Does the Mozilla firing show we've entered a new age of liberal intolerance ? BTW ,those who call for complete disclosure of contributions ... are you rethinking your position yet ? Or maybe you are happy that a guy who contributed to a cause that the majority of Californians voted for could lose his job because of his contribution.


For the uninformed ... Brendan Eich ;the INVENTOR of Java Script and the language for Netscape Navigator ,was forced to resign his position as CEO of Mozilla because he dared to contribute $ 1,000 to the California Prop 8 initiative . At the time ,the vast majority of Americans opposed homosexual marriage ,including both the emperor and Evita.

No one would've known of Eich's contributions except that California has full disclosure laws . Because of this law , Brendan Eich, was hounded out of his job for giving to a cause that won at the polls ,and was only reversed by judicial fiat . Clarence Thomas wrote in his separate opinion of 'Citizens United ' that "I cannot endorse a view of the First Amendment that subjects citizens of this Nation to death threats, ruined careers, damaged or defaced property, or pre-emptive and threatening warning letters as the price for engaging in 'core political speech,' the 'primary object of First Amendment protection,'"


The Eich example has forced me to reconsider my position on full disclosure . In NAACP v Alabama ,SCOTUS refused to allow Alabama to subpoenaed the NAACP’s membership lists to protect them against repercussions . Anonymous political speech and associations should remain an equal protection right . Look to the Founders . James Madison ,Alexander Hamilton ,and John Jay all wrote the Federalist Paper under the protection of anonymity . The same principle should extend to campaign contributions. It is no different in principle than having a private ballot .

The hypocrisy in this one is horrendous. The man that called Eich did the same thing at about the same time.

OKCupid CEO once donated to anti-gay politician - Tech Chronicles (http://blog.seattlepi.com/techchron/2014/04/08/okcupid-ceo-once-donated-to-anti-gay-politician/)

Yagan tells the Chronicle he didn't know about the politician's views on gay rights at the time, and wouldn't make the same contribution again.
Here's his statement: “A decade ago, I made a contribution to Representative Chris Cannon because he was the ranking Republican on the House subcommittee that oversaw the Internet and Intellectual Property, matters important to my business and our industry. I accept responsibility for not knowing where he stood on gay rights in particular; I unequivocally support marriage equality and I would not make that contribution again today. However, a contribution made to a candidate with views on hundreds of issues has no equivalence to a contribution supporting Prop. 8, a single issue that has no purpose other than to affirmatively prohibit gay marriage, which I believe is a basic civil right.”
Do you buy his argument?


A reminder that the Prop 8 campaign Brendan Eich supported was odious - latimes.com (http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-prop-8-campaign-20140407,0,3351555.story#axzz2yL8zP1yx)


Proposition 8 passed 52%-48%, supported by 7 million voters out of the 23.2 million Californians eligible to vote. That means 30% of eligible voters backed the measure. Make of those figures what you will, but exit polls at the time indicated that the turnout in support of Prop 8 was spurred in part by exhortations from the pulpits of many churches, not least the Mormon Church, which played a heavy role in turning out Proposition 8 canvassers and donors.

In any event, Eich did more than harbor this viewpoint. He backed it with money, and he has not given any indication that he regrets doing so.

Mozilla's anti-gay CEO and conservative First Amendment hypocrisy. (http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/04/04/mozilla_s_anti_gay_ceo_and_conservative_first_amen dment_hypocrisy.html)


Mozilla's decision to seek Eich's resignation implicates the same First Amendment principles that famously allow the Boy Scouts (http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1999/1999_99_699) to exclude gay troop leaders.
Oddly, however, I don't see defenders of Eich also criticizing the Boy Scouts for excluding gay men because the organization disagrees with their conduct and beliefs (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/99-699P.ZO). Nor do I even see conservatives taking Mozilla's rights as a private corporation seriously—a predictable hypocrisy made especially obnoxious in light of last week's widespread right-wing praise of the corporate plaintiff's claim in Hobby Lobby (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/supreme_court_dispatches/2014/03/sebelius_v_hobby_lobby_supreme_court_hears_oral_ar guments_in_the_contraception.html). This is the conservative double standard in the realm of corporate rights: When the corporation supports a right-wing pet project—say, denying women reproductive care—conservatives pen encomia (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/mar/21/sandefur-hobby-lobbys-first-amendment-affirmation/) to the First Amendment's corporate protections. But when a corporation dares to support a progressive cause like gay rights, conservatives cry foul at its alleged censorship of individual views.



