President Obama recently invoked a surly and petulant tone when he lashed out against critics of the proposed Trans Pacific Partnership fast track trade deal (TPP). TPP is a so-called free trade agreement that would theoretically increase economic integration among twelve Pacific Rim countries with the notable exclusion of China. President Obama claimed that the critics of the legislation didn't know what they were talking about. President Obama said that if this deal wasn't good for working Americans he wouldn't support it. It's ironic that at the same time President Obama was telling Senator Warren that she didn't know what she was talking about and angrily denouncing anyone who would question his advocacy of certain trade deals that he also had temporarily to break stride and apologize for bombing and killing people who shouldn't have been bombed or killed. In other words he made a mistake. He was wrong. I might discuss the drone situation sometime later but contrary to what the Boxers among us might think, Napoleon President Obama is not always right. Like many corporate bosses when things go well, (Bin Laden is dead), the President takes credit. When things go wrong some supportive media suddenly releases detailed information on how the drone program doesn't need the President's signoff for every target and so mistakes really aren't the President's fault. Fascinating. The President might want to remember that just because he supports something doesn't mean other people need to accept his judgment without question. The President's interests are not synonymous with America's interests. If he was wrong about something like a drone program, he just might be wrong about a trade deal. President Obama's good intentions do not necessarily make something good. There was no need for President Obama to make policy differences personal, but I guess when you don't have to run for election again you can drop certain masks. So it goes.
It's alternately amused and irritated me that President Obama tends to save his most biting personal criticisms not for the open racists on the right, who have continuously insulted him, his wife, father, daughters, and mother in the ugliest and most personal of terms but for people on the left who question his policies. In what universe does it make sense for President Obama to compare Senator Warren to Sarah Palin? TPP, divorced from economic and historical reality, might sound good in theory. But like everything else the devil is in the details. Of course we don't know all the details because those are secret. We do have some general outlines though. It's safe to say that just as with NAFTA, the TPP is not as much about free trade as it is about increasing the ability of corporations to exploit labor and sidestep restrictions on profit making activities across nations. It's about wage arbitrage. TPP would reduce the ability of governments at all levels to "interfere" with corporations as they pursue their happiness. This is a good thing if you happen to be a corporation, a lobbyist, a trade or patent attorney, or perhaps someone at a high level who works for the aforementioned entities. But if you're not in that group you might want to consider if the TPP is a good thing for you. Hint, it's not. You also might want to review how median income has done over the past fifteen years. You might wonder if helping corporations to outsource more jobs from the First World and raise drug costs in the so-called developing world really is the path we ought to be taking. You might want to go down to your local clothing or electronics store and see how many goods you can find that are still made in the US. You might wonder how it is that so many jobs have moved overseas and what that means for American workers. But if you want to know the answers to these questions and have your Senators and Representatives debate and discuss them openly the President will accuse you of not knowing what you're talking about. People like MSNBC analyst Chris "tingle up my leg" Matthews will say you're a protectionist. Well someone who does know what he's talking about and is not a protectionist is Nobel Award winning economist Joseph Stiglitz. Over a year ago he sounded the alarm here. And he hasn't changed his tune, pointing out that those in favor of these deals are all corporations and wealthy capitalists. This isn't news to the people on the streets. The working class, the people of all colors who are most impacted by crappy trade deals, isn't buying it. And some members of the Congressional Black Caucus, which as a group has often given cover to the President's more centrist or rightist agenda elements, may have found a limit to how far they will go.
To make up for what could be dozens of Republican No votes in the House, the administration may need to persuade 20 or more House Democrats to vote Yes. The White House hopes some of those votes will come from members of the black caucus. But the going has not been easy. Rep. Yvette Clarke of Brooklyn is a loyal Obama supporter, but she found she couldn’t say yes earlier this month when the president engaged in some personal lobbying. Ms. Clarke promised to “go back and have a conversation with my constituents,” she said, recounting the conversation. But she isn’t optimistic: “The people in my district—they are radically against” the Pacific trade deal, Ms. Clarke said in an interview. But by last week, Mr. Rangel sounded pessimistic about finding common ground with the Obama administration. He said the White House hadn’t offered him anything concrete that would assure jobs—at least “nothing that I could explain to my voters.”
