What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Nice Planet 5: Insert Catchy Title Here

  • Thread starter Thread starter Priceless
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Nice Planet 5: Insert Catchy Title Here

DrDemento said:
But I've been told we have dealt a severe blow to Al-Qaeda and they are much less of a threat now.
Click to expand...

This is an illness that is metastacizing around the world. Just to be clear (so certain middle school girls don't get their knickers in a twist that I'm suggesting the US get involved) the "we" in my post refers to Kenyan authorities.
 
Last edited:
Re: Nice Planet 5: Insert Catchy Title Here

Blatant demographic pander by Emmy producers: they're planning a separate "in memorium" segment for junky Cory Monteith but none for Jack Klugman. Hey, if you want to suck up to teeny boppers for the ratings that's your business, but please don't ever again give us any of that eyewash about how these awards honor "excellence in TV," okay?

http://t.entertainment.msn.com/jack-klugman-deserves-individual-emmy-tribute-son-says?toc=tv
 
Last edited:
Re: Nice Planet 5: Insert Catchy Title Here

Old Pio said:
KU professor suspended for hysterical tweet blaming the NRA for the Washington shootings. He's an idiot. But he's also got a right to free speech. I don't like it.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/09/...ded-after-tweet-blood-is-on-the-hands-of-nra/
Click to expand...
I see where you're going with this...but, I think the suspension is about the part of the comment wishing death on NRA "sons and daughters" instead of just the part about blood being on their hands. He's a representative of the University of Kansas and one of their professors wishing death can't inspire parents to want to send their kids there.
 
Re: Nice Planet 5: Insert Catchy Title Here

MinnesotaNorthStar said:
I see where you're going with this...but, I think the suspension is about the part of the comment wishing death on NRA "sons and daughters" instead of just the part about blood being on their hands. He's a representative of the University of Kansas and one of their professors wishing death can't inspire parents to want to send their kids there.
Click to expand...

Do we really want to live in a world where every a*shole who shoots off his mouth on line gets fired? Anyone who isn't self employed is a "representative" of someone or something else. This kind of hyperbolic language, sadly, is de riguer these days. People say things for effect, without meaning them literally. And people who are offended can always rationalize punishing them. As I say, hes an idiot, but I'm not interested in having his head on a platter.

I'll agree with you to this extent: if this guy's teaching is as intellectually retarded as his thinking on gun control, then he should be fired, not suspended.

I've written before about Revilo P. Oliver (Revilo is Oliver spelled backwards btw) at the University of Illinois, who wrote an article in the John Birch society magazine shortly after the assassination called "Marxsmanship in Dallas" which asserted JFK had disappointed his communist masters, and they killed him. Big stink, as you can imagine. Oliver had tenure, so he kept his job.
 
Last edited:
Re: Nice Planet 5: Insert Catchy Title Here

Old Pio said:
Do we really want to live in a world where every a*shole who shoots off his mouth on line gets fired? Anyone who isn't self employed is a "representative" of someone or something else. This kind of hyperbolic language, sadly, is de riguer these days. People say things for effect, without meaning them literally. And people who are offended can always rationalize punishing them. As I say, hes an idiot, but I'm not interested in having his head on a platter.

I'll agree with you to this extent: if this guy's teaching is as intellectually retarded as his thinking on gun control, then he should be fired, not suspended.

I've written before about Revilo P. Oliver (Revilo is Oliver spelled backwards btw) at the University of Illinois, who wrote an article in the John Birch society magazine shortly after the assassination called "Marxsmanship in Dallas" which asserted JFK had disappointed his communist masters, and they killed him. Big stink, as you can imagine. Oliver had tenure, so he kept his job.
Click to expand...

I don't give a rat's azz about what he tweets. He's just like every other anonymous troll that inhabits social media, forums and comment sections - gutless and usually brainless.

What really turns my stomach is that this clown is indicative of the so-called "teachers" of journalism today. It's no wonder that schools are turning out assembly-line robots that (for the most part) toe the liberalism line and wouldn't know how to fact-check or investigate an issue/event if their life depended upon it. Sadly, I can speak from personal experience about having to deal with the result of the lack of real teaching. :mad:
 
Re: Nice Planet 5: Insert Catchy Title Here

Old Pio said:
Do we really want to live in a world where every a*shole who shoots off his mouth on line gets fired? Anyone who isn't self employed is a "representative" of someone or something else. This kind of hyperbolic language, sadly, is de riguer these days. People say things for effect, without meaning them literally. And people who are offended can always rationalize punishing them. As I say, hes an idiot, but I'm not interested in having his head on a platter.