Hypocrisy and outrage is selectively in the eye of the beholder.

Hypocrisy and outrage is selectively in the eye of the beholder.

None of the quibbling mattered about Eich. Why does it matter about Yagan?

Yagan's position "evolved " . Therefore his sacrifice of Eich to the gods of political correctness is cleansing absolution for his past transgression.

no comment, if I do I'll only get myself into trouble

You should be mad at Mozilla for not standing their ground.

I think there should be a boycott of OKCupid so the lefties know that their Mafia tactics can be used against them (Bill Mahrer called them the Gay Mafia ) .

Even Gay Rights advocate Andrew Sullivan is disgusted :
"Will he now be forced to walk through the streets in shame? Why not the stocks? The whole episode disgusts me -- as it should disgust anyone interested in a tolerant and diverse society. If this is the gay rights movement today -- hounding our opponents with a fanaticism more like the religious right than anyone else -- then count me out. If we are about intimidating the free speech of others, we are no better than the anti-gay bullies who came before us."

I think there should be a boycott of OKCupid so the lefties know that their Mafia tactics can be used against them (Bill Mahrer called them the Gay Mafia ) .

Even Gay Rights advocate Andrew Sullivan is disgusted :
"Will he now be forced to walk through the streets in shame? Why not the stocks? The whole episode disgusts me -- as it should disgust anyone interested in a tolerant and diverse society. If this is the gay rights movement today -- hounding our opponents with a fanaticism more like the religious right than anyone else -- then count me out. If we are about intimidating the free speech of others, we are no better than the anti-gay bullies who came before us."

Okay sounds good when do you start?

The Mozilla CEO, a baker here, a baker there, stores that sell pink tools, Nintendo, the St Patrick's Day parade - the Pink Mafia has a new target and it's chilling. UVA law professor Douglas Laycock is being attacked for not walking in LGBT lockstep (http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-06-05/smeared-by-gay-rights-activists).


In the early 1950s, my great-uncle, Alphaeus Hunton (http://archives.nypl.org/scm/20646), went to prison. It was the height of the McCarthy era, and he was serving as trustee of a bail fund established by the Civil Rights Congress, declared by the Subversive Activities Control Board to be a Communist-front organization. The fund posted bail for a group of men convicted of advocating the overthrow of the U.S. government. Several fled, and my great-uncle -- along with his fellow trustee, the eminent writer Dashiell Hammett -- refused to answer questions before a federal judge about the source of the bail money.

They were held in criminal contempt and put behind bars. The federal courts refused to hear their appeal, and the Supreme Court denied a stay. Hunton was subsequently listed as a subversive by the U.S. attorney general. He held a master’s degree from Harvard, but in the fraught atmosphere of the McCarthy era was unable to find suitable employment. He ultimately left the country, and died abroad.
My late father told this story often, and its echoes have resonated throughout my life. I have spent my career fighting for genuine dialogue across our disagreements rather than the sloganeering, can't and demonization that have come to characterize our politics. My own choice of the academic life (http://www.law.yale.edu/faculty/SCarter.htm) was spurred in no small part by my search for an arena in which what matters is not which side you are on but the quality of your ideas.
So you will perhaps excuse me if I have no sympathy for the efforts (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2014/05/douglas_laycock_gets_smeared_lgbtq_groups_attack_o n_the_university_of_virginia.html) of gay-rights activists to smear and intimidate Douglas Laycock of the University of Virginia, perhaps our most prominent scholar of law and religion, for the sin of speaking his mind. A law student and a recent graduate, spurred on by the advocacy group GetEqual, have filed freedom-of-information requests for his telephone and travel records, in what they describe (http://www.c-ville.com/sullivans-law-professor-husband-criticized-by-gay-rights-group/#.U5CFdvldUjY) as an effort at dialogue about what they consider the harmful effects of his views.
This description is implausible. If they wanted to talk to him, they could knock on his door. The effort is aimed at intimidation. They want him to shut up.

