You are not superior just because you see the world in an odious light.
Vicomte de Chateaubriand
Chart of the Day
 |
| Courtesy of Gallup via Illinois Policy Institute |
I don't think I've looked at an El Paso newspaper since I was liberated from the hell of my UTEP faculty appointment. But this story makes the invasive searches at TSA look like amateur hour:
A New Mexico woman claims in a federal lawsuit that she underwent a brutal and inhumane six-hour full-body cavity search by federal officers that included anal and vaginal probes that made her feel like an "animal." The suit claims the hospital "violated her" and then gave her the $5,000 bill. According to the lawsuit, the woman was first frisked and strip-searched at the port of entry, where officers stuck their fingers inside her rectum and vagina. When that search came up negative, she was taken to University Medical Center. A warrant was not obtained, the lawsuit said. The woman, a Lovington, N.M. resident, also is suing University Medical Center, where she was forced to have an observed bowel movement, was X-rayed, had a speculum exam, vaginal exam and had a CT scan.
Last month, a Deming man sued Deming police officers who gave him three enemas, two anal probes and a colonoscopy after he was suspected of having drugs. The search found nothing, and lawyers for the man said the warrant used to conduct the search failed to show probable cause.Facebook Corner
Familiar readers may wonder why I've been spending so much space on the Robertson kerfuffle. Let me point out 2 things: (1) I have never watched the show and most of what I know I picked up over the last week; (2) Robertson and I have different points of view on the subject of gays, the afterlife, etc.
First, I'm concerned about the effect on liberty. It would be one thing if Robertson had violated his contract, but he was expressing an opinion on his own time. For the most part, what someone does away from the workplace is nobody else's business. I don't ask clients or colleagues about religion or politics. No doubt if I saw someone wearing a 'Paul Krugman for President' t-shirt, I would not be happy. But I judge IT performance on its merits. Have I seen managers make bad decisions? Yes. I've seen worse things happen than Robertson's suspension. The A&E decision was a bad one; it's one thing if Robertson wasn't pulling in viewers--but letting the political correctness police pressure me into making a decision bad for business? I just think appeasement sets a bad precedent. It's not personal: it's business. I don't throw my biggest show's leading star under the bus. I think if people are intimidated from discussing gay or other issues because of what happened to Robertson, it has a chilling effect on the free market of ideas. We have the ongoing SCOTUS process where nobody wants a Bork or Thomas-like battle.
Second, I'm disturbed by how few people discuss the contract but assume the employer has absolute power in the relationship; I see persuasion, not force, as a better tactic.
More on the Robertson (Duck Dynasty) Commander Kerfuffle
(Catholic Libertarian)As I'm sure most of you have already heard, Phil Robertson was suspended from the popular cable show Duck Dynasty for professing his faith in Jesus Christ and that acting on homosexuality was wrong. Nevertheless, he added, "We never, ever judge someone on who’s going to heaven, hell. That’s the Almighty’s job." A&E has pressured the show in the past, such as discouraging prayer being seen at the end of each episode.
Many have said that A&E violated Phil Robertson's First Amendment rights, but as a private company they have the right to run their network as they please. However, I believe voluntary associations and market forces can be much more powerful than attempting to throw the arbitrary law in the network's face. I'm sure that soon enough, Duck Dynasty will air on a channel that allows the Robertson family to openly practice their Christian faith. Or, people could boycott or protest, pressuring A&E to rethink their actions. Either way, voluntary interactions can more peacefully and successfully solve these problems. ~Samson
How many people don't understand the First Amendment issue? There are reasons behavioral constraints are specified in contracts--not the case here. A&E knew the Robertsons had strong religious/moral views; did A&E insert a gag order against religious/moral speech for the duration of the series? Given as you point out the Robertsons were not happy about the ending prayer kerfuffle, can you imagine what they would think of a gag order? I didn't see a press release from A&E saying Robertson violated his contract. Now it may well be that A&E retains enough control to cut Robertson out of any scenes, but I would argue it's not in their best interests to mess with a show that works.No one is suggesting the law get involved unless A&E broke its contract. I do think that A&E is wrong for appeasing the fascist protesters demanding economic aggression against Robertson.
However, as I understand it A&E is breaking their contract with him, which is not honest or legal. If they want to gag people they hire from expressing their personal beliefs that should have been in the contract. Hence, A&E is not within their rights.
Finally, a voice of reason. You wouldn't believe how many people are justifying A&E on at will grounds and NEVER discuss contracts. If you look up morals clause on Wikipedia, there's an amusing quote from Babe Ruth, the notorious bad boy. He was willing to accept incentive restrictions on going to bed earlier, etc., but he drew the line at women claiming they were "too fun"...The freedom of speech point has to do with gay activists pressuring A&E, which constitutes economic aggression against Robertson. Which of us would feel safe if the self-anointed political correctness police could try to keep us from making a living for having the "wrong" opinion? A&E knew the Robertsons had strong conservative religious views before the series ever aired; given the fact the Robertsons insist on ending episodes with prayers, A&E could not be surprised; they may have disagreed. All they had to do was issue a disclaimer. But the protesters wanted their pound of flesh, so A&E threw Robertson under the bus.