Two-thirds of the House members in the caucus signed a letter to Mr. Obama complaining that any trade deal would need to do more to strengthen workers’ rights. And only Rep. Gregory Meeks (D., N.Y.) is on record in favor of the fast-track legislation, and Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D., Texas) is thought to be a swing vote.
“There’s too much downward pressure on wages,” said Rep. David Scott (D., Ga.), a frequent ally of businesses who said he has made clear that the White House shouldn’t even bother trying to win his vote.
President Obama should know that snark and sarcasm are no substitute for facts and transparency. Various corporations have been able to see the text of the TPP. Duh! They're the ones writing it! If, as President Obama claims, the TPP is a great deal for workers, then as Senator Warren suggests, declassify it. Let's have it openly debated and discussed. Perhaps the President is correct. Once we all know the details maybe there will be hundreds of thousands of $14/hr American workers marching in the streets demanding passage of the TPP. American IT workers may rejoice at the prospect of training their Pacific Rim lower cost replacements. Maybe American workers in general think that they have too much safety in their job and want their boss to have more flexibility to replace or fire them. But I doubt it. I think that the TPP is just the latest in a long line of moves by corporations and the wealthy to reduce labor costs and limit democratic oversight of business. Senator Warren is right. President Obama is wrong on this one. He needs to be fought tooth and nail on this. And he needs to lose.
The Reverend Al Sharpton, whatever his other gifts may be, is not a particularly adept television host. His cadence grates. To this Midwesterner he usually sounds as if he's about to punch someone in the mouth. Sharpton mispronounces words and misses cues to open or close segments. He yells all the time. Sharpton's only two emotions are surprise or outrage. He seems to be in a perennial search for the teleprompter. We posted about all this before but Sharpton's shortcomings are obvious to anyone that watches his show for longer than five minutes. For these reasons and many others, Sharpton's ratings on MSNBC have mostly been bad. I can't blame him too much for this. If someone offered to pay me many multiples of my current salary to do something for which I was poorly qualified I might well take the money and cry all the way to the bank. Sharpton has to this point survived the latest reshuffling of talent at MSNBC which saw Joy Reid and Ronan Farrow lose their even less popular shows. This ability to survive purges and even the ability to get hired in the first place had some people shaking their heads and muttering about conspiracy theories. Others laughed at the sheer audacity and tenacity of Sharpton. It takes a lot to survive as a public figure in this world and Sharpton has it. Although his television show is an ongoing dumpster fire I appreciate that Sharpton brings attention to some situations that would otherwise go unnoticed. However someone just recently revealed his belief that Sharpton's hiring and survival at MSNBC was more about corporate payoffs and hiring a spook to sit by the door than it was about Sharpton's hosting talents. So this man filed a $20 billion dollar federal lawsuit.
You may, if you are a certain age, remember Byron Allen as a comedian and co-host of the show Real People. That was a very long time ago indeed but unlike some Hollywood "wasn't that the guy from so-n-so? " fading talent, the Detroit born Allen successfully made the switch into management and ownership. He owns Entertainment Studios, a television distribution and production company which among other things created Comedy.tv and Cars.tv. Allen and an organization named the National Association of African American Owned Media are suing Comcast, Sharpton's National Action Network, the NAACP, The Urban League, Time Warner and Al Sharpton as an individual, among other entities. The crux of the lawsuit is that Comcast/Time Warner has refused to do business with Entertainment Studios (and other black companies) because it is 100% Black owned. Apparently Sharpton comes in for attack because according to the complaint he and other civil rights organizations entered into voluntary diversity agreements with Comcast/Time Warner which were designed to give the appearance that Comcast/Time Warner was fair minded, when in fact they were not. In short Reverend Al was allegedly selling indulgences for Comcast/Time Warner's allegedly racist business practices. According to this accusation, Comcast, having been criticized in the past for exclusionary actions, decided it was cheaper to buy off Reverend Al