I'll agree with you to this extent: if this guy's teaching is as intellectually retarded as his thinking on gun control, then he should be fired, not suspended.

I've written before about Revilo P. Oliver (Revilo is Oliver spelled backwards btw) at the University of Illinois, who wrote an article in the John Birch society magazine shortly after the assassination called "Marxsmanship in Dallas" which asserted JFK had disappointed his communist masters, and they killed him. Big stink, as you can imagine. Oliver had tenure, so he kept his job.
Click to expand...
I kind of go both ways on this. He obviously has a right to speak his mind, and we can't infringe on that. You want to take extreme positions, publicly, I have no problem with that. But I don't have to employ you either.

I own my own business. I have employees. If they choose to walk around with a t-shirt that says "F *** Y**" on it all day, it's their right. But I don't know that I'm going to continue to employ them.

As a business person, you have to walk a fine line. If you choose to be too extreme with limiting your employee's behavior, you end up constantly turning over your workforce, and that's bad business. That's why you see employers choosing to generally ignore things like tattoos, piercings, etc..., that if I had worn 35+ years ago when still actively seeking employment I would have been kicked out the door.

My guess is this professor gets reinstated. Public employees usually end up with special protection regarding free speech rights in the workplace. But in the real world an employee has a choice to make. You can exercise your right to look like an a $$, but you run the risk that everyone will suddenly discover you are an a $$, and that can sometimes make it hard to hold a job.
 
Re: Nice Planet 5: Insert Catchy Title Here

SteveP said:
I don't give a rat's azz about what he tweets. He's just like every other anonymous troll that inhabits social media, forums and comment sections - gutless and usually brainless.

What really turns my stomach is that this clown is indicative of the so-called "teachers" of journalism today. It's no wonder that schools are turning out assembly-line robots that (for the most part) toe the liberalism line and wouldn't know how to fact-check or investigate an issue/event if their life depended upon it. Sadly, I can speak from personal experience about having to deal with the result of the lack of real teaching. :mad:
Click to expand...

I have no idea what you're talking about. On second thought, perhaps I do. I've seen a couple of reports today that refer to the b*stards in Kenya as "militants." Evidently murdering dozens of innocent people in a shopping mall because your religious beliefs tell you that's the right thing to do, doesn't qualify you as a terrorist.
 
Re: Nice Planet 5: Insert Catchy Title Here

SJHovey said:
I kind of go both ways on this. He obviously has a right to speak his mind, and we can't infringe on that. You want to take extreme positions, publicly, I have no problem with that. But I don't have to employ you either.

I own my own business. I have employees. If they choose to walk around with a t-shirt that says "F *** Y**" on it all day, it's their right. But I don't know that I'm going to continue to employ them.

As a business person, you have to walk a fine line. If you choose to be too extreme with limiting your employee's behavior, you end up constantly turning over your workforce, and that's bad business. That's why you see employers choosing to generally ignore things like tattoos, piercings, etc..., that if I had worn 35+ years ago when still actively seeking employment I would have been kicked out the door.

My guess is this professor gets reinstated. Public employees usually end up with special protection regarding free speech rights in the workplace. But in the real world an employee has a choice to make. You can exercise your right to look like an a $$, but you run the risk that everyone will suddenly discover you are an a $$, and that can sometimes make it hard to hold a job.
Click to expand...

All true. In the case of your Tee wearing employees, it would depend on whether or not they had contact with your customers, wouldn't it? On the loading dock with Stretch Cunningham and Archie Bunker it would hardly matter. On the sales floor, perhaps it might. But Tees are different aren't they? Your customers would be much less likely to know what an employee put on social media. It would be hard to miss a Tee. *

Things change. In '68 kids who supported Gene McCarthy for president "came clean for Gene." They knew the pony tails, facial hair and the rest of the uniform wouldn't play well in Iowa and elsewhere, so they tidied up a bit.

