« Campaign Finance in McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission | Main | What we do for science open thread »

April 04, 2014

Comments

Better the new baseball season than wasting time on the "Final Four"!

a friend of mine hipped me to jill scott. kinda old school R&B, but modern. nice!

also been digging gregory porter, also kinda old school R&B, from from the jazz direction.

so, my ears are happy.

Better the new baseball season than wasting time on the "Final Four"!

Indeed. Aside from the Super Bowl there is no more over-hyped sports event than the NCAA tournament.

The general hysteria surrounding too many sports these days has actually caused me to lose interest. Who wants to listen to announcers treat every game, every good play, as one of the most important and spectacular events in sports history? I guess lots of fans do, but not me.

Aside from the Super Bowl there is no more over-hyped sports event than the NCAA tournament.

This statement suggests that the NCAA tournament could be over-hyped, which, of course, it can not be.

Who wants to listen to announcers treat every game, every good play, as one of the most important and spectacular events in sports history?

Why limit it to sports history? You seem to misunderestimate the true importance of a buzzer-beating, game-winning 3-pointer.

I can agree with the hyperventilating announcer point. Also, too, ESPN's desperate need to say, at least 100 times during each Sportscenter, "this is the first time Team X has done Y since Z," with Z being, like, last week.

ESPN's desperate need to say, at least 100 times during each Sportscenter, "this is the first time Team X has done Y since Z," with Z being, like, last week.

Yes. And at other times Y is some obscure feat, like winning a game by a margin equal to the day of the month.

One more thing. The general statistical imbecility of sports announcers truly grates. This actually show up a lot in baseball, maybe because so much data is available.

One example is the alleged importance of scoring in the first inning because "teams that score in the first inning win X% of the time," where X>50. Of course they do. Teams that score in the fourth inning, or the sixth, also win more than 50% of the time, because scoring a run helps you win, regardless of the inning.

I could go on.

Home field/court advantage in the playoffs is another one - they give home field/court advantage in the playoffs to the best teams! Of course they win more!

I wonder if scoring a run in the 9th inning would be less correlated with winning than any other inning. Based on the hypothesis home teams only bat in the 9th if they're behind or the game is tied,so the number of 9th-innings in the data set would not include all the games home teams win after the top of the 9th.

"home teams only bat in the 9th if they're behind or the game is tied,so the number of 9th-innings in the data set would not include all the games home teams win after the top of the 9th."

That sounds plausible. It seems unlikely that average runs scored in the bottom of the ninth exceeds the average deficit after eight-and-a-half.

Also, visitors with a big lead normally won't use their best reliever in the ninth, so the home team is more likely to score the further behind they are.

Maybe if they played the ninth inning first, it would take the pressure off the closers.

Yes, baseball announcing has been in long decline, both TV and radio.

After Vin Scully goes, we're going to be left with a stupifyingly boring set of automatons who all learned their announcing cadences at the Berlitz School of Monotone.

Something tells me the same thing is wrong with baseball announcing that is wrong with broadcast news, the MBA suits got a hold of it and rationalized and homogenized it into featureless pablum augmented by a "color" guy, who like C3PO, interjects with data points and opinions.

You could tell many of the old announcers grew up in the towns they announced in; you could hear the regional accents. Now, as far I can tell, all of them were raised on the same suburban street in Denver, house after identical house of white-bread accountants, like TV weathermen, where everyone talks alike, unless its Spanish.

They had their own funny, clever catch-phrases -- Bob Prince of the Pirates -- "that call was closer than a gnat's eyelash."

Or, "Going, going ... gone" on the home run. I want that engraved in my headstone.

Now, they do fan input ... Don from Poughkeepsie thinks Cano oughta yadda yadda... f8ck the fan. How about you do the play by play and the fan at home can watch the game and stick to what he's good at, throwing his shoe at the TV and missing.

Why, when I was a boy ... let me start again ... not too long ago, it seemed that each announcer had their own flavor and color. They were like the old ballparks with their peculiar idiosyncracies, odd dimensions and corners in the outfield, etc.

Now the field might as well be standardized football dimension or basketball courts.

Then the suits and the owners somehow tried to make up for the homogenized yawn inducing announcing by adding back in entertainment in the parks ... fireworks, between innings festivities .. sausage races ... and they blew that too. Half the time, the baseball game is the sideshow.

Look, give me some popcorn, maybe a beer, I don't need a f8cking dry martini and canapes at the ballpark, and if the only other excitement besides a guy legging out a triple with a head-first slide was Morgana hauling herself onto the field and trying to give the pitcher a dry-rinse in her ample decolletage and having to be escorted off, that'll do me.

It's hard to describe what is missing from play-by-play announcing, especially on the radio if you didn't experience it. The old guys called the plays and the wonderful rhythm and cadence of their speech and its pauses place in your mind's eye the exact rhythm of a baseball game itself. Silences were permitted; you could hear the murmuring and gusting excitement of the crowd and then you would get the info you needed about what just happened and the descriptions conveyed perfectly the sights and smells of the game.

I love baseball stats; I get my fill of them playing fantasy baseball on Yahoo, but as much as Bill James added to the game, he also supplanted something else, something intangible, the expectation of the unexpected event by the unexpected player -- that's not quite it, but it's an intimation --- with his data mongering.

Here's the kind of baseball data I want to hear. Every time Wade Boggs ate chicken before a game, he got a hit.

Or this, from Bob Gibson: Roberto Clemente would whine about his neck being sore his entire career. Before every at bat he would stand outside the batter's box and twist his head around with an agonized look on his face, like maybe he would be paralyzed within minutes if he made a false move. Then he'd step in, and I'd throw him a 98 mph fastball high and outside where only a contortionist could reach it, and he'd swing from the heels, his spine twisting and his head yacking back and forth on its perch, and he would hit that pitch so hard it would stay on a steady line at a steady height for 400 feet in Forbes Field, like it was shot out of a cannon and carom off the outfield wall and Clemente would scream around the bases, arms and legs all over the place, head bobbing up and down like his neck was made of rubber, and slide like a maniac into third base.

Sore neck, my ass, according to Gibson in so many words.

That's data, without a color man.

I play baseball and the sweetest moments of my life, outside of love, are standing in center field on a 80 degree day, very slight breeze, the outfield grass newly mown and giving off its sweet American perfume, as the pitcher tosses his last few warm up pitches, with my hands on my hips, and then putting the glove on as I see the first batter in the inning drop one of his warm-up bats and head for home plate.

Hit it to me.

That's the kind of data announcers no longer paint their word pictures with.

Instead they talk about a sandwich their wife had yesterday or the fact that XYZ ballplayer drives a Lexus to the park.

Also, baseball teams do enjoy a home field advantage - not as large as in other sports, but it's there. So for all 9th-innings played you're looking at visiting-team 9ths plus trailing/tied home-team 9ths. The more I think about it, it seems like the correlation would have to be reduced.

Time to visit Google and see if there's publicly available stats on this.