Sharpton and associated fellow travelers than to actually change the practices in dispute. Of the approximately $10 billion in content fees that Comcast pays to license channels and advertise each year, less than $3 million is paid to 100% African American–owned media. Even the token payments Comcast makes to 100% African American–owned media companies are a charade. Comcast pays minimal amounts to license and distribute the Africa Channel, which is owned and operated by a former Comcast/NBC-Universal executive/insider and one of the architects of the MOUs Comcast uses to perpetuate its racial discrimination in contracting. In connection with its 2010 bid to acquire NBC-Universal, Comcast was criticized for its refusal to do business with 100% African American–owned media. In response, Comcast entered into what it termed “voluntary diversity agreements,” i.e., memoranda of understanding (“MOUs”), with non-media civil rights groups, including the other Defendants herein: NAACP; National Urban League; Al Sharpton; and Al Sharpton’s National Action Network. Defendants NAACP, National Urban League, Al Sharpton and National Action Network entered into the MOUs in order to facilitate Comcast’s racist practices and policies in contracting—or, more accurately, refusing to contract—with 100% African American–owned media companies. The MOUs are a sham, undertaken to whitewash Comcast’s discriminatory business practices. To obtain support for the NBC-Universal acquisition and for its continued racist policies and practices, Comcast made large cash “donations” to the non-media groups that signed the MOUs. For example, Comcast has paid Reverend Al Sharpton and Sharpton’s National Action Network over $3.8 million in “donations” and as salary for the on-screen television hosting position on MSNBC that Comcast awarded Sharpton in exchange for his signature on the MOUs, another blatant example of conflict of interest. Read the (lengthy) full complaint here
I have no idea if the allegations which Allen and others are making in this complaint are accurate. This may be something utterly frivolous which will be tossed from the court system. I do know however that it's often important not just to look at the people in front of a camera or the individual people at the lower levels of the organization to see if Black people are getting a fair shake. It's just as important to look at the higher ups, at the decision makers. It's important to see who's making the contracting decisions and if black companies are getting a piece of the pie. Are business decisions about hiring, grooming, and contracting made so that everyone has a fair chance to compete? There are some corporations which are happy to hire a few black executives here or there over the years but which consistently avoid business to business relations with black companies. Although Allen has a few zingers listed in the complaint (a white executive saying that they didn't want to create another Bob Johnson) for the most part the allegations (if true) are examples of how bloodless racism can work in the corporate world. Few people are going to run around screaming racial slurs or putting up signs. Well, few people compared to forty years ago do those sorts of things. It's just that business decisions that are made which always seem to leave the same people holding the dirty end of the stick. Again, this could all be nonsense. Allen's own company has come under serious attack for hostility to unions and low pay to performers and creators. Allen's said that in a previous interview that he sees his company as "the Wal-mart of television". FWIW, Allen has also stated that nobody ever gave him anything. Giving a tour of Entertainment Studios’ newly leased 75,000-square-foot production space in Culver City, Allen says he built his empire from scratch, in part because, as a black man, he had to. “Over the 20 years, I’ve seen my white counterparts have access to enormous amounts of capital, and in 20 years nobody’s ever offered me a nickel,” he says. “It made me stronger, it made me work with different disciplines.” LINK
To conclude, again this could be a pure shakedown initiated by Allen using Sharpton's name for publicity. Sharpton certainly thinks so. He said that the lawsuit was frivolous at best. He also claims that his organization did not receive $4 million in donations from Comcast but instead less than $1 million. Well. Detractors and even supporters of various advocacy organizations concerned with issues of race, gender, sexuality, animal rights etc. have stated that when an advocacy group accepts "donations" from the same organizations it is supposed to be monitoring, it can sometimes find itself politically neutered. Did this happen to Sharpton? Hmm. Is Allen just being a whiner?
