Porn games, Sex chat

A short summary for those who haven't heard of the story a NPR newscaster who got fired for comments he made when working his other job on Fox News where he first proclaimed he wasn't a bigot, and then said that he was afraid of people in Muslim garb. They fired him for the bigoted comment and now he (and many other conservative talking heads) are calling it censorship and calling for NPR's public funding to be pulled.

I don't care about NPR, but I don't see it as censorship. I see it as employer/employee relations. You renounce some of your rights when you take a paycheck. It's not unconditional, but it is a fact.

I've worked retail, and if I were to give into the urge to tell all the primped up douche bags to wash their hair once in a awhile, get a grown up hair cut, and shave the damn chin pubes I would get fired, and deservedly so.

I didn't, I realized I don't not have my full freedom of expression and I smiled and wrang up their purchases.

Juan Williams was perfectly happy to take NPR's money, but was not willing to abide by the fact that by taking their money he made himself accountable. I consider it comparable because he was just as much representing his employers as a newscaster as I was as a salesclerk. Now if I had spoke my mind the customer would consider it a reflection on the business as well as on the person.

My employers have always had and will always have the right to expect a certain degree of dignified behavior from me for the simple fact I continue to take their money.

Juan Williams took their money, and ignored their warnings like when they asked the NPR logo to be removed when he was speaking on Fox News. Now that his behavior crossed a line and he was fired he's whining like some sneering nineteen year old who can't grasp that showing up late and leaving early are not acceptable behaviors.

The fact that some of the most visible/vocal members of parties that are supposed to believe in things like character and self-reliance are coming to the man's defense show that what little I thought I could respect about conservatives as a body was a delusion on my part.

I do not know this special case and I don't talk about American politics and politicians - I have enough to do with the ones in my own country
So my comment is just in general contracts, no matter if its for a job, a sale or any other deal.

In each deal you have rights and obligations. It seems to be human nature, we want to check out how far we can bend our part of the contract, but don't accept this from the other one. We expect, the other one has to comply with its oblogations. "You paid 1$ less, that's not allowed!" But if I leave early, it's ok. You can keep an eye closed. If then we get the bill for our behaviour, we start to cry (we talked about in another topic, just some people wanna take care for their own life). "Uhhh, not fair!"
This I hate. Do (or don't do something) and take responsibility. But it is a typical sign of much too many people. It's one thing to talk about values and another thing to live them.

The problem, if one partner allows bending (expanding) the rights you get a "law". I don't say this is correct, but it's human nature, too. "I was allowed to show this logo 100 times, now you can't prohibit!" even if it was prohibited before.

The thing is that no matter how well established a rule may be there always seem to be those who figure it applies to everyone else. They are special, they aren't like the people who normally break the rules... it's why lawyers are despised, yet still aren't having any problem finding customers. It's just that the continuing story was pissing me off that a grown man (with white hair even) is behaving so childishly and getting some fairly wide spread support (even from elected officials) that are saying his employers should not have the right to deal with a problematic employee.

I kinda got caught at the conservative part of Janines post. I've read about Texas deciding to change the content of history textbooks in favour of christianity and that the textbooks used in Texas are widely used across the US. That seem kinda crazy, are they doing anything about that?

That happens where ever you go. There was a big flap about Japan editing it's history text books to minimize their WW2 atrocities and the nations that they had committed those atrocities against were understandably upset. It's nationalism, and I can't imagine any text books being truly neutral in their reporting of history.

But that's really a whole other topic.

Hmm thats right, I forgot about that. Well nationalism is a bad idea.

Texas issue was a knee jerk reaction to overtones made in some textbooks to paint  a positive spin on the Islamic society while at the same time pointing out certain deficiencies in the Christian society. Honestly to speak of America one has to grapple with religion and it's impact on society, modern American society has taken such a twist it goes out of it's way to attack or silence it's native religion . Thomas Jefferson was adamant about protecting the freedom of choice in religion. Sadly most of his comments are taken up and used as a base for atheism, a fact he would have been abhorred to hear. He was not an atheist, just not enamored by organized religion and the influence that it dictated on European society. His ultimate goal was to establish a society where religion could be actively (or not) participated  without concern. The current atheist movement has taken that point  organized and pressed an absolute segregation on the practice in public places. That flies in the face of American constitutional rights.

Juan Williams points must be taken with a degree of salt. NPR  holds itself to certain standards, and I always thought it meant freedom of speech, obviously that is not true.  Is it a first amendment violation to speak one's mind  if it flies with a tinge of concern that others in a majority here might unconsciously and silently hold. Not having heard his comments I will hold my own opinion in reserve. He is accountable though for his publicly viewed opinions. Any employers is allowed to dictate acceptable practices,...we work at will accepting those standards, not with imbued rights.

We agree quite a bit Bear.

On the Freedom of Religion issue, as I interpret... one of the things that had the colonists first leaving England was the Church of England. At that point there was one Church allowed, and that was it. The problem that is arising now is that the marriage between the religious and the right is seeming intent on creating a Church of America.

We may end up making this a new thread, but I use the Gay Marriage issue as my example as there ARE churches willing to perform union ceremonies, but other churches are using their political allies to force THEIR interpretation of scripture. While I obviously have a personal bias every time someone says how the Bible defines marriage what they are really saying is how THEY interpret the Bible.

And they are seeking to make their interpretation the law of the land.

The problem is that both sides want to have it all their own way.

On Williams. He ABSOLUTELY had the right to make the comments he made. What he didn't have was the right to demand his employer accept them. That is the crux of my argument here. That the political party that normally is trumpeting the idea of personal accountability is insisting he shouldn't have any.