Nice, Count.

I used to love listening to games on the radio. When I was kid Mutual Broadcasting had a "Game of the Day" that was part of my daily routine in the summer.

Later in life, when driving in the evening I could pick up KMOX, off and on, and listen to the Cardinals - Harry Caray. You could hear the vendors yelling "Cold beer here," and on a hot night nothing made you thirstier.

Priest,

If you go to Baseball-reference you can subscribe to something called their "event database" - not the exact name - and I think it will have this data. If not, it's a good place to start.

If Google doesn't turn up any stats, try fivethrityeight.com (Nate Silver got his start on baseball statistics, before he branched out into elections.)

Now, they do fan input ... Don from Poughkeepsie thinks Cano oughta yadda yadda... f8ck the fan. How about you do the play by play and the fan at home can watch the game and stick to what he's good at, throwing his shoe at the TV and missing.

Carlinesque.

Thanks for the back up, Ugh. It's the start of the new school year here, and I don't remember it being this busy before.

Ug, sports. I nearly died of a baseball analogy once.

Seriously, I was driving from Michigan to Florida, to visit my mom for Christmas, and had "Wonderful Life" by Gould, on tape, to listen to on the trip. Things were going fine until he embarked on a hideously extended analogy between the statistics of evolutionary diversity, and baseball stats. I grasped the point in the first 30 seconds, a half hour later I fell asleep at the wheel, and was woke by the car shaking as I drifted off the shoulder.

Nearly killed by sports statistics. Took an extended session of Jane Child to revive me, and I never did finish that tape.

Brett:

That's one reason I don't care for non-fiction audiobooks -- you can't skim. But clearly "might get so boring you die" is another good reason.

I'm heading out to NYC for a wedding now. Back late Sunday.

Gould was a great baseball fan.

I once drove right over a guy at the intersection of Nut Street and Whacked Boulevard in downtown Craziopolis, flattened him purtin'ear, who was explaining a Supreme Court Justice's analogy of speech to money, so I slammed on the brakes, backed over him for good measure, and then flung a simoleon out the window at him as my analogy for saying "I'm sorry".

Okay, so open-threading it:

I'm conflicted about this thing.

Gay marriage is lovely (as lovely as marriage can be), and I'm all about boycotting people's bad business behavior (have not hung out at Hobby Lobby lately). But I'm kind of uncomfortable with this Brendan Eich thing. Not that I'm comfortable with Brendan Eich.

The world is a creepy place.

The ironic thing is, at the time Eich donated to Prop 8, Obama was on the Prop 8 side of things. (As was, for instance, Hillary.) So, in theory anyway, they ought to be firing anybody who supported Obama.

But, as always, Obama gets a pass, and thus, (In order that?) his supporters do, too.

The world is a creepy place.

FWIW, Josh Marshall weighs in.

To me, this is one of those cases where both sides have very legitimate points.

I doubt this will usher in a wave of CEOs (or anyone) being bounced out of their jobs because they hold politically incorrect (for lack of a better word) points of view. Mozilla and Silicon Valley in general is fairly unique environment.

It's interesting that they were cool with him being CTO, but not CEO. Maybe nobody noticed the Prop 8 donation until the job change.

Mozilla is so wildly non-representative of the California public in this regard, (Eich was the only Mozilla employee to donate in favor of Prop 8, in a state where it passed.) that it probably didn't occur until lately that it was worth checking. They just assumed that he was in favor of SSM, everybody else at the company was.

Obama was on the Prop 8 side of things. (As was, for instance, Hillary.

actually, not quite.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2008/11/obama-on-mtv-i/

"I’ve stated my opposition to this. I think it’s unnecessary," Obama told MTV. "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage. But when you start playing around with constitutions, just to prohibit somebody who cares about another person, it just seems to me that’s not what America’s about."

yeah, he was waffling. but that's better than donating in favor of Prop 8. and compared to the other options that year, Obama was miles ahead.

I guess I should say, he was the only Mozilla employee to donate to the pro-Prop 8 side, AND report their employer. Most of the people who didn't so report were pro-Prop 8, so apparently even then, they were fearing reprisals.

Maybe there'll be a Proposition to end the practice of "firing at will and whim" and Eich can give unlimited amounts of money to get that on the ballot and voted in.

I favor a top down approach - a Federal law prohibiting fire at will practices. Eich can now give to unlimited numbers of candidates and get that legislation thru Congress.

All of the so-called long-term unemployed had jobs at some point time until someone else, probably Eich, fired or laid them off (how many HAS he fired in career?) for one reason or another.

They didn't quit their jobs. They didn't have the means to act on that privilege.

This ridiculous debate about unemployment goes on and on when the solution is right in front of our faces. Mandate full employment by next Friday, with each employer, including governments, hiring proportionally to their size until the unemployment rate is at zero.

He can get in line.

Bottom line, I don't think Eich should have been fired for his political beliefs.

Neither do I think a line worker somewhere deep in Koch Industries should be fired for expressing at a company meeting the need to unionize his fellow workers, or perhaps suggest corporate should pay more attention to being a good steward of the environment, or for wearing an "I Heart Obama" lapel pin to the company picnic.

Thing is, Eich has probably 50 high-paying job offers as we speak and the usual suspects are hogging the microphones to express their deep empathy and solidarity with him, not to mention the fact that if he never worked again, he wouldn't be missing a mortgage payment, while the same usual suspects just came from another press conference where they accused the long-term unemployed, in fact, you just have to be unemployed five minutes in this full of sh*t country for the filth to be on your case, of being lazy mooching no-accounts who are stealing our hard-earned tax dollars.

Get in line, get down on your knees, and kiss my arse.

But, again, he should not have been fired.

I think he should steal a potted plant and some office supplies on his way out the door.

Like the josh marshall piece, russell, thanks for that. A couple of nice grafs from that

I don't want to make this wholly about President Obama because that confuses the issue. And obviously there's a whole separate story behind his 'evolution' on the issue. But I think there's one part of it that does shed light on the issue.

Even many people who see themselves as strong supporters of LGBT rights - and certainly many who have no ill-will toward LGBT people - have come relatively late to fully accepting the idea that LGBT people should get the same marriage document as us heterosexual folks. At the same time, though, most people have had a pretty clear sense of the trajectory of history on this issue and made a pretty clear distinction in their minds (rightly, I think) on whether (or how quickly) you're ready to push the envelope of rights forward and whether you're ready to push them back.

That's key and very real distinction, though it can get lost in being over-literal about what this or that person's position was at a given time.

That's why, if we're honest with ourselves, being revealed not just as a supporter but a cash contributor to Prop 8 really isn't the same as ... say, someone who back in 2008 supported civil unions but not full marriage...

and

This transformation, this cleansing - or white-washing from another perspective - is a whole 'nother story and one I've been fascinated with for years. What makes the current situation so fascinating and different is the rapidity of change. Like Paul spoke of the on-rush of the Kingdom of God, you can virtually see the future bleeding into, pushing up into the present. Over the last two or three years the future pushed its way into the present, leaving all sorts of oddities with the two often coexisting at the same time.