My principal point here is the tendency for far too many of us to want to punish people for opinions we don't like. And we use as an excuse "they used inappropriate language." In the vast majority of cases, IMO, that's a dodge. When Limbaugh called the 30-year old co-ed a "slut" his detractors seized on the word and had a collective case of the vapors. What they really objected to was his position on forcing Catholic institutions to provide "free" birth control. He had spoken out against "pro-choice" orthodoxy. Of course, liberals have been busy little beavers for quite some time now, trying to shut that guy up, haven't they?

*Besides, as a business owner, you're just an "exploiter of the masses," and nobody cares about your problems. Eh?
 
Last edited:
Re: Nice Planet 5: Insert Catchy Title Here

Old Pio said:
All true. In the case of your Tee wearing employees, it would depend on whether or not they had contact with your customers, wouldn't it? On the loading dock with Stretch Cunningham and Archie Bunker it would hardly matter. On the sales floor, perhaps it might. But Tees are different aren't they? Your customers would be much less likely to know what an employee put on social media. It would be hard to miss a Tee.

Things change. In '68 kids who supported Gene McCarthy for president "came clean for Gene." They knew the pony tails, facial hair and the rest of the uniform wouldn't play well in Iowa and elsewhere, so they tidied up a bit.

My principal point here is the tendency for far too many of us to want to punish people for opinions we don't like. And we use as an excuse "they used inappropriate language." In the vast majority of cases, IMO, that's a dodge. When Limbaugh called the 30-year old co-ed a "slut" his detractors seized on the word and had a collective case of the vapors. What they really objected to was his position on forcing Catholic institutions to provide "free" birth control. He had spoken out against "pro-choice" orthodoxy. Of course, liberals have been busy little beavers for quite some time now, trying to shut that guy up, haven't they?
Click to expand...
For most, customer impact would be the primary concern. I have seen instances where employees use t-shirts or other methods to try to annoy fellow employees, so you have to be cognizant of that.

With social media, I'm sure it all depends upon the visibility of your position, and the size of your fishbowl. In a lot of small towns a person's facebook comments make it around faster than our local mail, it seems.

I don't get too worked up about the Limbaugh events. Rush is paid a lot of money to tick people off with his comments. I have no problem with that. People who get ticked off have a right to try to organize a boycott of his show/sponsors. I have no problem with that either. That's how the system is supposed to work.

I think my favorite example is that of the Dixie Chicks. Natalie Maines decides she wants to offer her wit and political wisdom to a bunch of Londoners. That's her right. Her fan base, in the heart of Dixie get's riled up by some rabble-rousing DJs, leading to album and concert boycotts. That's their right. Dixie Chicks give their fans and the country music industry a big FU, and tell them "we don't care, and we don't need your money", then basically drop out of mainstream music and go about living their lives. Everyone behaved entirely appropriately, and lives with their choices.
 
Re: Nice Planet 5: Insert Catchy Title Here

SJHovey said:
For most, customer impact would be the primary concern. I have seen instances where employees use t-shirts or other methods to try to annoy fellow employees, so you have to be cognizant of that.

With social media, I'm sure it all depends upon the visibility of your position, and the size of your fishbowl. In a lot of small towns a person's facebook comments make it around faster than our local mail, it seems.

I don't get too worked up about the Limbaugh events. Rush is paid a lot of money to tick people off with his comments. I have no problem with that. People who get ticked off have a right to try to organize a boycott of his show/sponsors. I have no problem with that either. That's how the system is supposed to work.

I think my favorite example is that of the Dixie Chicks. Natalie Maines decides she wants to offer her wit and political wisdom to a bunch of Londoners. That's her right. Her fan base, in the heart of Dixie get's riled up by some rabble-rousing DJs, leading to album and concert boycotts. That's their right. Dixie Chicks give their fans and the country music industry a big FU, and tell them "we don't care, and we don't need your money", then basically drop out of mainstream music and go about living their lives. Everyone behaved entirely appropriately, and lives with their choices.
Click to expand...

Again, all true. Although in the case of Limbaugh it goes a little further. There have been serious efforts to re-instate Sec 315 of the FCC regs, the so-called "fairness" doctrine, which would essentially put all talk show radio out of business, or worse, water it down to the extent that nobody would listen. But the target is Limbaugh. It's a variant of the old liberal argument: "If you can't beat him, kill him." There used to be another liberal argument: "If you don't like it, change channels." My thoughts exactly.

