Patterico's Pontifications

4/3/2014

Mozilla CEO Resigns for Thoughtcrime

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 6:17 pm

Mozilla CEO resigns for the offense of having donated to Prop. 8 years ago, thus showing his support for traditional marriage.

I support gay marriage. I also hate thuggery. I will be removing Firefox from every computer I own. I encourage every reader of this site to do the same.

UPDATE: A couple of readers are contending that Mozilla does not make money off of Firefox. False.

310 Responses to “Mozilla CEO Resigns for Thoughtcrime”

  1. Ding.

    Patterico (7a8761)

  2. Firefox sometimes seems to have problems – occasionally Patterico seems to be a blocked site, easily accessed if the window is closed and Firefix is opened again.

    This shows about the only real use of publicly disclosing campaign contributions.

    It is only used to draw false conclusions (as with the Koch brothers) or for intimidation.

    Not just by gay rights group,s but by leading political campaigns who let people know they don’t like contributions to the opponent.

    When there is some corruption, if that’s the only evidence, anyone who raises it will be accsed of negative campaigning etc.

    Sammy Finkelman (0c3646)

  3. Done. I was thinking about doing it and you clinched it for me, Patterico.

    nk (dbc370)

  4. Sorry, no can do. I am blind and Firefox is simply far more accessible than the alternatives.

    Soronel Haetir (02427a)

  5. I used to be of the opinion that I did not care either way. Live and let live. However, in a very short time we have gone from “We just want to be left alone” to “We will destroy you (or jail you) if you won’t bake us a cake or perform our wedding ceremony.” So screw them all.
    Equality is never about being equal, it is about revenge and control.

    Gazzer (f2a600)

  6. Never been much for boycotts, but I’m in with you on this. Leaving this comment then deleting Firefox. I’m gonna switch to IE for the short term, any recommendations for a long term replacement, anyone?

    Since I’m here, I’ve gotta tell you that I have a relatively new customer who’s been buying books that I ship to her husband in the state pen. in Adelanto. Those I don’t have in stock, I’ve been ordering through Amazon. I always start my search here so you get the commish. No idea what he did, but I just sent him a crossword puzzle book to keep him happy for a 30-day stint in solitary.

    John Pomeroy (17ac6d)

  7. This is ridiculous. He should not have resigned and I am both very sad and very angry that he did. Thuggery is the only proper word for what is going on. The radicals are losing supporters– not gaining them with cr*p like this.

    elissa (83ae49)

  8. Note well that his position on Prop 8 was entirely consistent with both Cankles and JEF at that time. Until they “evolved.”

    Gazzer (f2a600)

  9. H8ters gotta hate. It’s something they learn, it isn’t genetic.

    Colonel Haiku (ac19af)

  10. As Mozilla explains, they hold themselves to a different standard. I guess he can go run a fast food chain or something.

    AnaC (0af2e8)

  11. It was a dating site that started all this?

    nk (dbc370)

  12. He was one of the founders of that company. The inmates are running the asylum.

    elissa (e8cc24)

  13. You are entitled to your opinions only if they are the politically correct opinions in the New America.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  14. he should’ve made them fire him I think

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  15. 10.As Mozilla explains, they hold themselves to a different standard.

    A worm’s? A bacterium’s? I know, I know, AnaC’s.

    nk (dbc370)

  16. Wasted motion. Mozilla makes nothing off FireFox. [That contention appears to be false. They make plenty off of Firefox. -- P]

    Cutting off yourself from a good browser (and for me the others don’t come close) just to spite them.

    Better to start standing up to them at every opportunity as any agreement with them amounts to approval of what they are about in their eyes and that sort of compromise has led to the oily slope we’re sliding on.

    We shouldn’t be here but they are zealots and fanatics and cannot abide anyone holding an opposing view.

    The only punishment for heretics is burning at the stake which is where we’re headed next.

    This is just the beginning.

    jakee308 (f1b953)

  17. Why worry? Rejoice! Justice Roberts just increased freedom of speech for folks that can afford it.

    AnaC (0af2e8)

  18. New lesson for our children: It’s no longer enough to tolerate those with whom you disagree with; you must be their cheerleaders as well or run the risk of being ostracized and denounced as a hater. Just like if you don’t support EVERYTHING President Obama says, you’re obviously a racist. Can’t wait until Hillary runs when we’ll all suddenly be sexists as well! Let us all bow down to the gods of political correctness. Cowards.

    I don’t like thugs or bullies either, no matter which side of the aisle they’re on. I can only assume that Patterico and his like-minded pals drank some of Scott Johnson’s koolaid. I’m done with this blog.

    rich (60dde4)

  19. i get confuzzled sometimes, reading comments and stuff

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  20. An opinion, that has been the foundation of society for 5,000 years, is a firing offense, what will be next be crimethink.

    narciso (3fec35)

  21. People used to say we didn’t need civil rights law, the market would work to end racism. Now that we see the market at work, it seems to get folks upset.

    AnaC (0af2e8)

  22. have a flatizza, pikachu,

    narciso (3fec35)

  23. “We’re the tolerant ones,” my aching ass.

    Jeff Lebowski (5e0c1f)

  24. “AnaC” is a special little snowflake.

    What other thoughts and actions preclude someone from holding a job, “AnaC”?

    When will call upon Obama to step down?

    JD (03f68b)

  25. You mean the free market won’t provide him with a job? I doubt it.

    AnaC (0af2e8)

  26. well this is crime think, but climate skepticism is tantamount to future mass murder, so there’s that to look forward to,

    narciso (3fec35)

  27. the left never forgets, ask Bork, Bolton, Reich, there is never ‘moving on’ or what difference does it make. the more policy mistakes they’ve made, the higher they are promoted,

    narciso (3fec35)

  28. So, people who do not share special snowflake AnaC’s views are only eligible for certain jobs, but certainly not one as the leader of the company he helped found.

    #AnaCHeartsThoughtCrimez

    JD (03f68b)

  29. Mozilla Corporation is different from Mozilla Foundation. It’s the money-making side and if I read teh interwebz correctly it gets 80% of its business from Google. That’s it. They did not want to offend Google. Google is gayer than a Wrigleyville sidewalk cafe.

    nk (dbc370)

  30. So Howard Schultz doesn’t want guns in his establishment, Tim Cook doesn’t want dirty climate deniers, whoever runs Mozilla doesn’t care for doubleunplusgood thoughts, who won the Cold war again?

    narciso (3fec35)

  31. Life is wonderful in the Village, don’t you think No. 2

    narciso (3fec35)

  32. Wasted motion. Mozilla makes nothing off FireFox.

    This is just what I was going to say, but jakee308 beat me to it. If Firefox were a commercial product (or especially a subscription-based one) then boycotting it would have some impact. But as it’s an open-source project, boycotting Firefox to protest the actions of Mozilla’s CEO will have no effect whatsoever.

    [Again, that contention appears to be false. Mozilla makes millions from Firefox. -- P]

    Robin Munn (4bc85c)

  33. So no one is concerned that the Supreme Court has four members that think free speech only applies if the collective believes that free speech advances the cause of the collective rather than the individual?

    We are pretty much done as a nation. One voice, one idea, one decision will change everything. When the first amendment is gone, the others do not matter.

    Ag80 (eb6ffa)

  34. As has often been said, they see 1984 as an instruction manual, not a cautionary tale,

    that said, that Breyer opinion is right out of ‘Billy Madison’

    narciso (3fec35)

  35. “Now that we see the market at work, it seems to get folks upset.”

    AnaC – Bless your heart. That wasn’t the market at work. That was discrimination. Learn the difference.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  36. if i needed somebody to help me make a more better browser I’d hire him lickety-split

    but I have no such needs really

    i need sweet n sour mix

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  37. oh hey check out what I founded with my mozillatastic firefox browser technology:

    http://cocktails.about.com/od/cocktailspeak/g/sweet_sour_mix.htm

    it’s like mozilla puts the whirl at my fingertips!

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  38. So Howard Schultz doesn’t want guns in his establishment

    Not so. I’m no fan of Starbuck’s but what’s fair is fair. Moms Demand Attention or the Brady Bitch or Bloombeg’s Illegal Mayors or some such other nutcases asked Starbuck’s to put up No Gun signs and Starbuck’s politely asked everybody “Leave us out of this”. It definitely did not go along with the hoopla and against the hopla.

    nk (dbc370)

  39. AnaC is angry. Why is it angry? I don’t know, but it can type. Regardless. Did you ever think that the market did indeed work?

    The market is color blind. It moves based on capital.

    Government moves on a myriad of pivots. Sometimes it is race. Sometimes it is gender. Sometimes it is fashion. Mostly it is how one party can get elected.

    The market may have an interest, but the market will always find a way to generate capital, regardless of the government’s influence.

    There are references on a daily basis. Google Venezuela or Cuba.

    Ag80 (eb6ffa)

  40. Howard Schultz is a strange person

    not unlike that narsty tattooed chick on HBO’s girls but more coffee-centric

    and with like clothes on and stuff

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  41. White girls love him.

    nk (dbc370)

  42. he lets them have sugar

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  43. There are many people who work for Mozilla that believe the same as Brendan Eich. No use throwing the baby out with the bath water. Firefox is a fine browser continue to use it, but write to Michell Baker telling her what you believe and how they’ve created climate of fear within the company for those who believe in traditional marriage. What’s the next belief that will cause a person to be forced to leave a job? Belief in God? Belief that mankind is not responsible for global warming? Being a conservative? Belief that socialism and communism is evil?

    Where do they stop or do the stop?

    Tanny O'Haley (c0a74e)

  44. well it’s mostly overpriced a product, but on occasion, I’m speaking of ‘Four Bucks’

    narciso (3fec35)

  45. i think you can believe in traditional marriage without being a geeky pasty buzzkill for same sex marriage or what have you

    for example Luke Bryant

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  46. I wonder how long before the backlash against gay rights activists, if not gays themselves?

    Michael Ejercito (906585)

  47. I support gay marriage. I also hate thuggery. I will be removing Firefox from every computer I own. I encourage every reader of this site to do the same.

    I am confused. You’re kidding, right?

    AZ Bob (533fbc)

  48. They’re mostly cocooned. They pull this stuff in Silicon Valley, not in South Dakota.

    nk (dbc370)

  49. I am confused. You’re kidding, right?

    No. Why?

    Patterico (9c670f)

  50. Well, I looked at Chrome and find it to be a toy browser, about 3 years behind Firefox in usability. So many useful extension aren’t available and you can’t edit the config too well.

    OTOH, I’ve been upset with Firefox blocking Java content (and soon to block all plugin content), so this may be the thing that gets me to move.

    Mozilla must have some product I can boycott.

    Kevin M (b11279)

  51. I would like to respond to this comment by jakee308:

    Wasted motion. Mozilla makes nothing off FireFox.

    and this one by Robin Munn:

    This is just what I was going to say, but jakee308 beat me to it. If Firefox were a commercial product (or especially a subscription-based one) then boycotting it would have some impact. But as it’s an open-source project, boycotting Firefox to protest the actions of Mozilla’s CEO will have no effect whatsoever.

    Guys:

    How do you figure? You maintain that if every Firefox user deleted the browser tomorrow, that would not harm Mozilla? You’re going to have to do more than simply assert that without a link if you’re going to convince me.

    Google signed a three-year, $100 million per year deal with Mozilla in December 2011. What did Mozilla promise? That Google will be the default search provider for Firefox. Last time I checked, it’s not yet December 2014, so that deal is still in place and could be renewed. If everyone deleted their Firefox browser tomorrow, that would not jeopardize the renewal of that deal?

    Mozilla plans ads in its browser per this February 2014 article. That’s not harmed by people not using the browser?

    Feel free to back up your statements and somehow refute the links I provided. Until you do, I’m calling bullshit.

    Patterico (9c670f)

  52. Mozilla makes up to a million dollars a day from Google
    because of the default search in Firefox going to Google
    (and its advertisements). This deal ends in Dec 2014 and
    Mozilla is planning to start including ads in the blank
    new tab/windows of Firefox. And maybe other revenue
    generators. For now you can reconfigure your Firefox
    to use another search provider–I have had good results
    with duckduckgo.com over the past few years as the
    google search results have decayed due to paid search
    results, search ads, and personal data mining at Google.

    mozillian (d91473)

  53. Mozillian,

    Absolutely correct re Google: Mozilla makes a mint off of Firefox, from Google.

    If someone is hellbent on continuing to use Firefox, at least use a different browser. I think it will hurt Mozilla worse to just use a different browser. That’s what I am doing.

    Patterico (9c670f)

  54. Stopped using Firefox when W-7 arrived.

    askeptic (8ecc78)

  55. Well, we’re in a bind:

    Firefox is out because Mozilla is run by leftist thugs.
    Chrome is out becuase Google likes to help the Chinese government crack down on dissent.
    Safari is out because Apple execs throw money at Obama and trendy leftist causes.
    Internet Explorer is out because, I mean, come on.

    Is it time to look in to Opera again, or does someone have an old version of Mosaic they can share?

    JVW (9946b6)

  56. Find me an organization that doesn’t support thuggery in the modern world? Apple? They support thuggery via the suppression of worker’s rights overseas and via sweatshops, as well as support of draconian governments such as Putin and China’s to sell their products in. Microsoft? Yea about that one, they donate just as much to the Progressive Democrats as they do to Conservative ideals and all of their former CEOs have express support of thuggery via support of things such as climate change support or common core in schools. Ditto for Google as a business and their board have donated I am sure for thuggish groups.

    Heck looking at your thought it is thuggish on its face. Since you support the strong arming via a boycott of a free service by a group because they were strong armed by others into dropping the CEO for his private opinions via political speech in the manner of a donation to an organization. Oh and taking a purely libertarian view on this, the organization wouldn’t have existed if we had those silly campaign finance rules in place and he could have been given a chance to donate on his own instead of behind an organization that is a third party.

    This world is getting no different than the Civil War’s far West combat in the Kansas territory. Where anyone day you have people trapped between the evils of the Jayhawkers and their terrorist like actions or the evils of Quantrill and his terrorist actions.