Being in a country where the social consensus is an even more powerful tool for compliance and the maintenance of conservative ways than in the US, I often wonder how you can make changes in social outlook without using the power of social consensus. Of course, it is very easy to get branded as a concern troll if one brings up this or similar points when someone is getting hammered, but I always wonder what other mechanism exist for changing someone like Eich's political views without putting pressure on him in this way. I suppose that the ideal way is to make people think that they were actually for things when they weren't, which is what gets you into what Josh Marshall terms as 'white-washing', but it seems like it is either that or making people constantly realize how often they fall short.

"but I always wonder what other mechanism exist for changing someone like Eich's political views without putting pressure on him in this way."

Reasoned discourse? It's really a bad idea to ignore reasoning with people as a way to change minds.

I'm certain Eich has engaged in and been engaged by reasoned discourse over the years regarding this particular issue.

How many gay folks have been fired or not hired because of their outwardly professed sexuality over the past 11,000 years?

They tried to keep their sexuality a secret too, like Eich did his Proposition 8 giving.

Anyone try reasoned discourse on those who humiliated and discriminated against their sexuality?

I think everyone should be happy, or else!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6Sxv-sUYtM

Hat tip to John Cole on the video.

He was apparently happy for a minute and a half this morning.

In Eich's case, I think his firing is unjustified. Just as unjustified as it would be if another company somewhere fired someone for having donated to the campaign against Prop 8.

It really ought to be remembered that we are currently in the middle (not at the end, in the middle) of a major social change. There are lots of people who once opposed gay marriage who have now changed their minds. (Including, and Andrew Sullivan has noted, a lot of gay rights advocates -- who were vehemently opposed when he was first pushing the idea.) And there are lots more who are in the process of changing their minds.

But there are also a lot of people who have not (or, in some cases, not yet) changed their minds. Firing someone over their current (let alone past) opinion on the subject is the kind of McCarthyism that anybody, liberal or conservative or libertarian, ought to be opposed to.

In a couple of decades, when gay marriage is as (un)controversial as interracial marriage is today, it might be another story. But today, it is simply unjustified.

We'll can get to that:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KRbpF9GoK24

Reasoned discourse? It's really a bad idea to ignore reasoning with people as a way to change minds.

I suppose that this

But, as always, Obama gets a pass, and thus, (In order that?) his supporters do, too.

in some bizarro universe, is an example of reasoned discourse, in that you have a reason and you expressed it, but my definition of reasoned discourse is that one should avoid cheap rhetorical moves like that.

As the count notes, he's probably had a lot of discussions about this. I'm wondering how people who don't get to hang around him are able to engage him in reasoned discourse? How do I get to change his mind?

I'd also point out that he wasn't fired, he resigned. This blog post discusses the view from inside Mozilla. Here's a post about how the victory was a hollow one which seems like a much better example of reasoned discourse. However. if you alienate a lot of your employees, you probably have to go. I mean that is the beauty of the private market, isn't it? I get to change his mind by boycotting Mozilla, by inserting a line of code that sends Mozilla browsers to a page explaining what Eich has done. What would mr reasoned debate propose we do? Get a government task force to make sure that no one can use code like that?

At any rate, following on the Count's first video link, this made me happy

http://www.wimp.com/trombonehappy/

I'd also point out that he wasn't fired, he resigned.

LJ, especially in upper management jobs, actual firing is reserved for those involved in major crimes. For anything less, the usual process is to ask the individual for his resignation. Yes, everybody knows that, if you fail to take the offer to let you resign, you are going to be fired. But virtually nobody tries to fight it.

As a matter of saving face for you, you get to "resign". But in reality, you were fired in everything but name.

Well, I suppose, but the difference between Eich and something like this seems to be a bit more than name. And given that 3 people left the board, and the prop 8 campaign was particularly vicious, looking at this from afar, I might suggest that it's karma, not that I want to have any part of being responsible for delivering karmic payback. I agree that he shouldn't have had to go, but I balk at making fired a word to mean getting in a situation where the context you work in doesn't function and something has to change.

Of course, if I were Mozilla, I would like to think that I either wouldn't have moved him to be the public face of the company, and if he had gotten there, I would have maybe demoted him back to CTO? Suggest that he apologize? But I'm not, so I can just observe that Eich got socially ostracized because of his views, and I wonder what other way you make large scale changes than doing that. One thing that we have started to figure out over the last century or so is that one can change things through non-violent means, which is great, but that non-violent change operates in large part by making certain things seem unacceptable. I've got no idea how else this is supposed to work on the largescale, so I'm not cheering this on, just wondering how this all works out.

The trombone piece was very cool, lj.

Eich probably felt like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJiCUdLBxuI&list=PL299B353C8108896B

I would say that either Mozilla's Board didn't do very well on their due-diligence when selecting him as CEO, or they knew about the donation but didn't think thru what the reaction would be.

but didn't think thru what the reaction would be.

Whether they knew about the donation or not, I think they were surprised by the scale of the response.

My two cents, it seemed excessive, and unless he was going to push his views through the platform, I probably wouldn't have joined the boycott.

For a few reasons. It was several years ago in a subject that has seen a massive sea change over the last several years(http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2014/0405/Mozilla-s-Brendan-Eich-and-gay-marriage-Intolerance-over-tolerance-video ):

" at the time Eich made his donation, only two states allowed same-sex marriage, and a majority of Americans (including then presidential candidates Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton) opposed the idea; today, 17 states allow it, and a majority of Americans support the idea, according to polls."

Second, I remember the Prop 8 campaign. It was loaded with FUD. There were people convinced it mandated some for of homosexual eduction in elementary school. I know people that voted for 8, only to regret it a few weeks later. The entire thing was really sad.

Third, you have the words of the developers that started the boycott (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2014/0405/Mozilla-s-Brendan-Eich-and-gay-marriage-Intolerance-over-tolerance-video ):

"This really was a personal statement of boycott, and it seems to be getting carried as if we are organizing a boycott or that we think Mozilla is evil or that we think Brendan Eich is the devil. None of those things are true"

Now, I've said that I would be unlikely to join the boycott. I might even encourage those that did form the boycott to reconsider.

Does that mean I think those two developers are evil? No. Has Eich had his rights infringed upon in any way? No.

This was a private/social discussion which utterly lacked a governmental component, as it should be. And yes, it got heated, as discussions often do. But a number of people used their associative rights to make a political point. That's how it should be, and it is, IMHO, an example of how powerful those rights are.

Or, to take LJ out of context (sorry, LJ):

I mean that is the beauty of the private market, isn't it?

In my mind, yes.

If I had concerns, it would be on donor lists being disclosed. I'm very uncomfortable with that concept, but it does have an anti-corruption component to it. I don't know how I feel about that issue.

I'd also point out that he wasn't fired, he resigned.

