Can we talk about how Ted Cruz is concentrated sleaze and dishonesty?
I said it yesterday, he's an idiot. There is no point to what he's done. And the (excellent) wording he used during the RNC will bury him.
Can we talk about how Ted Cruz is concentrated sleaze and dishonesty?
This is just as much wishful thinking as anything.
My dream is that Democrats hold the Senate to a tie in 2018 by winning Cruz's seat after the GOP abandons him.
Watching Bush Jr speak at the opening of the African American History Museum. And dear lord while I hate his presidency, I do believe he tries to be a good person. While his policies hurt millions of people, I don't think they came from a place of malice. I couldn't in a million years see Trump caring enough to show up to this kind of event.
WHO'S THAT AT THE DOOROnly thing I like about James Corden is he likes the West Wing.
Other than that I hate him if only for replacing Craig Ferguson.
Come back Secretariat.
America needs you.
Dubya was an idiot who let his cabinet walk all over him and got a bit of an ego especially post 9/11. When left to his own devices he could have been more like his dad, I have no doubt. I do honestly question if he was intelligent enough to actually be an effective President though.Just watched him speak, too.
It took the threat of Donald fucking Trump to make me think on Bush Jr with something less than intense dislike.
Just watched him speak, too.
It took the threat of Donald fucking Trump to make me think on Bush Jr with something less than intense dislike.
Watching Bush Jr speak at the opening of the African American History Museum. And dear lord while I hate his presidency, I do believe he tries to be a good person. While his policies hurt millions of people, I don't think they came from a place of malice. I couldn't in a million years see Trump caring enough to show up to this kind of event.
I'd be for a law protecting almost all employees from being fired for their non-criminal activity outside of work (perhaps with some other exceptions like sharing company secrets or whatever, but at the same time you want to protect whistle-blowing). I think a hate speech exemption would also be workable - other countries actually just have laws against hate speech and are still democracies - but probably makes it harder to enact.
The "freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences" thing is just a weirdly libertarian idea coming from liberals who in all other cases understand that your liberty needs to be protected not just from the government but from private actors who for whatever reason have power over you. Freedom just is freedom from consequences - if you're going to face severe consequences for doing something, it's pretty silly to say that you're technically free to do it, and in other contexts the only people making this argument are libertarians because of their commitment to principles that liberals don't generally agree with.
The obvious exception to a law like this would be people whose job is to be personally appealing to people. You can drop a sponsorship of an athlete if they make you look bad, because you've only sponsored them in the first place to make you look good. There are fuzzy cases like PR people, where sometimes they're supposed to be engaged with the community in a seemingly organic way (like Major Nelson for XBox), but sometimes there's a pretty clear separation between their private lives and their PR work. We also now see a bunch of CEOs acting as public faces for their companies - like Steve Jobs - where clearly their personal brand is important to the work they're doing. I guess you could argue that it's reasonable for a company to worry about having an offensive CEO in a way that it isn't for them to worry about having an offensive office drone, but I don't know what the basis for this worry is other than customers seeing it that way too, and part of the problem here is that customers also protest occasionally when they don't like the politics of even lower-level employees.
WHO'S THAT AT THE DOOR
Is it really hard to predict the winner of every electoral race since 1984? The only difficult one I think would have been 2004.
Is it really hard to predict the winner of every electoral race since 1984? The only difficult one I think would have been 2004.
Is it really hard to predict the winner of every electoral race since 1984? The only difficult one I think would have been 2004.
Is it really hard to predict the winner of every electoral race since 1984? The only difficult one I think would have been 2004.
2000?
As bad as a president as W was, there's no reality I can picture where Trump stands up in a mosque after the worst terrorist attack in US history and says "The face of terror is not the true faith of Islam. Islam is peace."
Trump and Chris Matthews sit down and talk about bringing Foie gras to the normal guy (Satire, NSFW):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILPjIx8VmkY
History will remember Craig as a top tier late night host. No doubt in my mind. The last bastion of punk rock television on network TV.Only thing I like about James Corden is he likes the West Wing.
Other than that I hate him if only for replacing Craig Ferguson.
Come back Secretariat.
America needs you.
What other millennial program can Hillary go on? Is there like a Between Three Ferns with Justin Bieber?
Best interviewer on late night ever.History will remember Craig as a top tier late night host. No doubt in my mind. The last bastion of punk rock television on network TV.