    Charles (3cf0f0)

  57. An alternative that uses the firefox code is the palemoon browset. Palemoon.org. It updates about the same cycle as firefox, uses the same addons, and uses duckduckgo by default.

    Jonathan (fbb5d3)

  58. it’s not at all unlikely this anti-gay marriage guy was on Ambien the whole time

    i would bet like 7 bitcoins on it

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  59. When it comes out that he supported Prop 8 because he was in love with Kristin Perry and didn’t want her to marry Sandra Stier, everybody will feel very bad about all this I think.

    nk (dbc370)

  60. Speaking of thoughtcrime, what’t the deal with that Malaysian aircraft.

    Anybody solve that puzzle?

    Steve57 (a017ec)

  61. Charles,

    You seem to be rather all over the map. Do you have a single point?

    Patterico (c799d6)

  62. Everybody says ….

    Anybody come up with any wreckage

    Steve57 (a017ec)

  63. Patterico,

    I am all over the map because this is such a BS issue for both sides. We have an issue where a guy who was basically the leader of the tech department of Mozzilla decided to exercise his right of political speech by donating to a group that support the conservative cause and supported Prop 8. Right or wrong, he made a private choice. Now some 5 years after that fact, he is being forced to lose his job because the internet lynch mob went after him. Note a quick Google and Bing Search shows that they attempted to do the same thing about two years ago in 2012 before Brendan Eich became the CEO. That went no where. So Mozilla is cowards now that Eich is the head of the organization and you have board members quitting enmass because of his thoughtcrime. So the question is how was it good that he be harassed back in 2012 for the same thoughtcrime, but no one quit then and he wasn’t forced from the office then?
    Fast Forward to the last 18 hours and all I have been seeing from the Conservative blogosphere is the same sort of internet lynch mob in reverse where people are dumping Firefox because Mozilla couldn’t put up with the heat the private decision that its CEO did when he wasn’t even the CEO.
    You state in your post that you are opposed to thuggish acts, yet on its face you are supporting a thuggish act by being party of a lynch mob that is dumping Firefox. So I guess my question and the question for everyone else is where does the pot quit calling the kettle the color that is the absence of color?

    Charles (3cf0f0)

  64. I would also note that the Progressive Lynch mob is more than willing to sell out its beliefs on the other web browsers simply because they support the current LGBTQXYZ agenda and not because they have an honest belief in preventing hate, progressing human rights, or any of the other horse hockey pucks that I have seen the facecrack world or the DK/Slate/DU/etc have pushed with there mob mentality.

    Ideals are awesome and beliefs are awesome, but tempered in the real world and seeing how businesses sellout their ideals they claim to be for all the time. There is not one ideologically pure company in either the Conservative nor the Progressive brackets. There are some that come close, but nothing that is pure. So they claim to be absolutist on their ideals, but they aren’t and therefore are hypocrites or even collaborating Quislings because they are willing to sell out other ideals or even the ideals they push for in the first place since the company the 2 minutes of hate that is directed against is the current target of said hate.

    Again the whole idea that in this world we have a binary choice makes it look like the old west during the Civil War where folks kept both flags and a weathered eye towards who was riding in town so they could show the right sort of colors and not be destroyed. Even if personally they felt a certain way, the mob mentality was so much that they had to be publically with the mob to keep from being destroyed by the mob.

    Charles (3cf0f0)

  65. Thuggish act my ass. There are some people you don’t want to be associated with. Mozilla made that choice with their CEO–which Charles thinks is okay.

    Others don’t want to be associated with Mozilla or their browser–which Charles doesn’t think is okay.

    Now Charles I’ve never met the CEO of Mozilla and don’t give a rat’s ass one way or another about him. But I’ve met and known some decent people who were destroyed by the militant gay crowd–donate to Prop 8 and we’ll destroy your long time family owned business and drive you out of town—and I mean literally out of town. So I kind of default to the position of the Mozilla CEO. The love that dare not speak its name is now the love that just won’t STFU.

    Skeptical Voter (12e67d)

  66. You state in your post that you are opposed to thuggish acts, yet on its face you are supporting a thuggish act by being party of a lynch mob that is dumping Firefox. So I guess my question and the question for everyone else is where does the pot quit calling the kettle the color that is the absence of color?

    You attempt to equate a boycott punishing speech with a boycott defending speech. No sale.

    You seem to think those of us appalled by the thuggery have to support the thugs (and Mozilla is part of the mob, not the victims, although you seem confused on this point).

    No sale.

    Patterico (aa15eb)

  67. @66,

    We can talk all we want about the lynch mob that is the LGBTQXYZ crowd and the fact that they want diversity only in how everyone needs to think their way. They are no different that any other Diveristy Friendship Circle group. Whether it is the Feminists and their hate against anyone who doesn’t believe that all men are rapists and all women are pure as the driven snow. The non-WASPs who believe that there is still the kooky klan and every white person is a closted brownshirt thug. To the atheists who belittle anyone who has a religious thought that gets uttered. It is ridiculous in this day and age that the thoughtcrime and lynch mob mentality is reversed.

    Again look at the timeline and ask some serious questions about this. The dude donated in 2008 to a political position he agreed with. He was harassed in 2012 (http://soberbuildengineer.com/blog/2012/03/a-mozilla-lgbtq-postscript/ for just one of the bloggers who talked about it) and the board and the Mozilla community was cool with it then. So what the hell changed in two years? If he was a hot potato then, why the frack advance him to CEO and not just tell him two years ago to step the hell down and that Mozilla doesn’t support haters in their organization?
    Nope this is all about blood in the water as the LGBTQXYZ community sees a chance to get as many scalps for past transgressions now that the appearance of public opinion is going for them.

    That we in the conservative side of the house appear to be standing up strong for our ideals by supporting other companies that don’t fire people because they donate to political action committees or politicians or public laws is again on its face silly when if you get into the nitty and gritty of politics. Nearly everyone who participates in the marketplace has ideas on who should be favored over others and what political type they best aligned to. I know I work for a company that suppresses the right of myself and my workers to have a CCW. They also petition hard for as many tax breaks as possible, while bemoaning that there isn’t enough tax dollars to spend on their defense vunder veapons. I also know, that the fraternal labor organization I belong to actively donates to groups like Bloomberg’s asinine group and to the Brady VPC. I also know that my fraternal organization donates to those PACs and Super-PACs organizations that attempt to limit free speech. Does that mean my ideas don’t align with neither my worker nor my labor organization and that I should just dump both to find something better? The answer to me is no, I need to temper my ideals and find a way to work within the system to fix the issues if I can, otherwise I work towards exercising my free speech rights with the groups that do align and fight hard against the dollars those others spend.

    So basically it comes down to an idea of free speech in this case. That the CEO had the right towards free speech on his own dime and that it was wrong for the Mozilla organization to dump him like a sack of horse hockey pucks. It is also wrong to fight against that restriction of free speech by claiming that you are against thuggish acts, but you want everyone you know to drop the product so fast. Which again to me at its face appears to be a thuggish act. Tell me how I am wrong and I would be willing to yield the point.

    Charles (3cf0f0)

  68. Patterico,

    If Mozzila is part of the mob, then that just takes me back to the history lesson. Whether it is the US Civil War or the Irish Civil War (I am in a class on how terrorism evolved and we are debating these acts of the Oranges vs the PIRA and Quantrill vs Jayhawks which is why this is stuck in my mind right now). You had communities that were on the border or constantly being overrun by both sides that they kept the flags of both sides to keep from being burned out or murdered by the various militias. To the point that the mob mentality was that everyone was willing to turn on everyone even your own family if it meant that you kept your own neck from being put in the noose. That is a sad state of affairs in my opinion.
    Now we don’t have to support the thuggery, but it just looks weird to me when I see that Mozilla knew he was an issue and still decided to advance them. So they either are incredibly stupid or they were purposely egging on trouble by advancing this trouble.
    In discussions with friends the closes that I can come towards a similar sort of firing would be what happened to General Peter Pace after he chose to make a personal opinion about public policy. Then the lynch mob went after him and Bob Gates had him step down. The media meme is he was being forced to step down because of his ties to Bush/Rumsfeld and the Iraqi war strategy. However, I remember there were all sorts of folks on the Sunday shows, pundit night time shows, paper op-eds asking for Pace’s head because he chose to speak out against the chosen people. So he wasn’t advance for a second term as CJCS and he retired. Even thought policy by the government then was that there was no protections for the chosen class and that you even had senior civilian leadership from POTUS and Congressional oversight members expressing concern about the chosen people. Yet, there have been no calls for those heads; this thing stinks and there has to be another reason for all this beyond the Prop 8.

    Charles (3cf0f0)

  69. In the future, only gay sexual activity will be permitted.

    As with the prophesied pattern of the left, first they demand tolerance, then acceptance, then approval. And as the literary leftist state proceeds, “That which is not forbidden becomes mandatory.”

    Humanity won’t end in a comet collision or a pandemic or a zombie apocalypse. It will go out in one final blowout gay pride parade – but it will be a fabulous exit.

    Estragon (ada867)

  70. In the future, only gay sexual activity will be permitted.

    In 1974, Joe Haldeman, a Vietnam veteran, wrote a novel called The Forever War where just such a thing happens. It comes to be reversed. How and why that is the case might be of some comfort.

    Eliot (de5782)

  71. The real point being missed is that contributions to initiatives should not be public information, unless and until the amount of the contribution is a significant portion of the funding. And maybe not even then.

    When people are intimidated out of the political process, we all lose. Regular folks have lost their jobs over a $100 donation to Prop 8, because the mob picketed their employer.

    Now we have some fool here who equates the shotgun-wielding sheriff holding off the lynch mob with the mob itself, since he too is threatening violence. What idiocy.

    Kevin M (b11279)

  72. In “The Forever War”, the government encourages homosexuality as a means of population control. Since the interstellar war is fought at relativistic speeds, the old soldiers are hundreds of years “older” than the newbies, who are all gay. In the end, the heteros are the “queers.”

    Kevin M (b11279)

  73. actually, in the end, humans are replace by clones, who can finally communicate with the OPFOR, through some weird clone only channel, which ends the war.

    the traditional survivors all go off to various planets, and the gays, given the limited choices available to them, at least somewhat, go straight.

    been a few years since i’ve read that book, but that’s what i ‘member.

    redc1c4 (abd49e)

  74. @Kevin M,

    I will gladly play the fool if you would use the right metaphor in understanding my disagreement. There isn’t a sheriff here because we don’t have the government in play. Rather this is like the Lone Ranger coming in and leading a lynch mob to stringing up the bank manager because the bank manager’s son lead a lynch mob against someone who spoke out against the bank. All in the name speech.

    I made me wrong in my assessment of the situation, but I am sure as heck not willing to belittle any of the folks I have argued with here. If that is your favorite tactic in debate it shows you have weak arguments for the topic that I am presenting.

    Charles (3cf0f0)

  75. So he makes a statement in his private life that may be in accordance with his private religious beliefs and for that he should be fired? Doesn’t that imply he was forced out for his religious beliefs? Isn’t he already legally prohibited from discriminating in business based on specific criteria like gender, sexual orientation…? Is there any evidence that he did discriminate in business?

    Eich holds a belief you don’t like, a mob forces him out of a job, encouraging others to dump the product sure sounds like implicit support of the mob or a difference without distinction.

    It also smacks of anyone, anywhere holding a job and paying taxes is at risk of losing their job because of a belief or thought they have in private that goes against the mob.

    Sorry, but if they can get Firefox performance back up, I’m installing it on everything I can.

    mer (2d74b6)

  76. “So, people who do not share special snowflake AnaC’s views are only eligible for certain jobs, but certainly not one as the leader of the company he helped found. ”

    Welcome to the market, where founders are never pushed out of companies.

    AnaC (0af2e8)

  77. This has nothing to do with “the market”, which is obviously a foreign concept to you.

    Everyone that interviews for a job in CA should be asked “do you now, or have you ever, held the same position on SSM as Obama v.2008?”

    JD (03f68b)

  78. Him staying as CEO would have destroyed that organization as people engaged in their own actions and decisions, such as OkCupid’s, in the market.

    AnaC (0af2e8)

  79. Whichever way this shakes out, Mozilla loses business or Mozilla does not lose business, overall it engenders bad will against the militant gay agenda. It won’t stop them, they’re used to it, but it will empower more people to tell them to FOAD. From time to time. Like Chik-Fil-A and Duck Dynasty did.

    nk (dbc370)

  80. AnaC approves of thoughtcrimes.

    JD (03f68b)

  81. I’ve been using a different Mozilla Browser lately on both my Mac and PC — Sea Monkey http://www.seamonkey-project.org — I think it’s from the old Netscape development team. Works OK for all the constant web surfing I do.

    jack squatch (cb0e21)

  82. with duckduckgo.com over the past few years as the
    google search results have decayed due to paid search
    results, search ads, and personal data mining at Google.
    Comment by mozillian (d91473) — 4/3/2014 @ 9:48 pm

    58.An alternative that uses the firefox code is the palemoon browset. Palemoon.org. It updates about the same cycle as firefox, uses the same addons, and uses duckduckgo by default.
    Comment by Jonathan (fbb5d3) — 4/3/2014 @ 10:13 pm

    Thanks for the suggestions. Do either of you have financial interest disclosures to give?

    Of substance, the only thing I would say has already been said. At one time the request was “just leave us be”, but now that they have gained acceptance they do not want to offer what they once wanted themselves.
    The came for the wedding cake bakers, but I wasn’t a baker, so I did nothing.
    Then they came for the wedding photographers, but I wasn’t a photographer, so I did nothing.
    Then they came for the CEO’s, but I wasn’t a CEO, so I did nothing.
    Patterico doesn’t want to do nothing, and that’s good.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  83. Comment by jack squatch (cb0e21) — 4/4/2014 @ 6:12 am
    Thanks, too.
    I liked netscape.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  84. No rebuttal yet from the folks who claimed Mozilla makes no money off of Firefox, Mozilla’s prime moneymaker.