LJ, especially in upper management jobs, actual firing is reserved for those involved in major crimes

True enough, but the fact remains that he resigned. And, it appears he resigned after a huge number of employees very vocally objected to his promotion to CEO, and after about half the board threatened to leave.

So, resign or fire, it was obvious that having him as CEO was not a workable situation. Nobody wanted to work for the guy, or with him as CEO.

It also appears that his donation to Prop 8 was fairly widely known at least as of 2012. So, nobody should really have been blind-sided by that, either.

That was actually the view of Eich's single member LLC...

My two cents, it seemed excessive...

Really? What about the case of Debo Adegbile? He wasn't fired, but he failed to clear the Senate confirmation vote due to what I can only term mad dog vigilante mob rule bullshit.

I don't recall your disquiet.

It is incredible that people (I'm looking at you Andy Sullivan)can cheer on the advancement of the rights of the LBGT community, but have no qualms whatsoever about a bigot in a position of considerable power.

If you are OK with bigoted assholes having power, then are you not then OK with bigotry?

Just asking here to stir up the pot.

Regards,

Scott Lemieux weighs in.

The recent World Vision flap is telling.

My two cents, it seemed excessive...

Yeah, bottom line is that nobody wanted to work with the guy.

It may seem excessive to your or me, but I'm not sure we have anything to say about it. We don't work for Mozilla, we're not on the board of Mozilla, we (or at least I) don't build third party apps for Mozilla.

The situation everyone was facing was that it would likely have crushed Mozilla to keep Eich as CEO.

I'm not sure it's your place or mine to say that all of the folks involved should or should not have felt the way they obviously felt about Eich.

Yeah, bottom line is that nobody wanted to work with the guy.

Yeah, I agree it was the right decision for Mozilla. It would have been a problem for the organization if he stayed. And I think Mozilla is a good corporation.

I'm not sure it's your place or mine to say

Yeah, that's vaguely what I was getting at with:

Does that mean I think those two developers are evil? No. Has Eich had his rights infringed upon in any way? No.

People, from Mozilla developers to those running OkCupid, exercised their rights to protest and boycott.

They don't need my approval, or your approval, to do what they feel is right.

No dates on OKCupid for Eich I suppose, too.

He can always change his profile.

The trouble I would have with the "they have to do what they feel is right" is this. Ask yourself if you would be equally happy (or at least unconcerned) if it was a company which was forcing the resignation of a CEO for pushing for gay marriage (or any other currently controversial cause you can think of)? Or for having pushed for it half a decade ago.

I can agree that Mozilla may have had cause, given their particular situation, to do what they did. Which doesn't mean I cannot feel that punishing someone for having an unpopular political or policy position is a bad thing. And that goes double whenever the issue in question is one which is in the midst of massive change.

(If there was any record of his having discriminated against gays in his company, that would be a different story. But, as far as I can tell, there was nothing liket that.)

Ask yourself if you would be equally happy (or at least unconcerned) if it was a company which was forcing the resignation of a CEO for pushing for gay marriage (or any other currently controversial cause you can think of)?

I'm neither happy nor unhappy about the Mozilla thing. I'm neither concerned or unconcerned.

In the particular culture in which Mozilla exists, it's apparently really unacceptable for their CEO to be against gay marriage.

If, for example, Chick-Fil-A somehow inadvertently stumbled into a situation where they moved somebody who was pro-gay-marriage into the CEO spot, and the board and/or employees revolted, and that person had to step down, it likewise would neither concern me, nor make me happy or unhappy.

I'm also not sure it's fair to say that Mozilla was "punishing" Eith for his views. I'm not sure we have enough information to make that judgement. They found his point of view intolerable and didn't want to work with him.

Net / net, as it turns out he was a bad hire for the job. His views were known before hand, although whoever promoted him to CEO may not have anticipated the strength of the reaction.

It's also worth noting that Mozilla is really not like too many other companies. It's more of a collective than a corporation.

Mozilla's own FAQ about the resignation, in which I discover that some of my own information was incorrect.

A pretty good New Yorker piece on the resignation.

Mozilla is a fairly unusual, and atypical, case in the overall landscape of corporate America. I'm not seeing this as some kind of harbinger of corporate putsches motivated by rampant political correctness.

wj:

Ask yourself if you would be equally happy (or at least unconcerned) if it was a company which was forcing the resignation of a CEO for pushing for gay marriage (or any other currently controversial cause you can think of)?

It's a fair question, but I think you're missing my point. What I may, or may not have done isn't too relevant.

The board and Eich took what they thought was the best course of action. He may, or may not, have been unfairly treated. If he was, that sucks, but unfair stuff happens in the world.

After glancing at a few news stories about it, this doesn't strike me as a grave injustice executed by a mob. Nor does it strike me as a shining victory for equality.

Its something in between. It doesn't really strike me as one extreme or the other, and I'm very detached from the incident and in a poor place to judge.

From what I know, he wasn't pressing his views at Mozilla or discriminating actively against anybody, so I'm not going to judge him solely on a campaign contribution from 5 years ago.

The CEO is an important position and he is the face of the company. If he can't represent them well and can't lead the company well, the board has cause to let him go.

Maybe they were wrong to do so. Maybe OkCupid, etc was wrong to ask for it. I don't know and I'm not in a great position to judge.

But this is the marketplace of ideas. It's not always fair, and its not always pretty. Eich is free to have his beliefs, but he can't (and as far as I can tell, hasn't) insist other people associate with him if they don't like those beliefs.

If I was really worked up about it, and perhaps I would be in your hypo, I would be free to exercise my rights as well, and boycott.

"motivated by rampant political correctness."

I know the term "political correctness" is thrown around in common usage, but the more I think about the folks who came up with the term, it grates on me.

Like the "Democrat" Party.

Just another way for bullies on the Right to say STFU.

By which I mean, what was "politically correct" for a million years was gay men and lesbians being forced to keep the secret for fear of reprisal on the job and elsewhere, let alone to be found to be living together and God forbid, wedding nuptials.

Talking about it or pushing gay marriage was politically incorrect for a million years.

It still is for a certain segment of the population.

Anything that Rush Limbaugh calls "politically correct" is actually the opposite.

He's politically correct. Everything that comes out of his mouth is and was politically correct.

He just doesn't like being corrected.

He's also fat.

He may, or may not, have been unfairly treated. If he was, that sucks, but unfair stuff happens in the world.

And while Mozilla was entirely within their rights to terminate his employment, that doesn't mean that we cannot observe (and say) that their action was an overreaction. And unfair.

As you say, unfair stuff happens in the world. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't bother to point out when it happens.

But that doesn't mean we shouldn't bother to point out when it happens.

True, but this doesn't strike me as obviously and horrendously unfair.

For me, I'd need to have a much more detailed view of the case to feel comfortable judging "fairness". Of who Eich was, how he acted, his place in Mozilla, etc etc. There is likely far more nuance to all sides of the issue than is reported. There always is.

