Thanks to some whiny people I don't get to read Tuesday Morning Quarterback any more

[Ben Kenobi]

Amen, yavoon.

There are many posts that I have been personally offended, and I believe these still ought to be posted so that they can be refuted and ridiculed, not necessarily in that order.

Conservatives generally don't fear opinions that differ from their own because they are secure in their assumptions.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by yavoon


incorrect. conservatives are worried that u ppl being offended keep demanding that it become a crime or someone gets fired or other gov't/bureacratic action. we're perfectly happy if u sit there and be offended or protest or wutever.

but ur trying to gank the system to suit ur "offendedness."

I cant think of any occasions when a mainstream liberal (not andrea dworkin or al sharpton ) has called for banning of things that offend them certainly not in this case. I also have not seen ANYONE in this case who called for Easterbrook to be fired. Apparently Eisner made that decision himself. And I thought the right of a private company to fire at will was one of the things conservatives valued. Isnt it widely held that limits on the right to fire are just whats given France and Germany so many economic problems?

[pchang]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
And I thought the right of a private company to fire at will was one of the things conservatives valued. Isnt it widely held that limits on the right to fire are just whats given France and Germany so many economic problems?

At will employment is something that conservatives want to protect. However, this is a slightly different topic than corporate governance. I'm not sure there is unified conservative stance on proper corporate governance.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


I cant think of any occasions when a mainstream liberal (not andrea dworkin or al sharpton ) has called for banning of things that offend them certainly not in this case. I also have not seen ANYONE in this case who called for Easterbrook to be fired. Apparently Eisner made that decision himself. And I thought the right of a private company to fire at will was one of the things conservatives valued. Isnt it widely held that limits on the right to fire are just whats given France and Germany so many economic problems?

well

1)I'm not a conservative in that u can just saddle me w/ every opinion or platform of the big elephants in washington.

2)not being able to get fired is a problem in europe. but the problem is not that ur unfirable for mouthing off. its that ur unfirable FOR ALMOST ANY REASON. seniority and malaise dominate union choking businesses where skill/ability/ambition matter nothing compared to ur "seniority date."

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by yavoon


well

1)I'm not a conservative in that u can just saddle me w/ every opinion or platform of the big elephants in washington.

2)not being able to get fired is a problem in europe. but the problem is not that ur unfirable for mouthing off. its that ur unfirable FOR ALMOST ANY REASON. seniority and malaise dominate union choking businesses where skill/ability/ambition matter nothing compared to ur "seniority date."

you seem to forget why unions insisted on seniority. In the bad old days employers regularly fired employees for mouthing off - not about antisemitism, or black quarterbacks, but about the rather more important issue of unionization. What your employer DID NOT want you to say to your fellow employees was "lets form a union" And since an employer could almost always find an excuse for firing someone, and it was impossible to prove that someone was being fired for mouthing off, they insisted that people be let go in order of seniority, and that the employer jump through hoops to fire for cause.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by yavoon


well

1)I'm not a conservative in that u can just saddle me w/ every opinion or platform of the big elephants in washington.

2)not being able to get fired is a problem in europe. but the problem is not that ur unfirable for mouthing off. its that ur unfirable FOR ALMOST ANY REASON. seniority and malaise dominate union choking businesses where skill/ability/ambition matter nothing compared to ur "seniority date."

I rather suspect the right to fire at will is not just a concern of bigwigs in washington - i rather suspect its something that every chamber of commerce from North Carolina to Alaska is intent on defending.

[KrazyHorse]

That wasn't an antisemitic statement, but it was badly phrased. Reading quickly I wasn't sure what he was getting at.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by pchang


At will employment is something that conservatives want to protect. However, this is a slightly different topic than corporate governance. I'm not sure there is unified conservative stance on proper corporate governance.

do you honestly think that firing Easterbrook will have any measurable impact on the value of Disney stock? Even if it costs ESPN some ratings (and how could you prove that?) arguably Eisner could say that the distraction to him personally is a bigger cost than the lost ratings. There aint no corporate governance case here.

[pchang]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
do you honestly think that firing Easterbrook will have any measurable impact on the value of Disney stock?

No.