    Still waiting for AZ Bob to explain why he thought I was joking.

    Patterico (c799d6)

  85. All Mozilla products gone and will stay gone. I hate bullies.

    Wyguy (659742)

  86. FF has had problems for a long time. I am reluctant to give it up, but may anyway. IE is bloated and Chrome is scary (just like anything from Goog is scary), so I won’t be using those. Sea Monkey and K-Meleon are products of Mozilla, so I’ll have to look around.
    FF problems stem from too many add ons that don’t always work right and they go through too many versions (heading toward version 30 now).

    Andy (451cd7)

  87. I’ve been getting unhappy with Firefox, so when this broke, I downloaded Chrome. (Hmm, thugs or corruptocrats…) Unfortunately, out here in the boonies, we have two basic options: Wireless (cell or satellite) or dialup. Cell is iffy and exepnsive, and no thanks to the Fed, we lost the extra income to pay for a Satellite ISP. So, my internet is 32Kbaud or so…

    Chrome might be wonderful with broadband, but at dialup speeds, I need the ability to block scripts, and being able to open a few sites at a time is handy. I gather it might be possible to block scripts in Chrome, but it’s not easily found, so I’m going to look for the Mozilla spinoffs.

    I hate thugs. And corruptocrats.

    Red County Pete (58bfb4)

  88. I support gay marriage.

    The situation makes me think of people living in a sketchy urban environment who are fans of the notion that graffiti (aka vandalism) is a form of free expression and cool creativity, and then become a bit flustered when a person has left expressions of his free expression and cool creativity (with a spray can) — sometimes referred to with the euphemism of “tagging” — all over the walls of his house or property.

    Mark (dd9f90)

  89. Here’s a thought. (It has to do with the use of words and Painted Jaguar wanted to do it, but I limit his posts to more humorous ventures, usually.)
    What does it mean to be “pro gay marriage”?
    To some, I think it means they favor equal protection under the law/ equal accommodation of a same sex couple.
    But for many they do not see that as adequate, what they really want is equal affirmation by society, and look to the law to make a statement about what “proper” thinking and opinion is.
    Accommodation means you are willing to let people make their choices, affirmation means you need to agree that those choices are as equivalent, valid, and “normal” as any other choice. Accommodation means equal protection under the law with civil unions is ok; affirmation means equal protection under the law is not enough, but equal status in society is what is necessary, and the use of law to that end is appropriate.
    I suppose there is a bit of a middle ground for some, with thinking that affirmation is appropriate, but that one should not use law to force people to at least behave as though they agree with affirmation. But I think in practice that opinion probably devolves into codifying affirmation in the law.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  90. @ AnaC,

    Him staying as CEO would have destroyed that organization as people engaged in their own actions and decisions, such as OkCupid’s, in the market.

    No, him staying on as CEO would not have destroyed that organization. If people engaged in their own actions and decisions, such as OkCupid’s, in the market, they would have possibly destroyed the organization. It would not have been his decision or choice or even desire to see it destroyed. Other people, those who are narrow-minded and intolerant bigots. (Yes, it can certainly work both ways).

    Let’s let people assume responsibility for their own actions,and not blame someone just because they don’t agree with your own beliefs.

    Dana (c82165)

  91. No rebuttal yet from the folks who claimed Mozilla makes no money off of Firefox, Mozilla’s prime moneymaker.

    Still waiting for AZ Bob to explain why he thought I was joking.

    Comment by Patterico (c799d6) — 4/4/2014 @ 6:32 am

    Sorry, Patterico, I am a little slow on the uptake. I get it now. You are objecting to Mozilla forcing the guy out, not the fact that they had him in the first place.

    It is like that West Hollywood restaurant El Coyote getting grief for an owner making a small donation to Prop. 8.

    AZ Bob (533fbc)

  92. Comment by Red County Pete (58bfb4) — 4/4/2014 @ 7:16 am

    Unfortunately, out here in the boonies, we have two basic options: Wireless (cell or satellite) or dialup.

    What about DSL? Is it too slow, or unavailable?

    Sammy Finkelman (71800b)

  93. 5. Comment by Gazzer (f2a600) — 4/3/2014 @ 6:46 pm

    it is about revenge and control.

    It is about swinging he pendulum so far in one direction, that it can never go back to making what they do illegal, or perhaps making inducing someone to do it illegal.

    Sammy Finkelman (71800b)

  94. MD,

    I think that this is the exact reason for the round of hate against the man. That he chose to say, via his political speech of dollars donated and it was just USD$1k, that he was willing to accommodate but not a firm the position of the anti – prop 8 crowd. They want total affirmation and are willing to sell anyone and everything out including their ideals to get that affirmation. So it is sad but that is how things go. The problem I see is if you sell your ideals out this time, what about next time? As one of my debate teachers said, “Whom first Robespierre, and where do we stop?”; which came after a particular hot discussion about the role of government and the profession of American Ideals in overseas diplomacy (the classic terrorist vs freedom fighter debate).

    Charles (9ee936)

  95. Comment by jakee308 (f1b953) — 4/3/2014 @ 7:29 pm

    This is just the beginning.

    No, the beginnng was several years ago. That’s when they starting poring over the lists of contributors to the campaign for Proposition and trying to punish them.

    Sammy Finkelman (71800b)

  96. @ Charles,

    So basically it comes down to an idea of free speech in this case. That the CEO had the right towards free speech on his own dime and that it was wrong for the Mozilla organization to dump him like a sack of horse hockey pucks. It is also wrong to fight against that restriction of free speech by claiming that you are against thuggish acts, but you want everyone you know to drop the product so fast. Which again to me at its face appears to be a thuggish act. Tell me how I am wrong and I would be willing to yield the point.

    Charles,

    Patterico is not *making* anyone drop a product. He is encouraging it, based upon his beliefs. He is not going to ban me if I continue using the product. I am not going to be prohibited in any way from commenting here, nor is anyone else, if we all were to choose not to drop the product.

    Also, there is no financial loss or gain to any individual here, who does choose – of their own free will – to keep using Mozilla. There is no financial leverage to use.

    This is not the same thing, and *choice* is just that.

    Dana (c82165)

  97. There is another reason why to dump Firefox – Australis.

    It is a plain and simple Chrome clone which kills Firefox customization and pushes it to add-on devs.

    Seamonkey is another good alternative.

    Orhin (4be99f)

  98. Australis and Seamonkey are Mozilla products. Tell me you didn’t know that.

    nk (dbc370)

  99. #93: When I said boonies, I meant boonies. When Century bought Qwest, the local rep said we’d get DSL Real Soon Now. I think they looked at the market (miniscule), the costs (40+ miles of fiber between the telco station and the city), and decided that RSN would be the 10th February 29th from now. Maybe.

    There is a microwave ISP, but I’d have to get a really tall tower for the antenna or talk my neighbors into removing a bunch of tall pine trees. I think I’d have DSL first. I use the library to update my wife’s laptop. They use the microwave ISP, and it’s fine in good weather.

    Red County Pete (58bfb4)

  100. @Dana,

    I am grasping in the abstract what that means. There is just a point of my mind which is stuck around all the crud that the Progressives spit out about being for tolerance and how they are dropping FF because it’s makers are have an person who doesn’t believe in the vocal minority opinion. That they are dropping the product for its views which must confirm to the company views. The reality is the products they were pushing others to use as part of the boycott are just as guilty of support of hate. I can site how all three of the major browsers companies support hate by looking overseas in China. All of them have had to sell out ideals of diverse opinion to be allowed in those markets. China doesn’t support any LGBTQ rights in any way. No marriage, no civil unions, no nothing. It is all part of the soft bigotry that the left exudes in my mind.

    That said those on the right who are pushing for the drop on this decision and making it a personal choice is totally acceptable. Just remember that, to use a phrase from the host, since the company products we are using instead haven’t given a statement for or against either this issue or some other human rights issues we believe in. So we give tact acceptance of the suppression of these other rights. Do you or out esteem host understand how much of a Gordian knot we tie ourselves into over issues like this? Even more so we if we discuss this we a progressive or liberal?

    That said just to be clear for my position, what the lynch mob did against Eich is wrong and we need to stand against it. I am just arguing that there is no ideological pure organization out there. That is the nature of political philosophy.

    Charles (9ee936)

  101. Charles,

    Do you see any difference in this: one person was forced (he had no choice in the matter) to lose his job due to his personal beliefs versus people choosing (the ability to freely choice whether or not to use product – with no ramifications either way) not to use a product due to their personal beliefs?

    Dana (c82165)

  102. #51: Firefox dropped Java (not Javascript, but the old Sun/Oracle language) because it has a history of horrible unfixed security holes. The only site that know that used Java was NOAA radar, and they shifted over to Flash. It has its own set of security issues, but Adobe fixes them when they surface.

    I’m downloading Palemoon. Here goes…

    Red County Pete (50a0a3)

  103. @ Charles,

    If I understand you correctly at 101, you are saying:

    a) the Progs are hypocrites
    b) in doing business in China, all three major browsers companies are ostensibly supporting hate crimes in that China does not recognize gay marriage, let alone endorse it
    c) *because other companies have not made public statements in support of, or against gay marriage, it is permissible to use said products
    d) which bring us back to China: we give tacit acceptance of the suppression of these other rights
    e) no matter which company we support, we will always be giving some tacit support to some sort of oppression or denigration of a people

    *”to use a phrase from the host, since the company products we are using instead haven’t given a statement for or against either this issue or some other human rights issues we believe in.” – You state that our host made this comment, yet I went through the post and comments, and can’t find it. I may have missed it, would you please give the reference for it.

    Also, is this a clear understanding of your point?

    Dana (c82165)

  104. 5. I used to be of the opinion that I did not care either way. Live and let live. However, in a very short time we have gone from “We just want to be left alone” to “We will destroy you (or jail you) if you won’t bake us a cake or perform our wedding ceremony.” So screw them all.
    Equality is never about being equal, it is about revenge and control.

    Comment by Gazzer (f2a600) — 4/3/2014 @ 6:46 pm

    This.

    Kevin Williamson at NRO wrote an excellent article about this.

    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/374115/right-not-be-implicated-kevin-d-williamson

    The Right Not to Be Implicated
    “Everything not forbidden is compulsory,” or will be soon enough under our “liberal” regime.

    I’ll just quote one short part.

    That same year, California considered a civil-union law, which was the source of some controversy. Opponents argued that it was a step toward the much more serious issue of gay marriage, and Democrats rejected that as a red herring: “Nobody is talking about gay marriage,” said John Longville, a Democratic assemblyman, “except the people who are trying to wave it around as a straw-man issue.” Within five years, that straw man was flesh and blood.

    Williamson uses an example of relentless march of liberalism the issue of gay marriage. He points out that until 2003 and the Lawrence decision sodomy was a crime in many parts of the US. Now the crime is not catering a gay wedding.

    I don’t agree with gay marriage. The historical record is clear. The whole point of society getting into the issue of regulating a relationship has to do with procreation. I could cite authorities such as Blackstone again, but what really is the point?

    The issue isn’t just gay marriage anymore. It’s whether the government can force you to buy stuff. Like health insurance so you can subsidize someone else. Or contraceptives for someone else.

    Essentially, liberals don’t think you have the right to yourself. This is not an exaggeration:

    http://hotair.com/archives/2011/11/21/pelosi-whines-about-catholics-having-this-conscience-thing/

    Republicans must want women to “die on the floor,” she said, just because they don’t want to compel health care providers to assist with abortions.

    She still thinks that — only more so, if that could possibly be.

    “[Those who disagree] may not like the language,’’ she told The Washington Post, “but the truth is what I said. I’m a devout Catholic and I honor my faith and love it . . . but they have this conscience thing [that puts women at risk.]”

    Shame on us! How dare we have a conscience!

    Or as Williamson put it:

    American liberalism is the creed that you are entitled to think as you like and entitled to do as you are commanded.

    Maybe you disagree; lots do. But even if you think I’m wrong about gay marriage, eventually something is going to come up and you’ll notice you don’t like the size of the box that liberals are building for you, too. The HHS mandate isn’t about providing women with access to contraceptives. There is no issue; women have no problem getting contraceptives. It’s about forcing people to get over that damned conscience thing.

    “Government is the only thing that we all belong to”

    The Democrats weren’t kidding back in 2012. I’m contesting the title they claim to have to my @**.

    I also don’t think I’ll evolve. Or, if I do, not because I’m told to.

    Steve57 (a017ec)

  105. I don’t support the hijacking of “marriage” so it can mean two men swapping fecal matter so I’m uninstalling FireFox. I assume there’s no problem with Opera? Pain to get bookmarks imported unless you download an add-in.

    CrustyB (5a646c)

  106. Rush started out his how with this. It’s getting traction on the right.

    It might not shake out like Chik-Fil-A or Duck Dynasty, but they’re not going to get away with this. It will have the opposite result of what they intended. And even if it doesn’t, there’s nk’s Rule 6: Make the enemy’s victory bitter to him.

    nk (dbc370)

  107. @Dana

    To answetact your questions:

    A. Yes.
    B thru E. I use China as an example but we go world over and there are American companies that operate in countries that don’t live up to either the Progressive or the Conservative ideals. They at the most fall into our sphere of influence on the international diplomatic side. To rage against what a company does here in these borders but not what they do overseas is as Scott Martelle says is to “tacit acceptance” of the behavior. It is a logic train that borders on the absurd to me that someone can rail against a company for having a guy who donated money to a cause they don’t agree with, then go and shop the competition. Who might just as well have the same sort of acceptance of or even unacknowledged support of suppression of rights/ideals/etc that makes the consumer feel smug about their choice.
    Just looking around the world and looking at how political and economic markets are so intertwined it is hard as heck if not impossible to find an organization that doesn’t toe the party line the whole way.

    This is something that has stuck in my craw since I have been going back to college and been debating prog/liberal professors. They rail on the evils of an company or a government decision but haven’t figured out nor are willing to accept that the alternative choice is just as corrupt and evil to the ideals they express. It just hasn’t risen to the level required for either the lynch mob or the “2 minutes of hate” which is the norm now on social media and the Internet. I have stumbled into similar logic traps expressing my opinion in said classes or in discussions at the student U with the usual protesters and watch them dismantle my argument the same way I am poorly doing here.