AN FOIA request is an effort to talk? Apparently thinking for oneself is no longer allowed.

The tactics of fools knows no ideology. Just zealotry for the cause.

At least we agree progressives are foolish zealots.

No more than ultra conservative zealots. A zealot is a zealot.

I don't know any ultra conservatives, but as best as I can this side still defends your right to your thoughts, views and religious rights. Your side, not so much. Even nanny Bloomberg finds it disturbing (http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/29/us/bloomberg-harvard-speech/).


CNN) -- Former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, delivering Thursday's commencement speech at Harvard University, criticized what he described as a disturbing trend of liberals silencing voices "deemed politically objectionable.""This spring, it has been disturbing to see a number of college commencement speakers withdraw -- or have their invitations rescinded -- after protests from students and -- to me, shockingly -- from senior faculty and administrators who should know better," Bloomberg said.

The billionaire former mayor cited an October speech during which his ex-police commissioner, Ray Kelly, was shouted down by students at Brown University (http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/29/us/ray-kelly-brown-university-stage-shouts/). The university canceled Kelly's speech when protesters opposed to the police department's stop-and-frisk policy shouted down and interrupted Kelly.

Bloomberg noted other universities have had speakers back out. He pointed to Rutgers, where former U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice withdrew amid protests (http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/04/us/condoleeza-rice-rutgers-protests/index.html), and Smith College, where International Monetary Fund chief Christine Lagarde withdrew after a student petition (http://money.cnn.com/2014/05/13/news/economy/christine-lagarde-commencement/).

"In each case, liberals silenced a voice -- and denied an honorary degree -- to individuals they deemed politically objectionable. This is an outrage," Bloomberg said to applause.

I'm not trying to silence anyone.

Me either, but I reserve the right to disagree, and know many ultra conservatives (mostly relatives hehehe). They are a bit nutty, but the lefty's are just as nutty. They're family, I still love 'em. :D

Agreed, but do you not find this new McCarthyism disturbing?

I think zealots are disturbing anyway. Creepy too! And the potential to be very dangerous.

Speaking of scary

Alex Jones loses it: Harry Reid staged 'false flag' Vegas shooting with MK-ULTRA mind control (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/06/09/alex-jones-loses-it-harry-reid-staged-false-flag-vegas-shooting-with-mk-ultra-mind-control/)


“Tens of millions of people are flooding here, hundreds of thousands a month, pouring over the borders, being given driver licenses in California to pull the lever to ban guns,” Jones warned. “We are in the middle of a globalist revolution against this country right now. And my gut tells me that the cold-blood degenerate evil killing of two police officers and a citizen in Las Vegas yesterday is absolutely staged.”
The conservative radio host said that his “mind exploded with hundreds of data points” proving that the incident was staged when he first read about it on Sunday.

Hey, Dingy thinks the Kochs are to blame for everything so "scary" is good word to use there, too.

Just like some people think liberals are to blame for everything. That is scary indeed.

The Liberals are... they spent the last 6.5 years blaming Bush for everything including the Holocaust... at least those that aren't busy denying there actually was one to begin with.

The Liberals are...

Mandy Patinkin moment - "You keep using this word. Somehow I don't think it means what you think it means." - The Princess Bride 1987. The proper term for the Left's dominant philosophy is 'Progressive.'


While the Progressives differed in their assessment of the problems and how to resolve them, they generally shared in common the view that government at every level must be actively involved in these reforms. The existing constitutional system was outdated and must be made into a dynamic, evolving instrument of social change, aided by scientific knowledge and the development of administrative bureaucracy. The Progressive Movement and the Transformation of American Politics (http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2007/07/the-progressive-movement-and-the-transformation-of-american-politics)

As what they call a "Classic Liberal," the conflation of the two philosophies is bothersome.

I disagree with the conclusions of the Heritage piece. It certainly shouldn't be used as a definition of any of those two words.