You may differ. Maybe you've heard enough to render judgement one way or the other. I don't feel I can.

I'm not trying to say what's fair and unfair shouldn't be pointed out, just that this isn't one of those cases where it's blindingly obvious to me that one party is aggrieved. As such, I'm uncomfortable dusting off my soapbox.

"And while Mozilla was entirely within their rights to terminate his employment, that doesn't mean that we cannot observe (and say) that their action was an overreaction. And unfair."

Precisely. I'm quite comfortable with saying, Mozilla was entitled to fire him, and I don't like their doing it. I'd likely abandon Firefox, if I hadn't already last year just because it was starting to suck.

"I know the term "political correctness" is thrown around in common usage, but the more I think about the folks who came up with the term, it grates on me."

Yeah, I'm pretty disgusted with the Red Chinese, too. Mao used it seriously, pretty much all uses today are ironic, the people who actually insist on political correctness would never think to identify what they're doing as that, anymore than somebody who demands you practice doublethink would call it that.

Even as they blithely toss off absurd phrases like "people of color", or coming from another direction, "person of interest", (How I hate that phrase!) they'll claim they're just trying not to be insulting, or aiming for precision. Like anybody buys that.

So, yes, I find the practice of PC annoying, and the people who engage in the practice find the fact people actually have a term for it, and thus can point it out, are annoyed by that. It's annoying all around.

Anyway, surely you do recognize the un-introspective irony of somebody giving a speech about how tolerant and inclusive their organization is, to justify firing somebody in order to maintain a uniformity of viewpoint.

the un-introspective irony of somebody giving a speech about how tolerant and inclusive their organization is, to justify firing somebody in order to maintain a uniformity of viewpoint.

there's no irony.

promoting tolerance is not intolerance. and nobody who preaches tolerance believes everything, including bigotry, must be tolerated.

likewise, those who preach Feredom™ and Liberty™ don't actually mean people should be free to do literally anything. that would be hedonistic anarchy.

Feredom™ being Freedom™ en Francais, or something.

Whenever Brett tries to support his arguments with etymology, hilarity ensues. From the wikipedia entry

According to American educator Herbert Kohl, writing about debates in New York in the late 1940s and early 1950s,

The term “politically correct” was used disparagingly, to refer to someone whose loyalty to the CP line overrode compassion, and led to bad politics. It was used by Socialists against Communists, and was meant to separate out Socialists who believed in egalitarian moral ideas from dogmatic Communists who would advocate and defend party positions regardless of their moral substance.
—“Uncommon Differences”, The Lion and the Unicorn Journal

Given that Mao's Little Red Book was only published in Chinese in 1964 and the English translation was only published in 1967, it is difficult to imagine how it could be sent back in time to be used as the English source for its use in 1940's.

Here's my simple solution to situations like Mozilla.

We'll all just recognize a line between our private values and beliefs, and our participation in institutions that are legally constituted to engage in commercial activity.

In other words, barring things that are illegal, criminal, or obviously physically harmful, check your personal druthers at the office door. We're here to work, not express our deepest personal values and beliefs.

Right?

I am pretty sure Brett didn't say anything that resembles "Mao invented the phrase. I'm also pretty sure Mao used it seriously. And many of us heard it first in that context. Although Brett didn't say that.

But thanks for the history.

Brett doesn't like "people of color." OK. We all have our verbal preferences. I'm curious as to what term he would suggest as an alternative. "Non-white"? Or does he resist the idea that a useful distinction can be made - particularly in the USA - between the historically privileged ethnicity and the rest, a distinction primarily identified with "color"?

Marty, not sure where your quotation is closed, but the idea that political correctness comes from Mao's use of it is clearly false. If you heard it 'in that context', you were being told a lie, and it would be intellectually honest to admit that it was wrong rather than trying to attach Mao to the notion. The attempt to tie the term to Mao is the invocation of a boogeyman who no one could possibly agree with, so therefore, the notion can't possibly be supported. It serves as a lazy shorthand for those who want to claim that things like the ACA is communism writ large, but it's crap argumentation, like the previous one by Brett that liberal comes from liberty, where a little reflection would reveal that it ain't true.

Good try Russell.

Marty: I am pretty sure Brett didn't say anything that resembles "Mao invented the phrase.

Brett: "I know the term "political correctness" is thrown around in common usage, but the more I think about the folks who came up with the term, it grates on me."

Yeah, I'm pretty disgusted with the Red Chinese, too.

Dr Ngo: I'm pretty sure Marty doesn't know how to read.

Good try Russell.

Whatever do you mean?

Another point: you would think that trying to avoid hurting others is a good thing and something to teach our children, but the notion of being not politically correct basically takes that foundational notion and throws it out. That I chose to use a phrase as a way to avoid giving needless insult becomes some sort of refusal to 'tell the truth' ('Why say he is learning disabled? He's retarded, can't you see!!! God, this PC crap') which seems to turn the notions of being kind to others and not causing unnecessary anguish on their head. It seems that when people complain about PC, they are basically upset with the fact that they can't bully other people.

this doesn't strike me as obviously and horrendously unfair.

I guess the reason that this bothers me is this: If we are to function as a society -- at least as the kind we have, where people disagree about lots of political and policy not to mention religious issues -- we have to be able to work together with people who disagree with us. And this action (and the pressures that led up to it) reflect a massive refusal to work with someone who disagrees.

Note that this was not a matter of someone acting in the workplace on that disagreement, to the detriment of others. Indeed, he made a plea for those who were upset to give him a chance to demonstrate that he would continue to act inclusively. But it was not enough.

Consider all of the other topics on which we disagree with each other -- some objectively significant, others not so much. What is the criteria for deciding that some disagreements are simply intolerable . . . even though they may not even come up in the workplace? Do you refuse to work with someone who has a different opinion on theology? On abortion? On contraception? On affirmative action? On politics? On foreign policy? What is the criteria?

for me, at least, the criteria would be "Does it impact behavior in the workplace. Either with co-workers or with customers?" If so, we have a problem. If not, others can believe what they will -- and act on those beliefs on their own time and with their own resources. No matter how wrong-headed I think those beliefs are.

I may well try to persuade them otherwise, should I happen to become aware of it. But on my own time and outside the workplace.

That I chose to use a phrase as a way to avoid giving needless insult becomes some sort of refusal to 'tell the truth' ('Why say he is learning disabled? He's retarded, can't you see!!! God, this PC crap')

there's also the issue that things which didn't used to be insults become insults. and "retarded" is the perfect example. it was, at one time, used exactly as "learning disabled" is. it wasn't an insult. it was just a flat description of a condition. it turned into an insult over the years and is being replaced by "learning disabled" and other terms. but if you haven't been paying attention, you might still think "retarded" is an acceptable term.

but here comes someone to tell you that the word is now unacceptable, and maybe you don't see why because you thought the word was just a medical term (and it was). so your reaction to this news might be "oh, these language police are out of control."

I'm sure this sounds politically incorrect, but slaves in 1859 got three squares a day, whereas in Africa they would have been eating dirt.