    Charles (9ee936)

  108. Whatever, Charles. I simply went into Control Panel, Programs, Uninstall, and took out Firefox. Not a single Gordian around.

    nk (dbc370)

  109. @nk

    Thanks for your understanding and support.

    Charles (9ee936)

  110. Like so many contentious issues the “gay thing” has many gradations and layers and notches on a continuum that people talk about (and around). I’m firmly on record as believing that the acceptance part has mostly been achieved in our society and is a done deal. Some may still find that horrifying while others find the live and let live acceptance refreshing and only right. But, either way, that battle, if you want to call it that, has already been won by our gay friends and supporters over a period of years. This is why having a gay family night at a baseball park or a Gay Mens Chorus seems to just be part of the milieu for many Americans now.

    The battle that has not yet been decisively won by the left is the “thuggery” battle to intimidate and threaten dissenting voices into silence or worse. This Mozilla case is egregiously powerfully evil and goes against the founding principles of our country. This action against Eich and how it proceeded should terrify every American who stops to consider its implications. This is a battle to fight tooth and nail.

    elissa (e8cc24)

  111. You can talk anything to death, Charles, and like you said, talk long enough and you’ll tie yourself up in knots. So do what Alexander did: Cut through the bul … ahem, excuse me, knot. Or not.

    nk (dbc370)

  112. Here’s a thought to toss out and see what people think.
    Partially inspired by remembering the just revealed duplicitousness of Congressman Rogers of MI.

    We know that the info about Eich donating to prop 8 has been available for a few years. I thought I read somewhere that it actually was known and made a point of a few years ago then died down.
    How’s this for a plot twist- even as he was put up to be CEO the plan was in place to get him out of the company altogether by making a big stink about this.
    Maybe we ought to see who replaces him and connect the dots.
    Could be some wanted to make an example out of him over his beliefs and set it up.
    Could be some wanted him out for whatever personal vendetta and just orchestrated this as a method of getting back at him.
    Yes, these may be conspiracy theories, but where there are Alinskyites, there are conspiracies.

    Yes, in some ways it is impossible to be a purest about who you can refrain from boycotting,
    but when others want to purposefully make a statement with an exclamation mark,
    one can at least respond sometimes with making a purposeful stamen with a period. (Really a period.)

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  113. stamen statement
    Painted Jaguar (with exasperation): MD did it again. What am I going to do with him?!?!

    Painted Jaguar (a sockpuppet) (f9371b)

  114. Mine is they want someone positively pro-gay to hire and advance more gays in the company, MD.

    nk (dbc370)

  115. So, do you think they set him up to take him out, or decided to take him out in retrospect?
    In one way it certainly makes no difference, except to appreciate the level of malevolence and the thoughtfulness behind it.

    We know the quote about some animals being more equal than others, I guess there is some corollary about some animals being more worthy of tolerance than others, too.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  116. I wouldn’t discount the possibility they raised him up so he’d make a bigger splash when they brought him down.

    Pour encourager les autres.

    Steve57 (181b49)

  117. The actions by the IRS in illegally leaking prop 8 donor info is another reason why investigations and prosecutions must move forward…

    http://pjmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2014/04/03/gay-marriage-supporter-abhors-mozillas-decision-to-fire-eich/

    Colonel Haiku (aa2ba3)

  118. “They” network. One of them, in the IRS, illegally revealed the list of Prop 8 donors to Human Rights Watch, a misnomer if there ever was one. Human Rights Watch published the list. People on it were attacked in various ways. Eich was one of them in 2012(?). They tried to take him out of Mozilla then and failed. They regrouped and reattacked.

    nk (dbc370)

  119. The gay IRS employee who leaked the list is the IRS the same way Bradley Manning is the Army in my view, Haiku. This was not the institution, it was a criminal in it.

    nk (dbc370)

  120. I thought there actually was some kind of law or litigation that made it possible/necessary for CA to list people who gave more than $100.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  121. @MD,

    Which doesn’t make sense since the board knew he was a so called hater since he was outed in 2012 (if not earlier if you read the LAT published database on the Prop 8 issue back when it was released). Which they could have forced him out then, when he was still the CTO. To me there are some other political points being made inside the company that is affecting him. This was just the visible reason to let him go. It just doesn’t make any sense for an act of consciousness by the board about having a supposed bigot in their midst and advanced him to CEO if the same people supposedly quitting because of his speech knew about it 2 years ago. If they wanted him out they should have asked him to resign then when the first grumbling masses were saying something. It is also very interesting to my mind that the masses didn’t care until now even when this data has been released about his donation. So the rest of the world didn’t care until the mob rabble got started. It is absolutely scary now how fast a lynch mob can get started via social media. Before it only took a few drunks at a bar to start the riot, now it just takes a sober few keystrokes and bam it’s time for a hanging.

    Charles (9ee936)

  122. Sorry, *Human Rights Campaign*.

    nk (dbc370)

  123. So, you are going with the idea that appointing him to CEO was a set up to make a bigger splash when he was brought down?

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  124. 116. …I guess there is some corollary about some animals being more worthy of tolerance than others, too.

    Comment by MD in Philly (f9371b) — 4/4/2014 @ 10:27 am

    If you were following the Hobby Lobby case, there was an interesting development.

    The Solicitor General admitted that a corporation can have a race. Corporations can have a gender.

    What corporations can’t have is a religion.

    CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Now, does the government have a position on whether corporations have a race?

    GENERAL VERRILLI: Yes. We think those are correct and that this situation is different.

    CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: So that — so that a corporation does have a race for purposes of discrimination.

    GENERAL VERRILLI: No, not that the corporation has a race, but that corporations can bring those claims. But you’re not interpreting — in that situation, all you’re interpreting is the word “person” in a statute, not exercise of religion, which is what makes it different here.

    CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: So those — those cases involve construction of the term “person”

    GENERAL VERRILLI: Yes, but only “person.”

    CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: So the person — the corporation can bring as a person a claim of racial discrimination.

    GENERAL VERRILLI: That’s correct, but not exercise of religion.

    Essentially the government was listing the animals it’s willing to tolerate.

    Steve57 (181b49)

  125. @MD

    There is a law and the Prop 8 supporters went to court to have it declared secret as protected speech. They lost at a court of appeal and if memory serves right SCOTUS said it wouldn’t look at the issue. So the LAT took it and published the list http://projects.latimes.com/prop8/
    You can find everyone who donated $100 or more on this list or even look it up by employers. I can’t wait to see the h8 directed against some within the CA state government who supported the law. Again the question of who first to the guillotine and where will it stop is a big question.

    Charles (9ee936)

  126. 120.The gay IRS employee who leaked the list is the IRS the same way Bradley Manning is the Army in my view, Haiku. This was not the institution, it was a criminal in it.

    Comment by nk (dbc370) — 4/4/2014 @ 10:43 am

    The Army prosecuted Manning. What was the IRS’ official position on this employee?

    Steve57 (181b49)

  127. Charles – It seems your frustrations stems from the expectation of a consistent logical position from the left from one situation or company to the next on issues such as this. Don’t trouble yourself. The left is nothing if not inconsistent. Hypocrisy does not bother them.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  128. @MD

    More likely they bet that the crisis management team could turn this into a tempest in a teapot by the usual method. Public apologies, increase diverse training and have Eich attend a reeducation….I mean diversity training camp to understand the horrors of his way. Instead the usual method of appeasement failed with the lynch mob. So to preserve their company neck and the necks of the rest of the board, Eich was sacrificed.

    Charles (9ee936)

  129. The gay IRS employee who leaked the list is the IRS the same way Bradley Manning is the Army in my view, Haiku. This was not the institution, it was a criminal in it.

    Comment by nk (dbc370) — 4/4/2014 @ 10:43 am

    Unless that employee was prosecuted for that activity, it’s on the IRS.

    Colonel Haiku (aa2ba3)

  130. @Colonel Haiku,

    Considering that the IRS hasn’t been willing to admit that it’s in depth investigation of the political enemies not the state is at the most ethically corrupt if not illegal or against regulations. It doesn’t take much of a stretch to see how the release of the data (which is a federal felony) was allowed by the cultural shift in the organization.

    Charles (9ee936)

  131. The Army didn’t call the Wikileaks thingy a “phony scandal,” Colonello.

    Which reminds me. Manning was able to download tens of thousands of documents while pretending to lip synch to Lady Gaga and faking being a soldier doing his job.

    And the IRS can’t comply with a subpoena and produce Lois Lerner’s emails for a year?

    Here’s a thought; put Bradley Chelsea Elizabeth Edward WTFO Manning on the case. The government owns him now, and I hear he/she/it has time on his/her/it’s hands.

    Steve57 (181b49)

  132. Uninstalled.

    Mitch (341ca0)

  133. Comment by Steve57 (181b49) — 4/4/2014 @ 10:47 am

    I would have liked to see Justice Roberts say something like, “What kind of idiot do you think I am? Get out of my courtroom and don’t come back until you can think of something coherent to say!”

    Though, on second thought, had he been of such a disposition he probably would have said before, “OK, final answer. Is it or is it not a tax?”

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  134. Comment by MD in Philly (f9371b) — 4/4/2014 @ 12:43 pm

    would have liked to see Justice Roberts say something like, “What kind of idiot do you think I am? Get out of my courtroom and don’t come back until you can think of something coherent to say!”

    If he had a disposition to say such a thing to a lawyer before him, this wouldn’t be the first case where he would say such a thing.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  135. Alan Page, former All-Pro defensive tackle is/was a judge. I bet he could have got away saying it…

    Jack Bauer for SCOTUS, after his last mini-season.

    So… (doing my Justice Roberts wished for impersonation) did or did not someone illegally release the prop8 donors, or was it legal to do so after the court actions?

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  136. Sammy, I don’t follow Slate or that author. He explicitly says he thinks Eich is a bigot and should have been sent packing, but then he says there are many more, and if they aren’t going to go after them all, then “put the pitch forks down”.
    So, is he for getting them all, leaving them be, or making a provocative column that doesn’t necessarily have a conclusion?

    Can you imagine the exploding heads (and law suits) if someone tried to do the same thing with the list of donors against Prop 8?
    Of course, maybe we should do that and send them “God loves you anyway” cards, one for every $100 donated.
    Of course, we would probably get sued for “harassment”.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  137. md @ 136:

    From the Wall Street Journa;s’ “Political zDiary” today by Allysia Finley:

    California’s campaign-finance rules, which are among the most stringent in the nation, explicitly prohibit “anonymous contributions” in excess of $100. Prop. 8 donors who received death threats and other reprisals challenged this disclosure rule after their opponents targeted their homes and businesses. The directors of the non-profit California Musical Theater and Los Angeles Film Festival, who gave a combined $2,500 in support of the initiative, were ousted after opponents mobilized boycotts.

    However, a federal district court rejected their as-applied challenge to the law based on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Buckley v. Valeo (1976), which held that the government has a compelling interest in providing “the electorate with information” about campaign financing. While disclosure requirements may burden speech, the Court contended they “impose no ceiling on campaign-related activities.” Dozens of state and federal courts, most notably the Supreme Court in Citizens United , have cited Buckley to sustain disclosure requirements.

    But Justice Thomas in his partial dissent argued that “the disclosure, disclaimer, and reporting requirements” in the 2002 federal campaign-finance law that Citizens challenged are unconstitutional because Congress may not abridge the “‘right to anonymous speech’ based on the ‘simple interest in providing voters with additional relevant information.’”

    Highlighting the Prop. 8 reprisals, he explained that “disclaimer and disclosure requirements enable private citizens and elected officials to implement political strategies specifically calculated to curtail campaign-related activity and prevent the lawful, peaceful exercise of First Amendment rights.”

    Further, “the Court’s promise that as-applied challenges will adequately protect speech is a hollow assurance. Now more than ever, [disclosure requirements] will chill protected speech because—as California voters can attest—’the advent of the Internet’ enables ‘prompt disclosure of expenditures,’ which ‘provide[s]‘ political opponents ‘with the information needed’ to intimidate and retaliate against their foes.”

    He concluded that “I cannot endorse a view of the First Amendment that subjects citizens of this Nation to death threats, ruined careers, damaged or defaced property, or pre-emptive and threatening warning letters as the price for engaging in core political speech, the primary object of First Amendment protection.” Mr. Eich, Q.E.D. … Justice Thomas probably remembered a very famous case that involved the NAACP in Alabama around 1958.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Association_for_the_Advancement_of_Colored_People_v._Alabama

    ….Before a hearing date was set, the state issued a subpoena for much of the Association’s records, including bank statements and leases, but most notably the names and addresses of the “agents” or “members” of the Association in Alabama.

    In its response to the lawsuit, the Association admitted that it was in breach of the statute and offered to obtain qualification to continue business if that part of the ex parte order was lifted. Because the Association did not comply with the order to produce its records, that motion was denied and the Association was held in contempt and fined $10,000. The contempt order allowed for the reduction or remission of the fine if the production order was complied with within five days, after which the fine would be raised to $100,000.

    Contending that the State could not constitutionally force disclosure of the records, the Association moved to dismiss the contempt judgment once more. According to Alabama case law, however, a petitioner could not seek a hearing or to dissolve an order until it purged itself of contempt.

    The United States Supreme Court reversed the first contempt judgment….