When you do something wrong and are punished for it by having money taken from you the purpose of that little exercise is to convince you not to break the law or violate the rules again. The size of the fine may vary depending on how serious the offense is, whether the person who is being fined is a first time offender, how much money the person who is being fined has, whether or not the person or institution levying the fine is in a bad mood that day or is looking to make an public example of some schmuck or a million other reasons. But the purpose of the fine remains the same regardless of whether you are an NFL player who doesn't like to talk to the media, an NBA player who publicly questions the integrity of the league or its referees, or a taxpayer who simply doesn't like paying his taxes when the city, state or country says that he must. For example, in my younger days (i.e four years ago) I used to consider posted speed limits on expressways as something more akin to suggestions than hard and fast rules. I certainly wasn't the only motorist inclined to do this. On some local expressways if you aren't doing at least 80 mph you just aren't trying. However, four years ago a friendly police officer stopped me to let me know that no, he for one really did take those speed limits seriously. He thought I should as well. To assist me in reaching this future goal he wrote out a ticket that had a fine which I found to be entirely too high. Well I suppose it had the desired effect. I got a radar detector and kept a closer lookout for cops. Most days I rarely drive more than 3-4 mph over the posted speed limit. I simply don't have the money to give away to a podunk municipality over nonsense like that. But imagine if instead of having to pay the entire fine myself and wreak havoc in my monthly budget I could come to you and force you to pay a significant portion of that fine. You might protest that you weren't the big dummy who was driving significantly over the speed limit. I would respond with something along the lines of how we were all in this together. I would help you out if it came to it. So suck it up buttercup and hand over some cash. If you were forced to pay part of my penalty not only would you be upset (something I wouldn't care about that much to be honest) but more importantly the fine wouldn't be enough to deter my future behavior. Because the net fine to me would then be much lower I would be less likely to be deterred from speeding. That would be a really good deal for me. It might not be such a great deal for you or for the rest of society. The person who incurred the cost and broke the law/rules is not the one who is paying the cost. When a Montana judge ordered Hyundai to pay $73 million in punitive damages last year to the families of two teenagers killed in a car crash, she found that the South Korean automaker had “recklessly” ignored scores of warnings over more than a decade about the steering defect blamed for the accident. But even if Hyundai is eventually forced to pay the full amount of the damages, the punishment could be substantially reduced through a tax loophole that permits the company to save millions of dollars by deducting any court-ordered punitive damages as an ordinary business expense. The result, critics say, is that taxpayers are in effect subsidizing corporate misconduct. Carmakers are far from the only companies that can exploit loopholesthat allow them to lower their tax bill by deducting fines, forfeitures and other payments related to wrongdoing. Although the tax law forbids deductions for criminal fines and penalties owed to the government, other kinds of payments — to compensate victims or correct damages — are eligible for a tax deduction. The rating agency Standard & Poor’s, which was accused of helping to cause the financial crisis with its inflated assessments of mortgage investments, is eligible to deduct half of the $1.37 billion settlement with state and federal prosecutors it agreed to this week, according to the U.S. Public Interest Research Group, a consumer-oriented nonprofit. The result would be a roughly $245 million reduction in its tax bill, the research group calculated. At least 80 percent of the more than $42 billion that BP has paid out because of the 2010 Deepwater Horizon rig explosionthat killed 11 people and spewed oil into the Gulf of Mexico qualifies for a tax deduction, according toU.S. PIRG.That has saved an estimated $10 billion to $14 billion for the company. The exact amount is uncertain because of the lack of transparency, the group complained. Brandon Garrett, a law professor at the University of Virginia and author of “Too Big to Jail,” said that BP was “asking taxpayers, in effect, to pay for the victim compensation fund it agreed to set up.” LINK
So this is an incredibly good deal for companies which have to pay for wrongdoing. Not only do the company officers and owners generally avoid personal damages and/or prison time for misdeeds they even are able to avoid the full impact of the fine by getting the government (i.e. you) to help pay for it. Often they can get the fine or settlement reduced on appeal. It might not be such a great deal for you or for the rest of society. The person who incurred the cost and broke the law/rules is not the one who is paying the cost. That seems to violate basic fairness. This is another example of how our tax code and public perception of welfare leeches. This is why as we recently discussed one has to be careful when one reads about this or that inner-city ghetto or poor trailer park person "cheating" the system out of a few hundred dollars each month. Your disgust or contempt should be saved for the big dog who's crapping on the floor, not the little puppy. Corporations are cheating the government out of BILLIONS. Technically I shouldn't even use the term "cheating" as this is all quite legal. Moral outrage doesn't trump law. The fact that these tax code provisions are still in place proves the amount of power that corporations and their armies of lobbyists and attorneys can bring to bear. A great many of these mega corporations don't pay many, if any income taxes in the first place so this is just par for the course. Until enough people get angry enough to demand changes, these policies will continue. But to demand change you have to know what's going on behind closed doors and out in the open. This is why it's so important to read, inform yourself and get politically active.