I think a pretty quick loophole to this is that you're not firing such a person for their beliefs, but the damage they've caused. Honestly, if you could find a single person who says, "I won't give you my business as long as Employee X works here," then you could probably have reason to fire that person as far as this law is concerned.
That's the real meaning behind "freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequence." In a case like this (assuming we're talking about the Oculus guy), you can't force people to buy the product. That's a consequence. You also can't force people to keep reviews of your product to themselves (that is, they're allowed to tell their friends why they won't buy your product). That's a consequence. You can't force people to disband groups calling for boycotts either. So when those boycotts hurt your bottom line, that's a consequence.
Undisputed. Even more apparent with terrible interviewers like Fallon who are so scripted and fake it's stunning.Best interviewer on late night ever.
Best interviewer on late night ever.
Best interviewer on late night ever.
PewdiepieWhat other millennial program can Hillary go on? Is there like a Between Three Ferns with Justin Bieber?
A couple models are UNDER-sensitive to REAL, statistically robust polling shiftsand pass this off as a feature when it's sort of a bug.
https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/779703382407782400?s=09
Oh god. Nothing would complete this trash year more than this.Pewdiepie
Pewdiepie
Is it weirdly libertarian? Liberals might be okay with letting businesses fire people under these circumstances because the effect it has on society isn't hugely negative.I'd be for a law protecting almost all employees from being fired for their non-criminal activity outside of work (perhaps with some other exceptions like sharing company secrets or whatever, but at the same time you want to protect whistle-blowing). I think a hate speech exemption would also be workable - other countries actually just have laws against hate speech and are still democracies - but probably makes it harder to enact.
The "freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences" thing is just a weirdly libertarian idea coming from liberals who in all other cases understand that your liberty needs to be protected not just from the government but from private actors who for whatever reason have power over you. Freedom just is freedom from consequences - if you're going to face severe consequences for doing something, it's pretty silly to say that you're technically free to do it, and in other contexts the only people making this argument are libertarians because of their commitment to principles that liberals don't generally agree with.
I'd put him neck-and-neck with Conan (once Conan hit his stride). And for the record, I'd take him over Corden any day.
Losing him was a tragedy for late night comedy, and he deserves much better than a game show. He's on my short list of comedy folks whom I wish had made a bigger splash. In my universe, the Apatow-types would be footnotes and the Fergusons & Sedarises would be super-mega-stars.
Dick Cavett was a good interviewer as well
Tom Snyder though...
Anna MassogliaVerified account
‏@annalecta
Trump promised to spend $100M+ on new political ads before Election Daythat's around 2X his campaign's cash on hand http://cbsn.ws/2cTQ8Iy
NYTimes has endorsed Trump for President
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/25/o...ol-top-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-top-region
Sure, this looks like a way to argue that you're not firing someone for something they're doing outside of work. So of course a law protecting people for what they do outside of work should not allow this sort of indirect reasoning either.
Like, obviously we don't think that companies should be able to serve or fire or refuse to hire people for being black because customers might not want to buy from a company that employs or serves black people. This was a big part of why anti-black discrimination happened - I'm sure there were a bunch of white hotel owners who would have been basically fine letting a black person stay in a room that would otherwise go empty that night, but they didn't want to be known as a hotel that let rooms to black people. So this seems to me like a necessary part of a workplace protection law. You don't just say that the company can impose its politics on its employees. You go farther and say that employees are also protected from customers that try to pressure the company into firing them. In other words: libertarians are wrong when they say that the market will end discrimination because non-discriminating companies will be able to pay less for better talent or will do more business because they let discriminated-against customers buy from them.
And of course, if it's actually illegal for the company to fire an employee, then the company has a pretty persuasive defense against the protesters, right? It's pretty silly to boycott a company and say you won't buy their product unless they fire someone when the company isn't allowed to fire the person.
I want to stress that it's not like this is the sort of thing that would only protect racists. I bet most people who get fired for speech outside of work get fired for complaining about their job. And of course the company has a really clear defense of this in terms of consequences to its bottom line - if customers know how they operate behind the scenes then they might not want to buy from them! I would bet that more people have to worry about being fired for being pro-BLM than for being racist too. And while I'm not sure that there is right now a clear but somewhat widespread "[minority] is not evil" position that typically risks firing in the way that gay rights advocacy did a while ago, probably there will be another one someday soon.
Is it weirdly libertarian? Liberals might be okay with letting businesses fire people under these circumstances because the effect it has on society isn't hugely negative.
Dick Cavett was a good interviewer as well