    ….In an opinion delivered by Justice John Marshall Harlan II, the Supreme Court decided in favor of the petitioners, holding that “Immunity from state scrutiny of petitioner’s membership lists is here so related to the right of petitioner’s members to pursue their lawful private interests privately and to associate freely with others in doing so as to come within the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment” and, further, that freedom to associate with organizations dedicated to the “advancement of beliefs and ideas” is an inseparable part of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The action of the state’s obtaining the names of the Association’s membership would likely interfere with the free association of its members, so the state’s interest in obtaining the records was superseded by the constitutional rights of the petitioners.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  138. Thank you, Sammy.
    I take it that while the court refused to hear it, Justice Thomas wrote an opinion to publically champion what he thought was a worthy idea.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  139. Sammy – Was there a point to that wall of text?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  140. Charles @ 108,

    With your line of thinking, how on earth do you ever utilize *any* products in the marketplace? If the assumption is some or all may be suspect with ties to an objectionable country, what do you do? Is there any issue that you personally will not abide a company supporting and thus, will refuse to spend money on? One can buy USA and one can also read and keep updated on tacit or outright support of issues that one cleaves to (such as this post), but where does one draw the line? In the *real* world, how does one function?

    Dana (c82165)

  141. Saletan, might be ironic, but since he endorse Elian’s rendition, a baker’s dozen years ago, I’m not sanguine about much of his mutterings,

    narciso (3fec35)

  142. Also, Charles, lest you think I’m being flip in my questions, I’m not. I would like to know.

    And, I still can’t the reference for your statement, “Just remember that, to use a phrase from the host, since the company products we are using instead haven’t given a statement for or against either this issue or some other human rights issues we believe in. So we give tact acceptance of the suppression of these other rights.

    Dana (c82165)

  143. @Dana,

    You can’t that is the point that I was trying to make. You can not function and claim the high road because the Acme Corporation is ethically better than the WeSaySo corporation. Any of the left leaning folks who claim otherwise are short sighted and hypocritical. That they act all smug by dropping Mozilla like a hot potato or a smelly bag of horse pucks by switching to the evil IE or Apple or anything else means that they are hypocritical in their response. They don’t see it and will hold us to that standard which they don’t hold themselves. I have heard the same again from fellow students and professors while debating things such as the HL case, Chik-Fil-A, Nike, Wal-Mart or any business in the market.

    I understand you aren’t being flip. As to the reference question. I was trying to make a tie to the hosts postings on the LAT reporter named Scott Martelle and how that reporter used the idea that by unwilling to reject an idea you tacitly accept it’s premises. It was probably done in poor taste and poor rhetorical style and if I have offended then excuse my impasse.

    Charles (9ee936)

  144. Obama is just trying to improve America.
    Some of our conservative friends are pure and holy, but why are so many of you so resistant to improvement ?

    Obama won the election.
    Deal with it.

    Hillary ’16 !

    Elephant Stone (6a6f37)

  145. I would have liked to see Justice Roberts say something like, “What kind of idiot do you think I am? Get out of my courtroom and don’t come back until you can think of something coherent to say!”

    In a similar vein, I would have liked to see some Congresscritters say exactly that to former Deputy Director of the CIA Mike Morrell when he testified before Congress a couple days back about Benghazi.

    Over on the Thursday Links thread I posted a link to the Fox All-Star’s panel discussion about it (and they included some of the lowlights of Morrell’s testimony).

    I won’t rehash the whole thing, but suffice to say I would have kicked the guy out as soon as he told the committee that the “intel” they relied upon to come up with the “attack developed out of a protest” fable didn’t include the eyewitness testimony. Actually what Morrell said was the analyst was not aware of the eyewitness accounts.

    I wish I had the words to express just how stupid that statement is. I would be embarrassed to say it. That’s like saying something like “the mechanic wasn’t aware that internal combustion engines require fuel.” It’s so stupid that it is simply unbelievable. There’s a good post up at Powerline that was in anticipation of Morrell’s testimony.

    http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/04/fools-and-knaves-mike-morrell-vs-vile-rat.php

    It reviews what was known at the time of the attack. Although it leaves out the fact a DSS agent was relaying information about the attack to the State Dept. in Washington in real time. So not only were there eyewitnesses (and how could there not be) but State was getting a blow-by-blow that very day.

    So, either we are to believe that this mysterious analyst is too stupid to be allowed to sweep the floor at CIA. And former Deputy Director Morrell is stupid enough to rely on him. Or, the main job requirement in this administration is that you have to be willing to say the stupidest things and brazen it out.

    I don’t know how these supreme court justices can sit there and listen to the incoherent deceit that Virelli is forced to weave to defend the indefensible. I don’t know how those Congresscritters could sit there and listen, either. Because in Morrell’s case he was telling them to their faces just how stupid he thinks they are. He was basically daring them to try and do something about the fact he’s lying. Roberts at least will have the opportunity to do something about Virelli’s BS. I don’t know what these Congresscritter’s are waiting for.

    Steve57 (181b49)

  146. there was a drone overhead, at the time, that’s where they took the pics for the FBI flier, yet;

    http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2014/04/intel-chair-obama-knows-where-benghazi-terrorists-are-hiding-but-wont-go-after-them-video/

    narciso (3fec35)

  147. When even Andrew “Milky Loads” Sullivan blasts Mozilla, you might think they and the gaystapo have gone too far.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  148. When I load Firefox here, (in a library) I sometimes get:

    Thank you for installing Block site!

    The extension collects information about the websites you visit and helps us measure the Web. Privacy is really important at Wips.com so all of the information are completely anonymous, and we do not attempt to analyze web usage data to determine the identity of any user. You can also change your choice at any time through the extension’s Options menu.

    Read the Wips.com Privacy Policy.

    I have to close Firefox and launch it again in order to go to Patterico, because it is a blocked site.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  149. Also, you are all additcted to Koch.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  150. Best of teh web: Justice Thomas Was Right Citizens United and the defenestration of Brendan Eich I can only do this from Firerfox, not Internet Explorer.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  151. I suppose more responsive to your comment, MD, is Verrilli’s stunning incoherence when Chief Justice Roberts hit him with this real stumper of a question.

    “Isn’t that what this case is about?”

    http://www.lifenews.com/2014/03/26/obama-admin-lawyer-was-surprised-hobby-lobby-case-had-anything-to-do-with-abortion/

    …Justice Kennedy asked Solicitor General Donald Verrilli a very simple question. Under the Obama Administration’s theory of the case, could the federal government force employers to pay for abortions? The Solicitor General attempted to evade the question saying that there is no such law. Chief Justice Roberts asked the Solicitor General to repeat his answer: there is no law doing what? Solicitor General Verrilli triumphantly repeated that there is “no law” forcing employers to pay for abortions.

    Chief Justice Roberts interjected, isn’t that what the plaintiffs in this case are arguing. The federal government is forcing them to pay for abortion pills that they say violate their faith.

    The Obama Administration’s lawyer was stunned. From my vantage point in the Courtroom he looked like he didn’t know what hit him.

    Yet, this is the fundamental question in the case. Can the federal government force an employer to pay for abortion pills in violation of his or her deeply held religious beliefs.

    The Solicitor General attempted to make an incoherent argument about how abortifacient drugs aren’t actually abortions.

    If there was a “the moment” in this oral argument, that was it.

    Verrilli stammered something about how the federal government doesn’t classify abortifacients as abortions because they prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus. As I followed it, therefore the proprietors of Hobby Lobby can’t consider it an abortion either. We have arrived at the point where the government thinks it has the power to dictate people’s beliefs.

    Why not? We’ve arrived at the point where lots of people think it’s cool to punish someone for holding the wrong beliefs.

    Steve57 (181b49)

  152. Did somebody say, “Koch Brothers” ?

    Elephant Stone (6a6f37)

  153. Excellent comment, Steve57.

    felipe (6100bc)

  154. Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/4/2014 @ 1:09 pm
    I took it as an answer to my questions, and found it helpful. Of course, maybe my need of remedial law 101 made it interesting.

    In a similar vein, I would have liked to see some Congresscritters say exactly that to former Deputy Director of the CIA Mike Morrell when he testified before Congress a couple days back about Benghazi.
    Comment by Steve57 (181b49) — 4/4/2014 @ 2:13 pm
    As I mentioned elsewhere yesterday, I heard the real problem here was that Committee Chair Rogers had essentially done nothing to set up the testimony properly, and other Committee members had to take charge, perhaps unexpectedly.

    Comment by Steve57 (181b49) — 4/4/2014 @ 2:39 pm
    President Obama and those under him only care about what the one thinks. It would be too tedious to actually bother listening to someone else to understand what they were saying.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  155. “No, him staying on as CEO would not have destroyed that organization. If people engaged in their own actions and decisions, such as OkCupid’s, in the market, they would have possibly destroyed the organization. It would not have been his decision or choice or even desire to see it destroyed. ”

    Yes that’s usually how the market presents itself to you: via other’s actions. But lets sum up: A CEO gets appointed and

    A few board members resign. Thugs.

    Developers announce they no longer want to contribute. Thugs.

    Employees (try this one at work) announce they’d like their CEO to step down. Thugs.

    A dating site puts up a pop-up ad for the competitor’s products. Thugs.

    It’s gonna be a tough life. But you guys do disappoint, we’ve gone a whole thread on gay issues and not one mention of gay acceptance being “rammed down our throats”

    AnaC (0af2e8)

  156. Totalitarian, narcissistic behavior by the Gay Activist Greivance Lobbyists that is completely in tune with Obama’s vision of America. They need a large dose of this pushed right back in their intolerant faces.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  157. Double dose for AnaC.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  158. AnaC

    The issue is not about gay acceptance. The issue is the demand for gay affirmation and the lack of “straight acceptance”.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  159. “not one mention of gay acceptance being “rammed down our throats””

    “They need a large dose of this pushed right back in their intolerant faces.”

    Close enough.

    AnaC (0af2e8)

  160. “The issue is not about gay acceptance. The issue is the demand for gay affirmation and the lack of “straight acceptance”.”

    And thugs. Don’t forget the thugs resigning from boards and such.

    AnaC (0af2e8)

  161. AnaC here is a singing about thoughtcrimes

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IcTP7YWPayU&feature=kp

    she’s so cool I can’t even stand it

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  162. Close Fair enough.

    Comment by AnaC (0af2e8) — 4/4/2014 @ 4:05 pm

    Fixed it for ya… yer welcome.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  163. Sore heads… Fascist biology/science deniers.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  164. Fever-swamp leftist, totalitarian gay goons.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  165. For Chrissakes, never let ‘em drive, they’ll use the exit ramp for an entrance.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  166. I must be getting senile; I have no idea what AnaC is prattling on about.

    JVW (9946b6)

  167. Vladimir Putin.

    nk (dbc370)

  168. Posting using Pale Moon. The good bits of Firefox without any money going to Mozilla Corp. Aaaand, I get to keep Noscript and Adblock!

    Since AnaC isn’t doing it well, I’ll denounce us all as biiiiigots! (5 ‘i’s, right?)

    Red County Pete (220cfe)

  169. Litmus tests. We must have litmus tests dictated by our customers for employment at this company!

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  170. @daleyrocks

    You mean like the litmus tests of bigger government, anti religious, higher taxes, anti koch, prochoice that the left applies to candidates for office?

    Charles (9ee936)

  171. ==And thugs. Don’t forget the thugs resigning from boards and such.==

    You don’t like “thugs” and “thuggishness” as descriptors of what was done to Eich.? OK, what word do you think is applicable, AnaC, when a man is literally forced from his job for what he privately thinks about a subject that has nothing whatsoever to do with his talents and technical expertise?

    elissa (a10250)

  172. “AnaC” has that passive aggressive mendoucheous twatwafflery down pat.

    JD (5c1832)

  173. @174,

    You could look at that database and ask the same of both federal and state employees in CA. So as I asked a friend with whom I served with in the military, how soon till an EO appratchik starts to examine this list and hold up promotion or even down grade an evaluation for EO support on an Officer in the military or an Enlisted based on how the military is Equal Opportunity? This lost of speech rights based on a decision when it wasn’t the majority view is a dangerous slope to be on.

    Charles (9ee936)

  174. From narciso’s LAT blacklist link at 174. Among Google employee donations to Prop 8, 96% were in opposition, including $100,000 from big kielbasa Sergey Brin. Told you Google is gayer than Obama trying to throw a baseball, and the biggest supporter of both Mozilla Foundation and Mozilla Corporation. This was to keep Google happy.

    nk (dbc370)

  175. Charles – I think you might be on to something.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  176. To spell it out: Mozilla needs Google. Mozilla could not tell “them”, “Here’s some Anusol, now go away”. This made Eich an easy target. Try this stuff at Home Depot? I kind of doubt it.

    nk (dbc370)

  177. But remember ‘don’t be evil’ sodomy and providing services to the PLA notwithstanding,

    narciso (3fec35)

  178. “You don’t like “thugs” and “thuggishness” as descriptors of what was done to Eich.? OK, what word do you think is applicable, AnaC, when a man is literally forced from his job for what he privately thinks about a subject that has nothing whatsoever to do with his talents and technical expertise?”

    Seems like at least some people on the board thought he should have stayed as CTO.

    AnaC (0af2e8)

  179. I need an alternative to gmail that’s not hotmail. And thanks for the h/t for duckduckgo, mozillian. I want to get Google out of my computer too.

    nk (dbc370)

  180. Use yahoo. they shoved out their founder but not because of the gay.

    AnaC (0af2e8)

  181. Of course, this punk dating outfit, who no one ever heard off, took it upon themselves to be a zampolit,
    cultural commisar, who are these people, have they ever said or done anything that may not bear scrutiny?

    narciso (3fec35)

  182. Aren’t serial trolls just precious?

    JD (5a9bdf)

  183. Soooo, moving him up from CTO to CEO is what has your panties in a bunch AnaC? Really?

    elissa (a10250)

  184. “Soooo, moving him up from CTO to CEO is what has your panties in a bunch AnaC? Really?”

    Me? I didn’t notice much. Kept using the product and all. Seemed important to those board members though. They would know more than me, of course, about what’s important to Mozilla.

    AnaC (0af2e8)

  185. Yes, what is this really about, turns out they are owned by Match.com’s parent, ‘speaking truth to power’

    narciso (3fec35)

  186. Maybe “AnaC” could give us a list of other things that should keep people from being able to advance in a company they founded. Voting for the wrong person? Party? Not holding the accepted thought fervently enough?