One of the reasons for encouraging people to use less gasoline and more green technology was not only to help reduce pollution but also to reduce wear and tear on the roads. Ultimately for pollution's sake it might be better for us all to be driving hybrids or electric vehicles. Or for the roads' sake more of us should be bicycling or taking mass transit. But in the mean time the auto companies should be compelled to increase CAFE standards while consumers should be encouraged to car pool, bicycle, walk to work, use mass transit and do other things which will result in less use of gasoline. One person who's almost comically gung-ho about this is NYT Pulitzer Prize winning columnist Thomas Friedman, who has a 70% chance of working his support for a carbon tax into any column he writes, no matter the subject matter. Mid-East Peace? Carbon tax will solve it. Islamic Terrorism? Carbon tax will hit the spot. Russia making ominous noises? A carbon tax will settle their hash. China polluting the entire planet? Obviously we need a carbon tax. Donald Sterling situation? A carbon tax would have prevented it. And so on. Vehicles are more fuel efficient than they used to be. Gasoline costs more than it used to. And people don't buy as many cars or drive as much as they used to. So you would think that the state would be happy about this right? We're cutting back on emissions and getting more out of less: the very definition of efficiency. That's good, right? Well not so fast partner.
You see all that fuel efficiency and higher CAFE standards and bicycling to work may be good for the environment and for politicians who have made it their business to be seen as standing up against older methods of energy generation but they're not good for state revenue. When people buy less gasoline they also pay less gasoline tax. Less money coming into the state coffers means the state either has to (a) be wiser and smarter with less or (b) find a way to shake citizens down to make up the difference. If you know anything about Michigan politicians (or politicians anywhere) you can hazard an informed guess about which choice they would likely prefer.
LANSING— Michigan could solve its road funding problems by being one of the first states in the nation to move to a system where motorists pay a feebased on the number of miles they drive, according to a University of Michigan report to be released today. The report, prepared for the Michigan Environmental Council by Sustainable Mobility & Accessibility Research & Transformation (SMART) at U-M, says fuel consumption is declining as traditional vehicles become more efficient and electric vehicles more common. Together, those trends are making road funding models based on fuel taxes obsolete, the report says. Instead of continuing to raise fuel taxes to pay for transportation infrastructure a mileage fee could more fairly allocate costs based on the number of miles driven, the time of day, the route taken, and the weight of the vehicle,” the report says. Elizabeth Treutel, a master of urban planning candidate at U-M and one of the authors of the report, said moving to such a system is probably five to 10 years away, but the report is partly intended to start a conversation.
Let me be perfectly clear, as our President likes to say. Climate change is real. I support less pollution, better roads, and within reason, certain higher CAFE standards. Lord knows I've spent more than my share of money because of issues caused by potholes. But as you might have noticed I also have this strange preoccupation with privacy. I just don't think it's any of the state's business how much I drive each year. I don't think there is any non-intrusive method for them to obtain that information. And if you're going to make people pay for the number of miles they drive then frankly I would just as soon the state (speaking federal and Michigan here) get out of the business of twisting arms to get companies to produce little hybrid/electric clown cars that at least in Michigan are not super popular. I have a 45 minute one way commute on a good day. I don't think it's "fair" to charge me more because I was not fortunate enough to find a job closer to home. And by "fair" I also mean in my interest. There are people who outearn me by factors of five, ten or more who may have a 10 minute commute. Is it really right that they would pay less tax than I do? I also don't like the baked in presumption that that the state is guaranteed some fixed amount of revenue from citizens. They wanted us to use less gasoline; we're using less gasoline. Now that's no good because their tax revenue is declining? That is not my problem. If I were running things I would suggest cutting the truck weight limits in half and giving businesses more incentive to transport items by train. There are far too many semi-trailers or other large trucks on Michigan roads. That's where the road damage starts if you ask me. I also think the standards for roads are far too low. Other states in the upper Midwest don't seem to have the kinds of roads with which Michigan is cursed so I don't think the problem is weather related. So right now I'd want to know more about who's fixing the roads and why are they doing such a poor job before I'd support giving them more money.
But what's your call?
Is a tax based on mileage rather than gasoline usage fair?
If you were the state what would you do when faced with declining gas tax revenue?