I'm sure this sounds politically incorrect, but women are a little emotional to hold leadership positions, don't you think?

I'm sure this sounds politically incorrect, but it's been snowing for two days now.

I'm sure this sounds politically incorrect, but he's a little light in the loafers for manual labor, isn't he?

I'm sure this sounds politically incorrect, but except for tacos, what did immigrants ever do for us?

I'm sure this sounds politically incorrect, but Maynard J. Krebs was lazy. Is he a black guy?

I'm sure this sounds politically incorrect, but first they wanted to be called Negroes, and then they wanted to be called blacks, then it was African-Americans, now it's people of color. What was wrong with what my grandfather called them?

I'm sure this sounds politically incorrect, but just between us palefaces, Kemosabe, was it a Pepsi or a Coca Cola that Clarence Thomas was drinking?

I'm sure this sounds politically incorrect, but I'd like to see Chairman Mao get into Stanford these days. Even with his grades, the PC police would be making him cool his heels behind those other people.

I'm sure this sounds politically incorrect, but Roger Ailes' doesn't carry his weight very well, even for a fat man. Now, Gleason could cut the rug.

Here's my favorite from a couple of years ago, from a relative of mine, closer than I like to admit, who stormed out of a Subway in Pennsylvania and got into the car I was driving: "That guy wouldn't take my coupon. He jew'ed me out it!

Now, from previous "conversations" with this relative about the owner of the Subway, whom I've never met, I have inferred that my relative THINKS he is Muslim, probably because of the accent or the man's attire, but the guy is probably Asian Indian or something, so I said, "Wait a second, the last time you caterwauled about this you said he was a Muslim, so if you don't mind me pointing this out, the very least we can say is that he couldn't very well have "jew'ed" you out of it."

My relative: That's right. He's a an effing camel-jockeying, towelhead who jewed me out of the sandwich!"

This relative has never uttered a knowingly ironic statement in his life.

Me: Well, it could be worse. He could be another example of your everyday ordinary piece of sh*t, lying, bigoted, average white boy."

Him: (after looking at me a good, hard long time, maybe trying to detect some irony) A white man would have honored the coupon. That's what "MEN" do.

Me: Let me see the coupon. It says here the thing expired 18 months ago. (I later confirmed via a relative that Subway had stopped that national deal on sandwiches a long time ago, and that she'd had a very similar conversation about the Subway owner with the relative of the first part months ago.

Him: I don't care. I'll say what I want to say. What do you care? Oh, that's right, you're a liberal. (You might think there is a hint of irony in that last statement, but no. He'd sooner start reciting Shakespeare)

I decided not to explain the arcane derivation of the "politically correct" term to him, you know, the infighting among Communists and Socialists, and I especially wouldn't have brought up Chairman Mao's role in the dictum, because this relative would have said something along the lines of "What do you expect from a Commie chink?"

But then what would you expect, and I hope this doesn't sound politically incorrect, from a bullet-headed, dumbass, piece of white trash. And he's good northern stock? Hardly ever set foot below the Mason-Dixon.

For my next installment, I might feature this relative's tirade in front of the TV featuring Obama-hatred, why do I have to pay taxes to the damned gummit speechifying and ending with him accusing the all of the above of trying to cancel his Social Security disability payments, which it really wasn't, I came to find out.

Ya hadda be there.

If we are to function as a society -- at least as the kind we have, where people disagree about lots of political and policy not to mention religious issues -- we have to be able to work together with people who disagree with us.

Yup, it's a problem.

What is the criteria for deciding that some disagreements are simply intolerable . . . even though they may not even come up in the workplace?

That's a good question.

The question of when something can be said to "come up in the workplace" is also a good question.

There are lots of points at which someone's marital status gets involved with workplace matters - insurance coverage, beneficiaries for various kinds of benefits, family and bereavement leave - so a CEO's position on gay marriage, or anything to do with marriage, is not completely orthogonal to, or irrelevant to, the workplace. As it turns out.

It's not directly an issue, in most cases. Just sometimes.

Can't we all just get along? I don't know, maybe we can't.

In any case, "getting along" cuts in more than one direction.

for me, at least, the criteria would be "Does it impact behavior in the workplace.

I think that's a good criteria, and is the one I would hew to. Like I said, I likely would not have joined the boycott.

The board made a decision that they felt was best, and its their business. I may have made a different one, but it was theirs to make, and I lack a lot of the details.

If it was unfair, it doesn't strike me as so unfair that I'm going to boycott Mozilla now.

Sometimes living in this country means private actors will take actions I don't like. Sometimes it is unfair. I can't protest every instance, and I'm not comfortable doing so when I don't have all the details of this fairly minor incident.

If I was more intimately involved, I might have a stronger opinion. If it was a more egregious event in either direction, I might have a stronger opinion.

You are, of course, free to disagree with where your lines are drawn. That's part of the system :)

What is the criteria for deciding that some disagreements are simply intolerable . . . even though they may not even come up in the workplace?

It's going to vary from person to person and from time to time. Pretty much, if something bothers you enough to take some sort of stand, you'll take your stand. You might prevail, or you might not. Until it crosses a legal line, it's going to be purely subjective and will play out in a micro-political way.

Even trying to come up with criteria that some number of people can agree to will be that way, let along attempting to apply them.

It's organic, like how much mustard you might eat in a given year.

I'm sure this sounds politically incorrect, but slaves in 1859 got three squares a day, whereas in Africa they would have been eating dirt.

No man, in Africa they would have been eating missionaries.

If it was unfair

Mozilla is a company that develops software and technology and basically gives it away. The relatively tiny (for a high-profile Silicon Valley company) income they have comes mostly from Google paying them to be the default search engine on their browser.

A tremendous amount of the actual work done under the "Mozilla" banner is done for free, by people who like to code and like the idea of there being a free and freely accessible alternative to the big for-profit browser products, most especially IE.

It's an unusual place, and it has an unusual culture. And, it's an unusual place with an unusual culture that is not so easy to tease apart from the workplace, because it's an industry where workplace and lifestyle are not so distinct.

Eith's publicly known position on gay marriage apparently put him at odds with that culture.

If the folks at Duck Commander somehow ended up appointing someone as CEO who was on record as publicly supporting (including with financial contributions) gay marriage, and the board and employees said "sorry, that was a bad hire, you have to go", would that be unfair?

"Eith's publicly known position on gay marriage apparently put him at odds with that culture.

If the folks at Duck Commander somehow ended up appointing someone as CEO who was on record as publicly supporting (including with financial contributions) gay marriage, and the board and employees said "sorry, that was a bad hire, you have to go", would that be unfair?"

I think donors lists should be completely private and if leaked should be a state/federal felony. No on should know who contributed either way. Then we wouldn't be having this discussion. Duck Commander or Mozilla. I think the Duck Commander CEO should be able to contribute to whatever causes he wants.

I think donors lists should be completely private and if leaked should be a state/federal felony.