    JD (5a9bdf)

  187. ==Me? I didn’t notice much……Seemed important to those board members though. They would know more than me, of course, about what’s important to Mozilla.==

    I see. Yes, indeed. Well, you’ve certainly explained why you have spent the better part of the day trolling on this thread, AnaC!

    elissa (a10250)

  188. i despise obama SO much and if i said it at work for sure I’d be in a pickle

    there’s a lot of obamawhores where i live

    a preponderance, even

    i can’t help it though cause he’s such a weak-ass whore and he keeps viciously raping freedom even if you ask him nicely to stop

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  189. Maybe he/she/it can give us a list of codewords and dog whistles while they are at it.

    JD (5a9bdf)

  190. AnaC’s point is that you sad pitiful latter-day american foodstampers live in a fascist whorestate where your livelihoods depends on your fealty to the ideology espoused by the State and to the precepts of whichever cowardly freedom-hating whore happens to be in your white house at any given time

    and I can’t really argue with that

    it is what it is

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  191. *depend* on your fealty I mean

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  192. AnaC at this moment is madly going back and forth trying to figure out whether you complimented or insulted her/him/it, feets. That’ll teach it to hang around where it doesn’t belong.

    elissa (a10250)

  193. just looked at duckduckgo.
    It says that it will list first the official website that you are looking for, not yellowpages and a bunch of other listing sites that include what you want on a list but not to their site
    Yes!!!

    I did have to correct a typo before I sent this, though. That “d” being between “s” and “f” could get embarrassing…
    Good thing I caught it, PJ wouldn’t have let me hear the end of it.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  194. “Maybe “AnaC” could give us a list of other things that should keep people from being able to advance in a company they founded. Voting for the wrong person? Party? Not holding the accepted thought fervently enough?”

    It seems that “you wouldn’t work out as CEO” seems like a good enough reason to not make someone CEO.

    AnaC (0af2e8)

  195. And exactly how does donating to a political campaign translate to “you wouldn’t work out as CEO” ?

    SPQR (768505)

  196. Fair warning SPQR– AnaC is not very good at this.

    elissa (a10250)

  197. Yes, well he’s only been with the company for nearly 20 years, designed their major browser, and several add ons, really what value could he bring the company,

    narciso (3fec35)

  198. “And exactly how does donating to a political campaign translate to “you wouldn’t work out as CEO” ?”

    Because people will leave your board, staff will want you to resign, contributors won’t want to contribute, and websites will advertise for your competitors, to name a few examples.

    AnaC (0af2e8)

  199. So it’s about pretexting, as with the takeover of GM, and the sacking of their CEO, I’m wondering why would they have wanted to do this,

    narciso (3fec35)

  200. please don’t leave the board i promise i will only believe what you tell me

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  201. plus next week I’m a make french toast

    i love you guys.

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  202. you want everyone you know to drop the product so fast. Which again to me at its face appears to be a thuggish act. Tell me how I am wrong and I would be willing to yield the point.

    Comment by Charles (3cf0f0) — 4/3/2014 @ 11:44 pm

    You haven’t explained why it’s thuggish in the first place.

    Opposing thugs is, in general, not thuggish.

    Gerald A (bfbd30)

  203. AnaC aka imdw – you are kind of tone deaf. That was rhetorical. I didn’t expect you to answer, and if you did, not in a non-asshat manner.

    He would not have been a good CEO because leftists would lose their shlt. QED

    JD (5c1832)

  204. “And exactly how does donating to a political campaign translate to “you wouldn’t work out as CEO” ?”

    Because people will leave your board, staff will want you to resign, contributors won’t want to contribute, and websites will advertise for your competitors, to name a few examples.

    Comment by AnaC (0af2e8) — 4/4/2014 @ 7:40 pm

    So then if a backlash against their firing of Eich starts to hurt the company then I assume you would agree chairwoman Baker should be gone.

    Gerald A (bfbd30)

  205. This is not about computer nerds with bad skin and poor people’s teeth (see e.g. Winifred “Mitchell” Baker) in the cutthroat world of American corporate culture. It’s about yammering yahoos who use internet dating sites (for crying out loud) being permitted, yes permitted, to bring down a person of talent and worth because he might not endorse the way they tickle their fancies. While we sit around playing with the Java he invented.

    nk (dbc370)

  206. AnaC – Can you double my money selling my used car?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  207. A donation that only became public knowledge with a criminal act by an IRS thug.

    So basically AnaC approves of thought-crime.

    A concept that would be utterly antithetical to a true liberal.

    But is the core of the modern progressive / fascist.

    SPQR (768505)

  208. Not one thing about AnaC’s “defense” of thought crime actually had anything to do with Eich’s knowledge, skill or performance as CEO.

    SPQR (768505)

  209. “You haven’t explained why it’s thuggish in the first place.”

    Think of it like resigning from a board. No that doesn’t work either.

    “A donation that only became public knowledge with a criminal act by an IRS thug.”

    No this is california law.

    ” It’s about yammering yahoos who use internet dating sites (for crying out loud) being permitted, yes permitted, to bring down a person of talent and worth because he might not endorse the way they tickle their fancies.”

    If you think this was about just OkCupid then I don’t think you’re going to understand just how torn up Mozilla was over this.

    AnaC (0af2e8)

  210. The fascists like AnaC are going to truly be surprised when we start using their tactics against them.

    SPQR (768505)

  211. “You haven’t explained why it’s thuggish in the first place.”

    Think of it like resigning from a board. No that doesn’t work either.

    Comment by AnaC (0af2e8) — 4/4/2014 @ 8:15 pm

    Think of what like resigning from a board?

    Gerald A (bfbd30)

  212. –A donation that only became public knowledge with a criminal act by an IRS thug–

    Perhaps not. According to Allahpundit:

    Rumors are floating around Twitter that proof of Brendan Eich’s donation was illegally leaked by people in government sympathetic to the cause of gay marriage. Not so. I’d forgotten about it, but friends reminded me that the LA Times obtained a list of people who gave, for and against, to the fight over the Prop 8 referendum in 2008. They put the whole database online and made it searchable. Search it today and, sure enough, there’s Eich with a $1,000 donation in favor. Under California law, that disclosure is perfectly legal: The state is authorized to provide certain personal information about anyone who donates more than $100 to a ballot measure. Why the state is allowed to do that, I’m not sure. The reason you want transparency when donating to a candidate is to prevent an elected official, who’s supposed to serve the public interest, from being secretly coopted by huge sums of money provided by a special interest. In a ballot measure, though, the money being spent is designed to influence the public itself. They’re the final arbiter of the public interest, no?

    http://hotair.com/archives/2014/04/03/how-did-people-find-out-that-mozillas-ceo-donated-to-support-prop-8/

    elissa (b364f8)

  213. Do you want to know what AnaC is, SPQR? Well i’ll tell you what he/she/it is!

    AnaC is a nut!

    Barney Fife (557254)

  214. Nailed it you did Barney!

    Yoda (557254)

  215. We won’t use your product unless you fire get rid of employees A, B, and C who think the wrong way.

    Not thuggish. Not extortionate.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  216. AnaC– are you a PR flak (spin doctor) for Mozilla, or are you an employee or represent “the board” in some capacity? Your presence here today and the narrow focus of your comments suggest that you are. Disclosure would be the honest thing to do.

    elissa (b364f8)

  217. “We won’t use your product unless you fire get rid of employees A, B, and C who think the wrong way.

    Not thuggish. Not extortionate.”

    Right. Like what would entitle a company to have someone use their product?

    “AnaC– are you a PR flak (spin doctor) for Mozilla, or are you an employee or represent “the board” in some capacity? Your presence here today and the narrow focus of your comments suggest that you are. Disclosure would be the honest thing to do.”

    Just very amused by the whole ‘thug’ line.

    AnaC (0af2e8)

  218. I think that basing your decisions on what makes leftists lose their shlt is foolish.

    JD (5c1832)

  219. AnaC aka imdw hearts thoughtcrimes.

    JD (5c1832)

  220. ==If you think this was about just OkCupid then I don’t think you’re going to understand just how torn up Mozilla was over this.==

    This sentence of yours is what finally prompted my question. You seem to be very invested and have a great deal of insider knowledge for some one who earlier said you “didn’t notice much” or “know much about it”, AnaC.

    elissa (b364f8)

  221. Right. Like what would entitle a company to have someone use their product?

    Just very amused by the whole ‘thug’ line.

    Actually nothing entitles a company to that.

    What’s thuggish is the view that anyone who disagrees with them/you shouldn’t be able to be a CEO anywhere, and presumably lot’s of other positions.

    The action of Mozilla’s Chairwoman and her explanation is really kind of frightening. In fact it is her action that this is really about. I don’t know if thuggish is the precisely the word that describes it though.

    Gerald A (bfbd30)

  222. @206

    Just because you had a TL;DR problem of the last 205 comments.

    My initial position was that nearly all of the conservative blogs that I was reading last night were calling on everyone to dump Mozilla for the act of dumping the CEO. There were also people on FB advocating the same. It appeared to be a lynch mob in reverse. So on the face of the statement appeared to be sounding similar to those calling on the boycott of Mozilla for a private speech decision by the CEO (and when he was the CTO some 5 yrs ago). That is why it appeared to be thuggish.

    The position has evolved during some discussion with the host and his fellow bloggers here. I understand the position, I just wasn’t fully articulate in description of my objection.

    Charles (3cf0f0)

  223. I don’t know if thuggish is the precisely the word that describes it though.

    Scared old woman?

    nk (dbc370)

  224. you want everyone you know to drop the product so fast. Which again to me at its face appears to be a thuggish act. Tell me how I am wrong and I would be willing to yield the point.

    Comment by Charles (3cf0f0) — 4/3/2014 @ 11:44 pm

    I’m still unclear on this, Charles. Not trying to be obtuse, but…

    Can we agree that if one stands up for a principle they believe in and are committed to, that’s basically a good thing? And, can we agree that by standing up for a specific principle or belief, one automatically – by default – is then in opposition to those who do not support said principle or belief?

    Now, if the way their support manifests itself is to simply stop using a product – and *encouraging* others to do so as well – do you really believe that is equal to the behavior they were protesting in the first place?

    Given the specifics of the post: Do you really see Patterico’s action of ceasing to use Mozilla and encouraging us to do so, equal to a company firing a man because he did not believe they way they wanted him to? Are they really *both* thuggish acts?

    Dana (9a8f57)

  225. “You seem to be very invested and have a great deal of insider knowledge for some one who earlier said you “didn’t notice much” or “know much about it”, AnaC.”

    You don’t need to have “insider knowledge” to find out what this meant to Mozilla. Just read some press on it.

    “What’s thuggish is the view that anyone who disagrees with them/you shouldn’t be able to be a CEO anywhere, and presumably lot’s of other positions. ”

    There’s lots of places this guy can work. He even was working at Mozilla!

    AnaC (0af2e8)

  226. there’s lots of places president food stamp and his hooch could work too

    I saw some signs at the mall

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  227. Who here would be comfortable allowing Ana aka imdw and other unhinged leftists to decide what jobs people should be eligible for?

    JD (5c1832)

  228. Oh. Just read 226.

    Dana (9a8f57)

  229. ==Just very amused by the whole ‘thug’ line.==

    ==You don’t need to have “insider knowledge” to find out what this meant to Mozilla. Just read some press on it.==

    AnaC, Your reluctance to confirm or deny it, and the fact that you’ve now tried to dance around my question twice, tells me what I wanted to know.

    elissa (b364f8)

  230. “Right. Like what would entitle a company to have someone use their product?”

    AnaC – Ding, ding, ding. Fire extinguisher please for straw man.

    Entitlement not raised, cupcake. Try rereading.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  231. “There’s lots of places this guy can work. He even was working at Mozilla!”

    Flying Flaming Straw Man!

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  232. When even Bill Maher calls BS you know it’s bad.

    MAHER: What do you think about the Mozilla CEO having to step down over his donation to a pro-Proposition 8 group.

    So this guy apparently does not want gay people to get married and he had to step down. What do you think of that, the question asks.

    FMR. REP. TOM DAVIS (R-VA): Because he gave $1,000 eight years ago and it’s come back to haunt him.

    CARRIE SHEFFIELD, FORBES: Well, and he gave it when President Obama was still against gay marriage. So, I don’t think it’s very fair.

    MAHER: Good point. Also, I think there is a gay mafia. I think if you cross them, you do get whacked.

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2014/04/04/bill_maher_there_is_a_gay_mafia_if_you_cross_them_you_do_get_whacked.html

    elissa (b364f8)

  233. i can go back and pick up some applications but not til Monday

    so tell food stamp to just chillax over the weekend but to have a tie ready for next week in case he gets called

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  234. Misstating what you said, to your face, is one of imdw’s tells. Another is slithering away from a direct question. A third is the liquidy mouth-breathing.

    nk (dbc370)

  235. I know Mr. Brendan is anti-gay weddings and all, but do we know for sure he didn’t vote for food stamp?

    By how meek and passive and unresisting he’s being I kinda suspect he’s a total obamawhore at heart what just got caught on the wrong side of this particular issue. I partly say this cause he’s a tech geek and most of them are ardent bowl-licking obamasluts. You know, like Marissa Mayer and Eric Schmidt.

    It’s a thing.

    Do we know about any of his other contributings?

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  236. @Dana,

    Did you get how the position evolved and my thoughts now?

    Charles (3cf0f0)

  237. Don’t be surprised if you see imdw’s “it was just a business decision by Mozilla’s board” being repeated elsewhere. “They” have started running away from this instead of crowing about it.

    nk (dbc370)

  238. http://www.stentorian.com/propagan.html

    Do not direct propaganda against the opposing side’s rank-and-file. They are the people whom you want to persuade to cease resistance, malinger, desert, mutiny, or even change sides.

    Clearly, the people behind this do not know how to make effective propaganda.

    This does beg the question of the differences in the beliefs and the motivations between the rank-and-file and the leadership of this campaign.

