …. although even then there can be some cost; one reason I didn’t ask for Wednesday as a vacation day is that the cost to my team, and the projects I’m responsible for, would have been too high.

    I would add, though, that one reason I approve of taking vacation days more than sick days is that my taking a vacation day for a cause imposes a cost not just on my employer, but also on me; vacation days are a limited commodity … and if i’m going to impose some sort of cost on my employer by not being there, I should be willing to impose a cost on myself, as well.

    aphrael (9e8ccd)

  153. Truthnjustice: of course you can’t justify a war based on the bravery of the soldiers, and I would argue that politicians (and citizens) have a duty to the soldiers who protect us, to do the best we can to ensure that the sacrifices they make for us are necessary sacrifices, and that their blood and sweat are not spent unwisely.

    But this cuts both ways; it means both that we should refrain from using the military in times and places where we do not need to, and that once we have committed to using it, we must do everything we can to ensure that the outcome of using it is successful, and that the objectives behind the use of the military are achieved. Anything else means our soldiers have sacrificed unnecessarily.

    aphrael (9e8ccd)

  154. Congrats. You live in a college town. What is with Ohio and its production of sniveling little wads? First jharp and now this meaningless juvenile clown tnj.

    Comment by Jack Klompus — 12/12/2008 @ 12:45 pm

    Um… nope. Maybe you should carefully examine the population of Columbus and the enrollment rates of its colleges. Let me guess… you don’t work for the census bureau?

    Scott: I am not going to justify myself to you, and writing a dissertation to a random blog user seems like a waste of my time. If you had a specific question I would be happy to answer it to the best of my ability.

    truthnjustice (d99227)

  155. Pons Ansinorum, I do not claim to speak for truthnjustice, but I would note: were I to bring soldiers into a discussion about the wrongness of the war, the point I would be making would probably be one of the following two points: the goal we are seeking to achieve is not worth the sacrifice we would ask soldiers to make to achieve it or the plan we have to achieve this goal is not sufficiently likely to succeed as to be worth asking soldiers to sacrifice their lives in order to attempt it.

    Both of these arguments are, I think, appropriate to make in advance of a decision to go to war.

    I might also make an argument along the lines of this politician made decisions which caused soldiers to sacrifice their lives unnecessarily.

    Note that in all of these the key issue is not the sacrifice, because that sacrifice is something we expect of the military, and it is to be honored whenever it is freely given; the key issue is the necessity. We owe it to those who sacrifice not to ask for that sacrifice without due cause.

    [None of this should be taken as a comment on any specific sacrifice; I am discussing a general philosophy rather than trying to apply it to a specific case … and this is the philosophy that I think is the common one among the military-friendly left.]

    aphrael (9e8ccd)

  156. Aphrael, clearly, your prose and respect could not be mistaken for anything else but for honest debate.

    were I to bring soldiers into a discussion about the wrongness of the war, the point I would be making would probably be one of the following two points: the goal we are seeking to achieve is not worth the sacrifice we would ask soldiers to make to achieve it or the plan we have to achieve this goal is not sufficiently likely to succeed as to be worth asking soldiers to sacrifice their lives in order to attempt it.

    Both of these arguments are, I think, appropriate to make in advance of a decision to go to war.

    Absolutely!

    Note that in all of these the key issue is not the sacrifice, because that sacrifice is something we expect of the military, and it is to be honored whenever it is freely given; the key issue is the necessity. We owe it to those who sacrifice not to ask for that sacrifice without due cause.

    Total agreement.

    [None of this should be taken as a comment on any specific sacrifice; I am discussing a general philosophy rather than trying to apply it to a specific case … and this is the philosophy that I think is the common one among the military-friendly left.]

    And I believe shared by most.

    This all got started with “estimated” numbers. Your framework for an honest and logical argument, without showing disrespect to those “not counted” – that is exactly what I was trying to say. Aphrael, your precision is far better than my clumsy efforts. Thank you.

    Pons Asinorum (5fa803)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.9499 secs.