You may be old enough to recall back the days when local TV stations would do "editorials." Generally the general manager would take a principled stand against an increase in parking meter fees. That would be followed by language inviting anyone with an opposing point of view to get in touch, etc. etc. Once in a while, one of the Floyd Turbos would actually come in and tape a "rebuttal." It was all very childish. And no serious issues were ever discussed. The "fairness" doctrine in action.
 
Last edited:
Re: Nice Planet 5: Insert Catchy Title Here

Old Pio said:
Again, all true. Although in the case of Limbaugh it goes a little further. There have been serious efforts to re-instate Sec 315 of the FCC regs, the so-called "fairness" doctrine, which would essentially put all talk show radio out of business, or worse, water it down to the extent that nobody would listen. But the target is Limbaugh. It's a variant of the old liberal argument: "If you can't beat him, kill him." There used to be another liberal argument: "If you don't like it, change channels." My thoughts exactly.

You may be old enough to recall back the days when local TV stations would do "editorials." Generally the general manager would take a principled stand against an increase in parking meter fees. That would be followed by language inviting anyone with an opposing point of view to get in touch, etc. etc. Once in a while, one of the Floyd Turbos would actually come in and tape a "rebuttal." It was all very childish. And no serious issues were ever discussed. The "fairness" doctrine in action.
Click to expand...
I do recall the occasional on-air editorial, but I don't ever recall anyone coming in to take their stab at rebutting it. That would have been great.

The "fairness doctrine" has overtaken much of mainstream media. It seems that in so many papers, for every conservative columnist there must be a liberal on the next page. Not because they are required to, but in order to avoid the dread labeling.

I subscribe to the old theory, probably first espoused by someone like Oliver Wendall Holmes, that you should give the nuts as much time as they want/need to speak or air their views. The Ed Begley rant in the original 12 Angry Men is one of my favorite 3 minutes of film all time. You can't hide crazy.
 
Re: Nice Planet 5: Insert Catchy Title Here

SJHovey said:
I do recall the occasional on-air editorial, but I don't ever recall anyone coming in to take their stab at rebutting it. That would have been great.

The "fairness doctrine" has overtaken much of mainstream media. It seems that in so many papers, for every conservative columnist there must be a liberal on the next page. Not because they are required to, but in order to avoid the dread labeling.

I subscribe to the old theory, probably first espoused by someone like Oliver Wendall Holmes, that you should give the nuts as much time as they want/need to speak or air their views. The Ed Begley rant in the original 12 Angry Men is one of my favorite 3 minutes of film all time. You can't hide crazy.
Click to expand...

There is, of course, a difference between media owners (especially dying newspapers) giving varying points of view as a good business practice and a government based requirement to do so-with loss of license the possible consequence of failing to satisfy the bureaucrats. Publications aren't regulated, broadcasters are. The Communications Act of 1934 created the FCC. In those days, channels were considered to be "scarce natural resources" and government control was "required." There used to be something called the "rule of 7," which limited individual media owners to no more than 7 TV stations and AM and FM radio stations. All of that is gone now. In its place we have media giants like Clear Channel which not only owns stations but also provides syndicated programming that airs on those stations. The Commission these days generally only gets involved when one corporate entity's share of a market approaches 50%.

Technology has given us so many more choices, and concerns about "scarce natural resources" seem quaint. As a guy who has spent his entire working life in the media, I'm a firm believer in free speech, and try to be consistent on these issues. My experience is that censors, generally, claim not to be censors. They claim that the object of their concerns is somehow unique (Limbaugh, for instance). And requires some unique response. Conservative Christians got their noses out of joint by "The Last Temptation of Christ." And some of them went beyond picketing outside of local theatres. They tried to bully theatre owners into not showing the film. Well, thanks, but I'll decide for myself what films to see if you don't mind. Basically, it comes down to shutting up someone we don't agree with. And I don't agree with that. You've raised good points about employer vs. employee speech issues. But that's a fairly discrete segment of our national conversation

Years ago we had continuing friction over the National Endowment for the Arts and some controversial grants. Frankly, I don't care if Andres Cerano wants to photograph a crucifix dunked in his urine and call it "P*ss Christ.". If there's a market for that "art," then so be it. I just don't want my tax dollars used to pay for it. And since not all grant requests were approved, that meant NEA was "censoring" too.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top