(The Libertarian Republic). UPDATE: TMZ reveals a clip of #DuckDynasty's Phil Robertson "The Duck Commander" giving an anti-gay sermon in 2010. So if A&E had a problem with this, then why did they hire him in the first place? http://bit.ly/1bTmJU6
His employer has a right to not employ idiots, and I am glad he was fired.
"Politically correct" troll missed the point Robertson's views were known BEFORE he was hired. I'm sure if troll's boss saw the stupidity of his Facebook comments, his employer has a right to fire said idiot, and I would be glad he was fired.
Dude, have you ever read the first amendment? If you did, you'd know that your freedom of speech is ONLY protected from the government not private corporations. That's the most annoying part of this all. People spouting off crap about the first amendment when they obviously have no clue about why it was created.
Dude, have you ever managed to understand the first amendment? It means you have a right to your own opinion without fascist scumbags launching economic aggression on your free market rights.
If you care more about this guy getting kicked of a tv show than the U.S. bombing a wedding in Yemen last week killing 15 civilians, you might be part of t he problem.
If you care more about the rights of foreigners than the erosion of liberties under the Gestapo of Political Correctness, you might be part of the problem, not the solution.
Freedom of speech, means the "Congress shall make no law abridging one's right to free speech", it doesn't mean the employer can't or that there aren't repercussions for speech. the employer has the RIGHT to terminate. just like if a christian newspaper wanted to terminate one of it's employee's for being gay.
No, I've also pointed out this idiocy elsewhere. This is different than someone, say, accepting a contract with a morals clause at a Catholic school. You have a right to find a "gay friendly" employer, but if you violate that clause, you're in breach of contract.
It's sad that you don't get the freedom of speech issue. When the politically correct gestapo commit aggression against you, like Robertson, it violates free market principles. If the gestapo suppresses the expression of free thought, it's a material violation of negative liberties. A&E set a bad precedent by appeasing the gestapo.
His freedom is not being violated. A&E is a private company and has no obligations to continue to hire him if he makes comments that A&E does not approve of. It's entirely likely that it is written into the contract somewhere. Unwad your panties and deal with it. The First Amendment doesn't protect your job when you say something stupid to the public, especially when it is as visible as this was. A&E did the smart thing. They showed they won't tolerate bigotry and hate.
The freedom of speech issue has to do with the fascist attack on Robertson to A&E; it was pressure for economic sanctions on Robertson. Why doesn't anybody else get that if others launch an economic attack on you because you, on your own time, express an opinion, it's a violation of your negative liberties, get it? People are afraid of expressing their opinions for fear of intimidation by fascist thugs.
Agree or disagree, if you work for A&E you represent their brand and what it stands for. It's not like this is the only company to do this. People get fired from religious organizations for being gay or getting pregnant when they aren't married. The NFL (or any pro sports league) fines and/or suspends players for breaking their code of conduct. If you don't agree with what a company stands for or don't agree with what they expect from you, don't work for them in the first place.
Oh, you didn't really want to go there. That is "progressive troll" nonsense. For example, Catholic schools have a standard clause about behavior/lifestyle consistent with the Church's moral teachings--for obvious reasons: hypocrisy and scandal. If a teacher decides on a "gay marriage", he or she knows that the Church does not, and will never, accept "gay marriage"': he or she knows that they are breaching the contract. Contracts are all about negotiation of rights. For example, I might agree to taking a drug test as a condition of applying for a job, although I would object to the government creating a mandate.
The case of A&E and Robertson is different. A&E knew Robertson has strong religious beliefs when they hired him. Robertson has the right to express his opinions unless he contracted otherwise (e.g., not to disparage A&E in the media). Of course, if there was an at will relationship, the burden would be on the plaintiff to prove wrong termination.
A&E will end up with a net loss of viewers. Fans of the show will boycott the channel
Then let them, I'm sure they did their own math and have a far better incentive than you to get it right...
No, the idiots that run A&E are more worried about "politically correct" bad publicity than the viewership of their fans. Managers make bad decisions all the time--just look at the last 3 Presidents. Coaches have been known to pull star players, even at the expense of winning the game. Mr. Troll doesn't know enough about the economics of a top show: advertisers pay more to reach more eyeballs. A&E has probably killed off its best show--and a highly prized diverse audience.
He was asked his view.....so as a result he gave it. A&E already knew his view on homosexuality.....this is Political Correctness (social marxism) and the attempt to silence some people's free speech....they should leave A&E...it was a lame network before the Duck Dynasty family made the network popular.