So Duck Commander and a prospective CEO shouldn't not have the right to privately contract as they see fit, even if one of the terms of said contract was a disclosure of political contributions? (Or are you just talking about lists, rather than personal disclosures, if and as required?)

I think the Duck Commander CEO should be able to contribute to whatever causes he wants.

No one's saying he can't. It's just a question of whether or not he remains Duck Commander CEO.

I shouldn't not type so fast.

I think the Duck Commander CEO should be able to contribute to whatever causes he wants.

Me too.

I think donors lists should be completely private and if leaked should be a state/federal felony. No on should know who contributed either way.

That could work. But IF, and only if, the recipient doesn't know either. Otherwise the probability of bribery becomes too great. (Maybe all donations ahve to be done with BitCoin -- or whatever replaces it in the anonymous payment field.)

Open thread:

this

I think the Duck Commander CEO should be able to contribute to whatever causes he wants.

Me too.

If I could expand on this a bit...

Me too, I find it unfortunate that somebody is bumped out of a CEO position because they hold a particular set of social or political views.

That said, I'm curious about reactions to Eith's resignation / being pushed out that range from "creepy" to "unfair".

It's just the flip side of religious people claiming that their own personal values must be respected in the context of their workplaces and businesses.

I'm not seeing the difference. Good for the goose, good for the gander.

But personally, I'd rather folks would just learn how to get along.

HSH, I had to double check that you weren't pointing to an Onion article. But it appears that it may be legit. In which case, it is a huge deal.

Fuel produced from sea water?!?!? Who would have thought . . . ?

Whyaduck?

What if the CEO at Duck Commander gave an interview to the Gay Duck Hunter's of America in house publication and disclosed that even though he is foursquare against homophobic nutcases in fake beards shooting any sort of bird because it's just not right for one creature to shoot the other out of the sky when they are minding their own business, nevertheless he took the job because he needed the eggs, which one will recommend his firing first?

For the record, I'm for full disclosure in donor's lists for political giving. I like my corruption, should it come to that, hung like laundry in the open air. If money is speech, then let her rip. Why should political speech/money be like a duck call - secret, fake, and backhanded?

Holding an individual's political money/speech against him is protected by the First Amendment.

Not doing so sounds so, I don't know, politically correct.

The first question when someone gives money via Karl Rove's network or into the Koch brothers deceitful web of prevarication should be "Excuse me, what did you say? Perhaps you'd like to share that with all of us so when lying through your bad teeth becomes a crime, we'll know who to round up."

Money is speech, I'm told. You got something to say, say it. Don't sit there and mumble dollar signs with your hand over your mouths.

At least then we know who to tell to STFU.

Eventually, it's all going to come out anyway and then we repair to our respective duck blinds and let the shooting commence.

HSH:

It's going to vary from person to person and from time to time. Pretty much, if something bothers you enough to take some sort of stand, you'll take your stand. You might prevail, or you might not. Until it crosses a legal line, it's going to be purely subjective and will play out in a micro-political way.

Thank you. Exactly what I'm trying to say.

russell:

I'm not saying it was unfair. I saying maybe it was, where 'maybe' is dependent on a whole lot of facts that I just don't have. From what I know, I probably wouldn't have forced him out, but there's a lot I don't know, and its not my call to make.

This entire event strikes me as the kind of thing that people work out privately all the time. Maybe I would handle it differently, I dunno.

It's just the flip side of religious people claiming that their own personal values must be respected in the context of their workplaces and businesses. I'm not seeing the difference.

I'm not seeing the difference either. People are not always going to get along, however much I may wish it to be so.

When they can't, they'll sort themselves accordingly. Sometimes people get hurt, sometimes its unfair. Sometimes its perfectly fair. Don't know which it was in this case, but either way it doesn't strike me as extremely one way or the other.

And as asides:

wj: Bitcoins are not anonymous: http://www.hbarel.com/bitcoin-does-not-provide-anonymity

And HSH: That Navy link is pretty cool. If it works, it would be a gamechanger.

But IF, and only if, the recipient doesn't know either.

I kind of like that idea for campaign finance reform...double blinding of contributions.

Hard to enforce, though.

Representative: "Mr. Moneybags, lovely day on the course today, isn't it?"

Mr. Moneybags: "You certainly seem to be in a good mood today. Did someone just deposit 1.53 million and 6 cents into your campaign fund? "

Representative: "Well, I best be off, I have that banking reform vote to get to. I'm sure I'll see you on the course again in, say, 2 years."

That said, I'm curious about reactions to Eith's resignation / being pushed out that range from "creepy" to "unfair".

I'm not heartbroken by Eich's resignation. I don't share what I know of his political views. But, as to the observation that Mozilla is a unique company with a unique culture, there's a countervailing fact, that Eich cofounded mozilla.org, and apparently helped to create that culture. He's contributed significantly to a mission that is all about inclusiveness and accessibility. And he stated his professional commitment to nondiscrimination and inclusiveness.

"Marriage" is an institution that people understand in very different ways, based on their upbringing, nationality and religious views. Even as a legal institution, the rights and responsibilities "marriage" confers vary substantially by jurisdiction, and (in the United States) have changed dramatically in the past half-century.

I think that it's unwise to judge someone's professional value on the basis of this single issue of what "marriage" means to them (and what they think it should mean to society), and I'm uncomfortable with the fact that so many people found it justifiable to do so. I understand that if he is incapable of leading the company, he needed to go. I think that if he has shown bigotry and discrimination in more ways than his views on the legal definition of marriage, it adds to the general justification of his having been fired.

HSH:

Very cool.

I know this sounds politically correct, using conservative standards and guidelines regarding what hurts their feelings, but you're telling me that over-unionized, overpaid gummint scientists at the Naval Research Labs had time between their lengthy lunch hours and figuring up their over-generous pensions stolen off the backs of hard working tax payers to come up with a method for converting sea water to fuel, when everyone who is tuned into the reigning political correctness on the Right knows very well, in their bones and at the cellular level, that only a private employee of a corporate person, which contributes money/speech to political candidates to gut funding for gummint research capabilities because God and Ayn Rand, could possibly be incentivized adequately by constant threats of being fired to come up with a groundbreaking scientific result like this.

And I know this sounds politically incorrect under conservative and libertarian doctrine regarding political incorrectness, but I think we should permit only those who vote for liberals and who value government research to profit and use this technology when it is deployed. All others, and you know who you are, may not use it because it would be politically correct, or is it politically incorrect, for you to stoop to unlimited socialist fuel sources.

Perhaps we could arrange a hefty fee schedule and some onerous paperwork for those of the latter persuasion to use the fuel and thereby pay off the IOUs, I'm sorry, gummint bonds I think they called by the politically whichever and the very same own in all of their financial accounts and which were issued to pay for bogus killing in two wars because better debt than they pay taxes.