Every job has certain requirements. Generally speaking the more difficult these requirements are, the better paying the job will be. The more important the job is, the more critical these requirements are. This is common sense. I'm a solitary personality. I'm not a particularly adept or engaging public speaker. I don't like traveling more than absolutely necessary. So I work in a career field and more specifically in a job class where constant travel and public presentations aren't huge requirements. I very rarely must do either. Looking back I can say that I probably consciously or subconsciously steered my career this way. It was my decision. I realize now that I must change to make more money but that's my cross to bear. Let's say I applied for and obtained a job where I needed to be an enthusiastic extroverted IT manager leading cross-functional teams in different countries, traveling most of the year and selling work to various business owners. This job would pay two to three times what I earn now, not even counting bonus. That's good. Immediately after I got the job assume I told my new boss that I didn't want to travel, hated doing presentations, didn't like rejection, corporate rivalries and backbiting, and disliked being responsible for anyone's work but my own. But I still wanted the big paycheck. Well my new boss would probably tell me to leave. She would be upset. Unproductive or unhappy subordinates make her job more difficult, call her judgment into question and put her year end bonus and future promotions at risk. So before hiring someone at a high skill, well paid job, companies usually try to make sure that the person can do the work and will be happy doing it.
That's the situation that the NBA Houston Rockets find themselves in with their employee, rookie forward Royce White.
The Houston Rockets suspended first-round pick Royce White for ''refusing to provide services'' required by his contract on Sunday.General manager Daryl Morey said Sunday that the team will continue to work with White in hopes of finding a resolution.White will not be paid during his suspension. White refused his assignment to Houston's D-League affiliate a week ago. The 16th overall pick in the June draft has spent most of the season on Houston's inactive list while he and the team figure out how to handle his anxiety disorder and overall mental health.
White has been vocal on Twitter throughout this saga, and he continued to voice his opinions on the Web site after the announcement Sunday.''What's suspending me suppose to do. I've been away from the team for a month 1/2. Guess we want to give it a title to shift accountability,'' he tweeted.
The 6-foot-8 White missed the first week of training camp to work with the Rockets to create an arrangement to deal with his anxiety disorder within the demands of the NBA's travel schedule. He and the team agreed to allow him to travel by bus to some games while he confronted his fear of flying and obsessive-compulsive disorder. He flew to Detroit with the team for the season opener and then traveled by bus to Atlanta and Memphis for games. But he soon stopped participating in team activities and said on Twitter that dealing with his mental health took precedence over his NBA career. Then came his decision last Sunday to refuse his assignment to the D-League. Despite that decision, he said then that he still hopes to return to basketball in the future.
Now the Houston Rockets knew that White had issues with travel when they drafted him. They went ahead and did so anyway. And presumably White knew that professional basketball players play half of their games away from home. I know some people with diagnosed and undiagnosed anxiety or obsessive-compulsive disorders. Most don't like their condition. Most deal with it and are just as productive as anyone else. In some extreme situations they don't and the condition greatly damages their personal and professional happiness. This may be what's going on with Royce White. I am very sympathetic to someone who has mental health issues. You can't always just tell some people to suck it up or deal with it. That just doesn't work.
But if those symptoms interfere with your job so much that you can't do your job, you should take a different job. I don't think that Iowa State did White any favors by attempting to cater to his disorders. You can't be a professional basketball player, and a rookie at that, and have problems with flying. It's not a question of being unsympathetic to White or making fun of him. That's not my intention. It's just a question of job requirements. If you're claustrophobic, coal mining isn't the job for you. If you have body image issues, exotic dancing might not be the best fit. If you truly despise math and arcane business rules, don't be an accountant. I agree that dealing with serious health issues should always take precedence over your job. Most definitely. I just see White's situation a little differently. It's one thing to have a health challenge a decade after you've been doing your job, especially if that health challenge arose in part because of your job. It's something a bit different to take a job you know you can't do, refuse to do the job and then demand to get paid anyway. The world doesn't really work like that, especially if you're just starting out in your career. This isn't a case where a heartless corporation is uncaring about someone's health. At least not from what I can see. It's just not a good match.
Questions:
1) Were the Houston Rockets right to suspend Royce White?
2) Is White correct to refuse assignment to the D-League?