By your logic, employers shouldn't be able to fire people who say things that might damage the product or service sold. It's not freedom of speech here. This is a private employer making the decision to stop employing an employee to avoid controversy and keep ratings up. Of course, that might be a bad decision but that's not the point.
[Discussant] is correct and the troll is wrong. Robertson was giving his personal opinion. That opinion did not reflect on A&E; it did not involve Robertson's performance on the show. But if the politically correct police interfere with someone's right to make a living because he or she has the "wrong" point of view, it is a violation of fundamental rights, not unlike the effects of slander, and is a perversion of free market principles. I'm sure in a sense, the troll is correct: A&E will come up with all sorts of sophistic reasons to rationalize their de facto post hoc censorship of Robertson. As to whether what A&E did was justifiable--all the trolls seem to think the contract was an employer at will arrangement. I think it was more complicated, e.g., that the family insisted on a show-ending prayer
The idea that A&E was acting to protect its financial interest/reputation is pure bullshit. They were bowing to the gods of political correctness. Keep in mind A&E knew Robertson was a born-again Christian with conservative values when they hired them. A&E has built an audience, the top show it's ever had, and now they've alienated the whole Robertson clan and risked literally millions of viewers. They have shot themselves in the foot. I'm not one to make predictions, but I bet Fox News Channel would jump at the chance to acquire the show...
I don't know the terms of the contract, but my understanding is the clan is standing behind Robertson, and A&E has painted itself into a corner. The clan may simply refuse to continue the series--which will probably hurt A&E more than the clan. They probably have a legal right to do what they did--e.g., creative control, who or what to show. Maybe control over the show concept, non-compete clauses, etc. But you can't put the genie back into bottle. A&E could have simply distanced itself from the comments. Instead, they attacked the star of their biggest moneymaking show, which I consider a double-edged sword.
(Illinois Policy Institute). See chart at the top of the post.
Big government = big labor public unions. Big business is capitalism = America and jobs.
It depends: some businesses strike an anti-competitive bargain with government
Is there a difference? Have you seen the money involved in Campaign Funding, Lobbying, Corporate Tax Credits, Corporate Bailouts, Fractional Reserve Banking, Government Positions appointed to Former CEO giants and Legal Counsel? The goal is Economic Slavery ..Control the currency and you have absolute power...
Much of this is leftist conspiracy nonsense. Under corporatism (economic fascism), the government is in control and uses taxes and regulation to manipulate the economy. If the corporations really were in control, we wouldn't have the highest national tax bracket or $1.8T in regulations dragging down the economy. Also note that corporations have differing objectives--e.g., sugar producers and sugar consumers.
True reform would shrink the sources of corruption--the bureaucracy, end cost-transferring mandates, a convoluted tax code; single-term public service, etc.
(The Libertarian Republic.) "We must reject the idea that every time a law’s broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions." -Ronald Reagan
Then you'd know the truth that Reagan's Drug War gave way to the massive expansion of the behemoth of a government that tries to fix society, as well as creating the nightmare of regulations and violations of freedom that we have today. The man was a great actor in movies, as well as portraying that he wanted 'smaller government'
Reason.com still has its 1975 interview with Reagan online. Reagan just had a hard time trying to move a relevant agenda through a Dem-controlled House. By the way, it was Nixon, not Reagan, whom kicked off the "war on drugs".
(LFC). Would anyone like to feed the troll? "The nice thing about being a libertarian and complaining about U.S. monetary policy is that the disaster is always in the future. You never have to admit you are wrong because the disaster is just around the corner, just wait and see."
Those price- increases in food, gas, college, and healthcare must just be a mirage. Let us all remember Bernanke wasn't the first to cut interest rates to low levels; recall that housing prices far outpaced wage gains during the bubble. Here's what Volcker said earlier this year: "Here and elsewhere, the temptation has been strong to wait and see before acting to remove stimulus and then moving toward restraint. Too often, the result is to be too late, to fail to appreciate growing imbalances and inflationary pressures before they are well ingrained." The Fed is targeting 2% inflation--and the same time it's pushed the funds rate near zero. Let's look at it this way: Bernanke became Fed chair in 2006. What cost you then $20 would cost you $23.12 today. And that is in a low-growth economy. Keynesians think a little inflation is a good thing; they shy away from deflation like a vampire from a cross. Aim for inflation? Be really careful what you wish for. Some of us remember 20% interest rates.
(Lew Rockwell). "I heard a news report today about government job numbers. The great unanswered question, which only libertarians even think to ask, is Why is the government collecting statistics and issuing job numbers in the first place?" says Laurence Vance.
If you like your government-counted job, you can keep it...
Political Cartoon
 |
| Via Nydra Karlen on FB |
Remy is back with a new holiday classic; all we want is sound money....
Musical Interlude: My iPod Shuffle Holiday Series
Trans-Siberian Orchestra, "Christmas Eve/Sarajevo". Not only is this a great instrumental, but I LOVE the video...