And that includes the Naval cadets and officers on board our Navy vessels -- pick a side, mofos. You who think you're fighting to have your taxes reduced to zero, freedom, may use the vessels fueled by conventional sources and thereby sit like sitting Duck Commanders while you await the arrival of the fuel tankers, while those greenish science types, perchance socialists, you know, the ones who conspire to make you think the polar ice caps are melting so they can give the government more power to come up with unlimited, clean supplies of fuel, may man the ships turning sea water into fuel.

Get your own Navy.

I think that it's unwise to judge someone's professional value on the basis of this single issue of what "marriage" means to them (and what they think it should mean to society), and I'm uncomfortable with the fact that so many people found it justifiable to do so. I understand that if he is incapable of leading the company, he needed to go.

Put those sentences together and you get a conundrum of sorts. You can certainly make the argument that the reason he was unable to lead the company was that so many people (in the company) found it justifiable to judge his professional value on the basis of this single issue of what "marriage" means to them, even if they did so unwisely.

So you can say these individual people shouldn't have acted the way they did, but that once they did act that way, the company was justified in doing what it did (insofar as companies do things distinctly from the people forming those companies).

Open thread:

this

I am guessing they are getting past violating energy conservation laws via conveniently tapping into the carrier's nuclear reactor for power to hydrolize water. And possibly for other parts of this reaction.

It's a cool thing if it pans out, sure. Consider, though, that (assuming I am right, above) it would tend to put an even greater premium on taking out the carriers in a convoy.

Not that it isn't already a big one.

I agree with your analysis hairshirthedonist, but that doesn't change the fact that I find it unfortunate and troubling. It would make me doubt the judgment of the people who were unwilling to work with him.

I am guessing they are getting past violating energy conservation laws via conveniently tapping into the carrier's nuclear reactor for power to hydrolize water.

That's not how I read it. They were talking about oil tanker-dependent ships lacking nuclear reactors producing their own fuel and fuel for planes. I don't think it's a matter of conservation of energy any more than extracting oil from the ground is. They're just tapping energy that's already been stored by nature, concentrating it, and using it, AFAICT.

I should add that I don't think the hydrogen gas is coming from hydrolizing the water. It's gas that's simply dissolved in the water. No need to break water molecules apart. (Again, AFAICT...)

But, as to the observation that Mozilla is a unique company with a unique culture, there's a countervailing fact, that Eich cofounded mozilla.org, and apparently helped to create that culture.

All true.

The main point I was making about Mozilla's uniqueness was that Eich's getting the boot was unlikely to represent an up and coming trend.

A lesser point was that there is an analogy to be drawn to other work environments that have a prevailing social vibe, and where folks seem less upset about it.

I agree that there isn't any particular evidence that Eith was looking to impose his point of view on anybody else at Mozilla, and IMO it's unfortunate that folks couldn't find a way to make it work.

"It's just the flip side of religious people claiming that their own personal values must be respected in the context of their workplaces and businesses. I'm not seeing the difference.

I'm not seeing the difference either. People are not always going to get along, however much I may wish it to be so."


Well, the difference is that in the obvious recent cases it would be illegal to fire someone or even create a hostile enough workplace for them to quit for supporting gay marriage, or having an abortion, or using contraception or just advocating any of the above. Pretty big difference. Really.


To me it looks a bit too much like the gold from seawater project Germany secretly conducted in the Weimar era to generate income to pay the war reparations. Technically possible but not economical due to the very low concentrations. Given how little hydrogen is soluble in water (as opposed to CO2), it would necessitate to pump huge amounts of it through the plant which requires itself lots of energy. I can't see how they get a positive balance out of it. I doubt that they managed proton catching from the natural 2 H2O = H3O+ / OH- equilibrium.

Well, the difference is that in the obvious recent cases it would be illegal to fire someone or even create a hostile enough workplace for them to quit for supporting gay marriage, or having an abortion, or using contraception or just advocating any of the above.

People could boycott based on their religious convictions without running afoul of the law, no? Keep in mind, we're talking about a CEO here, not any old employee. Companies have a bit more latitude, likely based on contract, if not simply on the importance of the position to the company's health, where CEOs are concerned. (It would be weird for the CEO of, say, Hobby Lobby to fire himself, being the owner of the company.)

recent cases it would be illegal to fire someone

Well, without knowing which specific cases its hard for me to comment specifically.

But in general, I lean toward the more expansive interpretation of freedom of association. Does that mean my views sometimes conflict with current law? Yes. As has been noted on this very blog.

Does the existence of some legal restraints in some cases mean I should argue for a legal solution to the Eich case? Absolutely not.

hsh,

if we are focusing on him being the CEO, they pretty much serve at the pleasure of the Board and most often have a package in their contract, which also often gets renegotiated. It is different. That difference isn't really what I felt Russell was referring to.

It's gas that's simply dissolved in the water. No need to break water molecules apart.

I really doubt that. There just isn't much free hydrogen in seawater. Gas in seawater solution tends to be there because it's put there by some partial pressure of that gas in the atmosphere, which just isn't the case for hydrogen.

They were talking about oil tanker-dependent ships lacking nuclear reactors producing their own fuel and fuel for planes.

It seemed that way, yes. But they don't actually say that. And then there's this, which basically says:

Navy chemists have processed seawater into unsaturated short-chain hydrocarbons that with further refining could be made into kerosene-based jet fuel. But they will have to find a clean energy source to power the reactions if the end product is to be carbon neutral.

The process involves extracting carbon dioxide dissolved in the water and combining it with hydrogen – obtained by splitting water molecules using electricity – to make a hydrocarbon fuel.

Adding CO2 and water to a catalytic converter sounds like perpetual motion to me, as (I think it will turn out) it should.

So, in short: you're going to have nuclear-powered vessels making fuel for some of the rest of the fleet. And if they directly electrolyze seawater, they're going to have to figure out how to avoid splitting the electrolyte. Which as anyone who's tried to generate hydrogen from seawater can tell you, generates an unpleasant amount of free chlorine gas.

The process involves extracting carbon dioxide dissolved in the water and combining it with hydrogen – obtained by splitting water molecules using electricity – to make a hydrocarbon fuel.

Well, that sounds pretty definitive. Splitting water molecules, it is.

That difference isn't really what I felt Russell was referring to.

My point was pretty much what HSH alludes to.

If a company with an entrenched (for example) evangelical culture somehow managed to hire someone for CEO who supported notably non-evangelical positions, and they moved him out promptly, it wouldn't surprise too many people.

Folks who weren't aligned with evangelical values would probably call it unfair, folks who were would probably claim freedom of religion.

From the Independent Gay Forum:

Pretty much all of the civil arguments against equality have failed because they were given the space to be aired against the opposing arguments. What is there to gain today, except some noxious exhilaration, by trying to silence or punish the true believers? - See more at: http://igfculturewatch.com/2014/04/07/silence-isnt-golden/#sthash.WNfvZdow.dpuf

PS--I tried to log in through Typepad and got an warning of unsafe site and that I was trying to access www.typekey.com

Is this the new neame for Typepad?

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad