Election 2010: Teabaggin' the Ds & Rs

[Penske 2.0]

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan

Why are they pointless?* I think an EEOC claim is still viable for quite some time. I don't know necessarily if it'd prevail, but certainly he could make a race or age discrimination claim. (Bob Edwards, in my opinion, had a better case for the latter, but that's another story.) My organization certainly would have waited a day or two to review the issue before making any quick decisions to terminate the contract.

I know that NPR listeners have been annoyed with Williams for years now, and the corporation was probably very eager to get him the hell out of there. But it did seem very quick. OTOH, this is the same organization that first forbade its news staff from attending Jon Stewart's rally as attendees on the basis that it may be perceived as political and therefore the news staff would be showing bias. And after his statements on Fox, I don't think I'd ever want to hear his analysis on anything about Muslims again. Given the world we live in and the role he had at NPR as a news analyst, there is a high likelihood that his job would require him to analyze issues revolving around Muslims. His analysis would be suspect going forward. I think his termination was probably appropriate, but it probably was a little faster than I would have advised had anyone bothered to ask me.

Without commenting on the substantive reasons why he should/should not have been terminated, the employment law decision making analysis is spot on.

Translation: I have either run a business or working in an environment where I had some input in to the analysis of firing decisions. Unlike Ty.

[Penske 2.0]

Originally Posted by Adder

In those instances, I tend to assume that rehab was involved.

Oh, I am opposed to that.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan

Why are they pointless?*

Because he has already been fired, so it's really besides the point now to talk about all of the things NPR could have considered before it acted.

I think an EEOC claim is still viable for quite some time. I don't know necessarily if it'd prevail, but certainly he could make a race or age discrimination claim. (Bob Edwards, in my opinion, had a better case for the latter, but that's another story.)

Ex ante, sure, but since they've fired him now it's far more instructive to talk about the actual facts ex post. I'm not aware of a shred of evidence that he was fired for his age or race.

I actually understand that people who are fired for good reasons can bring baseless claims against their former employers to extract a little money on their way out the door. That's ordinarily the sort of thing that Penske would complain about. In the way that he abandons those principles to take Williams' side against NPR, you can tell that Penske is truly a conservative at heart.

My organization certainly would have waited a day or two to review the issue before making any quick decisions to terminate the contract.

From the story I saw, it's clear that NPR's management has had issues with Williams' appearances elsewhere for a while, and believe that he has been doing things inconsistent with its standards. For that reason, I think it's silly to think that they overreacted quickly to this one incident. I think they've been considering their position for a while.

I know that NPR listeners have been annoyed with Williams for years now, and the corporation was probably very eager to get him the hell out of there.

I wasn't aware that listeners felt that way. I just thought he was insipid. But so is Cokie Roberts, so what can you do?

OTOH, this is the same organization that first forbade its news staff from attending Jon Stewart's rally as attendees on the basis that it may be perceived as political and therefore the news staff would be showing bias. And after his statements on Fox, I don't think I'd ever want to hear his analysis on anything about Muslims again. Given the world we live in and the role he had at NPR as a news analyst, there is a high likelihood that his job would require him to analyze issues revolving around Muslims. His analysis would be suspect going forward. I think his termination was probably appropriate, but it probably was a little faster than I would have advised had anyone bothered to ask me.

*Disclosure, according to my bank statement, my last contribution to an NPR affiliate was six days ago, and after Planned Parenthood, it is the non-profit that gets the most frequent charitable contributions from me. I rely on NPR for most of my news.

I think NPR saw a fundamental tension between the sorts of commentary he gave at Fox and the role they expected him to play at NPR. It wasn't long ago that they asked him to stop identifying himself with his NPR affiliation when he appeared at Fox. At the time I thought that was silly -- it was accurate, and if they didn't like it I thought they should be focus on what he said on their airwaves.

And now they have.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Penske 2.0

Cite please.

here

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

here

There is no hypocrisy here. The right defended the free speech rights of the corporate shills who fired each of those reporters.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

here

This demonstrates nicely that O'Donnell isn't the only one who doesn't understand the first amendment.

That said, I don't see what he said in this particular instance as all that offensive.

I do, however, think he has gown way down hill and much of what he says on Fox is reason for NPR to think he has no value left for them.

Finally, he must be laughing to the bank. It really could not have worked out better.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Penske 2.0

Without commenting on the substantive reasons why he should/should not have been terminated, the employment law decision making analysis is spot on.

Translation: I have either run a business or working in an environment where I had some input in to the analysis of firing decisions. Unlike Ty.

Is your criticism that they didn't do a good job of firing him?

Or they that he should not have been fired.

If 1, 2.

If 2, who gives a shit? He's $2 million better off, and both NPR and Fox are improved.

[Cletus Miller]

Originally Posted by Penske 2.0

If you are not able to distinguish between that scenario and O'Donnell then you might be stupid. No offence.

If I were unable to distinguish between the two, I *would* be stupid, so none taken.

Are you genuinely unable to distinguish many of the things you equate on this board? If so, you might be as stupid as your secretary sock. No offense.

[Gattigap]

This, from Jonathan Chait, makes me feel better.

I've been assuming for a while that Sarah Palin is fairly likely to run for president, and reasonably likely to get the nomination if she does, and then if the economy is still bad she could win and then the country will crumble and suffer some apocalyptic disaster and the survivors will envy the dead. Anyway, Jonathan Martin has a terrific piece collecting some reporting about the flakiness, bordering on total dysfunctionality, of Palin's political operation. This is a huge relief.

(Link to Politico article here.)

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Gattigap

This, from Jonathan Chait, makes me feel better.



(Link to Politico article here.)

If she wins the nomination and the economy is bad enough, it won't matter how flaky her people are.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Penske 2.0

Without commenting on the substantive reasons why he should/should not have been terminated, the employment law decision making analysis is spot on.

"They were looking for a reason to get rid of me because I appear on Fox News," Williams says.

How does this affect his discrimination claim?

eta: Williams also has this to say:

"They have used an honest statement of feeling as the basis for a charge of bigotry to create a basis for firing me. Well, now that I no longer work for NPR let me give you my opinion. This is an outrageous violation of journalistic standards and ethics by management that has no use for a diversity of opinion, ideas or a diversity of staff (I was the only black male on the air). This is evidence of one-party rule and one sided thinking at NPR that leads to enforced ideology, speech and writing. It leads to people, especially journalists, being sent to the gulag for raising the wrong questions and displaying independence of thought."

With his need to see himself as a victim (the gulag!), he'll fit right in with the conservatives at Fox.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally Posted by Penske 2.0

I bet all three of them make more money in what should an intellectual pursuit (politics/public policy) than any combination of 3 posters on this board in 2011. In that context I wish was (a) stupider; and (ii) able to use my stupidity to greater effect.

A wish to build a dream on.

[cheval de frise]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

If she wins the nomination and the economy is bad enough, it won't matter how flaky her people are.

Call me crazy, but I don't think she'll end up running. The heat was too much last time. She felt boxed in (and exposed) in a format she couldn't control. I don't see why it'll be different in 2012, but maybe that's just wishful thinking.

CDF
(Palin's VP nomination was the final straw that sealed my vote for Obama. It also ensured I wouldn't consider changing my registration to Republican. Then again, I'm under no illusion that most people think the way I do.)

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

If she wins the nomination and the economy is bad enough, it won't matter how flaky her people are.

You're being hysterical. There is no scenario on the planet in which enough batshit crazy people get together and, over the vehement protests of every sensible human stateside and abroad (Moderate Republican, Democrat and all other parties), vote that wretched bitch into office.*

*Bitch is a cheap, lazy default I try to avoid. But in the case of Palin, in particular that piece in Vanity Fair detailing just what cur of a human being she is, It Fits.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

You're being hysterical. There is no scenario on the planet in which enough batshit crazy people get together and, over the vehement protests of every sensible human stateside and abroad (Moderate Republican, Democrat and all other parties), vote that wretched bitch into office.*

*Bitch is a cheap, lazy default I try to avoid. But in the case of Palin, in particular that piece in Vanity Fair detailing just what cur of a human being she is, It Fits.

I think it's unlikely. But it also seems unlikely that Sharron Angle or Joe Miller or Pat Toomey could be elected Senator, but that's who the respective state parties put up, and it's a year that favors outsiders.