    Michael Ejercito (906585)

  239. Relax they know what they are doing, everytime;

    http://www.wnd.com/2014/04/new-revelations-about-mom-killed-by-capitol-cops/

    narciso (3fec35)

  240. As always, trust links from narcisco. But be scared, be very scared…

    Gazzer (fc90f8)

  241. “AnaC, Your reluctance to confirm or deny it, and the fact that you’ve now tried to dance around my question twice, tells me what I wanted to know.”

    You folks are fabs. This and the guy who thought it was a setup are just gold.

    AnaC (0af2e8)

  242. I’ll take OKStupid seriously when they stop using Eich’s JavaScript.

    Amalgamated Cliff Divers, Local 157 (f7d5ba)

  243. So lets ponder the irony, someone can get shot in the back of the head, if they are unarmed and not on medication, although they may follow Delmore Schwarts’s paradigm, but there is no protection against an armed attacker on an Army base,

    narciso (3fec35)

  244. When it happened, I said some of the same things that WND is saying now, and you cop lovers jumped all over me.

    nk (dbc370)

  245. “…I need to temper my ideals and find a way to work within the system to fix the issues if I can…”

    So, if your ideals don’t comport with the company that you work for, you agree that you should face firing if the company learns of your ideals even if you don’t go out of your way to express said ideals?

    Amalgamated Cliff Divers, Local 157 (f7d5ba)

  246. What was the line, ‘if you want to send a message, use Western Union, Apple had the Iphone market, but Samsung is eating their lunch,

    narciso (3fec35)

  247. …and the guy who thought it was a setup are just gold.
    Comment by AnaC (0af2e8) — 4/5/2014 @ 5:11 am

    Thank you, thank you very much.
    But I did not say I thought it was certainly a set up, I considered it and put it out as a possibility.
    Because, as I said, where there are Alinskyites, there are conspiracies.
    Sometimes the adherents howl the loudest when you are on to them. I’ve seen that before. “Oh no, I know people involved, there is no investigation…”, then come the federal indictments.

    OT but related. I know the left pays people to do “volunteer” work like working college campuses with people handing out leaflets and such. Do any conservative leaning groups ever do the same? Perhaps the places I’ve been have been designated “write-offs” so conservatives don’t bother.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  248. imdw a/k/a AnaC is a ventriloquist in the literal Latin translation sense, MD. Don’t bother engaging it except to mock it.

    nk (dbc370)

  249. MAHER: Good point. Also, I think there is a gay mafia. I think if you cross them, you do get whacked.

    The “gay mafia” is merely leftwingers in general on parade, undoubtedly given further sustenance by opinion polls that show their social-cultural liberalism (eg, the viewpoints of even right-leaning people becoming increasingly squishy on SSM, et al) is becoming infused and pronounced throughout this society. The ethos of “I’m okay, you’re okay” and “let’s bow to the god of love, compassion and beautiful feelings” run amok.

    The lunacy of liberal emotion (eg, which is best exemplified by the Hasan-ization of no less than the US military) is working its tentacles throughout the US, and there’s no turning back.

    BTW, has it even been verified that the IRS employee who released the confidential information on contributors to Proposition 8 is necessarily homosexual instead of just being a flaming liberal?

    Mark (0b101b)

  250. Mark, please see 216.

    elissa (b364f8)

  251. Off with their heads, from Taranto;

    Ross had some fun with the hypocrisy of two of OkCupid’s co-founders, Sam Yagan and Christian Rudder. He searched the federal campaign-contribution database and found that Yagan gave to two candidates who opposed same-sex marriage: $500 to then-Rep. Chris Cannon of Utah, a Republican, in 2004; and $500 to then-Sen. Barack Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign. Rudder donated $1,000 to Obama’s re-election effort, but that contribution came in September 2012, a few months after the president reversed his position. . . .

    narciso (3fec35)

  252. —–Him staying as CEO would have destroyed that organization as people engaged in their own actions and decisions, such as OkCupid’s, in the market.—–

    Liberal thought processes exemplified. Poor cognitively challenged illiterate…sniff

    red (ac28a9)

  253. nk,
    Well, by thanking AnaC for the “compliment” I was sort of mocking in a politish way, but I appreciate your point.
    I heard Hewitt say last night that the stories were disappearing, just like with Chick-fil-A because of the significant backlash; not only conservatives who can vote with their virtual feet but also 1 Billion Muslims around the world who take even less kindly to SSM.
    I do think we need to not only find replacements for Mozilla but for Google as well. In fact, in my mind it is long overdue since Google has morphed into something that is much more into making money by advertising than being a good search engine.
    Now, if I can find a bundled phone/internet provider that doesn’t use Google for email then I’ll be all set.

    Although it does make for a good conspiracy theory/novel (hopefully novel)- GLBTandOthers infiltrate the tech industry to such a degree that they threaten to shut down all things post 1995 if their demands are not met.
    Of course, maybe that’s already been done, I don’t get around much except in very constricted circles.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  254. Maybe I should start an internet dating site for people who are straight, conservative, and boring who don’t go for on line dating sites.
    With a virtual mom and dad that get to inspect the potential date before anything is set up.
    So 20th century. Early 20th century, even.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  255. On-line with a chaperone, MD.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  256. Like I posted yesterday, “they” are just slinking away. They may have gotten Brendan Eich’s head but all of theirs were handed to them by the backlash.

    Did you read the Yoder v. Wisconsin Wikipedia article I linked? Somebody else had to step in to defend the Amish’s position on homeschooling because they don’t litigate, they “turn the other cheek”. I’m not like that I’m afraid. A bully might manage to steal my lunch today. Tomorrow, there will be a razor in the apple when he bites into it.

    nk (dbc370)

  257. Recall they went after Eharmony, until they conceded, it’s the Vercotti treatment,

    narciso (3fec35)

  258. Here’s a business that truly should be boycotted. No discernible reason to subscribe when there are much better choices out there…

    http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/186326/

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  259. Along similar lines;

    http://althouse.blogspot.com/2014/04/i-ran-cia-interrogation-program.html

    you note how eager they are to go after a program that worked,

    narciso (3fec35)

  260. Wadda, narciso? eHarmony got sued for not providing gay dating? Nobody tells me anything. (I think match services, internet, newspaper or whatever, are pathetic, and never cared to know about them, maybe that’s why.)

    nk (dbc370)

  261. You’re darn tooting,

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/15/neil-clark-warren-eharmon_n_2694711.html

    guess who did the nudging,

    narciso (3fec35)

  262. Will Intel be next? http://hotair.com/archives/2014/04/04/uh-oh-60-of-intel-employees-who-donated-in-prop-8-debate-supported-banning-gay-marriage/

    Also, I think AnaC should visit any one of many black churches in Cali to share his/her opinion about perceived bigotry against gay marriage.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  263. Don’t squeeze teh Charmon…

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  264. ==(I think match services, internet, newspaper or whatever, are pathetic, and never cared to know about them, maybe that’s why.)==

    Good call. If you ever tried it though, I’ll bet your “ad” would be a hum dinger, nk!

    elissa (b364f8)

  265. Who did the nudging?

    And I see that it was New Jersey and California, not America, and it was about money, so I’m not all that upset about it.

    nk (dbc370)

  266. Recall they went after Eharmony, until they conceded

    The slow drip, drip of liberalism run amok.

    Merely a variation of prodding businesses to bake cakes for gay weddings or, as certainly has happened in countries like Canada, where schools (even Catholic ones, I believe) have been ordered by judges to drop rules that forbid same-sex couples from attending school-sponsored social functions.

    Big hearts, plenty of Love, plenty of compassion. And even for you too, Nidal Hasan!

    Meanwhile, although the following deals with a country far removed from the US, its politics and culture aren’t necessarily so much more liberal or libertine (if at all) than the politics and culture here in the US. So it can’t be assumed that what’s applicable there isn’t applicable here. After all, human nature is human nature.

    Moreover, for those who deem that the concept of same-sex marriage has similarities to the trappings of race or ethnicity — that it therefore isn’t a matter of the good or poor choices one makes in life — and that human sexuality is analogous to one’s height, hair texture or eye color (or somewhat the angle that Patterico has approached the issue of SSM from), well, guess again.

    telegraphindia.com, September 2011: A growing number of teenagers are experimenting with same sex relationships. Same sex relationships in schools have so far mostly been a boarding school phenomenon, especially in all-boy schools. But increasingly, counsellors have been noting a rise in gay relationships in schools among both boys and girls, some of them as young as 12.

    “A sexual revolution is happening in urban India,” says Gaurai Uddanwadikar, head of Counseling India, a psychotherapy clinic in Bangalore. “There is more openness and less inhibition about sex in general. So homosexual relationships are also becoming more common.”

    But experts stress that many students have been indulging in same sex relationships purely on an experimental basis. “The pre-teen is an age when children want to experiment with everything they have heard and read about. Since they are increasingly hearing about homosexuality in the public space, there is increasing experimentation as well,” says Uddanwadikar.

    Indeed, for young students today, gay is no longer a dirty word. Developments in the last few years have brought gay activities out of the closet. The law has sought to decriminalise homosexuality; men and women flaunt their sexuality in colourful gay parades and several films have focused on gay themes in the recent past.

    Delhi-based counsellor Etishree Bhati, who is attached to a reputed south Delhi school, points out that though there are ample opportunities for students to indulge in heterosexual relationships in her co-ed school, many have been showing sexual interest in students of the same gender.

    “If three years ago two children came forward to discuss their same sex relationships, now there are at least five new cases every year,” she says. Delhi counsellor Bhavna Barni adds that she has seen a 20 per cent increase in the number of cases of school students exploring gay relationships in the last five years.

    The trend is not limited to Delhi. “We are seeing this in an increasing number of children studying in Mumbai’s posh schools and belonging to affluent families,” says Dr Kersi Chavda, consultant psychiatrist at Mumbai’s PD Hinduja National Hospital and Medical Research Centre.

    Calcutta isn’t very different either. “These days, teenagers are courageous enough to openly speak about ‘not so conventional’ relationships,” stresses Calcutta-based educationist Malini Bhagat.

    The difference between the situation today and five years ago isn’t just the rising numbers, but the attitude of the teens as well. “Children don’t see a same sex relationship as an anomaly. It comes up in their regular conversation and they don’t see it as a big deal,” says Calcutta’s child and adolescent psychiatrist Gargi Bandopadhyay.

    Based on the history of ancient Greece or the story of the city of Sodom, the old is new again, or the new is old again. Lucky us.

    Mark (0b101b)

  267. Mark seems aroused by this topic. Again.

    JD (5a9bdf)

  268. The action of Mozilla’s Chairwoman and her explanation is really kind of frightening. In fact it is her action that this is really about. I don’t know if thuggish is the precisely the word that describes it though.

    Why does Mozilla even have an official position on the issue of marriage?

    Michael Ejercito (906585)

  269. Mark seems aroused by this topic. Again.

    Chortle, chortle. Ha ha.

    JD, I’ve noticed you’ve made quips like that in the past. Is that because you too are philosophically squishy on the major social controversies roiling this society in the 21st century? If so, you’re merely Example 1 million of why even people who should know better shed a few tears — at least a few — for the ongoing trends of political correctness going off the deep end.

    Beautiful.

    Mark (0b101b)

  270. ==Mark seems aroused by this topic. Again.==

    JD–Starting when he was barely able to walk my nephew was absolutely fixated with hoses and pipes. He became an engineer when he grew up. Just sayin’

    elissa (b364f8)

  271. #272… Yes! Businesses should follow and be subject to the laws of wherever they operate and promote their own internal ethics and “codes of conduct”, but that is where it ends. Ultimately, business should be all business.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  272. Comment by nk (dbc370) — 4/5/2014 @ 8:05 am

    Yes, I did read it.
    FWIW, I always though W. was a bit of “turn the other cheek” when it came to not defending various charges against him and his administration.
    I think this is like the dishonesty discussion we had the other day. I think the intent is to avoid personal retaliation for an insult, (one could think a slap on the cheek is a personal insult) not self defense from a significant act of harm, especially where accepting it would mean harm to a third party as well. GWB I think had a responsibility not so much to defend himself from personal attack, but to defend the truth in fulfilling the responsibilities of his office.
    One does have to admire a willingness to stand for principle when it has negative consequences, though.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  273. Same sex relationships in schools have so far mostly been a boarding school phenomenon, especially in all-boy schools.
    Comment by Mark (0b101b) — 4/5/2014 @ 8:59 am

    Not always (perhaps rarely) consensual. Bigger boys forcing younger boys. Knew several people who were victims of that. As at times with other abusive behaviors, some of those continued the cycle, at least for a while.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  274. Just sayin’

    And what is that? That the example of the schools in India is somehow not an illustration of the power of free will? Or a phenomenon that Patterico either discounted or was oblivious to when he implied that at least one reason he supported SSM was for the same reason evoked when dealing with people of different racial or ethnic backgrounds wanting to get married.

    Not sure how much of your POV is influenced by the relative of yours who you described in a previous thread, a part of the hypothetical you presented (perhaps based upon a real-life experience of yours?) about how one should handle an invitation to a same-sex wedding.

    All I’ll say is that the more I learn about the complexity of human nature and the contemptible politics surrounding people of the left — who are the mainstay of the GLBT agenda — the less sympathetic and naive I become.

    Mark (0b101b)

  275. Way to totally miss the point, Mark. :)

    elissa (b364f8)

  276. Not always (perhaps rarely) consensual. Bigger boys forcing younger boys. Knew several people who were victims of that.

    That apparently is becoming more of a problem in today’s US military, where the rainbow agenda is touted while military chaplains who articulate Scripture are frowned upon.

    I admit to being a naif when it came to all the controversies forced upon society by the left — by GLBT activists in particular — since I was unaware of how same-sex attraction is not all that uncommon among even women, or instances when it’s easier to rule out homosexuality as an act of aggression or violence instead of mutual consent.

    I originally bought into the assumption pointed out by Patterico a few years ago, but now realize human nature is far more complicated and contradictory than even he realized.

    Mark (0b101b)

  277. Way to totally miss the point, Mark

    Elissa, I just assumed the quoteline you used — or the snark of JD — wasn’t sophisticated enough to be taken seriously, and so I responded in a non-humorous way.