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Even if it costs ESPN some ratings (and how could you prove that?) arguably Eisner could say that the distraction to him personally is a bigger cost than the lost ratings. There aint no corporate governance case here.

The reason behind the firing is very important to corporate governance. All the problems at Enron, MCI, Tyco, et. al. pretty much stem from one problem. Corporate CEOs run their companies as though what's best for them is best for the company. Corporate CEOs need to remember that stockholders own their companies and they need to do what is best for their stockholders. Eisner has a history. He fired Katzenberg who as very beneficial to Disney due to a personality problem. Katzenberg went on to great success at SKG. One could argue that 1/3 the money that SKG earns should have gone to Disney. Disney also had to pay a huge settlement to Katzenberg as a result of the ensuing breach of contract suit. Eisner fired Ovitz. Ovitz was just the latest in a long line of people that were supposed to be groomed to take over for Eisner when it was time for him to retire. All of them were very talented individuals who went on to make money for new companies. Easterbrook doesn't even come close to this level, but he is the latest in a long line Eisner firings for other than business reasons.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by yavoon


incorrect. conservatives are worried that u ppl being offended keep demanding that it become a crime or someone gets fired or other gov't/bureacratic action. we're perfectly happy if u sit there and be offended or protest or wutever.

but ur trying to gank the system to suit ur "offendedness."

Wrong there -- I do not want to make it illegal to offend other people. That would just be retarded and against freedom of speech.

However, I get tired of some others who express outrage or bitter sarcasm towards me, just because to me personally, I find some slur comment offensive.

[Spiffor]

MrFun:

Like LOTM, your watchfulness is a good thing. But like LOTM, it sometimes get over the line. I think the people shocked by Easterbrokk's wording went over the line and disserved their right cause. And sometimes, it happens to you too.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Spiffor


You are relaying a stereotype that has been proven horribly deadly

(This time I don't even exaggerate to make my point: you have done exactly the same as Easterbrooks: because of your wording, you implied an old stereotype against Jews even though you clearly don't believe it)

No, I didn't. I was asking him to define on what grounds he wanted to debate this. It seems that a lot of people are seeing jewish boogey men having this guy fired for his unfortunate use of a phrase linked to jewish executives. Some others are saying, hold on, he was most likely fired because his boss is vindictive and didn't like being openly criticised by an 'employee'.

Two completely different issues. One of them is the case here, and the other is not. Let me put it this way, would there be an uproar if it were a WASP criticising his boss who was also a WASP, and then being fired? I don't think so. I don't think race or religion would even be mentioned.

So then I ask, why is it being harped on here?

[Agathon]

From what ixnay posted, he wasn't being anti-semitic, just pointing out that Jews, more than other people have reason not to glorify violence, having been subjected to more of it than most.

Anyway,

"It's unquestionably true that some Jews are rapists and murderers."

LOOK!!! I'M AN ANTI-SEMITE!!!!!

[Spiffor]

NYE:
As it appears more and more that Easterbrook has been fired because of his criticism of Eisner, rather than because of the uproar from the whiny/watchful Jews, I don't criticize said Jews for having him fired.

However, I think the offense taken from his wording was something wrong, and that it was actually a wrong and contraproductive battle in the struggle against antisemitism.

What you did when you used the words "Jews dominating the world" was no different from Easterbrook: while you had no antisemitic intent (on the contrary), this wording reminds exactly the stereotype of modern antisemitism. And since the very wording of Easterbrook has been deemed offensive whatever the context, your very wording could be deemed offensive whatever the context.

As I said to LOTM earlier, I'm actually pretty sure that you'd have offended people if you had written this in the mainstream press. And I think it is really wrong.

[notyoueither]

So, you think that if I wrote a piece admonishing people for seeing jewish conspiracies where there were none, and asked them if they seriously thought that jews controlled the world, then you think that I would have a problem myself?

I think you are mistaken. Of course the context has something to do with it. Easterbrook was not discussing anti-semitism or reactions to it. When discussing anti-semitism of course the phrases that are associated with anti-semetism are going to come up! Are you trying to turn this into a caricature of PC?

Furthermore, would you take issue with some black people taking offence to the word n*****? Why do you have a problem that some jewish people have a problem with what Easterbrook said? Not many, apparently, but some. How many black people would have a problem with n*****, and would they be wrong?