On NPR itself, they have their own responsibilities to advertisers, to donors, THEY would have bared the greater brunt of blow back over his comments if they had let them stand and kept him on. They seemed to have had a damned if they do, damned if they don't position.

The American fundamentalist movement definitely misses that crucial point. Jefferson's remarks were often directed towards the Christian right who were adamant at that time of creating a state religion. Jefferson wrote some some very persuasive points to dispel that movement,...as he noted America needed,...depended on the fundamental right to believe as you wanted without being dictated to prejudiced against by others. that is a point missing on the attack on religion the courts fail to take into account. In no way was the practice EVER to be prohibited, only that you could not be required to participate. 

but I agree with you on the Williams issue,...personal accountability. NPR has a certain right to make a stance on viewpoint which addresses an attack on anyone's religious viewpoint practice.

Bear, I think we are demonstrating how this country SHOULD work. I just wonder if we are a minority, or it's just a vocal minority that's in front of the cameras convincing people to act like that?

well it's a media station with a set agenda aligned with a political movement. THAT is the fear we all should have. Reeks of mind control...elements which which Europe to disaster 60 years ago. I listen to my ex in-laws spew this nonsense,...cringe and counter-point...

The vocal side is a minority,..but honestly I see their reaction,..as fair,...and a right to voice. Remember it is one station,..with a history and mandate to twist the truth to it's own agenda. Several years ago that station was under fire when reporters were fired for NOT twisting stories,...and fabricating facts to support the company viewpoint.

 The sad part,..there are some shocking revelations of truth they do say,...but mired in the lies they are lost.

You brought the gay marriage issue up,..I have had this discussion at length with a gay friend of mine,too many nights of discussion and I would say that you and I would go on likewise for hours because my viewpoint on this is oriented and slanted towards the religious right.

However,.this is a point a definition the government needs to step from, distance because it has taken a religious overtone whether right or not. Issue domestic partner agreements to ALL (I think the French government does this),...leave marriage ceremonies to the churches,...be it gay or fundamental right, those ceremonies are religion at work, and should not be subject to government control.

Agreed, and there are certainly those gay rights activists who would rather FORCE Churches to perform same sex ceremonies, but they are just the flip side of the coin that wants to deny all same sex partner rights.

The key for me (but you said this too) is that the government issues the same rights to all unions, and Churches perform the ceremonies as they see fit.

Some had wanted to have marriages stand, but give same sex partners civil union's or something like that. Which sounds to me like the "Separate but Equal" (Jim Crow?) laws that were struck down.

As long as the field is equal I'm okay with it.

I remember when Juan got fired....let me say this...if in a post 9-11 world you arent a lil edgy about CERTAIN muslim's appearance...youre braindead...Juan was just honest enough to admit it....keep in mind Janine as Americans we live in a society that branded John Wayne a racist because he killed Indians and Japanese in movies.(in which it was contextually accurate)...he stated he wouldnt vote for a black man until the educational opportunities were equal.....but when it was discussed they left out his equal statement...Fox news is always accused of being partial...that their hosts cut off people they disagree with....I say this with an educated mind....they dont do it anymore than cnbc msnbs or npr...I believe npr should have their funding stripped because in my opinion it is a luxury item and we dont NEED it....its not used in an educational fashion as public tv is.....now to the part that inspired me to post..........nowhere in the consitution are the words ''seperation of church and state''....Jeffersons ideal and the thoughts of the people that approved the constitution was this....we would not have a national religion...BUT...this didnt mean states couldnt have their own state religion...I think its shameful the constant attacks on the christian society...who led the abolitionist movement?....who led the civil rights movement?....wasnt a bunch of atheists...and before anyone thinks of spouting off about all the evil the catholic church did in their abuse of power keep in mind.....vikings raped and pillaged most of the known world at the time...they werent christians....people paint their picture of the world with their choice of brush...nothing will ever change that....

So it would be okay for there to be a state religion? Would I be forced to attend? Would I have my legal rights stripped from me over my sexual orientation? While that last one is real I want to define what it is you are saying before I get worried Tiger Shark.

Oh, and if we are going back to the Vikings we could go back to the Crusades. You look back long enough you find violent assholes.

Also on Juan, if someone said that about someone with black skin would it still be acceptable? There ARE black criminals that could be used to justify the comment if I'm understanding your view.

The problem with religion is that the rules it presents are from millennia back. In those days there was no government, so religion filled that niche. The rules they set were, for that time, sensible, as civilization was less complex and established in those days. They present basic rules that make living together in groups doable: don't kill each other, don't rob each other, respect each other, don't mess with someone else's spouse. Nowadays we have laws for that, they comes with civilization advancing and knowledge growing beyond the oldest of superstitions. Most of those laws even make sense, like the commandments did in the time they were given/made up.

However, human nature saw an opportunity in religion, a way to gain more power over others by saying "God/Yahweh/Allah/Buddha/[go on] told me that ...", which is how we ended up with stuff like "it's evil to show your ankles, hair, etc". Cultural developments got sucked into religion, which conditioned it's believers into intolerance of anything that diverged from "their rules". My guess is that burqa's originally had nothing to do with religion, in that time it was simply a way to prevent the beautiful and young women to be easily stolen by raiders or at least to even the odds to the chance that a raider broke his back trying to abduct an overweight mother of 6. However in today's situation it results in the males from that society being less able to deal well with women that do show flesh, hardly being able to realize that those women like looking good instead of like disguised barrels.

Even in modern western countries that have a lawful separation between state and religion religious parties try to force their views and rules into legislation, effectively trying to violate that separation. This, by the way, appears to be more rule then exception.

Before I get kicked off my soapbox and crucified and torched for heresy, I'm not especially anti-religious, but I do believe religion is a private thing, which is the way it should stay.