    Mark (0b101b)

  278. “Children don’t see a same sex relationship as an anomaly. It comes up in their regular conversation and they don’t see it as a big deal”

    That’s about it.

    AnaC (0af2e8)

  279. children like legos and cookies and pancakes with faces on them and water guns and puppies

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  280. Yeah. I don’t remember ever claiming to be “sophisticated”, Mark. JD either, for that matter, though he’s a very smart guy.

    elissa (b364f8)

  281. “… comes up in their regular conversation”

    Puhleeeze. David Horowitz has thoroughly documented the Left’s intent.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  282. Children also like to stick their fingers into electrical sockets which is sorta what Mozilla’s “board” did here, I think.

    elissa (b364f8)

  283. “I originally bought into the assumption pointed out by Patterico a few years ago, but now realize human nature is far more complicated and contradictory than even he realized.”

    Mark – Why would you presume to make assumptions about Patterico’s beliefs to cover up flaws in your thinking? We are not talking about boarding school age boys getting married. That flew right past your head.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  284. Plus AnaC hates her some Joooos.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  285. AnaC/imdw, have you ever been in a Turkish prison?

    nk (dbc370)

  286. Do you like gladiator movies?

    nk (dbc370)

  287. Have you ever seen a grown man naked?

    nk (dbc370)

  288. nk – I asked the same questions of Mark and he never answered.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  289. I know, daleyrocks, you’re the one I stole it from am emulating.

    nk (dbc370)

  290. That’s about it.

    Which indicates that human nature, including sexuality, is more affected by prevailing culture and standards than even I previously assumed.

    When Daniel Moynihan coined the phrase of “defining deviancy down” several decades ago, it could have easily been theorized at the time that the meaning of those words would extend no further than to traits of heterosexual promiscuity and the genetic-driven responses of people in general (but particularly females) to procreate, affecting the major issue of single motherhood and broken families. But I didn’t think it would necessarily extend to homosexuality, since the notion that sexuality is more determined by DNA than by the culture itself seemed fairly accurate in the past.

    Yeah. I don’t remember ever claiming to be “sophisticated”, Mark.

    I should have instead used the word “thoughtful,” although if JD’s quip was meant in good fun, then I admit to treating this thread more seriously than he is.

    Mark (0b101b)

  291. Do you like gladiator movies?

    Hey, one of my favorite movies was “Airplane.”

    Speaking of which, its producers have an interesting diverging political background, all weighed down, of course, by no lack of liberalism run amok in Hollywood:

    ifc.com, November 2009: More notable, though, is who’s producing [a positive movie about Greenpeace]: Jerry Zucker and wife Janet. Zucker is, of course, part of the Zucker-Abrahams-Zucker team that was responsible for the much-loved “Naked Gun” and “Airplane!” movies; after the partnership dissolved, everyone went their own ways.

    The most “serious” of the bunch, Jerry made “Ghost” and the little-loved King Arthur movie “First Knight”. Brother David, meanwhile, became a 9/11 conservative, stemming his lifelong liberalism to channel his concern for national patriotism into films like “An American Carol” — a stillborn satire rewriting “A Christmas Carol” with a Michael Moore figure in the role of Scrooge who discovers he doesn’t want to destroy America after all. It’s, um, “special.”

    So you could view Jerry Zucker’s entering the politicized filmmaking arena as kind of a rebuke to his brother’s politics. His wife and producer Janet Zucker is quoted as saying, “We’ve found that the best way to reach people’s hearts and minds is through entertainment,” which is certainly what David tried — and failed — to do. But when I interviewed David Zucker about “Carol” (which was like interviewing talking points, really), he said he’d switched parties “without surrendering my environmentalist beliefs.” So this might be the one political point of détente between the brothers and former filmmaking partners.

    Mark (0b101b)

  292. More lotion.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  293. Mark – Why would you presume to make assumptions about Patterico’s beliefs to cover up flaws in your thinking? We are not talking about boarding school age boys getting married. That flew right past your head.

    daleyrocks, no it didn’t. You’re the one who didn’t make the connection between the article about Indian culture as an illustration of the amount of free will in human sexuality. Patterico said awhile back that since straights don’t choose to be straight, it’s wrong to assume that homosexuals choose to be homosexual. Yep, of course, there are a percentage of gays who are rock-ribbed homosexuals. But the number of even self-described gays (males in particular) who nonetheless have been involved in serious, legitimate male-female relationships is something that many people may not be fully aware of. I know I wasn’t until the GLBT agenda — and leftism gone berserk in general — forced its way into the middle of public debate.

    Mark (0b101b)

  294. Hmmm … tried Chrome, did not like. But Pale Moon is Firefox, but not Mozilla.

    Kevin M (b11279)

  295. @298: Lots to like about Pale Moon. Get the migration tool and it’s pretty much seamless. IIRC, it took about an hour for me to be comfortable trashing Firefox once Pale Moon was running. (And I’m cautious–downloads ain’t quick out here…)

    Minor differences; the tabs run below the URL line, and opening a link in another tab means the tab goes to the end of the line, not next to the current tab, but I can live with it. No problems with noscript and adblock+.

    Red County Pete (6a1b2a)

  296. “daleyrocks, no it didn’t. You’re the one who didn’t make the connection between the article about Indian culture as an illustration of the amount of free will in human sexuality. Patterico said awhile back that since straights don’t choose to be straight, it’s wrong to assume that homosexuals choose to be homosexual.”

    Mark – Those are merely your claims, first that I missed that boys engaging in gay sex in boarding school represent an exercise of free will, and second that the only reason Patterico supports gay marriage is that gay people are born that way. I disagree with your first assertion and I would not presume to speak for Patterico on the second even if you feel free to for some reason.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  297. I disagree with your first assertion

    Huh?! You mean the male youth in those schools in India were forced by their, for example, teachers to engage in same-sex activity? Or maybe they were forced by their counselors? Or maybe it was their gym coach? Or maybe it was the Indian government?

    daleyrocks, when it comes to this particular issue, you do a contortionist routine that would put even the most ultra-liberal rationalizer to shame.

    Mark (7ef0e1)

  298. Mark, good morning. You’ve tried to move the discussion here from an important one about a highly qualified individual in America being forced out of his job for a “thought crime”– (a result that could potentially be duplicated for any “thought crime”, which therefore has implications for us all) –to a highly irrelevant (to this thread) focus on/argument about a study on boarding school boys in India who do some sexual experimenting.

    You might want to review the entire thread again to see who is and is not being “serious” and “thoughtful”.

    elissa (b364f8)

  299. “Huh?! You mean the male youth in those schools in India were forced by their, for example, teachers to engage in same-sex activity?”

    Mark – I made no commentary on the voluntary aspect of the activities, only your linking of them to same sex marriage presumably at an older age. Try to follow, not distort.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  300. Elissa and daleyrocks, first of all, since Patterico supports the idea of same-sex marriage, he (and others, as reflected in opinion polls) indirectly has helped embolden leftists like the ones who’ve ousted Mozilla’s CEO.

    Not sure how much of the kumbayah sentiment behind the opinion of “well, let’s be big hearted towards same-sex couples” is because of the belief (apparently widespread) that there’s very little (or no) free will and free choice in human sexuality. But since even I used to buy into that assumption, it probably is a major factor in how much of the public is dealing with this particular controversy.

    Second, the desire to mock the points emphasized in this thread and in other threads where the issue of polymorphous behavior has been raised — and used to challenge the concept of SSM — by impugning a person’s sexuality is merely a variation of all the leftwingers out there who create an array of strategies to silence or ostracize their opponents.

    Moreover, I find it interesting that certain people who publicly support the GLBT agenda, or are squishy about SSM, like to imply that opponents of their viewpoint perhaps are themselves gay. Hmmm. Would such mainly liberals or squishes, in order to mock a person taking a contrarian position on some other controversy, happily accuse him or her of being good looking, a millionaire, a college valedictorian, a popular member of the community, a leader of the local Mensa Club?

    Uh, er. Hmm.

    The reaction in question indicates that even various liberals and squishes whose hearts go pitter-patter, pitter-patter over SSM do privately sense there’s something weird or pathetic about homosexuality. Of course, maybe a guilty conscience is why such people feel they therefore have to go out of their way to be do-gooders about the agenda of the GLBT.

    Human nature: Pathetic.

    Mark (7ef0e1)

  301. AnaC,

    Your assertions about the Mozilla board and employees are denied by Mozilla.

    https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2014/04/05/faq-on-ceo-resignation/

    Q: Did Board members resign over Brendan’s Prop 8 donation?

    A: No. Gary Kovacs and Ellen Siminoff had previously stated they had plans to leave as soon as Mozilla chose the next CEO. John Lilly did not resign over Proposition 8 or any concerns about Brendan’s personal beliefs.

    Q: Was Brendan Eich forced out by employee pressure?

    A: No. While these tweets calling for Brendan’s resignation were widely reported in the media, they came from only a tiny number of people: less than 10 of Mozilla’s employee pool of 1,000. None of the employees in question were in Brendan’s reporting chain or knew Brendan personally.

    In contrast, support for Brendan’s leadership was expressed from a much larger group of employees, including those who felt disappointed by Brendan’s support of Proposition 8 but nonetheless felt he would be a good leader for Mozilla. Communication from these employees has not been covered in the media.

    Look what happens to a Mozilla employee who tries to defend Brandon Eich. The comments from people who know Robert started out good, then the haters attacked.

    http://robertnyman.com/2014/04/04/on-mozilla-brendan-the-future/

    Next thing they’ll be demanding Robert be fired because he stood up for Brandon Eich.

    Brendan created and represented Mozilla for 16 years, without a trace of treating anyone unequal, but instead creating an Internet with openness and possibilities for everyone. To me, that stance and those actions wouldn’t change just because he got another title.

    If the haters really believe Brandon Eich is evil then they should turn off JavaScript in their browsers since he invented JavaScript. Because actions don’t matter only thoughts.

    Tanny O'Haley (c0a74e)

  302. “Your assertions about the Mozilla board and employees are denied by Mozilla.”

    Great. No thuggery then.

    AnaC (0af2e8)

  303. Looks like those knuckle-dragging morons at Intel are gonna have to resign…oh, that’s right, that won’t happen. Just like Mozilla will continue to use Eich’s JavaScript. It’s all about principle!

    Amalgamated Cliff Divers, Local 157 (f7d5ba)

  304. “Your assertions about the Mozilla board and employees are denied by Mozilla.”

    I missed the expression of support from the Board. Would you be so kind as to provide a link ?

    I thought not.

    Mike K (cd7278)

  305. Here is a situation where some people want to get into a parade for another reason:

    Pro Israel-boycott (BDS) groups wantt o join Israel day parade

    They were actually invited. Now others are getting ready to organize a counter protest rally, or pulling out.

    The reason these groups got invited is that the parade sponsors (UJA-Federation – a collection of charities) were afraid being boycotted themselves if they did not.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  306. Best of the Web, Friday April 4, 2014: Justice Thomas Was Right Citizens United and the defenestration of Brendan Eich

    From his opinion (omitting legal citations and shortening as well as adding news media links)

    Some opponents of Proposition 8 compiled this information and created Web sites with maps showing the locations of homes or businesses of Proposition 8 supporters. Many supporters (or their customers) suffered property damage, or threats of physical violence or death, as a result. They cited these incidents in a complaint they filed after the 2008 election, seeking to invalidate California’s mandatory disclosure laws. Supporters recounted being told: “Consider yourself lucky. If I had a gun I would have gunned you down along with each and every other supporter,” or, “we have plans for you and your friends.” Proposition 8 opponents also allegedly harassed the measure’s supporters by defacing or damaging their property. Two religious organizations supporting Proposition 8 reportedly received through the mail envelopes containing a white powdery substance.

    Those accounts are consistent with media reports describing Proposition 8-related retaliation. The director of the nonprofit California Musical Theater gave $1,000 to support the initiative; he was forced to resign after artists complained to his employer. The director of the Los Angeles Film Festival was forced to resign after giving $1,500 because opponents threatened to boycott and picket the next festival. [John Lott and Bradley Smith, The Wall Street Journal] And a woman who had managed her popular, family-owned restaurant for 26 years was forced to resign after she gave $100, because “throngs of [angry] protesters” repeatedly arrived at the restaurant and “shout[ed] ‘shame on you’ at customers.” [Steve Lopez, Los Angeles Times]. The police even had to “arriv[e] in riot gear one night to quell the angry mob” at the restaurant. Ibid. Some supporters of Proposition 8 engaged in similar tactics; one real estate businessman in San Diego who had donated to a group opposing Proposition 8 “received a letter from the Prop. 8 Executive Committee threatening to publish his company’s name if he didn’t also donate to the ‘Yes on 8′ campaign.”

    The success of such intimidation tactics has apparently spawned a cottage industry that uses forcibly disclosed donor information to pre-empt citizens’ exercise of their First Amendment rights. Before the 2008 Presidential election, a “newly formed nonprofit group . . . plann[ed] to confront donors to conservative groups, hoping to create a chilling effect that will dry up contributions.” Its leader, “who described his effort as ‘going for the jugular,’ ” detailed the group’s plan to send a “warning letter . . . alerting donors who might be considering giving to right-wing groups to a variety of potential dangers, including legal trouble, public exposure and watchdog groups digging through their lives.” [New York Times news story]

    These instances of retaliation sufficiently demonstrate why this Court should invalidate mandatory disclosure and reporting requirements. But amici [friends of the court] present evidence of yet another reason to do so–the threat of retaliation from elected officials. As amici’s submissions make clear, this threat extends far beyond a single ballot proposition in California. For example, a candidate challenging an incumbent state attorney general [in West Virginia] reported that some members of the State’s business community feared donating to his campaign because they did not want to cross the incumbent; in his words, ” ‘I go to so many people and hear the same thing: “I sure hope you beat [the incumbent], but I can’t afford to have my name on your records. He might come after me next.” ‘ ” [Kim Strassel, The Wall Street Journal]

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 1.0123 secs.