3) Should the Houston Rockets find White alternative modes of transportation?
'I think we’re inviting God’s judgment when we shake our fist at him, you know, "We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage." And I pray on God’s mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we would have the audacity to try and redefine what marriage is all about,' he said.
This immediately started requests for retraction and calls for boycotts, accusations of discrimination and most ominously government officials telling him to stay out of their vicinity. This really touches on something that I've noticed for a while now and I don't think it's healthy. Both right and left do it.
The turning of honest difference of opinion into heresy that must be zealously stamped out.
The attempt to hurt someone's business for political reasons.
The attempt to get around free speech protections by recasting ideas as hate speech or discrimination.
The attempt to use government to achieve the first three points.
Whether we think that Dan Cathy is a bigot or not, his position on marriage, that it's between one man and one woman, is one held by millions of Americans, including until quite recently, President Obama. Remember this quote? "I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian — for me — for me as a Christian, it is also a sacred union. God’s in the mix."Of course the President said that before he was elected but I know he was being honest with us. Perhaps Mr. Cathy will also "evolve" when he runs for President. Do we really want to say that everyone who supports traditional marriage is a hateful individual?
Is it a good idea to mix politics and business? This is a trickier question because obviously there are some instances where I do think boycotts are useful but those tend to be cases where the company is engaging in illegal or unethical behavior (i.e. discrimination or pollution). I understand why people might oppose a new strip club or liquor store opening up in their neighborhood. But those examples aside is it good for you as an individual to only engage in commerce with people that agree with you on everything? Do you for example, not shop at Whole Foods because the founder and CEO, John Mackey is a free market libertarian who opposes ObamaCare and unions and doesn't believe in climate change? Or maybe you do shop at Whole Foods because the founder and CEO, John Mackey is a vegan who has been extremely helpful in the battle to increase standards for humane animal treatment, promoted organic foods and sustainable farming, has donated his stock portfolio to charity and placed caps on executive pay. Is it good for the country as a whole if everyone starts to disengage from people who are not like them? I don't understand the urge to punish people you don't agree with until they change their tune. The world is full of people who think my views are just as silly as I think theirs are. That's life.
If you work in a large corporation as I do there's an excellent chance that you will run across people in positions of authority that will have rather different views than you do. Take it from me it's NOT a good idea to get into political discussions with your direct supervisors about affirmative action, the war in Afghanistan or feminism. But if you discover that your boss's boss's boss thinks that Glenn Beck has it right, do you continue to work there? Or if you are of more conservative bent and you learn that the company CIO thinks the problem with this country is that it needs a good dose of Euro-style social welfare and confiscation of guns, do you stand up and tell her off and then quit? Or in those situations do you say, hey I need this job and as long as I am treated fairly I will stay? Because after all, business is business and those idiots people have a right to their opinions.
There is not as far as I know any claim that Dan Cathy oversees a corporate culture of gay hatred. He has not as far as I know publicly used anti-gay slurs, called for beatings of gays, claimed that he would refuse to hire, promote or serve gays, made anti-gay jokes, or made snide comments about Broadway or West Hollywood. All he did was say he believes that marriage is between a man and woman and contribute money to organizations that feel the same. For that Boston's Mayor Tom Menino sends a letter to Chick-fil-A stating that they are not welcome while Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel and Aldermen are also making noises about preventing the company from expanding in Chicago.
Whatever you think about Dan Cathy or his views, do you really want a government star chamber deciding, for purely political reasons, to try to prevent a company from doing business? That is a pretty obvious, blatant and ugly violation of the First Amendment. If you support that because you happen to think that Dan Cathy is a twit, then would you also support a local government in a more conservative area trying to prevent a lesbian bookstore from opening or demanding to know if a Curves franchise owner believes in abortion rights or sending questionnaires to a dance club to find out the owner's stance on interracial dating? I think that any new boycott of Chick-fil-A will peter out just like the previous ones did. Remember that NAACP boycott of South Carolina or Target stores? Exactly.
QUESTIONS
Is it automatically bigotry to support traditional marriage?
Do you occasionally do business with people who hold different political beliefs than you do? If so where do you draw the line?
Is it smart business to put your religious or political views out there for debate?
Should local governments try to prevent Chick-fil-A from expanding?
